Question Everything!

It's been two days since we woke up to learn from the media that there was a horrendous massacre in Las Vegas. Within an hour or two we were told that it was Stephen Paddock, and accountant at Lockheed who had a pension, or obsession for gambling and had apparently no apparent motive for holding up in the 32nd floor suite room of the Mandalay Bay hotel for days to prepare for the shooting of hundreds of people attending the country western music concert only a couple blocks away.

Yes, some of the video footage makes it obvious that there was someone shooting an automatic - rapid fire capable - weapon from that high vantage point in order to spray fire down on the crowd below, but does that prove that it was Stephen Paddock doing the firing? Yes, the S.W.A.T. team which breached the room found Paddock dead from an apparent "self-inflicted gun shot wound", but that still doesn't prove that he was firing the weapon.

I'm not trying to defend Paddock, or anyone else for carrying out this heinous act, but what I'm trying to get at here is that all the facts have not yet been gathered about this extremely complex and mysterious event. And, for various reasons, I can't help but feel that we may not ever know the actual facts surrounding this largest mass shooting event in our nation's history. Call me a "conspiracy nut", but my gut tells me that several factors and elements involved in this whole event just don't wash. To help clarify my point, I'm going to list some key questions about it:

1. Why is there STILL no apparent or obvious motive?
2. How is it that this person had no criminal background, or record, that gives any clue about a motive?
3. While his brother in Florida has stated that he wasn't the kind of guy to do something like this, does it seem plausible that, as someone has suggested, that the rise in prescription drugs could be a factor in this case?
4. Why would he possibly need to have 23 different weapons, not to mention the accompanying ammunition necessary for those pieces, in the suite if he was alone?
5. Could he possibly fire even half of those weapons that were found in the suite by the S.W.A.T. team?
6. Why didn't hotel security notice something was "off" in their monitoring of security cameras when seeing him come through the lobby with multiple luggage pieces time after time; much more than a usual hotel patron?
7. Why did it happen that his female friend was out of the country at the time this event went down?
8. Why did he apparently wire $100,000 to the Philippines shortly before the event?
9. Why do we see images of the Mandalay Bay hotel from the outside showing two exterior windows, several yards apart, broken out?
10. Why is ISIS taking credit for this attack?
11. Why is the F.B.I. stating that there is "currently no evidence that Paddock joined ISIS"?
12. Why were there reportedly two video cameras found on that floor; one down the hall from the suite, linked to a monitor in the suite from which the shooting occurred, and another within the suite?
13. Why is there now an audio recording of the S.W.A.T. team released and played on Michael Savage's radio show disclosing that the team confirmed that there was a second shooter in the suite?
14. Is it too far fetched to conjecture that, if ISIS has claimed Paddock was a soldier of theirs, they set him up for this?
15. Is it plausible, given these unanswered questions, that the following might also be a possibility?
1. Paddock was having financial problems from his compulsive gambling.
2. Some other person, or group, or organization posed Paddock as the "patsy" by holding him hostage in the suite, carrying out the massacre of firing on the concert goers, then shooting Paddock and leaving him as the decoy and escaping by some means unknown.
3. The purpose for doing this might possibly be to further stir up division between conservatives and liberals in the country by making it appear as though a white male just decided to kill a bunch of people; reviving the decades long debate over "gun control" even before all the bodies have been taken off the concert grounds given some of the statements already made by some liberals in reaction.

Why do I get a feeling in my gut about this event that too many things just don't add up and that we're, from the media and law enforcement officials on the case, not being told all of what actually happened? Is the truth too revealing that it would most likely unite the country sufficiently when it was learned, to bring about the end of their control? If we do learn of something that makes all of these unanswered questions invalid or moot, then great. I've been barking up the wrong tree, as the saying goes.

But, given the quantity of fake news which we've learned about in just the last year, I can't help but wonder if that as well might be just another made up story for public consumption. 

Update - 10/03/17: New information from the Las Vegas Sheriff's press conference today revealed some information that does change some of my points. However... he also did make a point of supporting my point that it is their suspicion that there most likely was an accomplice to this horrible act and that he intended to escape after he was done killing. It appears that this story is going to play out for many months to come and we may not ever know what motive he may have had for carrying this out.

Update - 10/04/17: New questions are mounting from those who have the skill to think critically about things that don't make sense. While some of them seem bogus to me, there are other questions which reveal some very good points I hadn't even considered. Link #1 / Link #2 / Link #3 / Link #4

Update - 10/5/17: Ann Coulter's posted a new article on this issue. And then, there are those who's countering views use the Occum's Razor premise; that the simplest explanation is most likely correct.