Two journalists killed in shooting during live newscast at Smith Mountain Lake

a reply to: Shamrock6

a reply to: tigertatzen

You get outta here with that "people on TV worry about being on TV" crap.

These people should've had a 360 degree bubble of awareness at all times because all people on the planet have that at all times.

Again, this is why sucker punches and surprise attacks NEVER EVER work.

Jeeze.

Uhh...yeah well, obviously I was just testing to see how many people remembered that they're supposed to have the EYES IN THE BACK OF THEIR HEAD turned on...DUHHHHHHH. **long-suffering sigh**

a reply to: kamatty

It's actually the vast majority of the time.

True enough...guns do seem to be the preferred method. But that wasn't the question I was answering. I'm from Texas...I don't sympathize with those who think we shouldn't be allowed to have them. Nice try though.

a reply to: FamCore

a reply to: tigertatzen

No, I'm definitely not implying that a video game made this psycho kill those people - I did find it very interesting the manner in which he filmed it though.

You're totally right, it had a huge impact on the viewer - and it was probably especially eery for those people who are used to those types of video games and who saw this atrocity from that angle. Freaky stuff, I hope this wakes people up the the huge issue of mental health and the way we approach it as a society. Obviously there are a number of factors here, but this man was evidently a ticking timeb0mb and someone who could've gone off at any moment. Condolences to the victims and their loved ones, so so sad

It was very chilling...in fact, my housemate, who is your typical older southern hardass, not one to show emotion, etc. actually had to sit down after he watched it. And that reaction kept me from watching it until this morning, because for something to freak him out like that, it had to be pretty damn bad. And it was.

Also, I totally see what you're talking about too....with the way he pulls the gun out, shows it in his hand, and then moves the camera back to the target...just like equipping a weapon on a first person shooter game. That's actually a brilliant observation, good catch on that. Meant to tell you that earlier but got sidetracked.

It's amazing how delusional some people are on this site. Another tragedy occurs and once again people are claiming nothing actually happened/false flag/patsy/etc. What will these people do if a gun loving Republican is elected? Will they actually have to come to terms that there are mentally disturbed people in this country that are killing larger numbers of people with guns? Will they realize that both these problems need to be addressed? I'm thinking no.

I think I should also point out that I'm an acquaintance of Ward and know plenty of people who were directly friends with him.

a reply to: yuppa

Nope i have never been hunting, but thanks for sharing that, that is a good reason why she was able to run.

My original question was why her body didnt jerk or twitch when bullets hit, but again i suppose everyone is different.

Now the voice tone ? Have you any insight on why that did not change ? That still confuses me my friend.

a reply to: kaylaluv

But as someone else has stated too, the reporter did look at him, and when she did, she would have been able to recognise a person she knew, who was fired from that station, holding a gun, this is something she would have seen in the moment that she looked at him.

Why did she not react ? I cannot believe that she was too focused for her mind to register "Hmm i know this guy, why has he got a gun ?"

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Some preventive words for members who sees themselves as good hearted individuals for not contemplating alternative theories in regard to incidents like these out of respect for the victims/families:

Yes I do care about the victims and families in incidents like these. But that doesn’t stop my critical thinking and automatically give in to self-censorship. And to be honest, deaths like these are not worth more grief than the other 42 people who according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s statistics got murdered the same day in the US. And that’s that!

I will only say this: I think it wise for myself personally to sit this one out and wait for the followup, so I am not venturing too far down that line of reasoning right now. I have very distinct reasons for that, which are bigger than just me. But...coincidence is a fallacy. Everything is connected. Much of what you are saying resonates. Critical thinking is of utmost importance right now, but so is being careful not to let the cart get ahead of the horse...which is not necessarily synonymous with self-censorship.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Sorry for jumping in, I hope it’s okay.

I feel like you have gotten stuck with the notion that reporters on live television are totally devoured in the target they are interviewing. Yes, they know how to shut out surrounding distractions which may interfere with their performance, but even that is hard sometimes. But to totally shut out your peripheral vision and stop reacting to threats on a subliminal level and instinct based on long term memory seems very unlikely. In this case the shape and color of a typical gun and the standard positioning of a person shooting a gun would trigger a reaction. And we are not talking about one persons instinct and peripheral vision, we are talking about two people.

I mean, Alison already got a glimpse of him picking up something black which may or may not be a pistol. Connecting that with the aiming motion during approximately 6 seconds (00:18-00:24) with a distance of 3 feet away would according to me make almost everyone react. On top of that, Alison knew that Adam had panned out of her and the interviewed persons visual area with the camera, and at that stage looking another way to evaluate the situation would make no difference.

Vester’s video: heavy.com...

I aslo feel that something is wrong when it comes to the whole incident and I also feel like Vester is waiting for something, a cue like you put it. If there is more to this than the official story, inline with some of our theories here, then Vester was probably waiting for Adam to start his panning of the camera so he would have time to situate himself and prepare his upcoming actions (Maybe also to eliminate the risk of facial expressions on the on-air individuals as a result to Vestas presence) I base that on how he behaves, stops and continues inline with when Adam start/ends his panning.

Vester was waiting for the right timing, like you said, but that doesn’t contradict that it may be staged, it can also confirm it. This would entitle the incident to be a conspiracy based on that all individuals in the video and other non attended would be in on it but lets not go down that road. Maybe you’re also right that it was Vesters own goal of a clear gun in his ”movie”… or maybe he made sure that something was executed in a specific way based on external/foreign suggestion and preparation.

But then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they all acted enormously casual because they thought Vester was another crew member, maybe he also visited other live broadcasts in the past without incidents which could have made his presence in this broadcast seem ”normal". Maybe the gun got mistaken for an extra battery for the camera.. All this could be the case, but the behavior shown and other aspects surrounding the incident is according to me and my odds meter unlikely.

originally posted by: randyvs
According to that G-D picture maker, in the hands of
people who have lied their asses off at us constantly everyday
for years. I should be able to go outside and kick some rocks over
and find a madman shooter. Well guesss what I don't have to go
outside and kick rocks to know that's total bullsh#t. If you want
to watch something that only looks fictional coming out of the
lie maker and call it truth? Feel free, don't expect me to buy it.
I won't.

If you think this is all made up, I wonder what you think when it started. Did they already plan this all in 2012 when WDBJ announced proudly that they could attract Bryce Williams to join their team? WDBJ adds two veteran reporters
Are the people now hidden somewhere with a new identity? Did they go through all that just to try to fool you?

A little healthy skepticism is always good. But it seems you are living in a faked world.
Not that I would dislike the idea that every bad news is just fake. Sadly sh#t happens and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I agree with you 100%...this guy was a classic narcissist...whenever there were problems at work, it was the other guy's fault. Whenever he was reprimanded he complained that it was race/gender/sexual orientation rather than his performance or behavior. He was never at fault, he was always right...more importantly he was always a VICTIM. Sometimes victims are like whipped puppies...and then sometimes they internalize and constantly feed the rage inside, until it breaks out. This guy hung around for two years after being fired from WDBJ instead of moving on - to another job or another area...feeding that rage, and I think, planning revenge. I've heard (and read) that Alison had little contact with Vester/Bryce...so even if she DID catch him out of the corner of her eye - or even look at him directly - it might not have registered who he was. She was a TV reporter...she was focused on the job she was doing...trying to make sure she asked the right questions, focusing on the interviewee and prompting her with body language and facial expressions, listening to her producer in her ear piece, concentrating on the timing - live shots have limited time - there are other stories, commercial breaks, a news broadcast is a jigsaw that must be pieced together in fragments on time... I'd like to know how many of us, given the same circumstances, would have recognized what was happening...even right next to us? How many of us have had a guy wave a gun in our direction?? Would we all react the same?? Would we do a Bruce Willis and go into our Die Hard mode??? No, I don't think so...we might not even REGISTER that the guy had a gun.......nearly 100% of the people we come into contact with DON'T brandish a handgun at us. How many times have you seen a live reporter surrounded by people, jumping in the background, trying to get on camera? Waving madly like a lunatic to get into the shot? Reporters train themselves to NOT react to background, to concentrate on the interview or the report. It's not surprising that she didn't react until the shots were fired....good heavens, it would have been surprising if she HAD...then I might be suspicious...because then it might have seem scripted, rehearsed.

Vester/Bryce was a JERK...who was trying to get back at the station that had "wronged him" and he wanted to do it in a BIG WAY...he wanted notoriety, wanted infamy...and, when tracked down, instead of facing the consequences he continued his cowardice by shooting himself so he wouldn't be held accountable for his actions....which, by the way, was his consistent M.O. (Not my fault I have trouble at work....I'm discriminated against because I'm gay...I'm black...yadda yadda yadda). The guy was tool...but he was NOT mentally ill.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I think he's saying they (Robbie Parker of SandyH00k and Alison Parker here) have the same last name. Is this coincidence? They do bear a famly resemblense. Is there dad the same? Are they crisis acters or is it just random?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I would have to agree with you. I majored in radio/tv/film in college, and we had to do mock news reports for class. We had an earpiece to listen to the producer, so we were concentrating very hard on that and on the person we were interviewing. You aren't supposed to be looking around while you are interviewing someone - it looks unprofessional. So, even if you saw something in your peripheral vision, you ignored it while on air.

The thing that bothers me about this particular case is that she did glance that direction...there's no denying that. And it really looks like she sort of got a faintly puzzled look on her face, just for an instant. I can't put it in words...maybe you can, since you get where I'm coming from on the whole focus thing...but more than puzzlement. Like a "what is this guy doing over here?" almost amused, as if she thinks someone might be playing a joke. Just for a tiny fraction of a second. But, like you say, it looks unprofessional so she goes back to her focus. What bothers me is...why did she not recognize him? Or is that instant of puzzlement that she does recognize him, but is such a professional that she puts that aside and keeps going with the interview? I firmly believe that he would have killed her regardless, but it's just really disturbing to me, to see that.

a reply to: tigertatzen

But I've run into people I haven't seen in a long time and they kind of do a double-take and then recognition sets in...especially if those people haven't been particularly close to me. I ran into a guy in the grocery store, I talked to him on the phone lots of times, but only rarely saw him in person...we chatted for awhile...and I knew that he had NO IDEA who I was the most of the time we talked, until I referenced something that made the light bulb glow and he realized who I was.

And I have had people approach me and get my attention...and I don't recognize them instantly...especially (again) if we have not had a particularly close association.

A flicker of recognition from Alison, maybe...because he was, after all, a jackass at work who left under a cloud...but again, she was doing her job - which required professionalism, a great deal of concentration so she could do the live shot RIGHT...and rarely does anyone ever have someone come up and point a weapon at them...if she was concentrating on her job, for all she knew it was a hand-held microphone or a smartphone of someone trying to take a photo.

It's not like the majority of regular citizens have experience in an active shooter scenario, people.......even trained police professionals have been taken by surprise. This was a 24-year-old reporter from a moderately-sized town, from a small TV station, in a beautiful tourist setting......so yeah, she probably SHOULD have amped up her situational awareness and been ready to drop and roll the minute some random guy walked up with a gun.......sheesh....

a reply to: kamatty

I asked a very simple question.

And you twisted it into a whole different and rather vile level by insinuating i'd ever do the same as the shooter did.

And yet.. the question remains unanswered.. lost in the fog of war over "your guns"

Who's the sick one?

Those who question.. or those that follow blindly, then attack anything not of the official narrative.

The BF seems EXTREMELY detached, almost smug.. I find that rather disturbing to watch and so do many others.

But dare not question why, or even voice a concern.. as this is Sparta now, and anyone not following the 300 is cast in the pit of "inhumane".. when in fact.. we are FAR more humane than those that follow blindly and question little.

We want answers.. not agendas

yet that makes us "sick"

I was taking a rather calm approach, I didn't raise the point that the shooting looks fake as hell, i questioned the lack of emotion by the BF.. and i get told that's "not useful" then it all gets cast on the crazy pile.

What is then? more gun debate?? something that fits the talking/debate narrative points in your folder?

This site has slumped so low. I see more actual thinking on facebook.. that's sad.. really bloody sad.

This is the last i'll speak on the matter.. i just couldn't let that retort stand on it's own like some kind of justified response.. it was just a question.. and a valid one.

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Sorry for jumping in, I hope it’s okay.

I feel like you have gotten stuck with the notion that reporters on live television are totally devoured in the target they are interviewing. Yes, they know how to shut out surrounding distractions which may interfere with their performance, but even that is hard sometimes. But to totally shut out your peripheral vision and stop reacting to threats on a subliminal level and instinct based on long term memory seems very unlikely. In this case the shape and color of a typical gun and the standard positioning of a person shooting a gun would trigger a reaction. And we are not talking about one persons instinct and peripheral vision, we are talking about two people.

I mean, Alison already got a glimpse of him picking up something black which may or may not be a pistol. Connecting that with the aiming motion during approximately 6 seconds (00:18-00:24) with a distance of 3 feet away would according to me make almost everyone react. On top of that, Alison knew that Adam had panned out of her and the interviewed persons visual area with the camera, and at that stage looking another way to evaluate the situation would make no difference.

Vester’s video: heavy.com...

I aslo feel that something is wrong when it comes to the whole incident and I also feel like Vester is waiting for something, a cue like you put it. If there is more to this than the official story, inline with some of our theories here, then Vester was probably waiting for Adam to start his panning of the camera so he would have time to situate himself and prepare his upcoming actions (Maybe also to eliminate the risk of facial expressions on the on-air individuals as a result to Vestas presence) I base that on how he behaves, stops and continues inline with when Adam start/ends his panning.

Vester was waiting for the right timing, like you said, but that doesn’t contradict that it may be staged, it can also confirm it. This would entitle the incident to be a conspiracy based on that all individuals in the video and other non attended would be in on it but lets not go down that road. Maybe you’re also right that it was Vesters own goal of a clear gun in his ”movie”… or maybe he made sure that something was executed in a specific way based on external/foreign suggestion and preparation.

But then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they all acted enormously casual because they thought Vester was another crew member, maybe he also visited other live broadcasts in the past without incidents which could have made his presence in this broadcast seem ”normal". Maybe the gun got mistaken for an extra battery for the camera.. All this could be the case, but the behavior shown and other aspects surrounding the incident is according to me and my odds meter unlikely.

Jump in, it's perfectly ok

Actually, I'm not really stuck on that, just haven't been able to articulate exactly how I perceive this particular situation. I'm offering an explanation which is quite valid...journalism is a very cutthroat field, and live spots can really impact your career, particularly when you're still trying to make a name for yourself so yes, people will most definitely ignore their own base instincts and safety if it's worth it to do so. But in this case, when considering other factors, it doesn't seem quite right. I just posted about it a minute ago and I have to leave for the day, but I wanted to answer you first. And I also replied to another of your posts earlier too, by the way.

I do not disagree with your line of reasoning. She did see him, and I saw a reaction from her (it's in my other post on this page) and believe that she did in fact possibly recognize him. But if she did, why was she not alarmed? There are many things about this that do not make sense, but that is the one that disturbs me the most. If he was such a douchebag, why did she not react with alarm to him being there at 6:30 in the morning, in a relatively remote area, wearing what looks almost like combat gear of some kind (judging by the still shot), standing that close to her? I think she did react, but then went back to her interview...but if you feel someone is vindictive and possibly wishes you ill, surely the reaction would have been more profound, right? It makes no sense. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

As far as the behavior of her BF and her father...I watched the interview on Fox last night...and I was a little surprised at just how unemotional both of them were - although the father did get a bit rocky toward the end.

But again, I think it's easy to judge other people by our own standard of behavior. We think, I don't understand that guy - he's like a robot, he just lost the love of his life...I wouldn't be able to be stoic if my girlfriend (daughter) had been gunned down. And, maybe you wouldn't have been able....but maybe HE COULD. Some people aren't emotional...at ALL. Some people are normally emotional, but are terribly private people. I cry at the drop of a hat....BUT ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY WHEN I'M ALONE. I was in therapy for years and got very emotional, but nearly killed myself trying to keep from crying in front of the therapist (which seems stupid, right?? but I don't like showing emotion in front of ANYONE). Maybe the boyfriend was the same...maybe the dad was the same.

We can't dismiss their behavior as "weird" or say it doesn't play right, so it must be an act and a psy-op...simply because people don't react the way we THINK they should react, or the way society thinks they should react.

Just because it's not what YOU would do, doesn't make what they're going through any less painful...or TRUE.

a reply to: tigertatzen

It almost didn't seem real to me, in that we assume things like this just don't happen in real life.

People aren't that calm, cold, and calculating in real life, right? There wasn't any gore to gross me out, but the feeling I was left with was worse, a deep unsettled feeling. The fact that someone could stew over some work issues long enough to plan and carry out an ambush like this -- in such a cold and calculated way disturbed me greatly.

That was NOT the first thing I wanted to see in the morning when I was checking my phone after pulling my pants on.

I think another reason it disturbed me so much is because it put me in the POV of the shooter. I didn't like how it made me feel, to view things as they saw them.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I will only say this: I think it wise for myself personally to sit this one out and wait for the followup, so I am not venturing too far down that line of reasoning right now. I have very distinct reasons for that, which are bigger than just me. But...coincidence is a fallacy. Everything is connected. Much of what you are saying resonates. Critical thinking is of utmost importance right now, but so is being careful not to let the cart get ahead of the horse...which is not necessarily synonymous with self-censorship.

I will do the same on a speculative level.. I’ll be waiting for the aspects I mentioned in my first comment. We all have our reasons, and I’m not going to ask for yours. I appreciate that you take the debate in a civil manner even though the matter resembles a personal experience or awakens something.

Everything is without a doubt connected. But by avoiding speculation on a constructive and logical level when something seems off, solely based on that the incident itself is deemed tragic by the collective belief. Is according to me a fallacy

I see this behavior often in forums. ”You can’t say that” ”That is very insensitive to say or to speculate about” ”Let the family mourn in peace” Or whatever the line might be. But this line of thought and generally despised behavior doesn’t bother me, I know what I do is backed by the search of the truth. Something both me, a victim, family or affected population logically would want to be entitled to.

It’s one thing to own one of US’s biggest newspapers and print my own speculative theories and indirectly make all people take them in, And it’s another to write them in a forum involving conspiracies. Oneself seeks to take in alternative information, not the other way around.

But I do apologize if something in my initial comment have been a repetition of what many other have stated in the past 40+ pages, and which could be seen as pushing a certain line of thought. That is not my intention.

a reply to: Siddharta

The point of my previous post was that altho the vids we see
were meant to look like something they aren't. They absolutely
just do not. So all you have to do is call em like you see 'em.
We all know the media lies don't we? I choose to believe nothing
from proven liars. Some think they can decide for themselves
when they're being lied to in particular. Anyone buying this ludicrous
fakery? Quite obviously can't. And who runs the risk of being lied to
more. These are the times of mass deception and most of you
act like you're afraid to realise it. FEAR IS NOT GOING TO SAVE YOU!