Las Vegas Shooter

Pages do not report their creation date to Google.

Google puts the date when Google's web crawlers found that page for the first time.

Yes the text can be changed, but not the URL (otherwise it will be another page).

So if there is a page with /las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-what-we-know in it's URL created on 29.09.2017, we should be worried.

 

To see the actual date a page is published, use this: http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:XXX&as_qdr=y15

Replace XXX with the actual URL. I checked a few and saw that the stories were published in October.

 

Jokes are one thing, conspiracy theories are another

 

You are saying that we should leave the thinking to the people who publish our newspapers, right?

He noticed something odd, shared it with us, and assuming Lex's method is reliable, learned that things might not be odd after all.

 

I'm saying "thinking" is the contrary of spreading conspiracy theories.

 

What is published in the mainstream newspapers and announced to us by the authorities is by definition not conspiracy theories. Any theory that hasn't been published by those newspapers or announced by the authorities can be accused of being a conspiracy theory. So you are saying that we should trust the authorities and their propaganda outlets, as thinking anything other than what the propaganda outlets want you to think is not really thinking. Right?

Pravda was a famous mainstream newspaper in the USSR. The word "pravda" translates as "the truth". So anything that hasn't been published there must have been a lie, fake news, a conspiracy theory.

 

Come on. There is something between "don't trust what we are told, it is all a lie" and "if the newspaper writes it, it must be true" : thinking, reasoning. I've been a journalist myself, I know a little bit about governments and their false or incorrect claims, and how you get to the truth.

The huge BS that still surrounds 9/11 for instance, what do you think of it ? You realize some people are still saying that more than 3000 innocents were not killed, right ? That it didn't happen ? It was all staged ? They make points that you can easily prove wrong, just like Lex did with this Google dates thing. But you can prove them wrong, they will go on and on and on.

Conspiracy theorie is that : you want to make a point (like "9/11 did not happen") and you look for every detail you can use to achieve that. This is dangerous.

Investigating/reasoning is the contrary : you rely on facts only, you don't know what you will find in advance.

 

I don't believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People who ignore evidence are wrong.

He didn't set out to prove anything in advance. He noticed that URLs of stories about the shooting had September in them. This is a fact that would seem to be suspicious.

In any case, I was reminded of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russi...impending_Volgodonsk_bombings_in_Russian_Duma
"On 13 September, just hours after the second explosion in Moscow, Russian Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov of the Communist Party made an announcement, "I have just received a report. According to information from Rostov-on-Don, an apartment building in the city of Volgodonsk was blown up last night."[77][78][79][80][81] However, the bombing in Volgodonsk took place three days later, on 16 September. When the Volgodonsk bombing happened, Vladimir Zhirinovsky demanded an explanation in the Duma, but Seleznev turned his microphone off.[77]"

 

I agree over half of the 58 murdered were from my surrounding community. I am still numb and off mentally about this. People who survived stepped over dead bodies to run. Heros stayed to help those shot or move those who were dead. One person who was killed was honored by the Kings at the game. She was a new hire.

Perhaps the term "joke" is the wrong word. It isn't that everyone "got it". Actually, not a joke, the noise in his head from all the rounds fired....

There are no leads or motive or reasoning for this mass murder. Given the number of firearms collected it is astounding that the murder rate was not larger.

 

Would you say that the man in the clip below is spreading conspiracy theories?

Forensic acoustic proof of SECOND shooter in...

 

An alternative explanation for the results he presents is that one shooter was using two different types of guns with different muzzle velocity. However, in the video he says that at times the guns with different lag had been firing at the same time.

I don't necessarily believe any of it, but this is certainly interesting.

 

Of course, we just have the presenter's word for it that he found different lags. That is certainly suspicious.

 

This is actually quite funny for me for several reasons, mainly because I thought the exact same thing. Compound the fact that I thought that this was a real discussion thread and I got blind-sided made it funnier.

To those saying that this is no laughing matter, stop being so sensitive. We need as much humor as we can get here @ TT. Being strictly serious will only make the T worse and arguably is the reason it got so bad in the first place. Learn to live a little and even if you didn't find it funny don't be so offended, the OP is just making fun of the shooter not the victims.

 

I also thought about it! People get T after firing off one shot...

 

Exactly. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the guy was deaf by the time he stopped shooting. He rigged up the hallway and what not with cameras and even a security guard snuck up on him.

 

Oh really ?

What a quality source of information ! We can see this channel thinks global warming is actually good lol :

RE-GREENING the Planet with Global Warming and CO2

I'm done really with this BS.

 

It is not a secret that it is easier to publish studies that conclude that climate change is real, than it is to publish studies that reach the opposite conclusion. Once a researcher publishes an article supportive of climate change, it is easier to get grants, promotion and tenure, compared to getting grants once you have been accused of being a "denier." This means that none of those publications have anything to do with science, as scientific method involves unbiased researchers.