Two Eyewitnesses Affirm CA Shooters were 3 WHITE MaleS

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Watch the video I posted and you will see that people identified the wrong number of perpetrators in the fake robbery. Its the first segment of the video so you don't need to watch the entire 50 minutes.

a reply to: mandelaeffect

It was stated on the news the facility was built only 6 years ago and was covered in surveillance cameras.

a reply to: roadgravel

It was reported on Sky News in the UK that there were three shooters hours after it happened. There was even a point where the cameras were following police searching a specific neighbourhood for the third shooter.

Could be the three attackers are gone and the couple were phase two but were killed before their attack. The friends in the garage might have been the three and phase one.

a reply to: ChosenCorbyn

Yeah that was what I was referencing earlier. During that time they had people claiming someone had fired shots from a roof and officers were going door to door. They even interviewed a woman who locked herself in her closet on the telephone when she heard the shots fired near her.

originally posted by: ChosenCorbyn
It was reported on Sky News in the UK that there were three shooters hours after it happened. There was even a point where the cameras were following police searching a specific neighbourhood for the third shooter.

They didn't know if it was 2 or 3, like a driver in the getaway SUV, so for a short time they made sure there was only two.

a reply to: roadgravel

I had considered this myself. Also the whole idea of them being patsies. Some provocateur nudges them to make preparations and to be in the right place at the right time for a shoot out. All the while the event is pulled off by others who get away. It seemed to me that none of the pipe bombs actually worked is that correct? I recall statements that alluded to that. Kind of like sending them out with blanks.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: mandelaeffect

Good finds!

Here's an article from a small journal that discusses the "third shooter". News Article on Third Shooter

She ends the article with this update:

In regards to the 3rd shooter that has left out of the media reports of late, I grew up about 30 minutes west of the shooting. My brother currently lives in San Bernardino off of the 215 and waterman. (up the hill a little) I live in San Clemente CA, but still have friends and family in the area. Last night I spoke with a friend who has friends in local law enforcement. The inside source said that there indeed was a 3rd shooter and the whole situation is still active. The media is no longer talking about it because they don't want to alarm the public, but the inside source did warn my friend to avoid crowded areas such as malls and theaters in the days to come. Everyone needs to be very aware of their surroundings.

It does seem that the media's choice to go with the 'Angry Extremist Muslim Coworker and his Wife' storyline, totally eliminated the ability to inject a third shooter into the public portrayal of the event, lest they could place a relative or accomplice at the scene of the massacre that was actually related to Farook and/or Malik in some capacity, such as faith or background'

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Watch the video I posted and you will see that people identified the wrong number of perpetrators in the fake robbery. Its the first segment of the video so you don't need to watch the entire 50 minutes.

All things considered, I find it highly implausible that a witness would confuse two people getting into a vehicle with three. In one situation two doors would be opened and the other would require a backseat door to be opened OR three people squeezing into a front seat.

These are events that would easily be recalled as far as recalling how many suspects actually got into the vehicle -- which is the main thing the first witness in the OP actually saw.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: mandelaeffect

It was stated on the news the facility was built only 6 years ago and was covered in surveillance cameras.

Officials are definitely HIDING something then! Reckon all we have to go on is recorded eyewitness testimony as well as CSI although even that was sabotaged my allowing media to trash their domicile less than 48hrs after this 'terror attack'.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

I think there is more to this and it's being changed for multiple reasons. I have a difficult time believing the authorities in today's world. Too many things are constantly foggy with the official lines.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Watch the video I posted and you will see that people identified the wrong number of perpetrators in the fake robbery. Its the first segment of the video so you don't need to watch the entire 50 minutes.

All things considered, I find it highly implausible that a witness would confuse two people getting into a vehicle with three. In one situation two doors would be opened and the other would require a backseat door to be opened OR three people squeezing into a front seat.

These are events that would easily be recalled as far as recalling how many suspects actually got into the vehicle -- which is the main thing the first witness in the OP actually saw.

Which is precisely why eyewitness testimony is so easily discredited in a court room. How people react under stressful conditions is all over the map, as far as perception is concerned.

"Refusing to believe" it is both ignorant and dismissive of human nature.

The third shooter was obama I heard.

I was watch the coverage on nbc and fox, after the shooting and then after the black suv was taken. The whole time the reporters were saying there were three shooters and possibly a get away driver. Once the suv was stopped, the reported one suspect ran and was apprehended and in custody. Who was this? Where did he go? Why is there no mention of the three shooters that witnesses had reported? I'm starting to see through the cracks more and more.

Even the two eyewitnesses in the OP can't seem to agree. One described them as having military fatigues on. The other says they had on black military clothing and were wearing long sleeve shirts with gloves and hats, and never saw faces, but apparently saw enough to state they were all white? How?

First it's an impala, then it's an SUV, but not a specific model? Seems to know his cars well enough to know an impala but not an SUV so...?

What about the witnesses that said the shooters were wearing ski masks? Are we just ignoring them? Do they not fit the narrative we want to push here? What about the witness that named Farook as a likely suspect within minutes of law enforcement arriving on scene? Dismissing that one too?

It does seem like impala slipped off the first witnesses tongue while he was trying to think of a particular model of SUV then the woman beside him said a small car then he said no just an SUV.

both witnesses describe black military clothing in general so i find it intriguing even that commonality would be disputed. obviously they weren't covered head to to lest how would they see? (i dont even know what fatigues look like)

all three being tall males is key. to picture Mrs Malik as fitting that profile is quite a stretch to say the least.

And there was a third suspect in the OKC bombing too.

a reply to: Shamrock6
While I understand the point being made about eye witness testimony---if all the witnesses' accounts agree---all those interviewed said there were three people---how could it be discounted? Simply because one witness couldn't identify the make of a vehicle---he couldn't count to three? How is that logical? Can you find eye witnesses who contradict the "three people dressed in military gear" report and say, "Nah, there were only two."? Did anyone report that---except the police---after the shooting of the occupants of the SUV.

During all this arguments about the number of suspects---well after the two were shot---I was flashing back to the Oklahoma City bombing when I was listening live on the radio to law enforcement telling the media that they were looking for two suspects, one white male and one middle-eastern male. Then, as in this case, when the white male was apprehended, they pretended he was the lone suspect all along. If memory serves me there was even a sketch of a John Doe #2 which was circulated by law enforcement.

originally posted by: mandelaeffect

It does seem like impala slipped off the first witnesses tongue while he was trying to think of a particular model of SUV then the woman beside him said a small car then he said no just an SUV.

both witnesses describe black military clothing in general so i find it intriguing even that commonality would be disputed. obviously they weren't covered head to to lest how would they see? (i dont even know what fatigues look like)

all three being tall males is key. to picture Mrs Malik as fitting that profile is quite a stretch to say the least.

Ahhh but both witnesses don't describe black military fatigues. Both witnesses describe military type clothing, only one says "black military type clothing." The other says "military fatigues."

See how quickly perception and memory can be challenged?

a reply to: diggindirt

All the witnesses don't agree.

Full stop. End of point.

ETA - to clarify: some witnesses said three shooters. Got it. From that point forward, they don't agree. This is by no means saying there isn't anything going on here with the third person. I want to know who it was that fled on foot and was taken in to custody, and why, and what happened with that.

But I don't think two witness accounts that have some degree of similarity is a smoking gun of a coverup.