It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Third San Bernardino Shooter?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:40 PM

originally posted by: opethPA
It's not surprising to me that when you have a group of people in a chaotic and terrifying scenario conflicting reports come in.

There were no conflicting reports.

Witnesses could have seen one, two, or three suspects and each & every witness could be correct -- depending on how many of the three suspects were within their view.

But seeing a non-existent third suspect with a weapon, firing a weapon, and entering a vehicle -- it's not plausible.

posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 12:47 AM
Strange that there usually seems to be another person seen/reported in these acts. A person who just disappears, or at least is never mentioned again.

Aurora, Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, on and on.

Maybe just witness confusion, but I don't know. Seems to be a rather consistent theme.

Weird stuff, perhaps even suspicious.

posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:36 PM

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: VariableConstant

Sandy Hook and SB, yes, but not Aurora. Yes there were a couple extraneous reports, but they were from people who didn't "see" anything they only heard it and did not have line of sight. That, or they thought they saw another person in the darkness prior to the shootings. No, Aurora was clearly one person.

I do agree though, there has been a very conscious, overt almost, effort to downplay a 3rd player in the SB incident since the beginning. There were numerous EYEwitnesses to a 3rd person fleeing, and there have been all manner of excuses for who this individual was...(i.e. he was an "unrelated party", "fleeing for an unrelated reason", etc.).

At this point though I think it is safe to say there was indeed many more than just the two (2) Islamic terrorists involved, so the 3rd person becomes somewhat irrelevant this context. However, it is interesting how much effort is being put into de-attaching this 3rd person (specifically) from the incident. There have been several reports from eyewitnesses describing 3 persons in the vehicle, so clearly there was a 3rd person at some point, but who was this person...and why are they trying so hard to make this person vanish?

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:13 AM
Just read this and remembered the earlier reports where witnesses were adamant about a third shooter. Looks like there might be more to the OS after all...

Snippet from the article:

Some eyewitnesses including Sally Abdelmageed, who works at the center in San Bernardino, told the media back in December that she saw three attackers with black military attire and vests.

When asked by ABC News this week about her previous comments, Abdelmageed said, “I know what I saw.”

I remember listening to live scanner reports and there were several mentions of a third person on open radio that day. I hope they get it all figured out and correct. I think the more our Gov. can be open and efficient in matters like these will be a big step in losing the cynicism of the public....just not holding my breath that that is 'right around the corner' or anything

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in