Posted on 10/14/2017 7:15:56 AM PDT by Trump_vs_Evil_Witch
Haven’t heard much from the FBI regarding the shootings, but the whole thing is fluid until the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed.
Until everything is known, every conspiracy theory, and there are more of them every day, is pure conjecture.
Let me know when there is consensus on A SINGLE conspiracy theory here on Free Republic and I’ll get back to you.
So you think he was concerned about return fire.
Too bad it didn’t happen.
But are you trying to prove my point? That there very well should have been return fire? If someone is shooting at me from an upper window, I think I am shooting back. You are worried about the possibility of being 20 feet off the target at 6oo feet and hitting someone in the floor above or below. I’d say you probably have experience with a pistol. Not a scoped rifle.
OK, troll. You might not have noticed that the windows in the Mandalay are floor to ceiling. Do you think you might read a little before running your dainty little fingers on the keyboard?
Maybe you think he trenched into the carpet?
I hope it does blow wide open, since it’s obvious so much is being hidden, and I can understand if suspects are being investigated. But even if there are suspects (alive ones) being investigated, a bit more could easily be made public.
Ping me or something if you hear anything, if you can.
No need to explain to morons. What’s sad is that I have heard or seen that question asked way too much.
Give it to him. Don’t forget to mention if he shoots up the hotel in his pretend assistance and kills an innocent person looking out their hotel window it’s murder 2 and really no help to anyone. That range it was shooting at a heard not aiming. I’m a good hunter but I would not bet anyone’s life on that slot back even with my good rigs.
If the shooter was proned out, he could not get the angle he needed to shoot the fish.
He is pretty clueless but I was just sitting here bored and thought I’d play with him for awhile. I just hope he doesn’t really have a rifle because he’s exactly the type that ends up putting holes where they don’t belong.
Yeah, actually he could. Less than a 15 degree angle of declination was all that was needed. With windows broken out down to the floor his muzzle could have been 3 feet back from the edge and he could still have hit the concert goers. Do the math.
15 degrees? How far was the concert, and how high was the shooter?
Three feet back from the edge would mean he could see the horizon, and that is it.
Shooter could have one of them bend around barrels?
Anton was using 320 feet elevation (32nd floor) and 1300 feet horizontally to the concert (I don’t know what the actual numbers are, I was just using his.) So, approximately 4 feet horizontally for each foot vertically. Same ratio would apply inside the room, so 36 inches back horizontally from the window with about a 9 inch muzzle elevation off the carpet would give a direct line of sight. Any compensation for bullet drop would just reduce that angle.
Often times, the target gets the same line of sight, if they choose to return fire, for whatever reason.
Sometimes, they may be just pissed off at getting fired upon.
You should have read the thread before commenting. Anton was setting up his position 600 feet from the hotel, so not the same lines at all. Anton would have been shooting upwards at a much steeper angle than Paddock was shooting downwards.
The triangle is from the muzzle end, down vertical to the ground, then on the x axis out to the impact zone, then the h axis back to the window. If he is laying back on the carpet, he cannot see the impact zone. He has to protrude the barrel out the window to get on target.
Line of sight from the hotel to the concert is 1300 feet horizontally and 320 feet vertically - or a 4 to 1 ratio. Inside the hotel room it is 36 inches horizontally from the muzzle to the window and 9 inches vertically from the muzzle to the carpet - or a 4 to 1 ratio. Try to picture it in your mind - two triangles both with the same ratios of horizontal to vertical legs - now do you think the third legs of the triangles (the hypotenuses) would be at the same angle?
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.