Anyone else notice this? About the recent shootings...

a reply to: youcanttellthepeople

Oh, believe me...I work with law enforcement at multiple levels. I understand the sketchiness of eye witness testimony and felt I had addressed the potential for that in my previous comments. But I feel that factor doesn't account for the creation of this pattern in every case. Some cases, yes....but all 3 (5 counting San Bernadino and Orlando)?? The odds on that would be extraordinary. So that brings me down to two logical theories:

1. The media has either purposely or inadvertently created a pattern. Perhaps due to unsourced reporting. Perhaps to create/instill fear or shock. Perhaps for other unknown reasons.

2. There have been multiple shooters in each of these cases which were covered up for unknown reasons.

a reply to: windword

The poster makes a very good point. People saying it was confusion in the chaos would have us believe that the media was either misinterpreting the reporting or that every one of those reports came from a person who was just confused. I'm saying the odds of that are extremely unlikely. SOME OF THE REPORTS may be accounted as falliable due to flawed eye witness statements (which naturally occur without conspiracy) or confusion between reports. But all of them???

originally posted by: darkstar57
The San Bernadino shooting had eyewitnesses in the hallways reporting 3 large combat clothed males, white, (i suppose from exposed wrists and necks). Then 2 recent muslim immigrants were kllled in the street and fingered...One worked in the attacked office.

Thanks for reminding me of that....I believe the same thing happened in Orlando to but I will need to research details of both.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Or the info comes in from different sources who "saw" different things. A panicked person fleeing the mall may say there were 3 people. while another source says he saw "several". What would possibly be the benefit in saying "there were 3" and then later "there was 1"?

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Or the info comes in from different sources who "saw" different things. A panicked person fleeing the mall may say there were 3 people. while another source says he saw "several". What would possibly be the benefit in saying "there were 3" and then later "there was 1"?

What do you think the benefit would be? Is it a benefit, a correction, or a cover-up?

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
I didn't know where else to post this...so I decided to play it safe and put it in general chit chat. Before I start with my QUESTION for ATS'ers who have spent a lot more time on the boards than me lately, I want to clarify that I have been horrendously busy lately and may have missed this being discussed elsewhere.

It started with the shooting in Dallas.... When everything was going down, the media was reporting 3 shooters. Later they came back and said it was a lone shooter, Micah Johnson, a veteran.

Next, there was the shooting in Baton Rouge...and the media reported 3 shooters there too... When it was over, that was corrected to one lone shooter, Gavin Long.

During both of these incidents, I was traveling and watching the news reports at various airports.

Then Munich happened and, again, the media initially reported 3 shooters. And yet again, it was later revised to a lone shooter....

Does anyone else find this odd??? I'm NOT a conspiracy type, being very skeptical. But It does seem rather strange that 3 separate incidents all reported 3 shooters with witnesses claiming that police were tracking the other two "still at large." Then a day later, we're told that it was a lone shooter... Hmm...what are the odds of that happening 3 times in a period of 2 weeks?

I am not really sure what to think. Part of me wants to believe there could likely be more than 1 shooter. But on the other hand, being that these two individuals were trained combat vets, shooting and moving could have the appearance of multiple people. Plus using guerrilla tactics could explain why they were able to injure/kill so many.

I am not sure if this is a good comparison, but small units like Navy Seals use overwhelming firepower to give the enemy the illusion that they are facing a much bigger force. Maybe in time some cell phone video or cctv video could shed more light on what exactly happened.