The Las Vegas shooting and evidence of some kind of coordination.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I took this picture from the same vantage point at the foundation room two years ago. Pretty damned close to the alleged shooters nest, and if the shots were fired from there the guy taking the video would have known it. The shots sound relatively close though.

Just what is the backside of the Stage covered with....

is it metal or plywood siding?
or is some fabric, like nylon or canvas stretched out to create a type of wind screen for the rear of the Stage

in either case of material being used... a small hole or tear would allow a beam of light to be seen on the dark flat area of a stage shear wall

however a bright stage light, shining on a fixed spot might be seen as a projected spot of light if the material is fabric instead of a solid sheet of wood or metal of the tall stage wall


just saying

I will admit it does look as if one light nudges the other which is odd but I've no answer other than bug,lens problem or ghost

I can confirm the light is an internal reflection on the camera lens. The reason this is hard to believe for some is because the video is actually stabilized / smoothed, and the light is bouncing according to the original camera shake and movement. Either the camera had a built in digital stabilization, or they stabilized the video with YouTube's built in stabilizer, or some other application.

You can clearly see during big panning movements of the camera, the light will move in the general direction the camera is panning with some margin of difference because the video is stabilized but the light obviously is not and can not be, and because the movement of the light is multiplied by the lens.

originally posted by: ZombieWoof
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I took this picture from the same vantage point at the foundation room two years ago. Pretty damned close to the alleged shooters nest, and if the shots were fired from there the guy taking the video would have known it. The shots sound relatively close though.

Nice photo! At 43 stories though the shooter was actually a few more floors down at 32 and the Hotel curves at an angle on the sides where the shooter was so they still wouldn't have seen them...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

The Mandalay Bay Foundation Room has a balcony surrounding it. The Foundation Room is located only in the center of the building, at the very top. You can find many pics online taken from that balcony.

The clear sound from the ground shows that the video was taken in the open air, on the balcony, not behind glass.

Bingo. That HAS to be the place because if you listen to the sound it's as if they are inside a canyon. They are getting sound reflected from both wings of the hotel in addition to the road. I found the echoes to be the most interesting aspect of the whole video.

Lens flare for me, however I have not seen this footage before and Holy Hell!!
It seems the camera guy has no idea the gunfire is coming from the same building too?

That noise of rounds echoing is damn scary.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As 'soon as I slow it down'...I can see what has taken place quickly. No new artifact is created.

But thanks for the contribution.

***

Slo-mo is never useful in determining what happened very quickly. Got it.

Let the Olympic committee know and the NFL....Kentucky Derby, too.

Olympics and the NFL don't take footage and slow it down the same way because they film at a higher frames per second with 20,000 dollar cameras, not cell phones.

Mythbusters used cameras that recorded something like 60,000 frames per second, this is not the same,

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CynConcepts

What in the actual fuh?

How can people honestly claim they see the camera is panning up, down, in circles, all around, and in sync with the erratic way the *dancing* light is? That light is not even visible all the time in the video much less following the camera panning.

I am willing to abandon this thread, this idea....on ATS.

And abandon ATS. The dancing light is not following the pattern of the camera panning.

Bye guys. Anyone that wants to keep in touch with me knows how to.

Wow, very mature. People disagree with you, so your solution is to leave.

You don't take well to constructive criticism, do you? Ever stop to think you might just be wrong?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Seriously? good grief! I'm a tad surprised at your reaction.
You put out your theory for debate, its been debated, you don't like our own theories so you leave?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Bingo. That HAS to be the place because if you listen to the sound it's as if they are inside a canyon. They are getting sound reflected from both wings of the hotel in addition to the road. I found the echoes to be the most interesting aspect of the whole video.

I've been wondering about those echoes and wishing I knew and understood more about how those echoes would work exactly. It makes sense that echoes would bounce off the walls of the Mandalay and create its own little echo chamber... at least that makes sense to me. But how would the location of the shots fired affect that... and vice versa?

For example, would the shots fired from the window in the adjoining rooms create more of an echo than the shots fired from the window at the end of the building?

Or what if someone was shooting from the venue or another rooftop or the SkyVue towers south of the venue and east of Mandalay Bay... would those echoes be different than shooting from that end window?

I'm not asking you specifically. I have no idea if you know or not! But your comment made me wonder again...

originally posted by: 0x6372756d6273
I can confirm the light is an internal reflection on the camera lens. The reason this is hard to believe for some is because the video is actually stabilized / smoothed, and the light is bouncing according to the original camera shake and movement. Either the camera had a built in digital stabilization, or they stabilized the video with YouTube's built in stabilizer, or some other application.

You can clearly see during big panning movements of the camera, the light will move in the general direction the camera is panning with some margin of difference because the video is stabilized but the light obviously is not and can not be, and because the movement of the light is multiplied by the lens.

May I ask how you can confirm that without actually examining the camera, etc? I'm not doubting your expertise... you sound like you know what you're talking about, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I have watched the videos numerous times -- both the original and MME's slowed down version -- and the lights do not follow the camera view. The light even goes out of view and/or disappears entirely at times. In my very amateur knowledge, I would think that if it was a defect in the camera or filming, that the spot would remain in the exact same position of the camera view at all times.

What am I missing???

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As 'soon as I slow it down'...I can see what has taken place quickly. No new artifact is created.

But thanks for the contribution.

***

Slo-mo is never useful in determining what happened very quickly. Got it.

Let the Olympic committee know and the NFL....Kentucky Derby, too.

Olympics and the NFL don't take footage and slow it down the same way because they film at a higher frames per second with 20,000 dollar cameras, not cell phones.

Mythbusters used cameras that recorded something like 60,000 frames per second, this is not the same,

So, if the olympics and ky derby had cameras that were cellphone quality, then they would not bother with slow motion as it would not be useful?

In the past, before 20,000+ frames per second was available, they never used slo-mo?

originally posted by: 0x6372756d6273
I can confirm the light is an internal reflection on the camera lens. The reason this is hard to believe for some is because the video is actually stabilized / smoothed, and the light is bouncing according to the original camera shake and movement. Either the camera had a built in digital stabilization, or they stabilized the video with YouTube's built in stabilizer, or some other application.

You can clearly see during big panning movements of the camera, the light will move in the general direction the camera is panning with some margin of difference because the video is stabilized but the light obviously is not and can not be, and because the movement of the light is multiplied by the lens.

Now That is an interesting perspective that deserves a closer look. I was actually thinking something similar somewhere along the way 5 or 10 mins ago but i didn't have the technical knowhow to be able to know if that was possible, or if I would even have been able to explain it.

But, if one light does indeed trade places with the other, then the whole lens explanation is blown out of the water, correct? Also, why, if lens reflection, is one light stationary at all to begin with? Shouldn't they both be moving if the camera and therefore it's lens, is moving? Or it's just a coincidence the stationary light happens to look exactly like the "lens flare"? And that the lens flare just happens to pass directly over it?

originally posted by: St Udio
Just what is the backside of the Stage covered with....

is it metal or plywood siding?
or is some fabric, like nylon or canvas stretched out to create a type of wind screen for the rear of the Stage

in either case of material being used... a small hole or tear would allow a beam of light to be seen on the dark flat area of a stage shear wall

however a bright stage light, shining on a fixed spot might be seen as a projected spot of light if the material is fabric instead of a solid sheet of wood or metal of the tall stage wall


just saying

The stage "walls" are of a mesh-type fabric that allows air and light through. This can be seen here in a photo taken a day after the festival. www.thenational.ae...

On stage are all sorts of pieces of equipment that have lights to indicate whether the equipment is on and several of the crew members may have had small sources of light to be able to see the equipment they were operating---the sound guy, the lights guy, etc. Many of the guys I know use those little clip-on LED lights to be able to see their sound board. Those lights would not be dimmed when the main light system is shut down. One of those lights could easily be the source of the stationary light.

It seems to me that Ox637... gave a very logical explanation when he opined that the stabilization process explains the jittery nature of the "dancing light." The fact that it "dances" everywhere---on the same plane---throughout the video tells me that it is an artifact of photography.

The fact that there are about a dozen police in that very area by the end of the video suggests that if the gunfire had been coming from the "towers" they would have been casting their lights in that direction. There were at least three police cars parked between the stage area and the "towers" on Mandalay Bay Rd. by the end of the video. There are also a number of police cars parked along S. LV Blvd. in direct line of sight to the towers. It would seem that those officers would have heard the shots coming from the towers, reported it and called for SWAT.

It just seems to me that every time the shooting starts, the guy with the camera pans to his left, like he thinks that is the source of the sounds but keeps wondering where the shots are coming from because they can't see the flash of fire. If at this time the shooter is at the window in the suite, they wouldn't have been able to see the flash since they were at the center of the building and some distance above the fire.

I apologize for being flaky. There is plenty of record, on ATS, of me conceding to well-made points (I've even retracted my own comments & thoughts upon further consideration), so I take exception to the accusation that I am simply unhappy with contradictory view points and ran off sulking. That’s crap.

The truth is, I am burnt out — regardless of this thread — after the last two weeks.

I am willing to accept that the *dancing light* is simply light reflected in the camera lens and the *dance* effect is a pre-stabilization artifact.

AND, I assume the same explanation serves for this other video -- also taken from the top of the Mandalay Bay (Foundation Room balcony) -- by someone clearly near the people heard in the recording I posted in the OP. Sure the light travels upward and completely opposite the direction the camera travels...but, hey, it's gotta be a camera lens reflection.

Approximately :03 (in the dark part of the back of the venue field) ZOOM IN:


A truncated screen recording...the best I could capture. Slowed down to .25:


***

That said, I still accept the destabilization artifact is the best explanation in the thread. And I accept it as the most probable explanation for BOTH videos showing a dancing light bouncing around the venue.

***

I am sure I will eventually return to ATS, but I just need a serious and long break. Again, I apologize for being flaky. However, I am not sure it can be definitively stated that I am “wrong,” but I’ll defer to the destabilization explanation.

uh..not at all lens flare to me.
Lens flare even in shaky footage is more
elegant than this. Because it's light on axis.
This jitters and changes direction in ways
I've never seen w lens flare.
Those lights are on the crowd and backdrop.

a reply to: Boadicea

To be more clear, it is not a camera defect. It is a reflection inside the camera lenses originating from a bright light in the environment.

Once you understand the nature of internal reflections, and how they move, you can clearly see that this is one with no outside help. You can even pinpoint the exact light that is causing the reflection, and you can also see all the other reflections in the video as well (there is not only one).

Watch this video in full:


Take note, in the above video the reflection(s) will always orbit around the light source, and either move towards or away from the source when the camera moves. Also, any time the camera points directly at the source the reflection(s) will align on top of the source.

This also happens in the OP's video. The "dancing light" in question moves in relation to the camera movement and one of the bright light sources in the video which is creating the reflection. The light always orbits around and moves toward or away from the source.

See this video I created:
streamable.com...

In the above video I circled the most probable light sources in blue, and their internal reflections in red. You can see the relationship between the sources, the reflections, and the camera movement. Anytime the camera moves up the reflections move up towards the sources, and when the camera moves left the reflections move to the left away from the sources.

There are actually a lot more "dancing lights" in the video that I don't have time to point out or track, but you can find them if you look around the brightest lights in the scene.

I hope this helps.

a reply to: 0x6372756d6273

The best explanation in the thread.

Not sure it explains what I am seeing in both the videos I posted, but it's better than "flying bugs."

a reply to: abeverage

Actually that is the floor the shooter was allegedly on and the area (according to every photo I've seen). And his room would be visible from the Foundation Room balcony (like ZombieWoof's pic indicates)...

...and like all of these photos indicate, too:



Also, the hotel doesn't curve. It has three straight arms. The Foundation Room is only in the center portion, at the very top. There is nothing at the top in the 'arms.'