Las Vegas

Status
Not open for further replies.
kickingtone said:
Anyway, a conspiracy theory means a theory that a conspiracy was involved. It does not mean a theory that takes no account of facts.
Click to expand...

So? It doesn't exclude that either.

"A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities"

Please tell me where it includes or excludes facts. A conspiracy theory can accept some, all, or none, in regards to facts.

Annnnnnnd, your point was?
 
Mack Caster said:
...as far as I know, both words can be interchanged as well. But it has been years since I stepped into a class room and since Pluto is no longer a planet, maybe this has changed as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, Mack, no. Theories, in science, are tested conclusions. Hypotheses are guesses.
 
andrushkiwt said:
:facepalm:

Well, my friend, considering that they can only be in one place at a time, knowing where they ACTUALLY are is the fact. So, having the FACT is what tells you what's actually going on. If someone says they are in two places at once, then those cannot both be facts. The issue is trying to figure out which is, indeed, a FACT. I am not sure you understand the definition of the word, or you would not have suggested that both can be facts.

And no. The sooner you push for facts the sooner you will get less accurate information. This is true in nearly every field. Please stop spreading false information. And pick up a dictionary. :thumbs up:
Click to expand...

Wrong. Try again. Is English even your first language?

Words have different meanings, according to context. If you've never heard the word fact used in this context, before, it's time to break out the literature and start reading.

fact
fakt
noun

a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More

information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
"even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"
synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet; More

used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
noun: the fact that
"despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive"
Click to expand...
 
andrushkiwt said:
So? It doesn't exclude that either.

"A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities"

Please tell me where it includes or excludes facts. A conspiracy theory can accept some, all, or none, in regards to facts.

Annnnnnnd, your point was?
Click to expand...

So, you didn't get the point.

I was responding to Mack Caster's example. The problem was not that the theory was a conspiracy theory, but -- "It would not matter what facts were placed in front of my wife, this is what she believes and that will never change."

So, his example was not a reflection on conspiracy theories in general, as intended.
 
Mick Doobie said:
The guy supposedly fired upwards of 200 rounds through the door at the security guard(s). This allegedly was roughly 6 minutes before he began shooting out the window.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the timeline has changed yet again, I think.

Those 6 minutes?: It appears there were 2 stairways leading up to the 32nd floor. The first stairway the security guard took, the shooter had barred the door, or used screws to hold it shut. The security guard could not enter the hallway through that door, so he went down to the 31st floor, walked the hallway, and went up the other stairway to access the 32nd floor. Once he was on the 32nd floor he was fired upon.

The security guard reached the barred door at 9:59(the time it was previously stated he entered the 32nd floor and was fired upon). He descended to the 31st floor, walked the hallway to the second stairway, ascended to the 32nd floor, and was fired upon once he entered the hallway. He was fired upon at 10:05, upwards of 200 rounds through the door into the hallway. The shooter immediately began, or also began, to fire out the window. There was no 6 minute gap between firing on the security guard and firing on the crowd.

Or something.
 
Aha..

Stephen Paddock planned to escape after Las Vegas shooting, officials say | The Independent

Casino regulators are taking a close look at the shooter’s gambling habits — he is known to have had a taste for high-stakes video poker — and are reviewing dozens of financial reports filed recently when he bought more than $10,000 in casino chips. Investigators are also reviewing records to determine if he had disputes with fellow casino patrons, or the casinos themselves.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my guess, and I don't expect the casino to be very forthcoming because I am guessing the dispute would have been over shady deals and money laundering.

1.

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock 'had an escape planned' | Daily Mail Online

Stephen Paddock, 64, had planned to escape the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel after firing on the Route 91 Harvest country music festival, Las Vegas Sheriff Joseph Lombardo revealed in a press conference Wednesday.
Lombardo declined to reveal why he believed that Paddock had an exit planned, but said he was confident in the claim..
Click to expand...

2. Another thing they mentioned was the timing of the shooting -- just when the concert was ending.

3. The shooting will cost the casino over a billion in lawsuits settlements.

4. Paddock had video cameras, laptops and a baby monitor in his room.

All these can be explained by a shady deal in which Paddock threatened/blackmailed the casino with the lawsuits it now faces. The timing of the shooting is explained by the latest chance for his threat to be active. Evidence for an escape were not for escape at all, but evidence that he believed his threat would work and he would leave without shooting. The equipment in his room was to monitor some transaction between himself and the casino that he wanted to go through. He would have had at least one accomplice also remotely monitoring the deal going on in his room.

That would be the line I would want investigated. But fat chance against a big casino.
 
kickingtone said:
Wrong. Try again. Is English even your first language?
Click to expand...

Lol.

Please tell me how you can "prove to be true" that someone is in two places at one time. I think you might be the one with the language problem. Hmmm? Or maybe you didn't read the definition you posted?

See, you tried to be clever and pass those off as two separate definitions, when, in reality, the second is a bullet point of the first. They aren't two definitions. In America, our dictionaries will show "1" and "2" when there are more than one definition. The section you highlighted is contingent upon the first item.

Is English even your first language? :)

See here, bud:

bird
bərd/
noun
noun: bird; plural noun: birds

1.
a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, and a beak and (typically) by being able to fly.
synonyms: fowl; More
chick, fledgling, nestling;
informalfeathered friend, birdie;
budgie;
technicalavifauna
"feeding the birds"
a bird that is hunted for sport or used for food.
"carve the bird at the dinner table"
North Americaninformal
an aircraft, spacecraft, satellite, or guided missile.
"the crews worked frantically to ready their birds for flight"
2.
informal
a person of a specified kind or character.
"I'm a pretty tough old bird"
Britishinformal
a young woman; a girlfriend.

Soooo..... you typed "fact" in Google, copied and pasted the answer, leaving out that the part you promoted is actually a part of the first definition. That's ok, I forgive you. You tried your best.
 
kickingtone said:
So, you didn't get the point.

I was responding to Mack Caster's example. The problem was not that the theory was a conspiracy theory, but -- "It would not matter what facts were placed in front of my wife, this is what she believes and that will never change."

So, his example was not a reflection on conspiracy theories in general, as intended.
Click to expand...

When did I say it was? Did you read what I wrote? You asked him to use a different example for his wife, other than conspiracy theorist, because she discounted facts. And I am telling you that "facts" are not relevant in choosing to brand someone a conspiracy theorist. Come on, keep up.
 
andrushkiwt said:
Lol.

Please tell me how you can "prove to be true" that someone is in two places at one time. I think you might be the one with the language problem. Hmmm? Or maybe you didn't read the definition you posted?

See, you tried to be clever and pass those off as two separate definitions, when, in reality, the second is a bullet point of the first. They aren't two definitions. In America, our dictionaries will show "1" and "2" when there are more than one definition. The section you highlighted is contingent upon the first item.

Is English even your first language? :)

See here, bud:

bird
bərd/
noun
noun: bird; plural noun: birds

1.
a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, and a beak and (typically) by being able to fly.
synonyms: fowl; More
chick, fledgling, nestling;
informalfeathered friend, birdie;
budgie;
technicalavifauna
"feeding the birds"
a bird that is hunted for sport or used for food.
"carve the bird at the dinner table"
North Americaninformal
an aircraft, spacecraft, satellite, or guided missile.
"the crews worked frantically to ready their birds for flight"
2.
informal
a person of a specified kind or character.
"I'm a pretty tough old bird"
Britishinformal
a young woman; a girlfriend.

Soooo..... you typed "fact" in Google, copied and pasted the answer, leaving out that the part you promoted is actually a part of the first definition. That's ok, I forgive you. You tried your best.
Click to expand...

Great explanation! So according to you "an aircraft, spacecraft, satellite, or guided missile" is not a separate definition of "bird". It is a kind of warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate. :laughings:

So, you don't actually know how to use a dictionary, but you are asking me to consult one. :facepalm:

Well, the rest of your post falls apart....bud.. :cool:
 
andrushkiwt said:
When did I say it was? Did you read what I wrote? You asked him to use a different example for his wife, other than conspiracy theorist, because she discounted facts. And I am telling you that "facts" are not relevant in choosing to brand someone a conspiracy theorist. Come on, keep up.
Click to expand...

Good, so you've finally got it. If it's about facts, "conspiracy theorist is not relevant", so find another term.
 
kickingtone said:
Good, so you've finally got it. If it's about facts, "conspiracy theorist is not relevant", so find another term.
Click to expand...

Hmm you're not getting it. Lets make it simpler for you. You based your claim on her consideration of facts. That is incorrect. That isn't something you can take in to account at all, whether they accept or deny them. It is simply an alternate theory...and whether or not they accept facts does not figure into if it can be claimed a conspiracy....so!..point is, mack was right. It is a conspiracy theory. Proper use. Proper claim. Sorry pal
 
andrushkiwt said:
Hmm you're not getting it. Lets make it simpler for you. You based your claim on her consideration of facts. That is incorrect. That isn't something you can take in to account at all, whether they accept or deny them. It is simply an alternate theory...and whether or not they accept facts does not figure into if it can be claimed a conspiracy....so!..point is, mack was right. It is a conspiracy theory. Proper use. Proper claim. Sorry pal
Click to expand...

omgaaaad. Wrong again.

Let me break this down into tiny steps for you.

1. She came up with a conspiracy theory.

2. That in itself was not a problem.

3. The problem was separate: i.e that she would never accept any evidence that disproved her position.

4. You need to find a separate term for this problem -- it is tangential to the thing being a conspiracy theory.

Got it yet....bud? :cool:
 
andrushkiwt said:
Nah. Formatting error. Check Merriam Webster. Or I can post it for you, if you'd like. Facts are based in reality. Dictionary backs this up.
Click to expand...

Ah, a quick switch of dictionary after the first one failed you? ;)

Well, this is what Merriam Webster says about the word "fact"..

5 :a piece of information presented as having objective reality These are the hard facts of the case.

So it can be something that is actual, as per definitions 3 or 4, or just "presented" as actual.

So, once again you can have two facts presented as actual (from separate sources) that somebody was in Timbuktu and Moscow at a particular time. They will be conflicting facts -- conflicting statements presented as actual.
 
The more you investigate the more inaccuracy you find in the things that happen. It took a lot of time to figure out who killed Kennedy and then it will take a lot of time to find out that Thermite was in the World Trade Center buildings but no one admits to that.
The police don't want the public to know what is really going on and I have seen evidence that there were two shooters in different positions.
The fact that it takes them 20 minutes to get to the floor is just preposterous. Their released story will of course make them look good- that is how they paint it. I am an Ex cop and I know what goes on.
 
skywaveTDR said:
The more you investigate the more inaccuracy you find in the things that happen. It took a lot of time to figure out who killed Kennedy and then it will take a lot of time to find out that Thermite was in the World Trade Center buildings but no one admits to that.
The police don't want the public to know what is really going on and I have seen evidence that there were two shooters in different positions.
The fact that it takes them 20 minutes to get to the floor is just preposterous. Their released story will of course make them look good- that is how they paint it. I am an Ex cop and I know what goes on.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Just have to wonder why you are an 'Ex cop'.
 
skywaveTDR said:
The more you investigate the more inaccuracy you find in the things that happen.
Click to expand...

Really? So, by your stance, the complete scenario should have been determined 0.00001 seconds after the event. Anything longer than that would be wrong information.

Good Lord. Who's creeping on HR these days?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top