Mass Shooting at Oak Creek, WI

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Haha, excellent. Thank you kindly for the info...and yeah, I should have joined this forum actively years ago but I never did. Obviously it's a good thing I finally chose to.

Discussing these things intelligently with one's peers is always a great idea. It allows you to bounce ideas around without fear of reprisal or sanction...and in turn allows for greater creativity and possibly, sometimes...uncovering the truth through group effort.

reply to post by DocBenway


Yep, it is the art of seduction. Or maybe the art of war. Either way, it works.

reply to post by DocBenway


First double post! God damn it! Think of something meaningful to say to avoid this void!

Nope, can't right now. Double post it is.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Just say "mainstream media obfuscation" or something and end it with an exclamation, for maximum results.

Originally posted by murch
Guy on report just said that guest speaker was shot.

We need to find out who he is for sure.

Told you. That's the guest speaker who flew in from India today.

Still watching the WISN live feed here, it's interesting - as pointed out earlier - that residents were told that they wouldn't understand right now why they were being evacuated. It sounds degrading. At the very least they could have been told that there was an unknown danger, or something. Anyway, a few thoughts...

The word is that the people living at the residence being investigated on 3700 Holmes Ave had just recently moved in. That will be significant, how, we have no clue yet but odds are it's not going to be a coincidence.

No mention of a vehicle belonging to a gunman at the temple. While I don't know the geography of the area yet, that can reinforce the claims early on that he was dropped off by someone, and possibly with more than one individual.

MSNBC was reporting earlier today that (unidentified) sources said the gunman was wearing tactical gear, this can be partially corroborated with second hand witness reports (YouTube vid here) that the gunman, or rather gunmen, were wearing all black. This contradicts other reports (police dispatch audio) of them wearing a white tee shirt.

Any other conflicting reports that I am missing here thus far?

reply to post by Sek82


Initial police reports stated the officer who confronted or was "ambushed" by the gunman was shot, then returned fire and killed the gunman. Subsequent reports stated that there were 2 officers on the scene first...the gunman "ambushed" and shot the first one multiple times and the second officer fatally shot the gunman.

Hmmm...I'm trying to think...

Oh, the FBI arrived on the scene at the same time as the Oak Creek, Greenfield, and Milwaukee Police Departments. I might be incorrect but from my understanding, the FBI is stationed in the large, blue Federal Building in downtown Milwaukee. Via expressway this is perhaps a half hour...maybe more. Greenfield, on the other hand? 5-7 minutes. Also, there was no indication of this being a terrorist act, hate crime, hostage situation, etc...why the immediate FBI appearance?

Originally posted by DocBenway
reply to post by Sek82

 

Initial police reports stated the officer who confronted or was "ambushed" by the gunman was shot, then returned fire and killed the gunman. Subsequent reports stated that there were 2 officers on the scene first...the gunman "ambushed" and shot the first one multiple times and the second officer fatally shot the gunman.

Hmmm...I'm trying to think...

Oh, the FBI arrived on the scene at the same time as the Oak Creek, Greenfield, and Milwaukee Police Departments. I might be incorrect but from my understanding, the FBI is stationed in the large, blue Federal Building in downtown Milwaukee. Via expressway this is perhaps a half hour...maybe more. Greenfield, on the other hand? 5-7 minutes. Also, there was no indication of this being a terrorist act, hate crime, hostage situation, etc...why the immediate FBI appearance?

No, more than one officer responded. One was shot multiple times and the second dropped him. I think the second was a woman if I'm interpreting the audio correctly.

reply to post by Sek82


There are also numerous statements concerning the gunman's tattoos...wouldn't such things be fully or partially covered in tactical gear but visible in a white t-shirt? I'm assuming he wasn't nude, so the implied tattoo location would be his arms; forearm or bicep.

And why no aerial shots of the gunman? And no description beyond scraps here and there? 30-40 years old, bald, tattoos, white shirt, tactical gear, ex-military possibly, and the list goes on.

reply to post by Valhall


I know, the audio supports it and it is the final, official statement. When I first began watching this around 10:50am today though, the statement was that there was a single gunman. Channels 4, 6, and the initial CBS article online all stated such. An hour passed and the statement was then 2 officers. Could be a gaff, but wouldn't the departments be aware of the number of responders? Just odd.

They are gonna be treating it as a terrorist act and rightly so.

Originally posted by DocBenway
reply to post by Valhall

 

I know, the audio supports it and it is the final, official statement. When I first began watching this around 10:50am today though, the statement was that there was a single gunman. Channels 4, 6, and the initial CBS article online all stated such. An hour passed and the statement was then 2 officers. Could be a gaff, but wouldn't the departments be aware of the number of responders? Just odd.

Right, but the initial media reports were AFTER the audio. In addition, for those of us who have followed these type things for years, its common for the MSM to try to make drama not report the truth. They try to be the first person to report and they don't care if what they are getting out is correct or not. I'm going to stick with the radio transmissions. They were taped by citizens monitoring the bands. That's my best bet.

Initial police reports stated the officer who confronted or was "ambushed" by the gunman was shot, then returned fire and killed the gunman. Subsequent reports stated that there were 2 officers on the scene first...the gunman "ambushed" and shot the first one multiple times and the second officer fatally shot the gunman.

I heard the same.
But doesn't radio traffic support the second part with two officers? The news people are not very good in today's world.

One more quick thing...question, statement, whatever. The news is recapping the day's events and the newscaster on Channel 4 just stated that the police were alerted to 3700 Holmes Street after entering and searching a grey pickup truck in the temple parking lot. But I thought the gunman had no vehicle on site? Wasn't that the statement earlier?

reply to post by Valhall


I concur...I would stick with the audio as well. I was merely commenting on the conflicting yet universal reports. But again, the audio is reliable as to factual info...the false statements simply reflect the corruption of the media in the face of profit and breaking news.

Originally posted by DocBenway
reply to post by Valhall

 

I concur...I would stick with the audio as well. I was merely commenting on the conflicting yet universal reports. But again, the audio is reliable as to factual info...the false statements simply reflect the corruption of the media in the face of profit and breaking news.

I agree. It happens every time. It causes people to distract themselves with incongruities created by media jumping the gun in their role to make drama instead of report real news. I hate it.

I just heard on the radio that the man responsible for the shooting is a former skinhead.

This is really a sad event and I hope the victims of this incident receive justice.