posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by WhiteAlice
In the first quote you did from me it should have stated then, and not them. Slip of the finger, but that wasn't the point you're making. Let me say
the second paragraph doesn't look the same as when I first read the article (it may be just me remembering wrong, but it does look different then
when the article was first published)next time I'll copy the whole sub-text then I can say for certain about that.
While the second paragraph does say that :
Every assertion in the first paragraph is a function of probability, not fact. The next mass shooting — which will happen somewhere, sometime
— will almost certainly not be in that place at that time.
I will say that the "will almost certainly not be in that place at that time" line seems more then a little off. If they are saying that it can
happen anywhere, then go to show how they came up with their prediction, then how can they make that statement?
I should have been a little more careful when making this thread, so that any and all data could be examined. That is my fault, and I'm sorry.
I will say that this report does seem to be showing an agenda (and I don't think it's the one they talk about in the following days report. If it
was wouldn't they have posted it at the end of the article?)
This report needs to be followed and deconstructed piece by piece. A major event is for told, a reason is presented, and the next day it's all
retracted. That's disinformation!