Charlie Hebdo Shooting - A perception I can't get out of my head

One last thing....If people start implying they (the brothers) were patsies they were on the run for a day or so...why didn't they call up the press and give their side of the story?.
Lets face it what has happened is some evil bastards have killed in the name of their religion because someone drew a cartoon.
Why is this scenario so outlandish for some to accept?.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Also what about the poor people in the building eh? I guess their bodies are faked also....all hiding in the Bahamas with a nice cocktail.

Dunno why Iam wasting my time with fools.
You pick up on one tiny thing that many have explained and don't even have the balls to come out and say what you are implying...
Cowardice that is.

I am a fool and a coward...yep. I suggest you learn reading comprehension so that we can continue to have a semi intelligent conversation like big boys. You know, without name calling? Read my last couple of posts again. If you want to continue the conversation, feel free to do so without insults and name calling. This is not Reddit.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
I JUST said I do not know at this point in time. There are several different reasons. Look no further than Canada a few months ago. Look at the Aurora movie theater or Sandy Hook shootings. We are all still looking for answers/truth from what and why these events happened. It may never be known, but to just flat out accept a story fed to you from the very people that have lied to you before, and will lie to you again, is pretty naive. Why would the US government allow planes to be hijacked and flown into buildings killing thousands of Americans? Some things, we just may never know the real reason why.

Basically, you've got nothin'.

That's cool.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
One last thing....If people start implying they (the brothers) were patsies they were on the run for a day or so...why didn't they call up the press and give their side of the story?.
Lets face it what has happened is some evil bastards have killed in the name of their religion because someone drew a cartoon.
Why is this scenario so outlandish for some to accept?.

a reply to: TheArrow

He basically made the point that everything should be questioned. That's hardly nothing.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Is the shooting on the video faked?.
Yes or no....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The wound channel is not cauterized either… (my original statement).

I did not say that it was but, at that range, it is not beyond the realm of feasibility that it could cauterize the wound.

No, it would have to be a contact. The expanding gasses come after the bullet. Long after in milliseconds.

The muzzle brake on an AK wouldn't allow the muzzle direct contact with the skin either.

Not that it matters, the projectile is long gone.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: St0rD
I already posted this video a couple of days ago and it was removed immediately. I find it frustrating to think this removal comes from an open-minded website like ATS when you keep in mind this footage has been shown multiple times on TV and is available all around the internet.

Anyways, my only goal with this is hearing you guys opinions because I'm scratching my head over this one.

When the terrorist approaches the lying cop and finishes him off (in the head) it highly seems to me he shoots on the ground instead. I'm no expert in weapons behavior but the way things goes seem a little bit off to me. Furthermore, there is no blood at all on the scene which I find odd considering he fired an assault rifle at close range.

Here is a very short video I made with slowmo -

**Video removed**

Sorry if I offend anyone with this but I really need somebody else thoughts on this one




EDIT: PM me for video link

If your beef is that in the video it didn't look like he got shot in the head, why do you keep insisting he got shot in the head?

The simple explanation is that video shows the terrorist did NOT shoot him in the head.

No blood splatter. No head recoil.

This is really dumb.

Put it another way. What evidence do you have that he DID get shot in the head?

It's a wonder you ask such a question...

I'm not insisting he got shot in the head, I simply state the obvious. The shooter aims for the head (which you can clearly see in the video) but the impact seems to be off-target. From the camera perspective, you almost can't notice the difference.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Nice to see the video has been removed!

OP like i said, there is no need to post a video of a guy being executed with a shot to the head.

I do not see anything in the video that makes me think that is something deeper going on (I see no evidence this is a fake)

Just because you don't see anything in the video that might arouse your suspicion, doesn't mean that someone else won't see anything as well. It's ugly and horrific, yes. No one is denying or trying to take away from gravity of what happened. No one is trying to force you to watch it either. However, it should be questioned and scrutinized just in case what we're are seeing isn't really what happened.

Thank you, very well said! The worst thing one can do is accept something as fact, without further knowledge. Hell, for all we know these guys were part of some kind of MK ultra kind of thing. They could not even exist at all!

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: TheArrow

He basically made the point that everything should be questioned. That's hardly nothing.

Actually, his response is nothing.

Lumping a bunch of other incidents with some vague supposition isn't anything.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Edited because I have calmed down.

Now answer my question.
Was the shooting faked yes or no.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: thesmokingman

Is the shooting on the video faked?.
Yes or no....

Not sure yet. I am very curious as to the lack of blood and brains on the sidewalk. I am curious why these brutal killers only fired a few shots, rather than multiple shots. I am curious as to why these guys would not only have their ID on them when they were about to commit such a horrible act, and then to be as careless as to leave it in the car. I have a lot of questions I would like to find an answer to before I just accept the "official" story.

originally posted by: intrptr

No offense, but you know jack about weapons.

No, it would have to be a contact. The expanding gasses come after the bullet. Long after in milliseconds.

The expelled gasses would not auto-cauterize the wound, the temperature of the projectile would.

The muzzle brake on an AK wouldn't allow the muzzle direct contact with the skin either.

Do you even know what a muzzle brake is? You most certainly can place a rifle equipped with a muzzle break in contact with anything, it is not like it has a repulsor on the end.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Exactly. I'm appalled that CNN is even showing the still shot. They will show a cop lying on the sidewalk dead from a gunshot wound to the head, but won't show the drawings from Charlie. So, it's how they choose to use their right of 'freedom of the press." Ugh.

a reply to: TheArrow

The past helps to dictate the future. Governments lie, plot, and steal. We take past incidents, learn from them, and apply them. The incidents that were mentioned, on their own, might have no relevance. But when strung together, it goes to show a pattern of uncertainty and obscure truths from government officials. If we don't learn the game, we're nothing more than sheep.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: TheArrow

He basically made the point that everything should be questioned. That's hardly nothing.

Actually, his response is nothing.

Lumping a bunch of other incidents with some vague supposition isn't anything.

Well tell me, what have YOU contributed to this discussion?

originally posted by: St0rD

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: St0rD
I already posted this video a couple of days ago and it was removed immediately. I find it frustrating to think this removal comes from an open-minded website like ATS when you keep in mind this footage has been shown multiple times on TV and is available all around the internet.

Anyways, my only goal with this is hearing you guys opinions because I'm scratching my head over this one.

When the terrorist approaches the lying cop and finishes him off (in the head) it highly seems to me he shoots on the ground instead. I'm no expert in weapons behavior but the way things goes seem a little bit off to me. Furthermore, there is no blood at all on the scene which I find odd considering he fired an assault rifle at close range.

Here is a very short video I made with slowmo -

**Video removed**

Sorry if I offend anyone with this but I really need somebody else thoughts on this one




EDIT: PM me for video link

If your beef is that in the video it didn't look like he got shot in the head, why do you keep insisting he got shot in the head?

The simple explanation is that video shows the terrorist did NOT shoot him in the head.

No blood splatter. No head recoil.

This is really dumb.

Put it another way. What evidence do you have that he DID get shot in the head?

It's a wonder you ask such a question...

I'm not insisting he got shot in the head, I simply state the obvious. The shooter aims for the head (which you can clearly see in the video) but the impact seems to be off-target. From the camera perspective, you almost can't notice the difference.

So?

What are you asking?

Did the shooter miss his head? I think the video clearly shows he didn't hit his head. No blood splatter. No recoil.

So this is such a disturbing concept to you that the shooter missed his head that you can't get it out of your head?

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: TheArrow

He basically made the point that everything should be questioned. That's hardly nothing.

Actually, his response is nothing.

Lumping a bunch of other incidents with some vague supposition isn't anything.

Well tell me, what have YOU contributed to this discussion?

I asked one important question that no one seems to be able to answer.

Why would this be faked. Why would one death be faked in such a way that could be easily verified? This police officer has friends, family, and a life. What would be the point of faking this one death?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: TheArrow

The past helps to dictate the future. Governments lie, plot, and steal. We take past incidents, learn from them, and apply them. The incidents that were mentioned, on their own, might have no relevance. But when strung together, it goes to show a pattern of uncertainty and obscure truths from government officials. If we don't learn the game, we're nothing more than sheep.

There is no pattern here. There is a mishmash of things that people claim the government is lying about. When strung together it doesn't give evidence of anything, because none of them are evidence of anything on their own.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: TheArrow

He basically made the point that everything should be questioned. That's hardly nothing.

Actually, his response is nothing.

Lumping a bunch of other incidents with some vague supposition isn't anything.

Well tell me, what have YOU contributed to this discussion?

I asked one important question that no one seems to be able to answer.

Why would this be faked. Why would one death be faked in such a way that could be easily verified? This police officer has friends, family, and a life. What would be the point of faking this one death?

It likely wasn't faked. Doesn't negate the necessity of this discussion or questioning motives. Another cliche quote, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."