California Shootings Elliot Rodger Conspiracy.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Apparently It's impossible to prove that Adrianne Haslet-Davis lost her leg, but it's easy to see she was a "crisis actor".

Now what about that bike?

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: RKWWWW
How does the bicycle fit into the story? Was one of the victims on that bike?

Rodgers hit two cyclists with his vehicle. The second one crashed into his windshield, he crashed the car and law enforcement found him dead inside with a gunshot wound to the head. The cyclist lived but was injured and I don't think he has been identified yet in the media.

I'm still waiting to hear a remotely plausible alternative theory about what happened in which moving the bicycle after the fact would have any significance (if in fact that even happened.)

Do we know that the bike in the picture was one the victim was riding? We can speculate all we want, but we will be doing it blindly since we are not privy to how the crime scene investigation was conducted. Out of ignorance we can senselessly send ourselves down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. Is that how to investigate a possible conspiracy?

originally posted by: RKWWWW

Do we know that the bike in the picture was one the victim was riding? We can speculate all we want, but we will be doing it blindly since we are not privy to how the crime scene investigation was conducted. Out of ignorance we can senselessly send ourselves down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. Is that how to investigate a possible conspiracy?

I agree. It seems highly unlikely to me that the bicycle in the news photos is not the one involved in the final accident of Rodger's vehicle but as you say I guess we can't say for certain from this vantage point.

And neither can those suggesting the position of the bicycle in photos is evidence of conspiracy.

The way you would investigate a possible conspiracy involving the position of the bike would certainly start with contacting people who were actually there such as the photographer(s) news reporters, witnesses and law enforcement.

But my forecast is this won't happen and this item will simply become part of the "evidence" for truther discussions of this incident.

I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: RKWWWW
How does the bicycle fit into the story? Was one of the victims on that bike?

Rodgers hit two cyclists with his vehicle. The second one crashed into his windshield, he crashed the car and law enforcement found him dead inside with a gunshot wound to the head. The cyclist lived but was injured and I don't think he has been identified yet in the media.

I'm still waiting to hear a remotely plausible alternative theory about what happened in which moving the bicycle after the fact would have any significance (if in fact that even happened.)

My opinion, and its only that, though it is logical, is that the bike had to be moved to remove the body, then was returned for scene photos.

Again, this is only my opinion.

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Because the ones that generally tend to happen are relatively minor. They need big headlines. One criminal shooting another criminal over a drug deal gone bad isn't enough to get people whipped up into the emotional hysteria they need.

They need ultra innocent victims who were just minding their own business. I would bet that most people who get shot are blatantly involved in crime.

But I'll tell you what. Even if these events are not staged or manufactured in any way, shape or form, the MSM and their political associates are definitely amplifying them far beyond their true significance. So, no matter what else you want to say about it, the media is completely biased. They are manufacturing opinion even if they are not manufacturing the events themselves.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Because the ones that generally tend to happen are relatively minor. They need big headlines. One criminal shooting another criminal over a drug deal gone bad isn't enough to get people whipped up into the emotional hysteria they need.

They need ultra innocent victims who were just minding their own business. I would bet that most people who get shot are blatantly involved in crime.

But I'll tell you what. Even if these events are not staged or manufactured in any way, shape or form, the MSM and their political associates are definitely amplifying them far beyond their true significance. So, no matter what else you want to say about it, the media is completely biased. They are manufacturing opinion even if they are not manufacturing the events themselves.

About a moth ago there was a mass shooting in Georgia at a FedEx facility. The news of it broke early in the morning. Thankfully, none of the shooter's victims died. But when the story broke no one knew that. And at the time all three networks had news crews all over the south because of recent storms.

But none of the network morning shows reported on it. It didn't even appear in the crawl. It was mentioned in the local news break. But without any video. NPR put it in the news wrap. Cable covered it a bit more. But not wall-to-wall like they often do with these events.

Why?

The only thing I could think of was FedEx spends a lot of money on commercials. And no one wanted to show a building with a big FedEx sign on it with a lower third reading "mass shooting". Maybe there was another reason. But, somehow, the networks collectively decided to give this very little coverage as a breaking event.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Because the ones that generally tend to happen are relatively minor. They need big headlines. One criminal shooting another criminal over a drug deal gone bad isn't enough to get people whipped up into the emotional hysteria they need.

They need ultra innocent victims who were just minding their own business. I would bet that most people who get shot are blatantly involved in crime.

But I'll tell you what. Even if these events are not staged or manufactured in any way, shape or form, the MSM and their political associates are definitely amplifying them far beyond their true significance. So, no matter what else you want to say about it, the media is completely biased. They are manufacturing opinion even if they are not manufacturing the events themselves.

Modern history is replete with mass shootings. Google Charles Starkweather and Charles Whitman, just for starters. Were those manufactured by the Government to promote gun control? Am I expected to believe that all of a sudden those real, regularly occurring events disappeared and were replaced by elaborate, government hoaxes? And what about mass shootings and mass killings in other countries who's government neither has, nor needs, an anti-gun agenda?

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Conspiracy because the people involved in the shooting always push to soon after shootings to ban guns...
I seen it in my own country, Now I see it happen in the US.

Not sure if this site has been mentioned...The photo page might come in handy

crisisactors.org...

originally posted by: amraks

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Conspiracy because the people involved in the shooting always push to soon after shootings to ban guns...
I seen it in my own country, Now I see it happen in the US.

How soon a person pushes after a shooting to ban guns is subjective not objective. You may think it too soon, others may not. Also the threshold of what is considered too soon is not static, it can change depending on any number of societal factors. After all, we do live in a world where everyone spills their guts to the world early and often. I hardly think think litmus test for determining if an event was a hoax or not should be how soon the victims family makes a public appearance and issues a plea for gun control.

originally posted by: trig_grl
Not sure if this site has been mentioned...The photo page might come in handy

crisisactors.org...

The Crisis Actors organization is a private company (not a government entity) which supplies trained actors to simulate various types of disasters in order to improve the efficiency of first responders and other officials in responding to various emergencies. As noted on the Crisis Actors web site, their actors do not engage in any real-world crisis events, nor do they allow their performances to be presented at any time as real-world events.

I'm pretty sure that a real hoax would not employ actors from a firm who places pictures of their employees on line for the world to see.

originally posted by: amraks

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Conspiracy because the people involved in the shooting always push to soon after shootings to ban guns...
I seen it in my own country, Now I see it happen in the US.

It had to happen fast.

They NEED to get your guns ASAP.

Imagine what would happen if a Fukushima event happened in Chicago or LA.

The mass exodus of 10 or 20 million ARMED Americans won't be as controllable as the Japanese have been from Fukushima.

How are the rest of the population going to react to an onslaught of desperate evacuees?

Hurricane Katrina is a tiny glimpse of the mayhem that will ensue.

It doesn't bear thinking.

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: amraks

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Conspiracy because the people involved in the shooting always push to soon after shootings to ban guns...
I seen it in my own country, Now I see it happen in the US.

How soon a person pushes after a shooting to ban guns is subjective not objective. You may think it too soon, others may not. Also the threshold of what is considered too soon is not static, it can change depending on any number of societal factors. After all, we do live in a world where everyone spills their guts to the world early and often. I hardly think think litmus test for determining if an event was a hoax or not should be how soon the victims family makes a public appearance and issues a plea for gun control.

take this in for a fact after 1 massacre in Australia they called for a gun law and made a gun laws stronger in that week..
Now that was one episode of a rare shooting to occur only in the sleepy state of Tasmania.

The only state with a morgue van capable of holding 22 people. when Tasmania had a shooting statistic of 6 per a year at the time of the van was bought, these 6 murders did not occur in the same place or time.

The only Police in the remote area were called to a fake heroin stash that's a hour away, turned out to be soap in a jar. this hoax drug call is the only one reported in Tasmania history.

The senior staff of the historic site were sent to a seminar in Swansea that day people that were a value to the historic site.

The shooter was shooting from his right hip firing 20 bullets into 19 victims in the matter of seconds, Martin Bryant was left handed.

The shooter managed to knock off all rounds and leave one still in the barrel for his escape.

The Hobart medical staff were doing a trauma exercise on "Gun shot wounds" that day, after it had finished the fatal shooting occurred, the medical staff doing this were home for 5 mins, when they got the call out.

3 Helicopters available when there is only 1 ever available any other day.

Evidence was destroyed, the weapon that was used in the massacre the barrels were destroyed.
this could of happened 2 ways from a breach in the chamber, but if this had occurred the shooter would have a injured hand, Martin Bryant had none of this.
Or the fire that occurred at seascape cottage.

Martin Bryant's IQ 66

Do see why its important to investigate a incident were they are pushing for tougher gun laws.
Why Australia after 1 incident did they ban guns, look at it the thing was setup.

This is why its important to analyses the victims family, their emotions and how they conduct interviews after the event.
The kids shot in Port Arthur were sisters with their Mother, The Father survived I don't think he had a interview, I think someone spoke on his behalf.

This is my problem with the guy depicted in the video, his not genuine, his campaigning gun control with writing speeches.. He should be writing speeches for his dead son's funeral, not rambling on about gun control.

And who specifically are the ones supposedly faking these incidents in the U.S.? The Republicans are almost all pro-gun and wouldn't be involved. Are the Democrats doing this without the Republicans getting a whiff of what's going on? Or some more nefarious conspiracy once again able to do this without any of the many rabidly pro-gun elements in the establishment catching on despite this being "exposed" all over youtube and the rest of the internet?

And if there is a conspiracy hoaxing spree shooting for the purpose of changing public opinion they're doing a terrible job. They would need a lot more Sandy Hooks on a regular basis to accomplish anything. A lot more.

As for this latest incident why just 6 dead and three by stabbing?? Why not 20 dead? Why not 30? If they're capable of faking these attacks at will? That would have had a lot bigger media impact.

originally posted by: starviego

What happened to the back window of the black jeep Elliot allegedly ran into?

The window is GONE. Every last bit of it. No shards, no pieces.

Thanks for pointing that out. Of course it proves nothing. Which I guess you already stated, you are not trying to prove anything just pointing out things.

originally posted by: amraks

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: amraks

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I've asked those who are pimping this event out as a conspiracy,' just exactly would be the purpose of the conspiracy' ? It was orchestrated to promote gun control, they say. Really? Are there not thousands of events per year happening as our society de-evolves? Do "they" really need to shoot their freaking wad manufacturing more? What part of that seems rational?

Conspiracy because the people involved in the shooting always push to soon after shootings to ban guns...
I seen it in my own country, Now I see it happen in the US.

How soon a person pushes after a shooting to ban guns is subjective not objective. You may think it too soon, others may not. Also the threshold of what is considered too soon is not static, it can change depending on any number of societal factors. After all, we do live in a world where everyone spills their guts to the world early and often. I hardly think think litmus test for determining if an event was a hoax or not should be how soon the victims family makes a public appearance and issues a plea for gun control.

take this in for a fact after 1 massacre in Australia they called for a gun law and made a gun laws stronger in that week..
Now that was one episode of a rare shooting to occur only in the sleepy state of Tasmania.

The only state with a morgue van capable of holding 22 people. when Tasmania had a shooting statistic of 6 per a year at the time of the van was bought, these 6 murders did not occur in the same place or time.

The only Police in the remote area were called to a fake heroin stash that's a hour away, turned out to be soap in a jar. this hoax drug call is the only one reported in Tasmania history.

The senior staff of the historic site were sent to a seminar in Swansea that day people that were a value to the historic site.

The shooter was shooting from his right hip firing 20 bullets into 19 victims in the matter of seconds, Martin Bryant was left handed.

The shooter managed to knock off all rounds and leave one still in the barrel for his escape.

The Hobart medical staff were doing a trauma exercise on "Gun shot wounds" that day, after it had finished the fatal shooting occurred, the medical staff doing this were home for 5 mins, when they got the call out.

3 Helicopters available when there is only 1 ever available any other day.

Evidence was destroyed, the weapon that was used in the massacre the barrels were destroyed.
this could of happened 2 ways from a breach in the chamber, but if this had occurred the shooter would have a injured hand, Martin Bryant had none of this.
Or the fire that occurred at seascape cottage.

Martin Bryant's IQ 66

Do see why its important to investigate a incident were they are pushing for tougher gun laws.
Why Australia after 1 incident did they ban guns, look at it the thing was setup.

This is why its important to analyses the victims family, their emotions and how they conduct interviews after the event.
The kids shot in Port Arthur were sisters with their Mother, The Father survived I don't think he had a interview, I think someone spoke on his behalf.

This is my problem with the guy depicted in the video, his not genuine, his campaigning gun control with writing speeches.. He should be writing speeches for his dead son's funeral, not rambling on about gun control.

Did anyone actually die at that massacre?

a reply to: RKWWWW

Problem with that picture is, I already explained it.

Simple physics dictates that if the BMW hit the Jeep hard enough to blow out the window, that the jeep would have moved in the process.

Now, look at the shattered glass on the ground next to the BMW. It is tinted, meaning it is not from the from windshield, and there is too much there to be a side window. Leaving only the option that it belonged to the back window of the jeep, which was moved forward on impact, leaving the glass next to the BMW.

I find it all fascinating. I have been following the thread but I might
have missed something...is there a photo showing damage to the
back of the SUV (besides the glass on the ground) & front end damage
to the BMW?
I would think there would be impact damage on both vehicles & especially
to blow a window?
I'm not stirring the pot either way...I'm just curious. Thank you.

Cheers
Ektar

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: RKWWWW

Problem with that picture is, I already explained it.

Simple physics dictates that if the BMW hit the Jeep hard enough to blow out the window, that the jeep would have moved in the process.

Now, look at the shattered glass on the ground next to the BMW. It is tinted, meaning it is not from the from windshield, and there is too much there to be a side window. Leaving only the option that it belonged to the back window of the jeep, which was moved forward on impact, leaving the glass next to the BMW.

You are interpreting quite a lot from photos. You may not have all the information needed from the scene to interpret it correctly. If it IS as obvious as you see it, it must be overwhelmingly obvious to the professionals conducting the investigation. That's what I'm really interested in seeing, the report.