Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Theories - Ignore or Address?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
It seems very obvious he meant to say something like "the sand on the ground which has been put there to soak up the blood", but he got the words wrong, and then stumbled over the end of the sentence because he could tell something was wrong. Like he says, he did not realize exactly what at the time, and as it was live TV you can't just stop and say "wait, what did I just say"?

I've been presenting a weekly three hour live radio show on one of my local stations for eight years now, and it's so easy to stumble over words and not realise what you've said til much later. Some of my highlights include asking a record producer "when did you decide to hang up your guitar and become a knob jockey", doing a 5 minute piece where I mixed up two musicians and went on about David Bowies work in T-Rex and then going on to talk about Marc Bolans classic album "Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars" and most embarrassing of all, describing the version of Thin Lizzy that reformed a few years ago with out the late great Phil Lynott as "lacking something vital, it's like a full English breakfast with out the Black Pudding" (That one got several complaints and I gave a (sincere) apology the following week). I've also done a limited amount of film and TV, I've acted in a couple of short independent films and done a bit of live TV in the role as press and media officer for some local community groups.

I can say it is not easy to stay focused all the time, on the radio I fly solo, ie work alone as presenter and engineer. You need to keep one eye on the studio clock, one on the output meters, another on your notes and still make sure the next track is cued and ready to play, all the time making fine adjustments to faders and gain controls. As you can see that's more eyes than the average human can normally lay claim to, add in factors like interviewing a live guest, or doing a phone hook up (more meters to watch) all whilst speaking to the audience and you tend to find the mouth goes onto autopilot - you know the gist of what your saying , but not the exact words, and errors are made. TV is even worse, you have a ear piece that's gabbling on all the time feeding information not only to you but also the lighting, camera and sound guys, you often have a floor or location manager getting in your line of sight pointing at stuff and making making gestures at all and sundry and a gaggle of others - runners etc doing stuff behind the cameras and its hard enough to stay focused as a guest let alone a presenter of anchor.

Even OB news crew have similar issues, the location team may only be a three man crew - reporter / camera / sound, but the are still going to be 'on feed' to the team in the up link truck, and maybe with the crews back at the network studios as well, and thats without environmental and other factors going on around them. In the case of Ian Woods he is reporting from the middle of a huge breaking and fast moving news story, that is constantly changing and up dating, desperately filling airtime, working without a script and probably minimal notes and still trying to remain cool and eloquent. In fact given all that I am suprised the reporters from the various networks didn't make more errors, especially given that some of them were putting in 18+ hour days for five or six days without rest.

When I make on air mistakes they are destined for the blopper reel and played to much mirth at the stations Christmas party, when Ian Woods stumbles over his words its used as proof that he is someway part of a massive conspiracy. I'm glad I opted for music radio not broadcast news.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
On a side note, I really have to mention this. Someone posted the reporters explaination of what happened, and there is a glaring problem with it. He claims he "hadnt even realized he mixed up the words." Im sorry, this is just not indicative of his reaction at the time. In the moment, he catches himself, stops, backs up and rephrases the sentence. Of course he realized what he had said. He also says sand or sawdust was put on the ground (which is what he claims he meant to say), I will admit, the footage i have seen is a little dark, but I really dont see any large amounts of sand or sawdust. Im not saying there are none there, maybe they didnt put a lot down and the blood soaked right through, but in my experience, when throwing sand, or salt on the ground, it is almost inevitable that at some point, you spill some or throw more then intended in a certain area, and thus, there are spots more thick then the rest.

Surely this is not the first time that you've heard a reporter accidentally mess up his or her words on TV? If you search youtube you can see plenty of examples, some of them quite funny.

I would imagine that there's a lot going on in the head of a reporter at the time, trying to push as much of the story as they can, so it would be normal for them to at least have one or two slip ups. Im sure it happens to you the same as everybody else, why should a reporter be any different?

I can't say for certain, but it's possible there was a bit of a cleanup effort at the scene afterwards I.E removal of the bloodied medium (sand/sawdust whatever) used, which may account for the lack of excess material that you are claiming should be there. This is often part of the last phase at a large incident where it would be traumatic to leave blood and gore laying around for family members and the public to witness. A good example of this is at fatal traffic collisions - once the scene is ready to be closed down, often fire fighters will hose down the road surface to remove blood and so forth.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Yes, I thought it looked quite like his hands had come apart as he reached the doorway. But I've had a person flaming at me that from this footage it's obvious and as clear as day that he was cuffed.
i have better snaps but not sure i should post them here. Besides just send the flamer @Budget Player Cadet 's link. the pictures on that site are clear as day. he isnt cuffed.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Or maybe he had a cunning plan to stitch the French police up by making it look as if he was handcuffed during the final shootout, by clasping his wrists together as he went down in a hail of bullets. (Cunning!)
As these seem to be stills from a motion picture, it is very hard to see the context, especially as we have not had any testimony from his last moments.

I do get annoyed though when the CT world take something like this, do some amateur photo analysis, come up with an explanation that fits their pre-determined conclusion, and call anyone that descents from this a shill.

As already said, he could have been injured, fixing a jam on a pistol, anything! And the pictures suggest the entire sequence was probably less than a second and do not show the preceding or following shots...

The sequence always seems to go: Conclusion---evidence---theory with these people.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Some of you were all in on the no blood claim, exclaiming that there was nothing unnatural about that. I dont own a gun nor have I ever shot a gun, so I have no experience or knowledge either way. But now, a video has surfaced (which was posted on this thread) of the reporter standing at the scene were there is a lot of blood on the ground.
I think you've misunderstood the CT claim that was being responded to.

The claim was that there should have been blood in the video of the shooting, not that there was no blood at all. Most claims either said or implied that there should have been Hollywood style headshot blood spatter clearly visible, what seems to have been addressed here is just that this is not the case.

Did he get shot, have no blood at first, then slowly bleed out? Can a dead body bleed that much?

Considering that the blood stains go all the way to the curb, and his feet were at the curb, can I assume that the blood would of ran from his head on the ground to his feet, insinuating a slight decline? Would this decline effect any gravitational influence upon his bleeding where the blood in his body would be drained in the same direction, thus minimizing the bleeding from his head?
This reads like you're assuming that he died instantly, as in his heart stopped beating the moment he was shot. What are you basing that on?

Ray Von
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
I appreciate your specific responses Mick West, but I am not sure why you quoted my questions in your first response, questions which were completely honest and written out of curiosity because I dont know the answers. Your suggestion that followed would have no capacity to answer those questions, except perhaps for the third, which I already admitted I assumed to be the case and really was a setup for the final question about the efffects of gravity upon a dead persons circulatory system and if a slight decline of the ground would cause the blood to flow in the body away from the head wound thus minimizing blood loss ... all of which, you did not answer, but instead, devised a scenario for experimentation that involved parameters that you chose precisely so the outcome that you wanted would be achieved to make your point. The reality is that you, nor I, cannot possible know is an accurate portrayal of the handling of the body, Your scenario could be very close to how the body was handled. It even might be. But I dont think making up scenarios to explain something is necessarily evidence based debunking, and to be quite frank, is what you accuse conspiracy theorists of doing. Im all good for speculation, but you cant endorse evidence based debunking with irrelevant reenactments of a situation that you dont even know occured in what way. Of course, they had to handle the body, and theres a high probability at some point blood got smeared. But walking it? I dont see any bloody footprints. Truth is that your suggestion/example/insinuation of the events of the handling of the body is pure speculation and even if I carried out that suggestion, it still wouldnt prove anything about this blood situation because nobody knows how they handled the scene, what care they took, among the fact that an experiment with rigidly defined paramters (to achieved the outcome you wish it to) doesnt prove anything in the France event.

Let it be clear, also, that only one person has acknowledge my questions, and as of yet, nobody has made an attempt to answer. I have been doing my own research on it, and have gotten mixed results on some of them.

Now to the blatantly lying issue. Yes, strong words. I will retract the "blatant" word. I shouldnt of used that, but I do sincenerly think he is lying. Does this mean the event was a conspiracy? Of course not. But I do believe you are rationalizing his behavior to fit your narrative. Again, this is what you criticize conspiracy theorists for, and I agree if its applicable. But all of us should be held to the same standard.

I totally see your point. But I think its inaccurate, at least compared to his statement on this issue. He claims to have meant to say sand ... instead of blood. He also claims, that he didnt realize he mixed up his words. I think its safe to assume by his explanation, that he is claiming that even though he said blood, his mind told him he said sand. It happens to all of us from time to time, unfortunately, this happened to him at the worst possible moment. Fine.

Then why did he stop his sentence? and try to fix it at the end? This is the issue. This is where the lie comes in. If he didnt know he said blood instead of sand, which is what he claims, then why stop at all? If you didnt realize it at all, there wouldnt be any reason to stop and try to fix it at the end. If he had carried out his sentence, the sentence he says he meant to say, the sentence he basically says he thought he said (because he didnt realize he mixed up the words), , the sentence in which he had no reason to stop because he claims he never realized he mixed up the words, then theres no reason why he couldnt of finished it in multiple way that are all factual and relevent.

Now, let me meet you half way. Like i said before, i totally see your point. Lets say you are correct, he is telling the truth in as far as he thought he said sand, but towards the end of the sentence, he knew something wasnt right, in the moment, couldnt figure out where he had messed up, and so he twisted it at the end to try to save it the best he could. Then why not say that? Why not say the truth. You claim he isnt lying, then provide an alibi that he, himself, never even offered, which ultimately means, if you are right, he still isnt telling the whole truth. Why couldnt he say, "I knew I butchered it somehow but didnt know how i butchered it so i tried to get back on track at the end." Simple, but more precisely .. Honest.

The truth is Mick West, is that your putting words in his mouth. Your offering him an alibi the he didnt even provide himself. I dont need an explanation from you ... about his explanation. I must take his explanation of its own merit, word for word. Your providing a rationalization to explain why he stop the sentence and tried to fix it, that he never revealed. He made his explanation that doesnt exactly conform to his reaction on the scene, in which you then say, "Well, what he really meant is...." Why do you get to do that? Why do you get to clarify someones else explanation so it less questionable? This is exactly ... exactly .. what conspiracy people do ... rationalize .. to fit the narrative. He never claimed the he knew "something was wrong" as you speculate. Perhaps you are correct ... but ... you dont get to put words in his mouth to provide more more nuanced explanation, cover, or to fill in any gaps or discrepancies.
Also, in my opinion, I dont think the sand is "quite apparent" at all in either the video nor the picture. Let me remind you, that my mention of the sand was about the video. You showing me a still picture of the sand, one which I think it can be assumed was taken later because there are more memorial objects on the ground then in the reporter video, doesnt prove there was sand in the reporter video. There very well could be sand in your picture, but that doesnt prove there was sand in the reporter video. The reason I even brought up the sand is because it is actually VERY important to his explanation. I am not going to accuse you of being dishonest intentionally, i dont think you were because you I dont think you made the connection that Im going to make to even be dishonest about it, but when you quoted what he said, technically speaking, you misquoted him, or at the very least, left off the beginning of his sentence. The beginning of his sentence is "As you can see, the blood (sand) was put on the ground ...." Now, that makes a big difference, because now, there needs to be sand on the ground. Thats why it is important. Like I said earlier, I am not saying there isnt any sand. The video that I saw had bad lighting, and was pixeled especially when the camera zoomed in on the blood area. There very well could be sand there, I just dont think its quite apparent as you claim. On a side note, are you saying that the reddish areas on the ground in your picture is sand? Because that is the only thing that I can see that I would assume you were referring to. Couldnt people interpret the reddish areas as remnents of the blood, blood stains? Im not saying its not sand, but to me or at least on my laptop, it looks reddish, so when you say its quite apparent its sand, I dont think that true, i think one could also interpret that as being blood stains. Like, i said, i dont know. But your picture doesnt prove theres sand in the reporter video. This is a technique, again, that I assume a lot of people would call out a conspiracy theorist on if they had tried to attempt the same switch-a-roosky. Lets be consistent people.


This is just being intellectual honest people. If you are going to scrutinize evidence and ideas, then be fair about it. If your going to post someones explanation in a attempt to throw weight behind debunking, which i have no problem with, then that explanation needs to be scrutinized too. Theres actually a couple more weird things about his explanation, albeit minor, but still things that peaked my interest, but i wont go into them because they are minor. Not to mention the fact that that video was posted, and nobody mentioned the blood, not even the poster. For pages on this thread, people were explaining how the lack of the blood was nothing abnormal, which is fine, but now a video surfaces that has blood, and nothing is said. This behavior opens yourselves up to be criticized that you are cherry picking/ignoring data that doesnt fit your narrative, which I am not accusing anyone of doing, but it can lead down that road.

Truth is , this is actually a non issue. I think he died. But ive noticed that when some of you see or read something that you agree with and fits your narrative, some of you arent holding that to the same scrutiny that you would hold something that you dont agree with or fit your narrative. If you want credibility, at least from me, you need to hold everything to the same standard. And if it doesnt exactly fit, dont rationalize why or put words in people mouths. its intellectually dishonest imo.

(P.S. There was some strawman arguments that others made that I will not spend time answering)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry, it seems like you are simply trying to rationalize your initial query here. I stand by everything I said. It looks like a slip of the tongue, and it looks like blood and sand on the sidewalk. I really don't see any inconsistency in what happened and his explanation of it.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I may have been somewhat "extravagant" in the past when I've posted...I see #206 as an example (sorry, not to criticize).

"Zeroing in" is perhaps the best path to pursue. Just sayin'........
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For pages on this thread, people were explaining how the lack of the blood was nothing abnormal, which is fine, but now a video surfaces that has blood, and nothing is said. This behavior opens yourselves up to be criticized that you are cherry picking/ignoring data that doesnt fit your narrative, which I am not accusing anyone of doing, but it can lead down that road.

Nothing was said? There were many responses to your posts. What questions were not answered?

We you asking "do people bleed after they are shot"? Because the answer is obviously yes they do. The "not enough blood" claims were from people who seemed to expect a JFK style head explosion. When people are shot, there's generally not a lot of blood visible from that distance. Yet they still can bleed a lot over the next few minutes. If you want reference, there are many videos on YouTube of people getting shot.
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
I never asked if people bleed after they were shot. I asked if a dead person can bleed that much. Two different questions.
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
You are correct, but he did die at some point. Thats basically what my questions were getting at. If he was still alive, with a heartbeat, would he have been bleeding? Can you get shot in the head, no blood splatter, fall limp, still be alive, still have a heartbeat, but not have any evidence of bleeding (not initial blood spurt from impact)... then he dies later, slowly bleeds out because of gravity, etc,etc... This is exactly what I am trying to get information on.

I looked into dead bodies bleeding, and basically have gotten mixed messages. The following is not necessarily correct, Im just saying what I read in general. Dead bodies dont spit blood out of wounds, they can however "slightly" bleed, but (again, dont know if this is totally correct), generally from what i read, large amounts of blood loss is due to gravity (in a dead body). Im not a medical doctor so i dont know.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You are correct, but he did die at some point. Thats basically what my questions were getting at. If he was still alive, with a heartbeat, would he have been bleeding? Can you get shot in the head, no blood splatter, fall limp, still be alive, still have a heartbeat, but not have any evidence of bleeding (not initial blood spurt from impact)... then he dies later, slowly bleeds out because of gravity, etc,etc... This is exactly what I am trying to get information on.

I looked into dead bodies bleeding, and basically have gotten mixed messages. The following is not necessarily correct, Im just saying what I read in general. Dead bodies dont spit blood out of wounds, they can however "slightly" bleed, but (again, dont know if this is totally correct), generally from what i read, large amounts of blood loss is due to gravity (in a dead body). Im not a medical doctor so i dont know.

But my point is that since you don't know when he died, it's irrelevant.
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
Im not sure what you mean by "it" , do you mean my questions are irrelvent, or the answers are irrelevent. If there are 40 possibilities because you dont know a piece of information, then I would accept that speculating is pointless. But lets face it, theres only two possibilities, 1) he died instantly or 2) he was alive after the initial head wound but died later (the point being that in the video where you see him get shot and fall to the ground, in those moments he is on frame and continues to be on frame, he is alive)

So, the questions are quite containable and limited. If someone died instantly from a point blank head shot, is it common that this or that happens? If someone doesnt die instantly from a point blank head shot and is still alive for even a brief amount of time, is it common that this or that happens? Or you can even replace common with possible.

By the way, if you are admitting that I dont know when he died, I am assuming that would accept that none of us knew when he died (or else you would of at some point revealed when he died) , therefore, all my speculation of bleeding is irrelevent, yet, you NEVER made this comment when other people were explaining why there was no blood loss (not intial blood splatter) while he was on the ground while he was still on camera. . If it is irrelevent to begin with (because nobody knows when he died) , then why didnt you respond to the other people who were basically speculating on how people bleed or dont when they get shot in the same manner?

Again, lets be consistent.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Im not sure what you mean by "it"
I mean your question about how much a dead body bleeds. It's irrelevant.

You don't know where he was shot, or what the bullet passed through.

You don't know there was no blood loss while he was on the ground for the eight seconds his body was visible in the video. You just know you can't make out any in the video.
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
Do we really want to play this game Mick West? People sat on this board and got the gun wrong for 5 pages. Not a peep. People speculated on all sorts of intent and planning. not a peep. A person made a comment about shooting sheep and there being no blood or very little at the mouth and nostril, and someone else said they have seen very horrific injuries (what kind????) that produced very little actual bleeding.

and not a peep from you Mick.

And now, when I assume he was shot in the head, and died fairly quickly, and just ask a series of question to figure out whats what, now, you want to play technicality game. This is conversation is over, not because I found our dialogue interesting and stimulating, but because you are now being not only being intellectual dishonest and cherry picking your confrontations based based on how it effects your believed narrative, but because your technicality game reeks of double standards and you convenient ignore most of my points, and instead, search for the weakest one to attack, which is totally acceptable, but ignoring the strongs ones arent.

If i wanted to play your same technicality game, I could claim that you cant claim that he was even shot at all, because you dont know where he was shot or what the bullet passed through, and any information to that effect is second hand knowledge and not your first hand experience. But I wont, because i have integrity.

This whole thread is full of speculation, yet, since it validated and fit the narrative, you had not problem with it.

We're done on this topic. Have a good evening.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
You don't know where he was shot, or what the bullet passed through.

We also do not know the state of the first injury that felled him.

There was/is a cliche in the British Army that body armour is 'issued to keep you together, not save your life' and to some degree it also does that. As Mick stated, we see the guy on a very shaky mobile phone video for eight seconds.

I imagine that when the CMTs arrived, sometime after the shooting, and as far as this argument is concerned, the video shot, removed his body armour to examine the damage to the vital structures. I also imagine that as he most likely was given CPR on the street where he lay in an attempt to save his life. If this is the case, this would have pumped more blood out.

Now, without going into too many war stories, I have seen headshots, bodyshots, grazes, scratches and people blown to pieces. Gunshot wounds are different, every single time, and Iv seen people bleeding like a hosepipe and others with an almost imperceptible scratch that kills them.

We have all seen tiny fragments of information and the most minimal photographic exposure to the scene, and no-one is in any way in a position to draw precise conclusions about the fine details of blood splatter, ballistic injuries, or what exactly happened between the crappy camera footage and what Sky news may or may not have filmed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
and not a peep from you Mick.
I'm really not sure what you think I remained suspiciously silent about. The sheep wounds? Some examples of lack of blood? Sorry, but I don't see what your problem is. Can you give me an example of what I should have "peeped"?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but you cant endorse evidence based debunking with irrelevant reenactments of a situation that you dont even know occured in what way.
The point of recreation and experimentation is to teach YOU the basic concepts of reality that you dont seem to understand. Try the experiment with varying situations. lie on a flat surface. lie on a tilted surface. Pour your 'blood' for 8 seconds, pour your blood for 1 minute, pour your blood for 5 minutes. etc etc.

You're the one questioning the scenario. You're the one speculating it couldnt have happened that way. ok, so PROVE it. Do multiple experiments and show us it could not have happened that way in any situation since we dont know what the exact situation was.

Speculation without evidence can be refuted without evidence. or ignored. This applies to 'debunkers' and CTs. You werent ignored, you were provided evidence of similar situations. So you should feel honored.
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
Ok. Am I losing my mind. Can anyone go back to page 3 and listen to that daily motion video of the reporter and listen at the word he uses at the 21 second mark. Before that word, he is pointing out the offices. He say (word) appears to have carried out......

Can anyone tell me what that word sounds like to them, because if it is what it sounds like to me, he made 2 horrible gaffes, not just one.

He does have a heavy British accent to me but it sure sounds like what I think he says
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
You are correct, but he did die at some point. Thats basically what my questions were getting at. If he was still alive, with a heartbeat, would he have been bleeding? Can you get shot in the head, no blood splatter, fall limp, still be alive, still have a heartbeat, but not have any evidence of bleeding (not initial blood spurt from impact)... then he dies later, slowly bleeds out because of gravity, etc,etc... This is exactly what I am trying to get information on.

All of this information about bleeding out after being shot can probably be found by googling it, as Im sure you're aware. Can I ask - WHY do you need information on this point? I only ask as Im trying to ascertain what this will prove in the long run. Given that this is, as you correctly point out, a debunking site then what is it that you want to debunk with this info? It seems you are clinging to this one piece of information for some reason when it does seem irrelevant for the simple fact that the victim is dead. It matters not how fast he died or whether he remained alive for some time because that wont change the outcome or validity of the situation.

Your questions and points have been addressed several times by different people - perhaps if you present a specific argument or claim, it might be answered as opposed to "getting at" something and being dissatisfied with the answers.

If i wanted to play your same technicality game, I could claim that you cant claim that he was even shot at all, because you dont know where he was shot or what the bullet passed through, and any information to that effect is second hand knowledge and not your first hand experience. But I wont, because i have integrity.

This whole thread is full of speculation, yet, since it validated and fit the narrative, you had not problem with it.

This is exactly what has been talked about (speculated, even) for the last few pages, that we dont know where the victim was shot, as some tried to hash out plausible explanations to counter points raised re conspiracy. Noone here has claimed (as per CT's) that "this is exactly what has happened, no room for argument, case closed". In contrast, what we have been trying to do is work out plausible reasons to counter arguments such as "lack of blood" or false flag theories based on assumption by the CT crowd.

But ive noticed that when some of you see or read something that you agree with and fits your narrative, some of you arent holding that to the same scrutiny that you would hold something that you dont agree with or fit your narrative. If you want credibility, at least from me, you need to hold everything to the same standard. And if it doesnt exactly fit, dont rationalize why or put words in people mouths. its intellectually dishonest imo.

The conclusion here is that the official story, as reported, is entirely plausible and believable. There is no need to debate something that most can agree upon as prima facie evidence of that thing being true. As per all other threads (and debates which have ever existed) - the burden of proof lies with others who are claiming something contrary to the official "narrative".

If you look around here and hang about long enough, you'll see that people often have their debate shut down or asked for a specific claim to debate/debunk. It's happened in most threads. There's no need to get butthurt and make accusations about lack of integrity and storm off because someone hasn't addressed an issue how you want it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Ok. Am I losing my mind. Can anyone go back to page 3 and listen to that daily motion video of the reporter and listen at the word he uses at the 21 second mark. Before that word, he is pointing out the offices. He say (word) appears to have carried out......

Can anyone tell me what that word sounds like to them, because if it is what it sounds like to me, he made 2 horrible gaffes, not just one.
he says " the gun men appear to ...." ps. only CTs say "gubment" since im guessing htats what you think he said :)
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
Yes, I agree. I was just listening to it for the 10th time and heard it. At first I thought he had said government. Lol. Come on, with his accent it kinda sounded like it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Yes, I agree. I was just listening to it for the 10th time and heard it. At first I thought he had said government. Lol. Come on, with his accent it kinda sounded like it.
it does. i kinda laughted as soon as i heard it..."ah".

a serious point to ponder... re: 'anomalies'. if the gunment can pull of these huge, very publicized 'false flags' and years and years later CTs STILL cant come up with any rock hard evidence of 'government foul play', other than normal human and reporter mistakes, dont you think 1. they would hire better actors and 2. they would preview what they are broadcasting BEFORE putting it on the air? Even Jerry Springer uses a 3-5 second delay on his 'live' recordings in order to blip out 'mistakes'/bad language.

There is absolutely no reason any fake reporter would actually be "live", they would just tell us they were 'live' and check their work. no?

same with blood. if the 'stage crew' KNOWS they didnt have blood from their actor WHY would they bother placing blood on teh sceen after the fact? the ineptitude it would take to make "false flags" anomalies possible PROvES the government is too inept to pull off a hoax for the long term.
 

Thom

Banned
Banned
All I know is that I'm mad. I thought I had an exclusive scoop that everyone on YouTube missed. Seriously though, I know this happened. I know there's blood. I know the reporter slipped, I do however think. For convenience sake , told a white lie about realizing it to just not have to go into to much explanation, not to cover up anything or for nefarious reasons. I'm even willing to admit that I see the sand now in the video (that's why I was watching it over and over and suddenly realized I swear I heard him say government). I just don't like it when I feel like someone is playing intellectually dishonest games or tactics to prove me wrong. Prove me wrong honestly, not through manipulative debate tactics, faulty logic and the use of strawmen and other fallacies. It's all good though.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I know the reporter slipped, I do however think. For convenience sake , told a white lie about realizing it to just not have to go into to much explanation,
Do you remember every slip you make the following day? When you stumble over a word, if someone was to bring it up to you later that day, the next day or several days later - you honestly think you would remember? I mean let's be intellectually honest. : )

The only person you attacked was Mick. I see no indication he used faulty logic, strawman or manipulative tactics. Perhaps you just misunderstood as you were feeling defensive? You brought up other people "speculating about gun types" but if you honestly reread the progression you will see they were trying to determine something based on evidence data already available about what these guns look like and damage they do. And other people responded to them just like you were responded to...people disagreed and said why.


You offered no 'evidence', you admitted your speculation was based on no knowledge, so Mick was trying to teach you how to experiment on your own so you could learn how blood and transference works. He also gave you evidence sources for similar situations so that you could perhaps be able to view the situation with more real data of physics at your disposal. That's all.

ps. if you make a claim and are DEBUNKED. Then it will be put in a seperate thread with a "Debunked" or "Explained" label in the title.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
if the 'stage crew' KNOWS they didnt have blood from their actor WHY would they bother placing blood on teh sceen after the fact? the ineptitude it would take to make "false flags" anomalies possible PROvES the government is too inept to pull off a hoax for the long term.

This is one of the glaring facts that always seems to get overlooked by CT crowds in these claimed 'false flag' scenarios - that the Government or whoever is setting it up would bother to go to such elaborate lengths to hoax the general public, 'release' doctored footage, but then not bother to doctor it enough so that some armchair YouTube detective wouldn't notice obvious errors. If 'they' really have pulled off as many hoaxes as claimed recently, surely they'd be experts at it by now with flawless performances.
 

Crisan Radu

New Member
Hello, everyone!

Regarding the police officer, it seems that at least his heart was beating when the paramedics arrived. I say this because of this clip: (not graphic, filmed from the distance and low resolution). To me it seems that there is someone trying to resucitate him. Correct me if I am wrong.

Regarding the latest video with the gunmen after leaving Charlie Hebdo quarters, did anyone notice how many terrorists are needed to reload a weapon? :D I am astounded how people say they were so well prepared when they made so many mistakes (such as the shoe falling from the car, turning your back on your target, can't reload by yourself, taking your ID with you and losing it, and most importantly I understood that they got the wrong address the first time). Yes, they were great at aiming, but that doesn't imply that they were good at everything else.

Also, I heard some people blaming the police officers in the Megane "why didn't they block the street first and then run away? Why didn't they get out behind the doors and shot back? it's clearly staged. They arrived at the perfect time". To this I would say those weren't Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal. The worst those kind of policemen would see, is probably a bar fight or some gang shooting. They are not prepared for war. Also, bullets like that go through the car panels like cheese. I own french cars, and the body is quite soft to be lightweight. I think I would have done the same way as those guys. Panick, reverse, and run. Putting the car sideways would have made me a target for much longer.

And regarding the slip of the tongue, why would a reporter be present at the frameup, and why would the conspirators let him do a live feed? When you know someone knows your secret, you wouldn't like a slip up.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I just don't like it when I feel like someone is playing intellectually dishonest games or tactics to prove me wrong. Prove me wrong honestly, not through manipulative debate tactics, faulty logic and the use of strawmen and other fallacies. It's all good though.
But really can you quote exactly where you think this has been happening here? Your objections are hard to understand, so can you point to the specific things people have said that are manipulative debate tactics?
Your reaction just didn't seem to follow at all from what was posted in response to your queries.

To me it seems that there is someone trying to resucitate him. Correct me if I am wrong.
That may not mean categorically his heart was still beating, I think resuscitation is always tried as a matter of course unless it's really obvious it would be pointless.
See here for some examples -
http://theemtspot.com/2009/02/17/7-signs-that-say-do-not-recusitate/
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The point is that resuscitation doesn't depend on there being signs of life - it's what they do when there are no signs of life.

So the footage doesn't tell us what state the victim was in, we'll have to wait for an incident report from those at the scene for that. (unless there's some other obvious signs of life)
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
he says " the gun men appear to ...." ps. only CTs say "gubment" since im guessing htats what you think he said
"Gunmen" is a word the emerged from Northern Ireland days. It was a local phrase used to described what in the US would be labelled 'Terrorists', and adopted by British news providers as a neutral term. The BBC has very strict guidelines on the word 'terrorist' as it is emotive and violates their rules on impartiality.

Subsequently the word 'gunmen' has entered the lexicon of British news reporting and I don't know for a fact, but I imagine Sky has similar protocols of labelling events.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-reporting-terrorism-full
 

Pyotar

New Member
There are also lots of YouTube videos of people getting shot at close range, often in the head, but also in the body. You don't see exploding watermelons, you do see the bullet impact the ground on the other side of the person. There's no significant problems with recoil.

Warning: These videos show people being killed, executed by being shot at close range. Please do not embed similar videos, just link them as below, and with a warning.

Example 1: Public Execution of Zarmeena by Taliban (at 2:27) - A woman is executed with an AK-47 type rifle single shot to the head, no visible blood, puff of dust, minor recoil.

Example 2: SYRIA Execution Video: Three Drivers Executed By Jihadist Rebels Near Iraq-Syria Border. (at 3:03). Three men are executed with an AK-47 type rifle. It's unclear if any are shot in the head, but again there's no explosion of blood, but there is a puff of dust, and the shooter is quite casual about it, not at all hindered by recoil.

Sorry dude, but both examples you provided here have nothing in common with shooting a cop in paris. In first video if you watch it closely and in slow motion, you can see bullet making head wound, and going out side the head, stucking in the dirt. Later in video, the blue cloth victim is wearing becomes red on top from blood.
In second video, there is no blood, because it is obvious that this is staged execution, just observe third ''victim'', the one in yellow shirt, how he falls on the ground after being hit, watch how he, in one moment after being hit, makes few moves on his knees then turns his head slighty backwards...that is to see if he is supposed to fall by the scenario :D
Bullets were obviously blanks, if they were real bullets there would be at least one drop of blood visible anywhere in the shoot. That is basic knowledge - thickness of human skin goes from 0,5 to 4 mm, and if you penetrate through skin of a living person with any kind of sharp object, inevitably there shoud be at least a drop of blood as a result of that action.

Here is video from paris, with zoom and slow motion when ''terrorist'' shoots a cop in the head. Cop acting on the ground after first alleged shot is disgustingly obvious, and when it comes to shooting in head - let your eyes be the judge, but always remember - eyes are useless when the mind is blind :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Bullets were obviously blanks, if they were real bullets there would be at least one drop of blood visible anywhere in the shoot. That is basic knowledge - thickness of human skin goes from 0,5 to 4 mm, and if you penetrate through skin of a living person with any kind of sharp object, inevitably there shoud be at least a drop of blood as a result of that action.

But would you see it in this video? It's washed out, low resolution, and you can't even make out his individual fingers. A small spray of blood would be invisible. What would this drop of blood look like in this image?
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
You're right about one thing: Those are quite different circumstances.

I'm about to break a promise I made earlier in this thread twice, and I'm sorry, but... Well, this argument is beyond stupid and has to be met:
Budd Dwyer's live-on-TV suicide, probably the best documented bullet-head intersection in human history.
Edit: Additional apologies for embedding it, I thought making it a link initially would stop that but it didn't.

This is one of the better videos that exist - dozens of cameras were on him at the time, and while most news agencies kept the death video and years later released them on the internet, it took years to find one that didn't throw away his speech before hand. So, that's morbid.

This is a better quality video than the Paris shooting, and a higher caliber of bullet than any of the likely weapons used by the Paris shooters, at closer range, and inflicting a type of wound known for the most sever bleeding.

There is no spray of blood, no torrent of gore. It is not a slow motion Call of Duty style gib or a Hollywood style spectacle. With the news microphones automatically muting for loud noises there's not even much immediate indication that he's fired.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Bullets were obviously blanks

Do you know of the (now dead) up-and-coming actor named Jon-Erik Hexum?

(My bold italic emphasis added). A Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum

Even a "blank" at close range can be injurious.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
In second video, there is no blood, because it is obvious that this is staged execution, ... at least a drop of blood as a result of that action.
... - eyes are useless when the mind is blind ...
eyes and mind - i saw...

Yes, staged execution is correct, the one guy peed fake blood at 3:24 the blood spot grew, fake blood with blanks which rip through the bodies and hit the ground; did they use "squibs" to fake the bullet impacts..., the guy is peeing fake blood, a spot that grew from the previous frames. How did you know it was fake? As for eyes, I get glasses to correct my vision and see the eye doctor every year or two. 3 dead drivers, staged by the side of the road.

The murderers staged it to show off their deeds, their skill set, murder.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Steve Funk Debunked: French President Hollande: “Illuminati Behind The Paris Attacks” ['illuminés' = 'crazies'] Conspiracy Theories 23
gerrycan Charlie Thornton discussing a plane possibly hitting the WTC 9/11 61
Soulfly Interview with Charlie Veitch Escaping The Rabbit Hole 29
jvnk08 Charlie Veitch, former prominent 9/11 truther Escaping The Rabbit Hole 5
Spongebob Introducing The Real Charlie Veitch... People Debunked 2
J Charlie Veitch - 9/11 Change Of Mind 9/11 1
L Is there an updated or expanded version of the conspiracy theory spectrum? Practical Debunking 2
Rory "Escaping the anti-vax conspiracy rabbit hole" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top