stickdog99 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:20 pm wrote: JackRiddler » 04 Oct 2017 20:28 wrote:
- Cameras: certainly consistent with spookery. The camera is going to be small enough that it shouldn't be noticed easily. Planting it can be done inconspicuously, but practice or training helps. Might have also just done it as the final step before the attack.
How to you "plant" two security cameras in the hallway of a Vega casino inconspicuously? Have you ever been to Mandalay Bay?
I don't get to do that bullshit. Might be fun sometime.
Where do you suggest hiding a security camera without embedding it?
Probably involves applying glue and camouflaging with color. But don't ask me, ask a spook. They can probably do better than these models (wireless live cams), some small ones in the mix. http://www.intelspy.com/realtime.html
Details will likely emerge with claims of what cameras were used.
EDIT FOR CROSS-POST: I see these details or "details" have emerged.
More to the point, why risk exposing your operation to casino security in this manner?
Presumably done immediately just before starting operation. (Not married to this idea.)
EDIT FOR CROSS-POST: Apparently the case.
How does the potential benefit of a few seconds of advanced warning of authorities (assuming the security cameras were even placed in a manner that would give such advanced warning, which I highly doubt) exceed the potential risk of the discovery of the cameras?
Fact: At one of the cop press conferences I watched, it was said before the full storming he had shot a security guard through the door. Got him in the leg, not serious injury, they said. This has not been repeated.
EDIT FOR CROSS-POST: Never mind, the story is told above, Jesus Campos.
Isn't it far more likely that the cameras were placed for evidentiary purposes?
Cannot assess what this means. Whose evidence?
If his brother knew Stephen well enough to know Stephen had a one man business that specialized in selling guns to unsavory characters, wouldn't that explain his brother's lack of surprise that Stephen could pull off such an operation on his own?
Uh, yes? Speculation, but sure?
Also, none of the official story as told so far seems impossible to me. It requires a man with the requisite means and skill to pursue it with careful and long planning.
For alternate scenarios, rather than assuming a patsy, it seems to me more plausible to have him be the one shooter and dead at the end. Least moving parts at the end. Forcing him to it via blackmail or brainwashing seems problematic to me; unlikely but more likely than other set ups. But again, return to the first of those simple questions I asked:
In other words, violent and capable asshole wants to die this way (for whatever reason) vs. group wants to execute an operation for other political-economic purposes. For this case (shooting at this concert and leaving a dead lone white shooter), suggest a beneficiary motive and an outline of a operative execution. Whatever it is, so far all suggestions on the available evidence (i.e., what WE can see and are presented) leave the lone self-motivated shooter as the more plausible scenario with fewest moving parts.
And to obscure any chance of clarity you've got the Internet merchandising whores and RW ideological commandos of the Internet pumping out 30,000 brands of bullshit multiplied by 100 million re-postings and riffs from the fandom.