So we are relying on witnesses to let us know what the police found?
We're relying on all sorts of forensic evidence as well. Reports, and summaries, investigations, the usual methodology of release.
Still not what I am doing. I am not even saying it is a conspiracy, yet.
When you repeatedly question how a thing could be you infer that it couldn't reasonably be as it appears. I've given you a reasonable account of how evidence and accountings can become altered over the course of a normal investigative process. You appear to resist that. There's no other route left to follow by implication, however shy you are with the application.
Reports throughout have changed constantly.
So you've said. I've asked which reports and to what extent over what time period. Or are you just repeating a thing without an empirical foundation, your impression of events over that time, your memory?
Just review the reports from AP and CNN since the first week of the occurrence.
I haven't seen the accounts you find convincing. A quick Google didn't provide them. So show us the reports in their difference. Post links and give us the contradictory facts that lept from them and cause you to wonder, that seemed out of step with my note on the natural evolution of process. If it's actual I'd be interested.
Why is it, when confronted with logic and statistics
What logic are you referring to, particularly? I've answered your assertions on facts on hand, answered some of the questions. I don't recall an argument of parts.Claims of statistics unsupported by links to authority. What statistics, cited where, particularly?
do people instantly cry for sources, yet have provided none themselves?
I'm not the one making claims that observed facts are problematic. What's to link to? I'm rebutting the tenuously assumptive with reason and experience. I did note the tank being shot at. Here's a CNN report
link to them noting one was struck by the fire, etc.
For the record, all my "reports" are from CNN and AP (Associated Press).
No, you've offered impressions of reports. For all I know you're just remembering a cross section of immediate media reportings of things that hadn't been properly sorted, in the midst of an emotionally charged situation, etc.
Based on gun mechanics. For example, the particular rifles that the crazy was using were "various AR-15's." AR, or Armalite Rifles, fire a .223 round, usually of about 55 grain. An AR-15, illegally modified to automatic capabilities, can fire approximately six rounds per second. Paddock fired at the crowd for ten solid minutes, according to police reports. 6 rounds per second, over 10 minutes is around 3600 rounds. Accounting for spread, exchanging magazines, etc., that is about 3000+ rounds fired at a congested group of people. How is the best way to shoot fish? In a barrel, right? Why? Because it maximizes kill count.
We know he used two different windows, which means leaving one location and setting up in the other. And some of that firing was aimed at igniting the fuel tank he struck but failed to set afire. And there's the changing of magazines or weapons, as you've noted in part.
Thus, the mathematics of gun mechanics do not add up to the given numbers reported by hospitals and police of those who suffered casualties.
You keep saying that, but I don't know why you keep saying that. You haven't stopped to consider any number of points I've raised that answer the rounds relative to injuries. Night, distance, hidden targets, rounds wasted on the tank, time wasted on repositioning, 200 or better rounds in the wall and corridor outside his room, sprayed at a security guard. That sort of thing.
He may have had money, weapons, and some range time, but he was also a nut with no field fire experience, who'd panicked enough to pepper a hall with bullets, who thought he could blow up a distant fuel tank with incendiary rounds fired from his rifle. This isn't an ex Marine plotting a massacre. This isn't a sniper with the right weapon, a flash suppressor and steely nerves. This is a nut who thought he might get away and do even more damage. He was prepared for that. It was part of that fantasy life that didn't work out.
Have you ever seen an outdoor concert? People are not just spread out in tiny little pockets with plenty of cover; they are compacted in a rather large group.
I've seen a number of seasoned hunters trying to hit one deer with most missing. They weren't stories up firing in the dark.I've been under fire and seen what it does to people with hard reflex but no real experience. This guy? He wasn't ready. Only the volume of his fire accounted for the damage he did. And that's before most of the targets are running and hiding. And that's before we figure out how many bullets and how much time he might have wasted on other targets, like the tank.
Also, how do you know that he fired at fuel containers?
It's in the reports and he managed to hit one, but he miscalculated on his ability to ignite it. They looked to the tank when after they found incendiary rounds among those left in his room.
That is just speculation by police sources, is it not?
No, it's reports from what they've gathered as evidence. Most of what we know in sum is coming from those sources. That's their job. And there's no reason for them to attempt to do it badly.
And again, what's the alternative? What's the reason for anyone getting it intentionally wrong? And if there was a conspiracy, why wouldn't that message be canned and ready?
Yes, these reports are out now. But they began with 500 wounded (ABC, CNN, etc.), dropped to around 250 (CNN), and are now jumping back up (ABC), coincidentally after several have pointed out the obvious issue with such radical number differences.
You should link and cite. What report began at 500 and dropped to 250? Link to those disparities. I can judge your reason but I need to verify your facts. Especially true since you give every indication of someone invested in seeing a conspiracy of some sort afoot, though what sort and why haven't emerged as yet.
What do you mean with this question?
What's the reasonable alternative to the seeming truth here, one that follows the course of a tragic, violent situation. There were varying reports on details in the Newton shooting of 2012. It was a hot topic here and a few people were heavy on the number of guns changing (that's the shooting I was referring to earlier).
I am thinking of it, using the functioning mechanics of an AR rifle, taking into account, the capabilities that an illegal automatic conversion would allow, in combination with personal experience with semi-auto tactical rifle shooting.
In the hands of a nut, moving about between two positions, who had never shot anyone before. Who had been challenged and expended a few hundred rounds not killing a security guard. Whose hands were likely shaking with adrenaline. Who was firing in the dark at people fleeing and finding cover. Who wasted some of that time firing at a fuel tank. And so on.
Yes, it makes sense that I would simply mistake the false application by media reports of "sniper" with a bolt-action rifle, akin to a hunting rifle, with an AR.
I said you're thinking of his efficacy in shooting that way. You're not really demonstrating an understanding of the logistics, the reality of live fire in the hands of a novice of what proficiency in a bad shooting situation if you're going for accuracy. There's nothing in what happened that doesn't line up.
Except that I know more about guns than CNN apparently. An automatic rifle is not a sniper.
A sniper, with any real experience and the right equipment would have killed a lot more people.
