Debunked: Google photos show Ottawa Parliament bullet holes are fake

[Redwood]

Update: Many of the "bullet holes" pointed to by reporter Evan Solomon were actually existing marks in the wall that he or someone had misidentified. The marks are visible in older images available on Google street view. CBC issued a correction the the story.

This story has been edited from a previous version that stated there were nine bullet holes in the wall near the Parliamentary library, based on information from multiple sources. In fact, upon further investigation, not all the marks were caused by the bullets. The exact number of bullets that hit the wall in the shooting is unclear‎.

Content from external source

The actual bullet holes seems to be in group lower down on the wall:

Image source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/2k3k0z/kevin_vickers_receives_standing_ovation_from/clhtp1i

The following is an edited version of the first post in this thread. The original is here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The blog, "The Memory Hole" has a post claiming that the bullet holes allegedly produced by gunshots from the shootout in the Canadian Parliament building have actually been there since April 2013:

Ottawa Shooting: Evidence of a Staged False Flag Attack

....Take a look at Google’s virtual tour of the Parliament building at the exact spot where Evan Solomon conspicuously states the location of the where the shooter was shot and this is what you get — taken on April 2013. The numbers are beside the bullet holes.

These markings on the wall from April 2013 match up exactly to where bullet holes were made when Vickers heroically shot and killed Bibeau on October 22nd 2014.

Content from external source

http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/10/31/ottawa-shooting-evidence-of-a-staged-false-flag-attack/

Here is the photo, as seen in the blog:


This is from Google Street View, the full image: (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4253355,-75.7001496,3a,39.1y,88.03h,77.99t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sDM19X-jMbXbdKblfKFWm-w!2e0!3e5)

Meanwhile, the YouTube channel "Free Radio Revolution":

FWIW, it appears to me that some of the chipped areas in the wall may not be from bullets, but others sure do look like they are.

 

[NoParty]

I'm not sure how much time I'd want to give this one.

So my first step was to see how many other entities are sufficiently impressed to be running with this.

One forum post at Above Top Secret seems to be the entirety of the internet's yawn of response.

Not a good sign for a false flag wannabe, trying to get legs...

 

[Trigger Hippie]

The CBC has posted a correction to that story. It seems the reporter (Evan Solomon) got a little ahead of himself. Just because it looks like a bullet hole does not mean it is one.

Corrections

• This story has been edited from a previous version that stated there were nine bullet holes in the wall near the Parliamentary library, based on information from multiple sources. In fact, upon further investigation, not all the marks were caused by the bullets. The exact number of bullets that hit the wall in the shooting is unclear‎. Also, the pistol used by the sergeant-at-arms is a semi-automatic, not an automatic as reported in an earlier version and in the TV piece attached.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

Yes, it seems the problem here originated with the reporter assuming those marks on the wall were bullet holes. They just look like filled in cracks and mounting holes (note the symmetry). There are similar sets of holes on the opposite wall.



Here's some of the actual bullet holes.
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcom...reporters-survey-bullet-holes-and-damage.html

 

[Redwood]

Yes, it seems the problem here originated with the reporter assuming those marks on the wall were bullet holes. They just look like filled in cracks and mounting holes (note the symmetry). There are similar sets of holes on the opposite wall.



Here's some of the actual bullet holes.
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcom...reporters-survey-bullet-holes-and-damage.html

Idiot reporters jumping to conclusions are nothing new. Like the reporter at Sandy Hook who said that nurse Sally Cox had told her that Nancy Lanza worked at S.H.E.S. as a teacher. Funny, with the ubiquity of recording devices nowadays, she had no video or audio of Ms. Cox making such a statement.

From such idiocies are bred many a conspiracy theory....

P.S. you'd think the Canadians would at least patch the mounting holes left in the wall, and the chips in the wall, too. Where's their sense of pride?

 

[Mick West]

P.S. you'd think the Canadians would at least patch the mounting holes left in the wall, and the chips in the wall, too. Where's their sense of pride?

They are patched. It just does not match the stone - possibly due to aging.

 

[des10emaye]

It says in your screenshot that it is April 2013 - look at the bottom right corner

As far as those being bullet holes... who knows and who cares. They are always exaggerating things in the news.

BTW I actually went to the link you provided (who does that anymore right?) and tried to get a date other than april 2013 but couldn't. Even tried classic view. Went outside (on the google map provided) and the next frame was dated 2014.
Looks conclusive to me - April 2013, you may want to say sorry to that blogger you just "debunked"

 

[des10emaye]

Are all you guys incapable of checking references before you conclude your investigation? Or do you really swallow down whatever you are told?

OH THE IRONY!!!
"...this appears to be yet another instance of Truther dishonesty, with other Truthers swallowing it uncritically..."

Wish I was a conspiracy theorist right now. I bet they are all throwing their tin foil hats in the air with glee. lol

 

[Mick West]

Are all you guys incapable of checking references before you conclude your investigation? Or do you really swallow down whatever you are told?

As seen above the original story was corrected, and this was noted within 20 minutes in this thread.

However the Memory Hole blog has not added this update to their story. So they are spinning one reporter's mistake as "irrefutable evidence."
http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/10/31/ottawa-shooting-evidence-of-a-staged-false-flag-attack/

Finally the irrefutable evidence. The one giant hole that sinks this alleged crazed terrorist rampage in downtown Ottawa of any of its buoyancy.

Evan Solomon of the CBC reveals in, to use his words, details of exactly how the incidents went down in Central Block in the Hall of Honor by the library.

Take a look at Google’s virtual tour of the Parliament building at the exact spot where Evan Solomon conspicuously states the location of the where the shooter was shot and this is what you get — taken on April 2013. The numbers are beside the bullet holes.

Content from external source

That's the problem here: "Finally the irrefutable evidence".

 

[des10emaye]

Prove to me where it doesn't say ON THE SCREENSHOT PROVIDED HERE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE
April 2013
IN VERY SMALL PRINT AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT?

The problem here is you are making the skeptic movement look like a joke.

 

[Mick West]

Think about it for a while. If this is the only irrefutable evidence in his story, and it's obviously bunk (why would they pretend existing marks are bullet holes, when it's perfectly obvious they would be revealed as are existing existing mark), what does this mean for the rest of the "evidence" in Tracy's story?

 

[des10emaye]

 

[des10emaye]

Why are you going off topic? Address my clear question and then I will yours

 

[Mick West]

Prove to me where it doesn't say ON THE SCREENSHOT PROVIDED HERE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE
April 2013
IN VERY SMALL PRINT AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT?

Who says it doesn't?

I'm not actually sure what point @Redwood was trying to make about the date in the OP. However the situation has now been clarified, and everyone agrees:
1) The marks in Google's street view predate the shooting.
2) The reporter misidentified some of these marks as bullet holes.

 

[des10emaye]

Are you serious? THE OP STATED:
But it seems that the author, "for some reason" has cropped the image so as to omit the arrow that shows that "Parliament Buildings Street View Apr 2013" is not a title to the image, but is instead a link, as you can see in the full image

 

[des10emaye]

THAT, was the main premise of not only the thread, but of all the commenters.

 

[Mick West]

Why are you going off topic? Address my clear question and then I will yours

The topic is the claim that Google Street view images show the bullet holes were fake. This claim has been falsified, as they are clearly just old patches that the reporter mistakenly identified as bullet holes.

 

[des10emaye]

And the last thing Redwood should do, is clarify to the thread readers that the picture was taken in April 2013 and he has unintentionally led posters to comment that "...this appears to be yet another instance of Truther dishonesty, with other Truthers swallowing it uncritically."

 

[Mick West]

THAT, was the main premise of not only the thread, but of all the commenters.

I think you need to read it again. In post #3 it was explained that the story was retracted. In #4 it was explained that the marks are pre-existing repairs to the wall. In #5 the original poster is talking about how the reporter messed up.

And I've edited the first post to add a clarification.

So what's the problem?

 

[Mick West]

And the last thing Redwood should do, is clarify to the thread readers that the picture was taken in April 2013 and he has unintentionally led posters to comment that "...this appears to be yet another instance of Truther dishonesty, with other Truthers swallowing it uncritically."

The update to the OP says:

Update: Many of the "bullet holes" pointed to by reporter Evan Solomon were actually existing marks in the wall that he or someone had misidentified. The marks are visible in older images available on Google street view. The CBC issued a correction the the story.

 

[des10emaye]

"they are clearly just old patches that the reported mistakenly identified as bullet holes..."

Seriously? Clearly? The news didn't think it was clear. The OP thought the picture was from bullet holes from the other day not April 2013 as I'm sure you also believed.

 

[des10emaye]

Look, edit out whatever you need to, just try to check your own claims before you go attacking random groups. I'm seriously thinking about putting this site on my junk list.

 

[Mick West]

"they are clearly just old patches that the reported mistakenly identified as bullet holes..."

Seriously? Clearly? The news didn't think it was clear.

It's quite clear now isn't it?

 

[Mick West]

Look, edit out whatever you need to, just try to check your own claims before you go attacking random groups. I'm seriously thinking about putting this site on my junk list.

Because mistakes are corrected? You prefer sites that don't issue corrections? Why not go on the Memory Hole Blog, and ask why they still claim in their story that this is "irrefutable evidence"?

 

[deirdre]

Look, edit out whatever you need to, just try to check your own claims before you go attacking random groups. I'm seriously thinking about putting this site on my junk list.

he didn't edit anything "out". and Mick didn't write the OP, so why are you yelling at him?

This isn't 'Snopes'. this is a forum. random people sign up and post things (OPs), then other people comment, correct and check the original facts. You have to read the whole thread, not just the OP.

Sometimes the OP is a full debunk out of the gate but not always. It often is a process, a group effort to examine the claim. And then once the claim has been 'debunked' or 'explained' (which isn't in the title as of yet) an admin will usually add an update to the OP clarifying what was discovered... As you just reminded Mick to do in this thread. They do this because most people don't read further than the OP or at least the first few posts.

Browse around the site a bit and you'll start to understand the format a bit more. : )

 

[Nick Dean]

Just a tad embarrassing, but you guys'll get over it.

Now that we know the bullet-hole story was fabricated out of whole cloth, and we have CBC's claim that multiple sources confirmed the fabricated bullet-hole story, the appropriate skeptical questions have been asked, but over at the memory hole blog.

It’s certainly irrefutable proof that CBC did not have the details right. So who gave them those details? And have they apologized yet to their audience? And will they do any investigation into why they were given false information?

If the location of the alleged final shoot-out is still officially correct, the absence of new damage to the wall from the gun fight raises its own questions, of course.

Content from external source

The ‘correction’ raises its own questions.

CBC was fed a pack of nonsense by multiple officials and ran the story unchecked. Why did CBC not check the claims for themselves? How could multiple officials all come to tell the same false story to the media absent collusion and an intention to mislead? Why would officials invent and seek to propagate the ‘bullet-hole’ story unless they felt the need to add verisimilitude, somehow – and why should they feel the need to do that?

And is CBC even asking these reasonable questions- especially after they say they were misled into making false claims themselves?

Content from external source

I hope metabunk will try to get answers to these questions, just as guys over at the Memory Hole Blog are.

 

[Mick West]

I hope metabunk will try to get answers to these questions, just as guys over at the Memory Hole Blog are.

Perhaps you could quote the official claims about bullet holes you feel are in dispute? All I'm seeing here is that a CBC reporter pointed at some marks in the wall that are not actually bullet holes.

 

[BombDr]

This does seem like another case of modern media doing a "show more than they know". Facts are not checked prior to broadcast and speculation equates to investigation.

The 7/7 bombings were originally reported as power spikes on the tube.
WTC7 was erroneously reported as having collapsed by the BBC prior to the actual collapse.
Local news erroneously reported which planes had landed and which were missing on 911.
Most western media reported that the Anders Brevik attacks were the work of Muslims.
A Saudi citizen is somehow involved in the Boston bombing.
etc etc etc.... All of the above have been used as 'evidence' of a false-flag/conspiracy/illuminati away day etc...

I am not aware how many ballistic experts work for CBC, but looking at the photos I can understand how a reasonable person who is a non-expert might assume that the marks on the walls were the effects of rounds striking them, and report them as such, in the light of a firefight occurring at the same location.

What I cannot understand is how any reasonable person will still claim this is evidence of 'something' after it had been corrected by the original source of the story, unless of course that person already has an agenda.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

I am not aware how many ballistic experts work for CBC, but looking at the photos I can understand how a reasonable person who is a non-expert might assume that the marks on the walls were the effects of rounds striking them, and report them as such, in the light of a firefight occurring at the same location.

I'm fairly certain that the wall in question is made of limestone. For the sake of comparison the image below is of old repaired bullet holes in limestone blocks, remnants of the Texas Bell Tower shootings. One of the patches is still holding, the lower one seems to have fallen off.



Photo from Jay's blog.

 

[Nick Dean]

This does seem like another case of modern media doing a "show more than they know". Facts are not checked prior to broadcast and speculation equates to investigation.[...]

What I cannot understand is how any reasonable person will still claim this is evidence of 'something' after it had been corrected by the original source of the story, unless of course that person already has an agenda.

BombDr, you're at least the fourth person in this thread to casually claim that the reporter is responsible for originating the idea the marks on the wall were bullet-holes, see also:

Trigger-hippie: "It seems the reporter (Evan Solomon) got a little ahead of himself."
Mick West: "Yes, it seems the problem here originated with the reporter assuming those marks on the wall were bullet holes."
Redwood: "Idiot reporters jumping to conclusions are nothing new."

In fact CBC's 'correction' claims that the information about these alleged 'bullet-holes' came from multiple sources, Solomon merely reported what he had been told by officials without checking it out. When skeptics discovered the bullet-hole story was bogus, CBC admitted the error, but is that enough (see my questions earlier in the thread)?

 

[Mick West]

In fact CBC's 'correction' claims that the information about these alleged 'bullet-holes' came from multiple sources, Solomon merely reported what he had been told by officials without checking it out. When skeptics discovered the bullet-hole story was bogus, CBC admitted the error, but is that enough (see my questions earlier in the thread)?

So what exactly did these "multiple sources" say about these marks on the wall?

 

[Nick Dean]

So what exactly did these "multiple sources" say about these marks on the wall?

What do you mean? According to the report they were supposed to have been caused by the climactic gunfight.

 

[Mick West]

What do you mean? According to the report they were supposed to have been caused by the climactic gunfight.

According to the reporter who pointed at them. The actual CBC report is quite long, and the pointing-at-bullet-holes part of it was just a fluff detail, with no sense of where it came from.

The problem here is that the "9 holes" thing was corrected the very next day. However the misleading video is still there.
The first story was on Oct 24, 2014 11:09 PM ET, the correction was 18 hours later. The Memory Hole story was on October 31. A full week after the original story, and six days after the correction.

Corrections

• This story has been edited from a previous version that stated there were nine bullet holes in the wall near the Parliamentary library, based on information from multiple sources. In fact, upon further investigation, not all the marks were caused by the bullets. The exact number of bullets that hit the wall in the shooting is unclear‎. Also, the pistol used by the sergeant-at-arms is a semi-automatic, not an automatic as reported in an earlier version and in the TV piece attached.
  Oct 25, 2014 5:15 PM ET

Content from external source

But the Memory Hole Blog reported this as

Finally the irrefutable evidence. The one giant hole that sinks this alleged crazed terrorist rampage in downtown Ottawa of any of its buoyancy.

Content from external source

And their response to being told about the correction the next day:

The “correction” is BS. Its pathetic at how many “corrections” media makes after an aware public catches this gross anomalies. How does Evan Solomon, an intelligent guy, use words like “exact” and “details” in a tone of confidence where there is NO doubt about what he is going to say. How can any media outlet put out information in this way and then makes statements like, “….upon further investigation….” Really?? Why the hell didn’t you do your due diligence to begin with? You never put the cart before the horse. CBC and all MSM seem to think this is acceptable. Remember In Living Colour? Homey D. Clown…. “Homey Don’t Play Dat!”

Content from external source

News station gets something wrong, corrects it in the text, but not the video. Conspiracy site first ignores (or misses) the correction, then says they don't believe it. That's all there is here.

 

[Mick West]

I'm going to remove the commentary from the OP, as it's just going to confuse the casual reader who arrives via Google. For transparency, the original text was:

The blog, "The Memory Hole" has a post claiming that the bullet holes allegedly produced by gunshots from the shootout in the Canadian Parliament building have actually been there since April 2013:

Ottawa Shooting: Evidence of a Staged False Flag Attack

....Take a look at Google’s virtual tour of the Parliament building at the exact spot where Evan Solomon conspicuously states the location of the where the shooter was shot and this is what you get — taken on April 2013. The numbers are beside the bullet holes.

These markings on the wall from April 2013 match up exactly to where bullet holes were made when Vickers heroically shot and killed Bibeau on October 22nd 2014.

Content from external source

http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/10/31/ottawa-shooting-evidence-of-a-staged-false-flag-attack/

Here is the photo, as seen in the blog:



But it seems that the author, "for some reason" has cropped the image so as to omit the arrow that shows that "Parliament Buildings Street View Apr 2013" is not a title to the image, but is instead a link, as you can see in the full image: (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4253355,-75.7001496,3a,39.1y,88.03h,77.99t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sDM19X-jMbXbdKblfKFWm-w!2e0!3e5)

It seems that the author has some explaining to do. Meanwhile, the YouTube channel "Free Radio Revolution" is going absolutely hysterical about it:

FWIW, it appears to me that some of the chipped areas in the wall may not be from bullets, but others sure do look like they are. In any event, this appears to be yet another instance of Truther dishonesty, with other Truthers swallowing it uncritically.


[/ex]

 

[Mick West]

The State Department's Flicker Account has a similar problem:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/15468531149/in/set-72157646685479173

Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Heyman Look at Repaired Bullet Holes in the Spot Where a Gunman Was Stopped in the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill in Ottawa

Content from external source

 

[Nick Dean]

According to the reporter who pointed at them. The actual CBC report is quite long, and the pointing-at-bullet-holes part of it was just a fluff detail, with no sense of where it came from.

The entire video is 3m44s, and, as we've established, CBC say the story about the bullet-holes came from multiple official sources.

The relevant questions that skeptics will want answered have been asked already in this thread,


CBC was fed a pack of nonsense by multiple officials and ran the story unchecked - the State of Play, so ...

Why did CBC not check the claims for themselves? Which officials gave false information to the press? Why did CBC not check the claims for themselves? How could multiple officials all come to tell the same false story to the media absent collusion and an intention to mislead? Why would officials invent and seek to propagate the ‘bullet-hole’ story unless they felt the need to add verisimilitude, somehow – and why should they feel the need to do that? Have they now fact-checked the rest of the information from the sources?

If the location of the alleged final shoot-out is still officially correct, the absence of new damage to the wall from the gun fight raises its own questions, of course. [Why is the wall not riddled with real bullet-holes?]


And is CBC even asking these reasonable questions- especially after they say they were misled into making false claims themselves? Have they apologized for their errors on the same show responsible for broadcasting them?

***

Skeptics caught this before the CBC correction:

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/2kajoc/is_cbc_wrong_about_the_9_bullet_holes/
http://imgur.com/a/LZ7Yb

I do not know if Dario di Meo was one of them. He apparently came to this evidence individually so perhaps he did. If the 'correction' had been posted at the CBC youtube video, or broadcast on the same news programs as the error, as is standard and expected, he might have been aware of it.

I entered the discussion 8 days after the 'correction' - that only makes it more shocking to me that CBC appears not to have done any investigation into why they were misled into broadcasting false claims or to have re-investigated the rest of the claims from 'investigative' sources, or even looked at their vetting processes so that such a thing won't happen again. The 'correction' only raises more questions: we knew they were wrong, and it's inexcusable that they were wrong, so why aren't they - or you - concerned about how and why they were misled?

 

[Nick Dean]

The State Department's Flicker Account has a similar problem:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/15468531149/in/set-72157646685479173

Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Heyman Look at Repaired Bullet Holes in the Spot Where a Gunman Was Stopped in the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill in Ottawa

Content from external source

Kerry was in Ottawa after skeptics had blown this bullet-hole story out the water and after the subsequent, or let's just say, later, CBC 'correction.'

Is 'Quickdraw Solomon' - the men everyone here tried to blame - responsible for drawing up visiting dignitaries' itineraries -and stubborn with it? "Them's bullet-holes, damn ye!"

 

[Mick West]

I entered the discussion 8 days after the 'correction' - that only makes it more shocking to me that CBC appears not to have done any investigation into why they were misled into broadcasting false claims

That's just silly. It's an incredibly minor point, and they issued a correction.

It does not even make sense as a "false flag". Are you actually suggesting that the plan was to use old repaired holes in the wall that were arranged in a perfect square, and to suggest they were bullet holes? Does that make any sense to you?

 

[Mick West]

Kerry was in Ottawa after skeptics had blown this bullet-hole story out the water and after the subsequent, or let's just say, later, CBC 'correction.'

Is quickdraw Solomon - the men everyone here tried to blame - responsible for drawing up visiting dignitaries itineraries -and stubborn with it?

Kerry was at the spot the shooter was shot. Those marks not being bullet holes does not alter that.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

so why aren't they - or you - concerned about how and why they were misled?

You are assuming the CBC was deliberately mislead by official sources, then using that assumption to support a false flag conspiracy. You'll need to present some evidence of the government's deliberate deception and show how the reporting of bullet holes could not have been a simple error on the part of the parties involved.