Third San Bernardino Shooter?

a reply to: woodsmom

How does the description of the suspect change so drastically? They were looking for a bearded man in tactical shorts. Later on, right before I had to shut the scanner off, they were pursuing the Hispanic male in an orange shirt. I understand people can change clothes but it doesn't seem as if it's the same person still.

There was a lot going on, but if I recall correctly from listening to the scanners, those folks were reported as suspicious to be checked out... not necessarily suspects.

a reply to: Zarniwoop

Thank you.
There was a lot going on in my house too, so I really was unsure.

a reply to: FamCore

Its not ours to know the truth, we're only supposed to believe the Government line as presented by the MSM outlets.

Who you gonna believe, the truth as promulgated by the MSM or the eye witnesses lying eyes?

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Agreed mainly because some of those witness's were not directly involved and could observe more objectively.

And I would also argue that if any witnesses saw only one or two suspects, that does not discount there was a third one elsewhere or out of their view.

Kind of like the third person in the OKC bombing, third guy doesn't exist so the story goes.

In a lot of these Mass shootings, things seem to be covered up a lot. I think it is because somewhere in the past some influential official or individual was associated with the people involved. Also if there was a reason that these shooters should have been caught, law enforcement often tells little fibs about things. Mistakes are made before, during, and after these kinds of events and are often covered up. It does not mean the coverup is actually relevant to anything, but it narrows our vision to what they want us to see.

I do recall when there was the stand-off with the SUV that there was a "third suspect on foot". But soon after it was stated on the scanner that the person was unrelated to shootings. Probably someone running away from a scene with lots of bullets flying (?)

Since the perpetrators are dead and no trial is to be had then seems no reason surviving witnesses should be silent.

So why no extensive surviving witness interviews in media?

WND is still reporting on it.

www.wnd.com...

They also raise some other questions like why was Farook's apartment opened to the media only two days after the attack, before all the evidence could be documented properly? They also ask since the shooting was at a government center, shouldn't there be surveillance video?

They also ask if Farook's mother was involved, since she lived with him and his home had a dozen pipe bombs, rifles, and 4,500 rounds of ammunition. You would think that at some point she would have said "Honey, what are you doing with all these pipes and guns?"

They also raise questions about the FBI caving in to PC and manipulation from the Obama administration.

It's a great article, give it a look.

a reply to: TonyS

I guess I am choosing to remain open minded about what really happened and I don't have a solid conclusion. I do not believe the whole official story, since a lot doesn't add up. That I know for sure

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, agreed.

Just want to say, I don't often jump to conspiracy on these events quickly. Takes me a while to absorb everything and get to a point it is the only possibility for me. 911 was to obvious so didn't take long. Sandy Hook was very slow for me and for a long time ignored it until I decided to take a look at all the evidence of dissenters. Within the last year I have become a 'believer'. Guess after a while the inconsistencies become obvious and they are often repeated in similar fashion each time.

I could be wrong but...
Isn't Pamela Geller, the writer of the article, the person
who put on the Muhamned drawing contest that led to a Texas shooting ?
Of course she starts off by saying she dislikes Conspiracy Theories.
Isn't inviting terror slightly treasonous ?

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, agreed.

Just want to say, I don't often jump to conspiracy on these events quickly. Takes me a while to absorb everything and get to a point it is the only possibility for me. 911 was to obvious so didn't take long. Sandy Hook was very slow for me and for a long time ignored it until I decided to take a look at all the evidence of dissenters. Within the last year I have become a 'believer'. Guess after a while the inconsistencies become obvious and they are often repeated in similar fashion each time.

I'd love to see an investigation into the suspects that I believe have the means, motive, and opportunity to be pulling off some of these mass-killings and/or psyops/false flags. But that's not going to happen. I'd love to have a collection of evidence to sift through. But we'll never get that.

What do we have? Circumstantial evidence -- and it's not something to sneeze at. It's abundantly clear who is gaining the most from certain politicized mass-killings that saturate the media. Motive is usually the first thing criminal investigators look at.

I am not embarrassed to say that I question most of these type events -- based purely on circumstantial evidence.

I'd venture to guess that psyops/false flag mass-killings have become a tried and true method of shaping public opinion and can also be conveniently used to off witnesses and destroy evidence of other crimes (as in 9/11). I suspect it's such a successful tool, 'they' use it often. Why wouldn't they? It's not like they have ethical standards and they aren't spending their own money to pull tricks on the public. They're sticking us with the bill.

I am sure getting away with these things is a huge boost to the ego.

My guess would be all the people on this thread tying to say this is some indication of something nefarious have never played Whisper Down the Lane ?

originally posted by: opethPA
My guess would be all the people on this thread tying to say this is some indication of something nefarious have never played Whisper Down the Lane ?

What do firsthand eyewitness accounts have to do with facts getting twisted as they are relayed from one person to the next?

In the game of Whisper Down the Lane, the eyewitnesses in this case would be the person who whispers the original message.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: opethPA
My guess would be all the people on this thread tying to say this is some indication of something nefarious have never played Whisper Down the Lane ?

What do firsthand eyewitness accounts have to do with facts getting twisted as they are relayed from one person to the next?

In the game of Whisper Down the Lane, the eyewitnesses in this case would be the person who whispers the original message.

Whisper down the lane shows that different people report different things based on a multitude of reasons and that is under a controlled non-chaotic scenario. Factor in the chaos of a shooting and what one group of people see at a given point is going to be different than what other groups of people see..

Or maybe you dont even need to be that complex..common sense would say that in a world where everyone wants instant gratification information changes as a scenario plays out.

All you needed was 1 person claiming they saw 3 people shooting and that gets reported as breaking info which other people, social media, news sources then repeat and it becomes viewed as fact.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, agreed.

Just want to say, I don't often jump to conspiracy on these events quickly. Takes me a while to absorb everything and get to a point it is the only possibility for me. 911 was to obvious so didn't take long. Sandy Hook was very slow for me and for a long time ignored it until I decided to take a look at all the evidence of dissenters. Within the last year I have become a 'believer'. Guess after a while the inconsistencies become obvious and they are often repeated in similar fashion each time.

I'd love to see an investigation into the suspects that I believe have the means, motive, and opportunity to be pulling off some of these mass-killings and/or psyops/false flags. But that's not going to happen. I'd love to have a collection of evidence to sift through. But we'll never get that.

What do we have? Circumstantial evidence -- and it's not something to sneeze at. It's abundantly clear who is gaining the most from certain politicized mass-killings that saturate the media. Motive is usually the first thing criminal investigators look at.

I am not embarrassed to say that I question most of these type events -- based purely on circumstantial evidence.

I'd venture to guess that psyops/false flag mass-killings have become a tried and true method of shaping public opinion and can also be conveniently used to off witnesses and destroy evidence of other crimes (as in 9/11). I suspect it's such a successful tool, 'they' use it often. Why wouldn't they? It's not like they have ethical standards and they aren't spending their own money to pull tricks on the public. They're sticking us with the bill.

I am sure getting away with these things is a huge boost to the ego.

No reason to be embarrassed. You just learn a little faster than I. Sandy Hook was probably cognitive dissonance for me. Too horrible. Had to look at all the evidence at one time for it to sink in. Then I was overwhelmed by the scope of it. There were pieces of evidence that were wholly explainable and others...too strong to deny.

Third Boston bomber, still not sure. Can't tell if it is the same person or not but certainly could have been someone that wanted to make sure the scene was significantly horrific.

Something definitely off with James Holmes. Who sits and waits for police?

Seems the agencies behind this keep doing the same thing hoping for different results. There will always bring fear of loss of gun rights for some and call for gun removal by gov. Since Obama's agenda (and others) is to remove guns we have had an unprecedented number of incidents getting closer together to increase fear in the population.

What I don't understand is how so many people never never question.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: opethPA
My guess would be all the people on this thread tying to say this is some indication of something nefarious have never played Whisper Down the Lane ?

What do firsthand eyewitness accounts have to do with facts getting twisted as they are relayed from one person to the next?

In the game of Whisper Down the Lane, the eyewitnesses in this case would be the person who whispers the original message.

Whisper down the lane shows that different people report different things based on a multitude of reasons and that is under a controlled non-chaotic scenario. Factor in the chaos of a shooting and what one group of people see at a given point is going to be different than what other groups of people see..

Or maybe you dont even need to be that complex..common sense would say that in a world where everyone wants instant gratification information changes as a scenario plays out.

All you needed was 1 person claiming they saw 3 people shooting and that gets reported as breaking info which other people, social media, news sources then repeat and it becomes viewed as fact.

Apples to oranges. Whisper down the lane shows how information gets distorted as it's filtered from one person to the next. The idea is that everyone in the game is a "witness" to something different than the person before them 'witnessed:' a slightly different message.

As I said, I can see getting race or gender wrong, but not the number of people holding guns when that number is only three.

a reply to: AnonymousRider

I was wondering about this myself. At one point they said it was believed to be Farook's brother?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: opethPA
My guess would be all the people on this thread tying to say this is some indication of something nefarious have never played Whisper Down the Lane ?

What do firsthand eyewitness accounts have to do with facts getting twisted as they are relayed from one person to the next?

In the game of Whisper Down the Lane, the eyewitnesses in this case would be the person who whispers the original message.

Whisper down the lane shows that different people report different things based on a multitude of reasons and that is under a controlled non-chaotic scenario. Factor in the chaos of a shooting and what one group of people see at a given point is going to be different than what other groups of people see..

Or maybe you dont even need to be that complex..common sense would say that in a world where everyone wants instant gratification information changes as a scenario plays out.

All you needed was 1 person claiming they saw 3 people shooting and that gets reported as breaking info which other people, social media, news sources then repeat and it becomes viewed as fact.

Apples to oranges. Whisper down the lane shows how information gets distorted as it's filtered from one person to the next. The idea is that everyone in the game is a "witness" to something different than the person before them 'witnessed:' a slightly different message.

As I said, I can see getting race or gender wrong, but not the number of people holding guns when that number is only three.

Exactly..Information gets distorted in a controlled setting such as Whisper Down the Lane so it's just as logical to think it gets distorted in a chaotic situation. The average person doesn't have the mental training to slow everything down, assess a situation or inbound information and move on. That isn't an insult but saying the average person has the same data retention-processing in a stressful situation as say a trauma surgeon or a SEAL or Delta Operator just isn't accurate and even in those examples the fog of war can come into play.

It's not surprising to me that when you have a group of people in a chaotic and terrifying scenario conflicting reports come in. It's also not surprising that the official media or social media, trying to give breaking news, reports incorrect info and then conspiracy people focus on that as being an indication that something is shady.

In a post like this last week I gave a real life example that I dealt with.. An Infosec team at a company had their machines go off the network. Because it was Infosec one of their new people reported it as a possible attack since the only symptoms they knew about were all infosec machines were off the network. As that news traveled up the management chain it changed from possible attack to confirmed attack because that is what someone heard. So now Infosec starts following their protocols for an inbound attack while at the same time the network team is investigating. Oh look a spanning tree loop occurred which brought down the switch that Infosec is on and it had nothing at all to do with an attack.

All the notification, alerts, protocols that went out based on that "confirmed attack" turned out to not be necessary based off information that continued to come to light as the scenario played out.

Did the person that reported a possible attack do it wrong by trying to give urgent updates? Did the Whisper Down the Lane scenario that played out indicate anything other than human nature?