Reports of multiple officers down in Baton Rouge - CONFIRMED

a reply to: windword

I didn't make any sense, yet you somehow grasp exactly what I said. Amazing.

So what do you make of three witnesses who've all referred to the gunman in the singular form now? They must be in on it, I suppose? Especially their videos, because their videos sure don't seem to be looking at anything 400 yards away. Or 300. Or 200.

Here's one diagram for you, complete with helpful spotting and a distance guide.

www.nytimes.com...


Here's another one with a different diagram but don't worry, it has a distance measurement for you.

www.cnn.com...

Note the second one is the same one used for the explanation. So if one measures using that diagram, the shooter would've had to have made between three and four trips across the gas station parking lot. Which is not what they said he did. One trip across and one trip back across is not 400 yards, and it sure as hell isnt 800 yards, 400 one way and 400 back. Try looking at a long distance rifle range and tell me if 400 yards on that looks the same as that gas station parking lot? I'm gonna guess you won't be able to say they're the same, but will have an excuse ready to go.

And he didn't shoot anybody by chance. He went specifically to where officers were. Why you're still confused about that is beyond belief.



ETA again - I just watched the briefing again, more than once. The only time anybody says anything about 400 yards, it's that "the crime scene covers from three to four hundred yards." At no point does anybody say the shooter moved back and forth across an area of 400 yards. At no point do they say he moved 400 yards. The crime scene is the crime scene: from where the first piece of evidence is to where the last piece of evidence is. So unless you can provide a source that "according to police, he traversed an area of 400 yards and back" then you're just making # up at this point. The words spoken and every article they were quoted in that I've seen is that the crime scene itself is an area of three to four hundred yards.

a reply to: Shamrock6

That's the same diagram that I used in my own post.



But, I see that the scale, which I thought was 200 yards, is actually 200 feet. My mistake. However, the actual square footage is not what I have a problem with, it's the actual area, that I can clearly see with my own eyes from the satellite shot, that shows how sprawling the crime scene area actually is. I can get a feel for how large the area is by comparing the size of the road with the size of the buildings etc. So, my opinion was always based on visual/spacial , not numerical, observation.

With that being said, you still haven't presented enough new evidence to refute or change my opinion on the superhuman capacity that the TPTB are expecting me to believe this idiot was supposedly capable of.

The distance is still problematic for me, in that he was weaving in and around those buildings, jumped over a wall and targeting officers that he couldn't have known that he was headed for, and weren't within his line of view, for example the officer at his car, managed to kill 3 and shoot "as many as 7 officers", all within less than 10 minutes time.

You're not going to change my mind, but if you think that my viewpoint is such a threat to your LEO authority and must defend the blue line no matter what, that you have to continue to dog, belittle and patronize me, then I feel sorry for you.

a reply to: windword

Now now. Don't take your ball and go home just because somebody used actual facts to blow holes in your theory, and dismantled your statements that you claim the police said. I know you won't change your mind because conspiracy, and no amount of facts will change that.

It doesn't matter what the police said, though you've been pointing over and over again to what you THOUGHT they said as support for your idea.

It doesn't matter what multiple witnesses have said, nor their videos.

It doesn't matter what video shows if and when it's released.

Because conspiracy.

And don't play the blue line card with me. One, it's weak and it's a sign of a no fact or logic based argument and an appeal to emotion. Two, I have zero problem calling BS when I see it.

Which I just did.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Do you have a link to the video in which the police, I think it was the chief, had a chart and did a point by point explanation of the lone gunman's route, showing where he wove in and around buildings and "must have jumped the wall, because he shows up over here....maybe there was an air conditioner there" [sic]?

If you do, I can go through that video, point by point, with you and show you exactly where his explanation breaks down for me. I can't seem to find it.

As far gloating over the feet/yards misunderstanding, get down off your high horse! I signal 100 (? or is it 50?) something before I make a right hand turn or change lanes, feet or yards, I don't know. I just know what it looks and feels like to signal appropriately. My mind doesn't work numerically, it works visually/specially.

It doesn't matter what video shows if and when it's released.

There is no video! There are numerous security cameras that footage that has been spliced to tell a story.

Because conspiracy.

If something doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true.

Unlike too many police and Republicans, I don't see enemies around every corner, hiding in the shadows. But I'm old enough to know the smell of something rotten.

a reply to: windword

Clearly you need to have the last word on things, and will continue to post nothing substantive until you manage to do so. I'm gonna bow out now until something else develops with the incident.

Toodles.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So, you can't find that press conference segment either? The one where the officer with the diagram details step and step where they think the shooter went, pointing to a visual aide, very animatedly, and says "here's where we lost him, but he shows up over here, so he must have jumped this wall, we don't know how, maybe there was an air conditioner there......and how they spliced from several surveillance cameras.

Too bad, because then we could have a real discussion, instead of you bullying and belittling me for not blindly believing everything the TPTB feed us!

something is not right here. wafb indicates shooting on 7/22 posted on 3 19 pm. Yet what i have read of this thread indicates it just happened.

originally posted by: darkstar57
something is not right here. wafb indicates shooting on 7/22 posted on 3 19 pm. Yet what i have read of this thread indicates it just happened.

Not sure what you mean by that...

1. The original thread was started "posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 11:01 AM "
2. The last post in this thread was "posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:24 AM"