Thank you. Not everything has to be a vast conspiracy.

I'm guessing who ever wrote this up has never seen an actual shooting before. A gun shot isn't a instant knockdown and die, especially smaller calibers like 9mm.

As for the others.... 1 all involved were focused on the interview. Try sneaking up on one of your work colleagues as they are busy. Not hard to do even when you are in what should be their field of vision. Also, reporters are taught to keep eyes on the camera.

2 Easy. The shooter was waiting for the camera guy to have the reporter in frame.

1. Watch your local news. Camera men often pan over to the subject that is being discussed.

2. Again, try sneaking up on someone that is focused on their work.

3. Dont have anything on this one.

4. see start of post.

5. This is common, not necessarily a conspiracy

6. ^

7. The man had his reason. It poetically fit his twisted view.

8. PC age where gore is suppressed. Nothing new here.

9. He is seen as the cameraman falls down

10. Got nothing on this. Did not notice it myself

13 Got nothing on this one either. Not showing it would go along with the PC thing I mentioned above but dont have an explanation for police ordering it not to be shown.

1. Well yeah, people are going to want something done when the lose a family member.

2. Does not mean anything

16 ^

17 Not a conspiracy. Using a national headline to push your platform is common.

18 Goes with above.

19 Can be a coincidence.

I originally intended to just comment on the reaction of the lady being shot, but had to go on with the rest. There are a lot of shady events in the world, but this one is not one of them as far as I can see.

1: Big man with gun pointed directly at 2 people just a few feet away. No one notices, no one cares.

No one looks at the gunman even once despite his brandishing a normal-sized gun. Peripheral vision must be a conspiracy also! Instead, the 2 women carry on with their conversation. You couldn’t make this up. Don’t believe it? Watch the video for yourself.

2: After clearly pointing gun at his victims, shooter doesn’t shoot.

The video shows what turns out to be some kind of rehearsal pointing. Ask yourself what killer has ever done this outside of a Hollywood movie set? Put yourself for a second inside the mind of the supposed killer. Who points a gun at people in broad daylight, practices what he’s going to do and then after not pulling the trigger waits around to re-point the gun again a minute later?

3: Cameraman conveniently pointing camera away even though the interview is taking place now.

Watch as the cameraman is inexplicably shooting footage in a direction unrelated to the interview taking place, providing the perfect entrance for the apparently invisible shooter. Ask yourself, why would the cameraman do this? Was the interview that boring or that long that he needs to amuse himself by aimlessly panning across the scenery while the interview is happening? What are the odds of this coincidence?

4: Shooter is close to cameraman who somehow has no idea he’s there.

How does cameraman Adam Ward not see, hear, sense or even smell that there is someone standing right next to him? The shooter doesn’t even have a shadow! The scene takes place in a super quiet remote area and it’s a big man with a gun who is also invisible. This defies logic and reason, does it not? Coincidence? You decide.

5: How did gunman know they were filming that day, that location?

Simple questions that beg good answers. What’s a shooter doing in this remote area anyway? And how does the shooter know to be there at that exact time? Was he just wandering around in the neighborhood and decided to do this? Or did the shooter have a copy of the WDBJ production schedule? Maybe he did. Just wondering.

6: Reporter never goes down or twitches after being shot multiple times.

Magic bullet part 2? Could this be an example of the adrenaline bullet initial impact resistance theory? Perhaps it happened so fast she didn’t know she was shot? Everyone should go back and watch other videos of people being shot and look for the quick body twitch, the jolt and the instant collapse that happens when people get shot at point-blank range which is when bullets do the most damage. Then go back and see if anything in this recent shooting looks different. Also ask yourself, where is the blood? Where is the staggering struggle of someone who has just been shot?

Where have we seen this before? Back in January of this year (2015) during the Charlie Hebdo shooting incident we saw a supposed point-blank head explosion shooting of a Paris police officer with a AK47 assault rifle, only the video shows the shot hitting at least a foot away, no head jolt and no blood. This might lead us to think they are playing out of the same script again. But who knows? You decide.

7: Shooter commits the usual suicide.

Dead men tell no tales. Once again the shooter, this time Vester Lee Flanagan does not live to tell the story. The perfect ending once again for the controllers. Shooters who contribute to possible future gun legislation apparently almost always conveniently kill themselves now. The end result of shootings these days almost seem automated.

8: Shooter puts out the usual manifesto.

The “manifesto” has become a standard part of the script but we must all start to wonder – is the “manifesto” now being overplayed? I don’t know anyone, or know of anyone who has ever met someone who has written or even considered writing a manifesto of their life intent, yet government rolls out manifestos on all killer patsies nowadays. What’s the deal with the automated manifestos? What everyone should realize is that the manifesto is the perfect fill-in-the-blank propaganda document to sway the masses on anything they want them to believe. If the manifesto says you did it, then you did it. The manifesto conveniently fills in the blank to create perception of intent. How perfect!

9: Video of shooting seems intended exclusively for shock value, no other purpose.

This may be coincidental as well but like the James Foley fake beheading and all other ISIS videos, this point-of-view video seems like it is mostly intended to shock you and get a reaction from you as in problem-REACTION-solution. Ask yourself, why would the government and media want to shock everyone? Is the story itself not enough?

10: Video conveniently now being censored by YouTube Charlie Hebdo and James Foley style.

Once the shock value is accomplished by the mainstream media as we’ve seen in recent shock value videos like the James Foley fake beheading video or the Charlie Hebdo fake police officer execution video, it seems once the mainstream media pushes the initial shock value video to create the reaction there is no need to allow the world to watch the video and scrutinize it. This seems to be when the censorship of the same video begins. The controllers would rather you not watch the video on your own on YouTube where you might come across alternative media links and explanations of their false flags and crisis actors. Instead, they would rather you just trust the mainstream media’s presentation of the video evidence and leave it at that.

11: Image of shooter produced by a video without such frame?

Others have pointed out how the media put out an image of the shooter based on the video camera footage but we never see this footage so where did they get this frame from? Yes, this may be a coincidence, who knows, but given all the other oddities it makes you wonder.

12: Audio file of shooting after camera cuts off sounds very different.

I’m no sound expert but from my military experience I know the sound of rounds shot at a range. Admittedly, the audio of the shooting sounds very different from the camera version due to its much more pronounced echoes. I find this a little odd but who knows.

13: Police order BBC journalist to delete video footage of shooter’s crash.

Anytime we hear police forcing anyone, especially a journalist, to destroy evidence this should set off a red flag in your mind and it’s got to make anyone at least wonder why. Why destroy evidence?? Who or what threat does this evidence represent and to who? This is very troubling.

14: Family members quickly on TV calling for gun control , Sandy Hook style.

This is one of the most disturbing issues for me when I first watched an interview with family member Andy Parker. Once again supposed family members in lightning speed are propped up on TV bypassing the mourning, sincerity and humility stage that comes with grieving for a recently murdered family member and they are instead calling for gun control and political agendas. Parker delivers his shocking political call to action to America within seconds:

We’ve got to do something about crazy people getting guns.

Is anyone not reading through this?

15: Andy Parker, alleged father of murdered reporter happens to be a former Broadway actor.

Should it matter that Andy Parker is a former Broadway actor? Under any other circumstances it might not matter, but unfortunately this is not an ordinary situation.

16: Andy Parker, Director of Human Resources for Virginia National Bank.

Should it matter that, coincidentally, Andy Parker is directly tied to the banking system in addition to being a proven professional actor? You decide.

17: White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, rolls out direct propaganda.

The White House quickly urges Congress to use “common sense” in order to reduce gun violence in America. Timing is everything isn’t it?

18: Obama administration quickly links the incident to a race war and gun owners, perfectly in line with Flanagan’s manifesto.

Just in case no one believes the manifesto, here comes the White House to reiterate the race theme in the manifesto and to push their propaganda.

19: Shooting takes place 2 days after the UN Arms Trade Treaty in Mexico.

In the end this is about gun control, so should it shock you that this shooting took place 2 days after the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in Mexico? Lucky timing? Is it a coincidence that Obama is trying to claim that Congress ratified the UN’s Arms Trade agreement in 2013 when in fact Congress did not? Does it surprise you that the timing is perfect with these treaty talks?

There seems to always be a shooting right around the time the UN Arms Trade Treaty comes up or whenever there is an event or Arms bill being discussed. Coincidence? Again, you decide.