Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department released new footage of the Route 91 “massacre.” The vantage point appears to be from the rooftop of Mandalay Bay, and the camera is conveniently pointed directly at concert site. This looks like it could be CGI again.
Pay special attention starting at minute 2:35, when the crowd has largely dispersed. Where are the hundreds of casualties? Fifty-eight died, more than 500 were wounded by gunshots and more than 1,000 suffered trampling injuries, according to Pinkerton law firm. Really? Judge for yourself.
10 thought on “Las Vegas Police Release Mandalay Rooftop Footage of Route 91 Massacre”
I just don’t know about this one. About the 43 seconds in mark, the lights come on the crowd, that jives with on the ground videos of nothing really happening until the lights inexplicably focus on the crowd… that usually means the shows over and please go home now. In this case the other act was just starting. A lot of nebulous activity and no explanation on why the camera goes from long range, to medium to close up and there’s no continuity between the 3 camera framings. Nothing definitive as far as I could tell. You can’t see anyone getting shot.
A question not relating to the content of this video from a British reader.
With regard to controversial cases like Sandy Hook and Vegas I have sometimes heard and read analysts complain that the official authorities have not provided to the public film or photographic evidence of dead victims. Jim Fetzer is one who often makes this complaint.
But when I hear this I always think – well do they ever? The British police don’t publish photos or videos of dead murdered bodies for public inspection over here. Do they as standard practice release to the public such images in America?
If they don’t (and that presumably would be out of simple respect for the dead and their families) then sceptical students of these cases like Fetzer should stop asking that question. But also we should ask why they have provided video in this case that according to their VOE would show people being murdered and lying dead on the floor (release of such footage would be seen as an outrageous invasion of privacy over here).
A part of the “official narrative” is provided with this newly released 3 minute and 54 second video by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department .
We must interpret this new video footage in light of another part of the “official narrative” provided by Pinkerton Detective Agency, which states “”Fifty-eight died, more than 500 were wounded by gunshots and more than 1,000 suffered trampling injuries.”
The two sets of data do not coincide and in fact, are in stark contradiction to each other. It is reasonable, and I believe the honorable position, to point out this contradiction in the “evidence.” The contradiction is so glaring that it is insulting to almost anyone who has studied this Las Vegas Mandalay Bay hotel event.
In reply to Nick Dean’s comment…
“With regard to controversial cases like Sandy Hook and Vegas I have sometimes heard and read analysts complain that the official authorities have not provided to the public film or photographic evidence of dead victims. Jim Fetzer is one who often makes this complaint. ”
That is an incorrect representation of what I understand as the nature of Dr. Fetzer’s inquiries. One looks at the “official narrative” data provided to the public in relation to what data should be present if that official narrative data is true. When that data that should be present is absent, one has to question the “official narrative.”
Every false event of the last half century on U.S. soil is rife with incongruous data points in relation to nebulous and evolving “official narratives” of the event.
Investigators do not demand “film or photographic evidence of dead victims.” Generally there are other sources of data about the dead victims that are sought and considered satisfactory such as photos of death certificates, coroner’s reports and Social Security Death Index data, and obituaries in print publications.
When there is an assassination of a public figure, a thorough and professional criminal forensic examination of the body ensues. That requires careful study of the dead victim’s body to determine information about the nature and caliber of weapon, entrance and exit would sites, etc.
Dr. Fetzer’s body of work showing the forensic data on the body of JFK assassination is most revealing but unfortunately it did not come from the official Warren Commission nor was it revealed any time near the time of the assassination.
(As an aside, recently I read a new story asking who replaced the limousine windshield on JFK vehicle, and I believe Dr. Fetzer covers that matter in detail in several of his writings and he did that many years ago.)
The public does NOT demand to see dead bodies at the time of the event. The public does demand honest government and medical and media presentation of valid data in a timely manner from persons of personal professional integrity.
DachsieLady, believe me, people do often ask, ” where are the bodies? Show us the bodies!” It’s a commonplace.
For example in this interview Fetzer complained that the authorities had not released, “images from the time of the crime. There are no closed circuit TV videos showing any killing or mayhem even though the school had CCTV.”
And Fetzer recently published a Paul Craig Roberts article where the question was asked many times in various phrasings, “Why aren’t the media showing us film of dead bodies?”
quote: “Has anyone seen on TV or in newspapers pictures of dead bodies? Bodies should be readily available if the reports are correct that fifty people were killed and 50 or more were wounded and in hospital … So has anyone seen any dead bodies? … As far as I know, dead bodies, other than those of the perpetrators themselves, seldom if ever emerge from the terrorist attacks. No dead bodies materialized from the Paris attacks except those of the alleged perpetrators. No dead bodies ever emerged from the Sandy Hook shootings … etc. /endquote
Given that the US population presently has a 77% penetration of “smart phone” ownership (according to Pew Research, up from 35% in 2011), and assuming that such phones have some form of camera capable of taking both still and video imagery, we must agree that the dearth of photographic evidence emerging from the array of mass shootings over the the past several years is concerning. There are some reports that authorities proceed to confiscate cellular devices in the aftermath of such events, which may partially explain the lack of corresponding documentation.
Still, if news media were acting independently of government forces in presenting such events and to merely secure the largest audience share by providing sensationalistic coverage it would seem they would be voraciously seeking out such imagery and at least some of it would be played without censorship. On the whole this is not the case. We have repeatedly argued on the blog that Western news media act in coordination with government agencies to develop and present such spectacles, and have done so for some time.
I interpreted what you were saying is that since it is
“not standard practice” to release “photos of dead murdered bodies for public inspection”, individually identifiable, close-up photos of the victims, then it is inappropriate for Dr. Fetzer to be asking for that kind of information.
But I say Dr. Fetzer is not seeking that particular kind of photographic data.
Dr. Fetzer reviews official photographs coming from the “official narrative” as allowed for release to the public via the mainstream media, photographs that are represented to have been taken IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the “shooting spree” or “massacre.”
It is those photos that are extremely suspect because they show no, or almost no, evidence of injured or non-moving bodies on the floor, and they show no or almost no evidence of what would be expected to be present, that is, real blood spillage after such an occurrence. If there is red material shown on the floor, what is supposed to be interpreted as real blood is often bright red or a pinkish red color. Blood oxidizes almost immediately and starts turning a very dark, almost black on camera red in color.
Dr. Fetzer naturally questions those very questionable attributes of those particular photos. He is not necessarily demanding clear, close-up facial identifiable photos of people. However, when a photo is presented to the public of the face of a “victim” and the facial features are completely covered over with some obstructive material that makes the “victim” in no way personally identifiable, that is not valid photographic “evidence” that proves that that “victim” was a genuine casualty of a real event. It is only logical that researches point out that anomaly and all of the others that do not comport with the way the photograph or video is represented to the public. That is what is responded to. That is what is asked questions about.
Likewise, if a video is presented that purports to show “people being murdered”, then that video must be examined for false or incongruent elements.
When a murder or mass murder crime is being investigated, forensic criminal investigators are looking for objective facts and are concerned with privacy for legal purposes but not the feelings of family members.
However since it appears that the mainstream media is deliberately trying to pawn off faked photography and videography as real, and there is absolutely no effort to assure and inform the public that a real criminal investigation is ongoing by government law enforcement agencies, it is not only understandable, but I believe most courageous and necessary, for private individual researchers, such as Dr. James Fetzer, to subject those few “proofs” from the mainstream media, “proofs” designed to control the thinking and judgment of the public mind but not designed to convey logical clear proof of anything, we should be thankful for the kinds of information that Dr. Fetzer and others are continuing to search for.
No one seeking facts and truth in researching these very questionable events is being insensitive or is inappropriately violating anyone’s privacy.
A bonified mass shooting that happened in 2009 at a bar in Vail, Colorado… security camera video was played in open court clearly showing the accused of executing a bar patron and attempting to execute a friend of mine. Survivor witness testimony was given as well as bystander eye witness accounts of the crime. Four people were shot, one killed, one left in a coma took years to recover, one arm wound, one graze. The story never changed it only became more complete. Decades of prescription psych meds use by a Viet Nam vet who suffered from PTSD. A triggering event happened right before the crime, being ejected from a bar for inappropriate and disturbing comments. The disturbing comments line right up with long term psych med use especially the testimony that the killer seemed friendly one second and the next thing you know he’s being thrown out by a committee of management and patrons for saying disturbing off the wall things. The big difference between this real mass shooting and these others? the real one never changed, the evidence was overwhelming and video backed up the witness testimony spot on. The shooter did not conveniently die thereby avoiding a trial. These other nebulous events are clouded by strange things happening, inappropriate behavior like being jovial in the face of unspeakable horror like the Sandy Hook Medical Examiner and the grand children of the slain pastor in Charlestown church shooting. The smiling and laughing is the dark side mocking us. The asleep masses will explain away the levity while the awake few see it for what it is… in your face mocking.
Pinkerton is a detective agency, not a law firm.
Pinkerton Law firm are the main attorneys representing the alleged victims.
6/8 Update on new Las Vegas survelliance and aerial videos:
The following is typical of the online skullduggery being done to distract from this damning video. A brand new wag named Cue Anon with no prior You Tube activity shows up to do battle with me. This switch and bait to look over here (at nothing) is a very common tactic – as very few will bother to check these claims for themselves. Classic gaslighting is employed, as this person tells you something that is not on the aerial video when you actually examine it.
Look at the aerial surveillance that was released last week. You can see perfectly clear dead victims with orange paint around them and victim ID’s. And those match the records of where victims were found and their is record and social media trails of their funerals. This particular video even seems to validate ‘my moms a nurse’ video because you can see the people on the ground as they were in his video. You are clearly not looking at what’s out there.
Here is the Las Vegas aerial surveillance video you alluded to. Is there another one because I checked all videos on google search.
It is totally devoid of anything resembling a mass casuality event- and is very hard to take seriously as it shows nothing at all but a trash filled venue. Readers can decide if Cue Anon is being honest with you, ignore the gaslighters- see for yourselves.