Woman says she was feet away when shots killed Oregon occupier Finicum.

a reply to: beyondtruth
This is still going on?

Oh ya the whole thing was fishy from the start. First you got some militia people taking over a from all I heard an abandoned national wildlife park area. Who knows why its abandoned, even there site is down, maybe they closed it down for the coming winter, or maybe because of the whole sale on lands and opening up mines and what not due to potential billions of dollars being in them there hills.

But in all I suppose there going or were going to pull it off the list of national wildlife park refuge, as if it still was that. pretty much anybody can go up there and sit around for whatever its worth, as for them being armed or not. Do they have a permit for those guns? Even the site was down..Wont somebody please think of the poor turtles here.

Second, that is some of the sloppiest infiltration by the FBI, as I have seen. Good grief, they spun it on end to no ends. Not to mention that whole life camera incident. I mean don't get me wrong I expect my government to infiltrate a supposed militia that takes over anything, its practically written in the book, its practical protocols, if you were to pull out the FBI's handbook on how to deal with such sittuations, it would be in the 101 section.

But come on at least put some effort on it.

As for the media spin. I watched those vid's were he said he "wanted to get shot" or he "was not going to be taken alive" they were taken so out of context as to be redonculous. And read on his reasons why he was there. I read on a site that he didnt even want to be there in the first place, he went to see his buddies, one of the bundies and got draged along with the whole thing, he was even quoted of he just wanted to get this whole thing over talk to authorities and go home ride his horse.

As for the bundies. From all accounts whatever there issues with the FED government, seems to be kind of concluded. But when you take into account that there whole fortune and subsequent misfortune may have started with FED funding and ended with them pulling that funding...Its a bit suspicious me thinks. Basically this is not even a citizens vs FED issue. This is a federal employee vs there former employee issue. So much drama over nothing.

As for that whole car stunt. Its like I said before on another thread pulled straight out of the encyclopedia dramatica. Even watching this guy speak or any of the vids or any other thing I seen on him. He is not looking like some bloody go down in a hail of bullets type of guy, in fact watching his vids, I was more like "oh my god, I think this guy just may be the worlds first Mormon vegetarian rancher or something" Does he even eat beef?

I think they just marked him from the beginning as nothing about him said he would be to dangerous or likely to fight back, everything he said was non decided even the the vids. If he actually was all that there saying. They probably would not mark him as many would have wound up quite dead in that little stop there. It must have been an easy mark. Pretty much standard 101 procedures it looks like.

As for that little vid showing what happened. Come on, no sound? No other camera viewpoints like say those cars on the road. Not to mention that they could have shoot at him at the first stop like some are saying, and not to mention the roadblock was on a blindside, the whole thing is far from convincing at all, not by a long stretch.

Forget breaking down that video. Were is the one with the sound? Or the ones from the cop cars? Or how about just what the guy in the jeep was saying that was a some ways back when they first pulled him over? Whats his story, and when did he or they first start hearing gun shoots? Funny no how the news medias are all silent about this whole story now and all of a sudden. When in fact this whole thing and way it was handled is likely to just add more drama some time down the line.

So many questions, its kind of pointless to bother. But if this was about some potential mass sums of money in them there hills, even that could have been handled better. # this whole thing could have been an none issues if they just let them go to town and talk to the sheriff, and take them there, I mean so many other option other then the whole attempt at dramatics. And most importantly I would not have to be hearing about this sad ass story. Its just depressing.

Nucking dramatic crap the whole thing, and if this was all over who knows what, its likely to just add more attention and fuel to the fire. Which just more headaches down the line with this whole thing and these constitution people and militas and who knows. Even the Russians are probably looking at this and thinking "oh my god comrade! This is childish attempt at psy ops, we did better in the soviet era, u think time to make plan of psy attack now..Would be easy da?"

And the dramatics will likely ensue at a latter date with other people and other groups...What a headache.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

...
Even the Russians are probably looking at this and thinking "oh my god comrade! This is childish attempt at psy ops, we did better in the soviet era, u think time to make plan of psy attack now..Would be easy da?"
...

I can assure you that they are indeed saying such things. An email from a former student who is back in Russia now said as much to me yesterday. He pointed out that the FSB (the "new" KGB) doesn't make snuff films when they kill off the opposition!
You can bet this is being shown on every big screen in North Korea and all the other US-hating countries in the world.
Decent people see it as shameful.

...
When you challenge by committing crimes (regardless of perceived altruism) and ultimately try to speed past a road block ...

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

How does one "try to speed past a road block" with one's brakes applied? I've seen this accusation before but the video plainly shows that the brake lights of the truck come on when the road block comes into his line of vision and remain on until the truck has stopped.
towardsabetterworld.com...

When you are trying to "speed past" something, do you apply your brakes?

a reply to: beyondtruth

OP, please don't be annoyed with me (if you are) that I've posted a link to Peter's work in your thread. I intend no harm and am truly not attempting to hijack your worthy thread. I thought about starting a separate thread but didn't (still undecided) and wanted to put it here so it would be "safe" because I can tell you have integrity. Everyone is trying to contribute and some people have expert skills. I don't, just my observational and reflective skills, but any meaningful contribution is worthwhile.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: beyondtruth

OP, please don't be annoyed with me (if you are) that I've posted a link to Peter's work in your thread. I intend no harm and am truly not attempting to hijack your worthy thread. I thought about starting a separate thread but didn't (still undecided) and wanted to put it here so it would be "safe" because I can tell you have integrity. Everyone is trying to contribute and some people have expert skills. I don't, just my observational and reflective skills, but any meaningful contribution is worthwhile.

No worries. Anything that adds to a better understanding of the events and that leads to productive discussion I am all for it.

a reply to: beyondtruth

Well, the GIF in Part 4 is inconclusive as to LaVoy tossing a gun in the snow and Peter makes no mention of a gun in this particular installment though I can see something dark go flying, and it's still not answered as to what that glaring blob is hiding. He does mention dark and light artifacts in those frames. To me, it seems pretty obvious the blob frames were tampered with -- nothing else makes sense as to why that blob is there and I, too, thought that part of the video looked weird where he is seen exiting the truck when played at regular speed. Shawna states that LaVoy was shot at even before he exited the truck.

I posted a link to his website on my blog. I'm sure his analysis has attracted certain attention. He has a page showing hits on his blog and from what countries, and the number skyrocketed after he began posting his series.

What I want to ask you is have you done any more analysis of the video?

The day the video was released I figured a whole lot of people with the right professional training would be using all sorts of methods to scrutinize it.

I guess I'll start a new thread about it and stop bugging you. Maybe a lot of people have burned out on the Finicum story. I haven't because this may be the straw that broke the camel's back and civil war may be coming soon. I hope not but I am well aware of the level of frustration this country is feeling and why.

Peace.

Seems there are a lot of unanswered questions left hanging in all these threads. No answer on how one "runs a road block" with their brakes applied.
There were allegations made that he was avoiding those stop-strip thingies when he swerved but sadly, nobody could point them out in the still frames from the video.
No one could explain why those "oh, so well-trained" coppers broke every rule of common sense in the books on firearms and exposed themselves to the quite dangerous truck as soon as LaVoy exited the truck.
Nobody has been able to explain how, short of time travel, LaVoy was able to crash the truck almost onto its side, regain his composure, unbuckle his seat belt and exit the vehicle in less than 3 seconds.
Nor the obvious tampering with the video when it is viewed frame by frame. I've done a bit of Photoshop work in restoring old photos and can recognize tampering artifacts. Peter nailed that one as well!
Of course it won't be on the news. How much did we hear on msm about Randy Weaver's plight after his wife, son and dog were brutally murdered?
Have there been any corrections by msm about the "killed in a shoot-out" headlines? Heck, even Wiki knows what a shoot-out actually is:

A shootout is a gun battle between armed groups. A shootout often, but not necessarily, pits law enforcement against criminal elements; it could also involve two groups outside of law enforcement, such as rival gangs.

en.wikipedia.org...
Take a look at the very long list of shoot-outs in the US. In every single case, there were opposing groups firing at each other. Yet in this case only one group was brandishing and using weapons.
Lots of allegations flying about the leadership of the citizens were vowing to shoot it out with law enforcement and yet no videos showing them saying such rubbish were posted.
Lots of allegations that the citizens at the refuge were demanding that the land be turned over to ranchers and yet no video posted showing them saying that. Rather they were consistent in saying they wanted it turned back to the state and county for administration.
Many have claimed that there was a federal warrant for LaVoy's arrest. Yet nobody has been able to prove that the stop was a felony arrest attempt. Not a single charge.
Speaking the truth scares the lying politicians right down there in their gut. Speaking the truth in a manner that draws people in to listen scared these politicians right into their downfall if the facts come out. Allowing that truth to be spread to other counties was just more than they could bear as they learned that the crowds were growing alarmingly large.
Who do I fear most? Hard-working, truth telling ranchers, farmers and citizens with sidearms and rifles who have never harmed a single soul. Who conspired only to have the government address their grievances, never threatened anyone's life, never fired a gun at anyone.
Or the state and federal agents with snipers, overhead video, cell-jamming technology, tanks and a plan hatched amongst them to use lethal force on these peaceful protesters. Some would say conspired to commit homicide to prevent "the virus of protest" from spreading to another county.
I hear great, gasping sobs of "He broke federal law, he deserves whatever comes his way." He "trespassed on federal land" while armed. Unlike the time that our own DOJ broke federal law and allowed illegal weapons sales to drug cartels which resulted in many deaths, one of them a US border patrol agent, the protesters' law-breaking didn't bring harm to any single agent of the government.
Unlike the federal immigration laws routinely broken by the very government charged with enforcing laws passed by Congress, the actions of the protesters didn't result in the murder, robbing or rape of any of the citizens of Burns or the community. Mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" aren't routinely surrounded with SWAT teams, shot or carted off to jail, despite their defiance of federal law. The President says the "system is broken" and refuses to do what his oath of office compels him to do---uphold the Constitutional laws passed by Congress. Instead he declares his Imperial intentions to use his phone and pen to bypass Congress. And nobody marches in the street----
Thomas Jefferson warned of just this problem:

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge William Johnson
Date: June 12, 1823
[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore . . . never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.

The man was a prophet:

Thomas Jefferson Autobiography
Date: 1821
Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Part 7 is posted. This is quite the education. Part 1 - 6 must be seen first, in that order, plus the "Interlude" post before part 7, so one can understand the context of the analysis.

Peter's Analysis of FBI video, part 7

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Interlu de

a reply to: tweetie

You need to post this on the other threads.

And maybe start a new one.

a reply to: xuenchen

I was going to but for various reasons I haven't. Feel free to start a new thread with it. It deserves a separate thread. Peter has put a tremendous amount of work into it so far and I find it to be quite fascinating. The links to the parts are not in order at his blog which is why I added them in order here.

a reply to: tweetie
Thanks so much for posting all those links together. I hadn't had time to go looking the newest installment.
Good catch!
I agree that it could use its own thread because I'd really like to see if anyone can poke any holes in it. I've done a lot of Photoshopping stills but never got around to playing with video but it's not hard to recognize the artifacts of alteration in that video. Even a child, wait...most children and some astute adults ...can see it and tell you how it was done.

originally posted by: xuenchen
here's a new theory.....

Burns Oregon--LaVoy Points Out the Person that Takes the First Shot At Him!

video only. no story yet.

yea..

use of tazers is out especially when you need to make a statement ...

and no use of audio .. hmmmmmmmm...especially in the 21st century and I thought LEO's had to record every incident ~! ??

originally posted by: Komodo
and no use of audio .. hmmmmmmmm...especially in the 21st century and I thought LEO's had to record every incident ~! ??

So you think a helicopter can record audio on the ground..... you must think "Blue Thunder" was a documentary!

a reply to: diggindirt

I've thought about this a lot. Many people, all over he Internet, as well as Victoria Sharp and Shawna Cox who were there, believe this is a case of cold-blooded murder. Of course LaVoy's family does. They have that right; he was their loved one. We still don't know Ryan Bundy's account and he should keep it to his vest if there will be a lawsuit. If I knew for a fact an order was given at some point to not take LaVoy in alive then I would have to agree.

As things stand now I don't believe the FBI video is unedited. I think it was edited by FBI experts to make it look like LaVoy had to be shot and killed. I wanted to believe the video and initially looked at it with that 'wanting to' in mind and no suspicion. However, my disbelief is based upon this current analysis by Peter Offermann in the works which is answering some of the questions I have about details in the video I found to be odd.

I could label what happened manslaughter, at this point, barring current analysis done by Peter Offermann, because of everything that "appeared" to happen before that fateful moment. Unjustified or unlawful death; whichever level of manslaughter fits the definition in the state of Oregon. But, if Peter is correct, and it looks to me like he is so far, manslaughter is not strong enough.

Of course, a website is not a court of law and all evidence is not known to us.

It's very bizarre that FBI video was released two days after the killing of LaVoy. That act has been described as remarkable, unprecedented and a surprise. That was a move to control the narrative, I think, not because the FBI wanted to give us the truth. No, I don't have a blanket view of the FBI or any law enforcement agency. There are good people within all agencies and organizations but the FBI heads make decisions based upon self-preservation as all heads do.

originally posted by: tweetie
Part 7 is posted. This is quite the education. Part 1 - 6 must be seen first, in that order, plus the "Interlude" post before part 7, so one can understand the context of the analysis.

Peter's Analysis of FBI video, part 7

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Interlu de

Peter goes over some technical items in Pr elude Part 8

In the next installment, Peter analyzes the camera the FBI used and why the whole darn video should be sharp and in focus.
Part 8a

He writes a very pertinent comment underneath Part 8a.

The next part should be posted very soon for those following this exceptional analysis.

a reply to: tweetie
Thanks for posting this latest part! I've been awaiting it. Just found the Prelude Part 8 last night.

After watching the entire video again, it is blatantly obvious to anyone that this video has been edited. You'd have to suspend all critical thinking to believe that it was unedited. As Peter has pointed out, it wasn't even done with any great skill. As a friend of mine who is quite skilled in video editing said after seeing it, "It's like they're shoving it into our faces---insomuch as saying---we can lie to the entire nation and there's nothing you can do about it." After all, there is no statute prohibiting federal agencies from lying to the public or putting out false information to support their story.

If they put out their version of the story, why have they not put out the recordings made by the people in the truck? Shawna was recording and she thinks Ryan was as well. They had to turn their devices over to the feds. Wonder if those recordings will lost, damaged or edited to fit the official story?

a reply to: diggindirt

Well, if I may be so bold (gasp!) as to suggest a wild guess from my wild and unruly imagination -- those recordings will never see the light of day.

I have a thought. As Peter mentions, all law enforcement who were at the road block saw what really happened which is not what is portrayed in the FBI's edited video. Maybe one of them, just one of them, who is not upper level in the hierarchy has a conscience and down the road some day may feel compelled to tell the truth if he can flee the country and join Edward Snowden.

If you check The Oregonian regularly you will see info on the lawyers for the 25 people who are incarcerated having a really hard time getting the FBI to cooperate with them on evidence at the Malheur Refuge.

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: tweetie
Part 7 is posted. This is quite the education. Part 1 - 6 must be seen first, in that order, plus the "Interlude" post before part 7, so one can understand the context of the analysis.

Peter's Analysis of FBI video, part 7

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Interlu de

Peter goes over some technical items in Pr elude Part 8

In the next installment, Peter analyzes the camera the FBI used and why the whole darn video should be sharp and in focus.
Part 8a

He writes a very pertinent comment underneath Part 8a.

The next part should be posted very soon for those following this exceptional analysis.

Part 8b just went live! I haven't started reading yet.

8b

a reply to: tweetie
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised that the ground level videos from the sniper cams haven't been released?
Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp both said they saw men coming out of the trees with "binocular-looking things" on their hats/heads. A friend of mine says that they are wearing "helmet cams" as they come out of the tree line. He should know, he used to wear them in his line of work. So where are the videos from those cameras?
Do you know if any videos were taken or streamed showing the conditions of the buildings at the time the occupiers left the building? I've been meaning to look but there is sooooo much out there that it is hard to sort through. Any suggestions as to a specific you-tube channel that might have them?

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Bottom line, he had to know that if they didn't get past that road block that if he did ANYTHING other than follow the orders of the officers, or made any sudden movement that would even slightly imply he was going for a weapon, that he would be dropped immediately.

He made a decision (based on his prior statements that he would never be taken to jail) to NOT follow those instructions. So either he was going for a weapon, or he wanted it to look that way. Regardless, he fulfilled his prior promise not to be taken into custody, and he'll get to be a martyr in the eyes of a societal microcosm for at least a few weeks.

Personally, I think they should have moved in on that group weeks ago, and tear gased and stun grenaded the hell out of them. Get them all into custody and charged as the criminals they are. Hopefully, this joker is the only one who has to die before it's all over.

Finicum had no desire to battle authorities, and repeatedly said so in interviews. The notion that he head a deathwish is media disinformation, and has been thoroughly debunked here:
Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.
The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom do not appear to have made any actual verbal threats either. That claim is being debunked here:
The Citizens For Constitutional Freedom (OR standoff) Never Made Any Actual Verbal Threats