You're spot on. People forget that everyone has a survival instinct and self-preservation. Think about what kind of motivation it would really take to engage in a mass shooting where the only two outcomes are getting shot and spending life in prison. Yet we are to believe that people do these things with no motive other than "ISIS" or "mental health."

People forget that everyone has a survival instinct and self-preservation

Each year 45,000 Americans die by suicide.

Here's the thing: not everyone is thinking how you would expect them to think all the time.

Yeah, they kill themselves. Because they are suicidal. They don't also commit wanton mass murder for no reason at all before they kill themselves. What a waste of time and energy. And when you're suicidally depressed you lack motivation, i.e. the kind of motivation it takes to get assault weapons and march around firing them at random people.

The two kids from Columbine did exactly that.

They shot up the school, got in a brief firefight with the police, then shot themselves (unless you don't believe the testimony of witnesses). One of the kids - I don't recall which - had frequently written about suicidal thoughts in his journal.

If you believe in the Columbine story as we were handed it.

If you believe in the Columbine story as we were handed it.

There is extensive evidence of what happened, from their notes and diaries to their 'your momma' jokes to school footage.

Notes and diaries are easily faked, and whatever footage you think there is, trust me it shows nothing more than some people walking around.

However there is footage of police and EMT's dragging a dummy around.

https://youtu.be/VOmiavAegZo

Kind of eliminates the possibility of a "real" school shooting.

There is literally footage of them in the school shooting people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIXjOLKhVkw

Kind of eliminates the possibility of a "real" school shooting.

No, it is unclear footage that literally eliminates or proves nothing. God its like you only look for footage that supports your beliefs.

As I watch the footage for the hundredth time in the last 6 months, I still don't see anyone getting shot. I see some people crouched like they're in a drill; then some people running around; then the dudes walking around with the guns.

Well yes, that was decades ago and school security cameras weren't at todays level.

Somehow you are willing to dismiss evidence of the two shooters walking around the cafeteria as evidence of a shooting yet you think grainy footage of something being pulled around literally eliminates the possibility of a genuine shooting?

I think that speaks for itself.

Not having dug in seriously to Columbine scrutiny and research yet, I'm as willing as ever to believe that it was a bona fide shooting, I just would need to see the 3D appearance of a shooting and have someone explain why there's a dummy involved.

Okay, you do you buddy.

Wow, dismissing someone for daring to demand evidence.

Evidence of that already exists, but because there's some weird grainy helicopter footage of something, he doesn't believe it. I'm not going to try and convince him.

I guess we’ll all have to just take your word for it, seeing as you’ve not linked to that evidence.

Are you talking about the surveillance footage I linked?

Sure. What are the timestamps where it shows someone getting shot?

All I saw was grainy footage of people running around, hiding under tables and a couple of guys walking around afterwards.

Yes, which is literally what you'd expect from school shooting footage. I doubt that the police would release snuff films just to appease people who are skeptical because of footage of EMTs dragging something around. Seeing the school footage and not believing it while seeing the video that the guy linked to as 'evidence' of a cover up and believing it is the epitome of cognitive dissonance and why conspiracy theorists have a negative connotation.

Feel free to look up the pre-shooting footage of the two guys in their "trench coat mafia", making short films of them shooting bullies. Like I said, there is tons of evidence if you actually look for it with a clear mind.

You do realise the police don’t actually have the ability to suppress everything that is witnessed or recorded in a real shooting scenario, right?

Yet somehow they always manage it at media frenzy events like Parkland. Food for thought.

Footage like what?

Footage from smartphones, recorded with realistic quality and resolution given it is now 2018.

Sites like Liveleak regularly publish this type and quality of footage from real events, and yet we never, ever see anything resembling it from events like Parkland. Instead, we get one or two grainy clips, unnecessarily shakes and poorly framed, that look like they were shot on a first generation camera phone. Every time.

When we do get reasonably hig quality footage, such as that famous liveleak one shot video of the guy doing triage, it quickly becomes clear that it’s a staged scene.

Columbine was pre-cameraphone so it has a valid excuse.

The shooting took 4 minutes. I'm guessing many people were running and focused on survival, not twitter, because it's a shooting and not a fight. I didn't bother looking for footage but I stumbled across the Hogg footage of him hiding in the classroom. I assume there's more footage of that laying around that you didn't see, but none of the shooting itself because you know, people who were within camera view of him probably hid or ran instead of taking out their camera.

When we do get reasonably high quality footage, such as that famous one shot video of the Vegas guy doing triage, it quickly becomes clear that it’s a staged scene.

Send this footage please.

The shooting took 4 minutes.

Time how long it takes you to pull your phone out and start recording. Unless you’re paraplegic, I’m betting it’s a lot less than 4 minutes.

people who were within camera view of him probably hid or ran instead of taking out their camera.

As I mentioned, this only seems to happen at shootings where a media circus is the immediate result.

The watchpeopledie sub has hundreds of cellphone videos of people getting stabbed, shot, street fights... all sorts of clips where the camera person could easily have been in immediate danger, but chose to record anyway. I’m not advocating that you watch any, it’s unpleasant stuff, but the fact remains: footage exists in abundance from similar scenarios, and most tellingly, for every event EXCEPT those the media jumps on.

There is a glaringly obvious explanation for this.

Send this footage please.

https://m.liveleak.com/view?i=615_1507075522

this only seems to happen at shootings where a media circus is the immediate result

Well random fights or gang shootings rarely become a media circus. What does become one is an indiscriminate shooting attack, where everybody is a target. And those shootings would be where people run instead of trying to record. You can be skeptical all you want, but I think blaming high school kids for not shooting videos while being shot at is a very extreme argument for being skeptic.

Can you explain how that video proves it's a staged scene?

Can you explain how that video proves it's a staged scene?

Other people have already done that to death on this sub, I’d be wasting my time repeating it.

But do I really need to? What is it about it that looks real to you?

I don't read every single post here so I missed it. If you make the claim, either back it up or link me to something that backs it up.

I am also at work and while I have down time, I don't have the attention to carefully look at a video and look for weird things. But I skipped through and looked at various parts, it looks like a bloody scene post shooting, it doesn't look staged.

It’s funny, G. Edward Griffin noted how nobody ever asks for proof of things like this video clip. It exists! It looks real enough! That’s good enough for me!

On the other hand, daring to suggest it might be a total fabrication comes replete with demands for proof, even in spite of completely unrealistic blood, unrealistic body placement, unrealistic acting by the other people on screen, carefully paced timing moving from body to body, an obviously deliberate “shock” moment and (if you listen carefully) an off-screen director issuing instructions to move on to the “next stop, next stop”...

Well. I don’t know what to say if you don’t see it.

Man, I love how people think they exactly how a post-shooting scene would look like. Like "unrealistic body placement"? Wtf does that even mean?

And how you think that they can get thousands of unknown actors to be on scene at that shooting, plan and stage a mass incident with nothing going wrong, without at least one leaking actual credible evidence of this being staged.

There's literally footage of the guy shooting out the window. I've read theories about that being a FBI gun deal gone wrong that actually make sense, but what you're suggesting sounds idiotic to me.

Like "unrealistic body placement"? Wtf does that even mean?

Look closer. Do you notice anything off about the way they are laying? Anything that is, let’s say... convenient for the camera?

thousands of unknown actors

Where did I suggest or imply that figure?

There's literally footage of the guy shooting out the window.

No there is not.

what you're suggesting sounds idiotic to me.

Perhaps, just perhaps your conditioned beliefs are not the best judge of reality. Harsh, but true my friend.

Do you notice anything off about the way they are laying? Anything that is, let’s say... convenient for the camera?

A shooting with over 600 people hit. There were people everywhere.

Where did I suggest or imply that figure?

You didn't. But the shooting was at a music concert with massive numbers. Here is footage of the crowd being shot at. You think all those people were in on the conspiracy? There are many videos like this. Please explain that video of the concert, where it happened, with massive numbers of people being shot at in the crowd from that hotel.

A shooting with over 600 people hit.

Says who? Is there any physical evidence for it?

You think all those people were in on the conspiracy?

I think some were, mainly those who are reacting as if there is a shooting happening. There are many videos showing people laughing at the sound effects and saying things like “that’s not real shooting” and “that’s coming over the speakers” too.

Have you ever seen a flash mob? Are you aware of the phenomenon of crowd psychology, and how a crowd will act when a small proportion of the group suddenly acts in unison?

Gustave le Bon’s short book “The Crowd” is essential reading if you want to understand how easily a large group of strangers can be convinced to do something, see something, hear something.

people being shot at

What is the best evidence for that claim? Where did it originate? Have you verified it? Has anyone verified it?

Lol okay I'm done.

...and that’s why you’ll never progress with your thinking.

Nah it just means I won't waste any more time on you. There's conspiracy theories, and then there's tin foil stuff. You're talking of the latter.

I’m glad you are so confident in your own ability to discern truth. Nobody has ever fallen victim to false pride or false confidence before, and we all know that wisdom comes from dismissing arguments that you disagree with.

Okay buddy you do you

This reminded me of you.

Ussery “continually yelled and screamed and hollered and told me he was gonna hang me from a tree, and pee on me while I’m hanging... He said, ‘Your daughter never even existed. Show me her birth certificate. Show me anything to say she was here.’”

lol xoxo

Hero

Good to know I was right to stop giving a shit about engaging you and your ideas.

I’m not sure what you were expecting.

Perhaps “What a disgrace”

Or “Show some respect for the bereaved”

I mean, you do understand I think these things are all hoaxes, right?

That man is a hero, if he exists. The fact the news is reporting it makes me seriously doubt that, but I can at least relate to what they reported.

lol

That’s always my reaction when I hear about another “mass shooting”.

Come on man, wake up. At least ask for proof.

Says the person who ignores hundreds of videos of proof because he thinks the "body placement" is off.

Where are you getting these ideas? There are not “hundreds of videos”.

You doubted the LV shooting that has many videos from people in the crowd that were being shot.

Rewatch the videos, then tell me where, exactly, you see anyone “getting shot”.

Let me save you the trouble: that evidence does not exist.

There is a single clip that appears to show a lady reacting to something striking her leg, but it’s far from recorded proof of a high velocity rifle round impact. Quite the opposite, in fact. There’s also a video of a plastic cup moving.

That’s it. I even personally debunked the police bodycam “tarp” video, which showed no holes after the alleged “impact”.

All videos from Las Vegas to date show some, but nowhere near all people in the crowd running around, acting scared. Those people were planted actors. Some even started running before the shooting begins, because they are shitty actors who misjudged their cue.

To add further doubt, many videos from Vegas have clear audio of other people in the crowd saying things like “that’s not gunfire” or “that’s coming over the speakers”. Those people, most of whom are gun-loving country music fans, are correct.

The fact remains there is no evidence any shots were actually fired into the crowd, or at all.

Lol okay buddy you do you

Sure will, thanks.

murder suicide, including a dog just happened in my state last week. people are not rational actors at all times, you cannot predict individual actions.

Show me the local news story and I will show you a motive.

youre just looking for a motive?

then surely you can understand the motive of the guy who shot up the school, and most other kids who shoot up schools. my guess is that they werent the schools starting point guard and prom king

99.9% of all people are neither one of those things. That's not even a halfway adequate explanation for motive.

right. whats the % of people who are bullied, isolated, had a shitty childhood, mental issues, anger issues and access to a AR15?

None of those things are a motive.

Right up until you take anti depressants. At that point, sometimes for the first few weeks, sometimes longer, you suddenly have more energy, and you may also have increased suicideal ideation or bizarre thoughts. If you weren't warned that this is a common side effect of anti depressants, or if you aren't able to recognize a bizarre thought and set it aside, you think it's a product of your own mind.

I think you do see this play out on a far more benign personal level all the time. If you go to any article on any site that allows comments where the article is about some injustice committed by someone, it doesn't take very long before you see this desire for vengeance against injustice play out in the comments.

2 recent examples: A guy in Florida kidnapped a little girl from her Mom in Walmart and raped and murdered her not far away. Most of the comments express a desire for revenge, specifically by prison rape, having him be tortured to death by the girl's family, tortured to death by the commenters, etc.

A second example, that woman who freaked out on a plane because she had to sit in the back by a baby. She had a tantrum, it went viral, and she lost her job. Most people commenting seem to think that her losing her job is a kind of justice, and were seemingly very satisfied by that outcome.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with those sentiments, I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong to rape and torture a convicted child rapist/murderer, I'm just pointing out that most people have an extreme desire for extreme vengeance when they perceive a wrongdoing, even if they aren't involved.

My theory is that this desire for vengeance is the 'normal' response, and that most people would not actually do those things even given the opportunity. But certain vulnerable individuals, especially those who's emotions and sense of right and wrong are blunted by anti-depressants and our culture of glorified violence, AND who have access to weapons, will relatively rarely commit these horrible crimes.

I think you're committing one of the most common fallacies on this board; you assume that everybody thinks rationally, but through your idea of rationality.

If these random mass killings were legitimate, there would simultaneously be many thousand times more killings & bombings of politicians, CEO's, judges, bosses in meetings, malpractice doctors, churches involved in molestation, police departments, etc.

There is nothing to support this besides your idea of what a rational attack would be. Assuming that these people are who they are made out to be, they are not looking to right wrongs or commit a political act. They are simply mentally ill and have access to guns, or they want attention, or they grew up looking at columbine footage thinking how cool those guys looked.

This is the current claim of the establishment and their MSM mouthpieces. It's the claim I'm disputing.

Yes and I'm claiming your 'dispute' of the issue isn't correct because you're assuming their motivations to be what your motivations are.

Some people use violence to see change, some people use violence because they are sick people. Your theory that 'genuinely' violent people would target political targets ignores things like the tons of videos of people killing animals online for no reason whatsoever. Those people kill animals for many possible reasons completely unrelated to activism.

I think OP is right. We NEVER see random killings of important people, only the mass killing of innocents. Thinking that innocent people are the only people who are dying it does seem impossible odds of the frequency that they are happening...

Well given the ratio of important people to not important people, it makes sense that the majority of shootings would target not important people.

When you were a random high schooler, who seemed important to you; a priest rumored to be involved with pedophilia, a big company CEO, or the popular kids in school that ignored/mocked you?

As I told OP, don't make the mistake of thinking everybody thinks the way you do.

Didn't the most recent shooting take place in the 'freshmen building'? If so that would negate what you're saying since this kid wasn't a freshmen and didn't even go there any more? How would he have beef with a bunch of freshmen?

Didn't the most recent shooting take place in the 'freshmen building'?

I have no idea.

If so that would negate what you're saying since this kid wasn't a freshmen and didn't even go there any more?

I'm not saying that that is exactly the motivation he had before deciding he wanted to shoot something up. I'm saying that a 19 year old kid often doesn't think of the greater picture but what's around him. There are many possible grievances he could have held at the school or it's student/staff body.

Tell Abe Lincoln that.

Oh come on....Were are talking about Modern Mass Killings...

Gabby Giffords.

Didn't die, even though being shot in the "face". Also don't forget Congressman Steve Scalise, who also didn't die.

I agree. I wouldn't say not possible, but it is certainty one sided with these type of events. Good point. Trust your instincts is always good advice.

I hope anyone who dismisses what you're saying before they see this comment change their mind. This was very insightful, especially once you confirm you're talking about frequency not events.

It’s not insightful, it’s totally unquantitative. Gut feelings are not worth much because they are often wrong. Come back with some actual statistics.

All this is just your gut feeling and isn’t quantitative in the least. That makes it pretty worthless. A quantitative approach is absolutely necessary when it comes to statistics since humans totally suck at it “by intuition”, and will draw wrong conclusions.

Isn't that what we do see, though? These shootings like Parkland and Vegas make the news because of the number of fatalities, but simple murder, for much of the reasons you list, happen everyday. Gang retribution, crimes of passion over a spouse cheating, money issues, etc., and with far greater frequency.

If it's just a single person who wronged you, which is typically the case, then it makes sense that you'd only kill that person, maybe anyone with them, and possibly yourself. In a lot of these cases, the murderer doesn't necessarily want to get caught or kill themselves, so why would they kill more people than they have to, which would only increase the chances of a negative outcome for themselves?

I too have this ability to sense patterns and degrees of probability. I understand your thinking and the idea that these mass killings are staged is something I cannot dismiss entirely.

However, since I’m also a study at criminology, here’s more information you might not have considered.

The Aurora shooting: James Holmes didn’t have any personal animosity toward his victims. He didn’t need to. His animosity was toward people, and society, plain and simple. He wanted to act out the part of the Joker, the terrorist killer full of hate who revels in his insanity, and the general public was the natural target of someone like that who viewed himself as a Machiavellian trickster, the trick being delivery of death.

The Columbine shooting: Eric Harris was a psychopath, and Dylan Klebold was his flunkie follower. Eric Harris also had a very nihilistic way of thinking, and his frequent indulgence in violence in movies, media, and games turned his already nihilistic thought process in a dark direction. His mentality was basically “Let’s have fun for an hour seeing what it’s like to terrorize and murder people for real, to feel power over others for the only time in our short lives that we’ll get that, because this is all a hologram anyway, none of it matters, and there’s not point to being here”.

The Mandalay Bay massacre: Stephen Paddock just wanted to do something horrible, just to do it. He was secretly fascinated with the idea of mass killings, and it became an obsession with him to see if he could pull of the ultimate mass murder. With his complete lack of training and knowledge but strategic and competitive way of thinking, he thought firing a fully automatic weapon into a large crowd of people from a high vantage point was the most lethal way to pull off his plan. He thought his kill tally would be three or four times what it was. He just wanted to beat the other guys and flip a giant ‘f you’ to the country before he checked himself out.

The Marjory Stoneman Douglas massacre: Nikolas Cruz did have a personal vendetta against his high school, and a few of the students there specifically his ex girlfriend and her new boyfriend, as well as anyone he perceived as being against him which in a mind like his can mean anyone who attends the same school. He also wanted the notoriety and attention he is now getting from our wonderful news media, because he was marginalized and ignored repeatedly in his life.

These shooters all have different mind sets and reasons for doing what they do, but they all do the same thing in the end. Mass shooting seems to represent a certain catharsis for people who have let the darkness well up inside them for far too long and lack the tools for releasing those emotions in a more appropriate and healthy way.

As for whether or not the CIA, or the elite cabal in some other form is identifying them and directing them, I doubt it. I find it easier to believe that they are being enabled, however, to further goals of those who want the masses controlled and are using these shootings as a big example of why more control is needed.

The first mass shooting I can remember being covered widely in the news media was the Edmond Post Office massacre in 1986. After that it was the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre in 1991. It seems to me that a major contributor to the prequel you increase in these massacres is the copycat phenomenon. These people all desire fame and notoriety, and they always get it from the news media who always shamelessly stands on the bodies with a bullhorn for weeks afterward. This is a huge motivator. If the media started ignoring these things, they would stop happening within a year or two.

Just my two cents worth on the matter.

I wanted to talk about the fact that Eric Harris basically got bored of killing shortly after the shooting had started. Which is, sickening, butttttttttt I thiiink you might be in the C.I.A. Just kidding. Lol. But Those statements about Vegas and MSD are uncomfortable. Especially Vegas. That was a very matter of fact way of putting that.

Most everything else you state about the mindsets of the other murderers is either fact or at least been reported as such. But where has what you said about Steven Paddock been reported, out of the literal mouth of a literal human who can confirm it "somehow"?

Everything I’ve ascertained about Paddock came from studying his lifestyle, movements, habits, and proclivities coupled with the lack of any manifesto or suicide note. I don’t listen to news media, or at least not their opinions.

this is a weak post to discredit theories that challenge the narrative

Better than OPs gut feelings. At least this guy has some relevant background information for several of the events.

that makes it even worse imo. He's supposed to have legitimacy because he studies criminology yet he makes completely unproven assertions regarding the motives of all the shooters he cites.

Where at any point did we discover Paddock's manifesto saying he did the shooting for the lulz?

I don’t need a manifesto. If you understood my comment, you would have understood that studying his behavior before and surrounding his act right up to the moment he stuck the chrome Kimber .357 magnum snub-nosed revolver in his mouth is how I arrive at these conclusions. And if I had proof, I would be talking to the press and the FBI, not you.

I too have this ability to sense patterns and degrees of probability

how do you guys test this? or do you just intuitively know you are correct

or do you just intuitively know you are correct

No one does, and people who think they are anyway, are probably more wrong than correct.

It’s not something to be correct or incorrect about. It’s not that black and white. The human mind naturally seeks patterns, and as far as degrees of probability you just observe what you observe and make adjustments accordingly.

Example: how often do you notice a police car while you’re driving? Once or twice a week, maybe more depending on where you live. Spend enough time noting how often you see a police car, whether it be a city cop on routine patrol or a state trooper sitting by the side of the road waiting for speeders, and you can effectively gauge their habits and rate of dispersion. If you come to the conclusion that you only notice a cop car once a week, then as soon as you see one drive by, you can immediately start driving however you want to because the chance of seeing another one that day is highly improbable. The chances of seeing another one within the time period of your trip is nearly zero. So in theory you can flaunt the speed limit for the rest of your drive.

We know nothing of Paddock's motives yet. There are so many holes in that story, you can strain your noodles with it!

I was a little babe when the Edmond shooting happened. We lived right across the street from the post office. My folks still talk about it from time to time.

The Mandalay Bay massacre: Stephen Paddock

go back to Elgin, Vegas was fake as fcuk. the MSM paraded survivor videos prove it was fake. two 223s in a spine and walks out of hospital, BS.

With the possible exception of Columbine (because I haven't researched it) this is a list of faked shootings. No evidence of deaths, almost no injuries except cuts and bruises, and absolutely no evidence for shots being fired at all.

Thanks for reinforcing the official stories on a conspiracy sub, guy.

Sorry to pop your delusional bubble, guy.

Do you really think you’re “popping bubbles” by parroting official propaganda here? Lol

Delusional is the right word.

Nobody’s coming to get your guns, dude. Relax.

Lol... I don’t think I’ve ever had an opinion about so called gun-grab agendas in any of the hundreds of posts and comments I’ve made in this sub.

Sources for any of the stuff you said about Paddock?

If I had to search it all up and list it here I would be here all fuckin night and it’s just not worth it. I’ll tell you how I knew what gun he used to take himself out and where he stuck it when he did if that’s what you mean, but the rest of it is from various media sources which I’m sure you can always say is fake news, and you might be right.

You can also just see the narratives that are created by the crisis actors used for these hoaxes. "We just moved here and I can't believe this happened in this small town, it could be anywhere!"

They also throw in the red herrings of multiple shooters or the latest with the guy being in full body armor to distract skeptics.

It's all so contrived and fake but people will believe they happened. Mind control is a crazy thing.

You believe the parkland shooting is a hoax?

Yes. All these media sensationalized mass shootings have been hoaxes.

You’re an idiot. I personally know survivors in that shooting.

Of course. Survivors.

I've always said why don't these "killers" take out people that actually matter. If they are disgruntled and want to cause some real change, CEOs, Molesters, and generally bad people would be more logical targets.

logical

i think i found the error. when discussing people that might commit these acts you can throw logic right out

True...but no important people. I'm thinking like the movie Dogma!

Could it not just be that people that commit mass murder like this are looking for easy targets? What's an easier target, a school full of children or making your way into the state capital?

Trying to rationalize the actions of these people is mot an easy thing to do. Especially so when many die afterwards or during the event.

I'm sure a person with firepower like an AR-15 could easily walk into a corporation and take down anyone in their way...

Have you worked in a large corporate building/office?

Said person could make it to the lobby for sure, anywhere further than that and they would need explosives or something of the like to incapacitate many people at once due to security and the fact that concealing a rifle like that is not the simplest thing. Sure there are SBR's that could make getting in without notice easy but after that elevators would be shutdown more than likely and alarms triggered which would put everyone on notice.

On top of all this, how many CEOs of multinational corporations work on the bottom levels of buildings? My guess is few if any at all. Isn't that what this post is about? Taking out the movers and the shakers?

I believe my point stands. Crazed killers look for easy targets more often than not. There are very few killers like Dorner with a plan and many more Cruz's out there.

Well you're talking about multibillion corporations. I'm talking like the movie Dogma, where they bring judgement to the wicked! An average corporation doesn't have "trained" security, just run of the mill, kinda fat security...

I was attempting to bring the conversation back to the point of the post which is about politicians and CEOs more than a Dogma or Boondock Saints type of situation.

I mean shit, there could be a serial killer out there today doing exactly this. Would we know?

I believe we would know.

We would know if some random was out there offing random "immoral" people? IMO that's doubtful. A trucker could travel around the country and kill drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes (those society deems immoral) and it would be difficult to connect all of that to one person and then hope that authorities would publicize the info.

Oh I thought we were still talking about the elite targets.

To say these aren't possible is just silly. Crazy people do crazy things.

It's just that they would do other crazy stuff much more frequently.

exactly. we would have been seeing all kinds of other things as well but what we find is nonstop mass rando shootem'ups.

After a few decades of living in this world, you develop a sixth sense for sensing patterns,

Yeah, but unfortunately you also develop a keen sense for sensing patterns that don’t exist. Humans are terrible at that, which is the basis of many conspiracy theories, among other things. Our brains basically want to detect patterns in things, no matter if any significant pattern is there.

You can not sense a pattern if it does not exist. The only question is whether a pattern has occurred accidentally or it's a result of underlying events.

You can perceive a pattern exists and believe it exists when it does not.

Please, give an example of a pattern that I can perceive exists and believe it exists when it does not.

https://www.livescience.com/25448-pareidolia.html

Ever take an ink blot test? Please tell me youre not in high school yet.

Al these patterns exist.

No you completely misinterpreted it. Random ink blots do not contain intentional images of say a butterfly or a face or trees. The human brain is evolutionarily wired to err on the side of caution.

Its more evolutionarily advantageous to see a pattern where none exists, rather than miss actual patterns.

Which is why people are prone to pareidolia.

No, but they do contain unintentional images of butterflies or a face or trees. These images we call "patterns".

It is not possible to see a pattern if it doesn't exist (well, unless you have schizophrenia or a similar illness). If you can see a pattern, a pattern exists.

Pareidolia is noticing the pattern of the human face where no human face exists; pareidolia is NOT noticing the pattern of the human face where no pattern of the human face exists.

No, they do not contain "images butterflies or trees or faces". Thats what pareidolia is: seeing things that arent there.

The term pareidolia's etymology literally translates to "faulty image", meaning the person is seeing a "pattern" where one does not exist. At least not in the same way as an actual image of a human face or a butterfly. The accidental resemblance is not the same as an actual pattern with intrinsic significance. You think you see something that isnt really what it seems.

No, they do not contain "images butterflies or trees or faces".

Yes they do.

Thats what pareidolia is: seeing things that arent there.

Nope, it's seeing patterns that resemble things that aren't there. If you see things that aren't there, that's called hallucination.

Look:

:) ← this is a pattern of a human face

So, what a re you trying to say? That you do not see a pattern of a human face when you look at that? Or that you see the pattern but it does not exist? Or that you see it, and it exists, but does not resemble a human face? Or that you see it, and it exists, and it does resemble a human face, but is not an actual human face?

I am trying to explain pareidolia for you but you seem to be willfully ignorant as to how it works and why seeing faulty images because of your neurophysiology is different than a hallucination.

It is in fact you who claimed that pareidolia is "seeing things that arent there" and it is me who explained that that is a hallucination and that pareidolia is different.

:) ← Do you see a human face here? If you do, is that pareidolia? If you don't, how do you call what you see?

A faulty image is when you see, through pareidolia, an erroneous image of something in something which is unrelated to the perceived image seen.

Thats kind of the nature of pareidolia: seeing something that isnt really there as the result of millions of years of evolution. The self organized criticality inherent to evolution and emergent complex systems both biological and non biological is important to understand if you want the "why" of pareidolia.

A faulty image is when you see an erroneous image

What is the difference between "faulty" and "erroneous"? You are just saying "a faulty image is when you see a faulty image".

And no, there is no human face in :)

Right, but there is the pattern of the human face in :)

The neurological heuristics your brain uses makes you see one where no face exists.

No it does not. I see no face in :) I however do see the pattern of the human face in :) and so do you.

pareidolia is seeing patterns or images where they dont exist AS PATTERNS OR INTENTIONAL IMAGES

Aha, so pareidolia is seeing patterns where they don't exist as patterns. Perhaps pareidolia is also seeing pizza where it doesn't exist as pizza?

Please think through, then try again.

I think youre the one who needs to reassess what you just said.

"Hmmm that rock looks like a pizza" does not mean that the rock is a piece of pizza. What dont you get about pareidolia?

The brain can pick up patters that simply arent there. IE, just because you think some clouds resemble a car, doesn’t actually mean the clouds resemble a car. Finding patterns is your brains way of simplifying information but it doesn’t make those patterns a fact.

just because you think some clouds resemble a car, doesn’t actually mean the clouds resemble a car

Yes, it absolutely does. What you are trying to say is that the cloud is not actually a car despite the resemblance. But a cloud that resembles a car definitely resembles a car.

Curious, how can you make a difference between a thing that you think resembles another thing and actually does resemble it, and a thing that you think resembles another thing but actually does not resemble it? Are there no clouds that resemble something?

Pareidolia is a thing. Might want to know what youre talking about before writing.

I have not said that pareidolia is not a thing.

When you’re mad you punch a hole through the nearest wall.

Do you spend time planning the punch? Do you first acquire a range of gloves to protect your hand and/or cause maximum damage?

Because that's what "irrational" and "mentally ill" "wall punchers" do.

In the UK we had a member of Parliament assassinated. The Westminster Bridge incident, they were also trying to gain access to the houses of Parliament to murder members of our government. But surprisingly it was more difficult because of security.

You are an imbecile, please get clipped or tie your tubes.

For me, it’s the paradox that a person can be rational and organised enough to function, to plan, to organise and to execute all preparation for a mass killing while simultaneously being dismissed as “irrational” or “mentally ill”.

You can’t have it both ways. These explanations simply do not make sense, which makes them yet another giant red flag pointing to a hoax, or perhaps a false flag with actual deaths... although I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence for the latter at any of these events.

How is mental illness a dismissal?

It’s a lazy catch-all that completely lacks nuance.

It’s also unfalsifiable (unless you trust the people who make the definitions). If you ever get thrown in a mental hospital good luck proving you are “sane”.

So it seems like you really want to know the alleged shooter’s motivation or narrative of how he got to a place where a mass shooting seemed like a good idea. Forensic psychology.

If he was a real shooter, yes, absolutely.

There isn’t any evidence that he shot anyone though, or indeed evidence that anyone else did any shooting.

Notice the word -alleged-. I’m not sure of your definition of evidence is? Legally? Empirically? What do you think did or did not happen? Just a PR psy op job?

I don’t know what happened, but I do know what has been presented as evidence for it is a joke. I really do mean a joke, by the way. Comedy, entertainment. Laughably bad acting on camera, laughably bad phone footage (as always), hilariously transparent lies in the media.

If I absolutely must speculate, I’d say it’s a tv production whose intended problem>reaction>solution benefits some group financially, as most things boil down to making money, eventually.

It does seem like political groups like to create opportunities out of crises. That would be the reaction/solution. One solution is to restrict guns to so-called mentally ill people and the other is to boost gun sales?

It does seem like political groups like to create opportunities out of crises.

Agreed, and what better way to ensure a particular crisis meets your requirements than to fabricate it?

One solution is to restrict guns to so-called mentally ill people and the other is to boost gun sales?

Both are plausible.

I agree with the OP

people are generally good as anyone can tell

If crazy people wanted to kill people they would probably go kill rich people not innocent children.

are many thousand times more likely to kill a group of people that they feel engaged in injustice against them

Somehow I have the suspicion OP was home schooled.

Notes and diaries are easily faked, and whatever footage you think there is, trust me it shows nothing more than some people walking around.

However there is footage of police and EMT's dragging a dummy around.

https://youtu.be/VOmiavAegZo

Kind of eliminates the possibility of a "real" school shooting.

Didn't the most recent shooting take place in the 'freshmen building'?

I have no idea.

If so that would negate what you're saying since this kid wasn't a freshmen and didn't even go there any more?

I'm not saying that that is exactly the motivation he had before deciding he wanted to shoot something up. I'm saying that a 19 year old kid often doesn't think of the greater picture but what's around him. There are many possible grievances he could have held at the school or it's student/staff body.

Well you're talking about multibillion corporations. I'm talking like the movie Dogma, where they bring judgement to the wicked! An average corporation doesn't have "trained" security, just run of the mill, kinda fat security...

I don’t need a manifesto. If you understood my comment, you would have understood that studying his behavior before and surrounding his act right up to the moment he stuck the chrome Kimber .357 magnum snub-nosed revolver in his mouth is how I arrive at these conclusions. And if I had proof, I would be talking to the press and the FBI, not you.

Wow, dismissing someone for daring to demand evidence.

Footage from smartphones, recorded with realistic quality and resolution given it is now 2018.

Sites like Liveleak regularly publish this type and quality of footage from real events, and yet we never, ever see anything resembling it from events like Parkland. Instead, we get one or two grainy clips, unnecessarily shakes and poorly framed, that look like they were shot on a first generation camera phone. Every time.

When we do get reasonably hig quality footage, such as that famous liveleak one shot video of the guy doing triage, it quickly becomes clear that it’s a staged scene.

Columbine was pre-cameraphone so it has a valid excuse.

Sure will, thanks.