Sticking your head in a hole and ignoring all facts is not how a conspiracy happens. Do you have a single shred of evidence that it DIDN'T happen? Start there.
BTW, in that video you don't find credible, around the 4 minute mark you hear a bullet go by the camera. Please explain how that was faked.
The entire reason of the post is to compile proof that it did happen, genius. Read the title maybe?
So far I don't see any proof at all and you are 0/3 in your comments.
By the way, the sound of a bullet whizzing past a camera proves what exactly? That someone shot a gun there for the video? You don't suppose that sound effect has ever appeared before in any movies do you? We can assume, I guess, that all movies are real.
Compile proof that it DID happen... because you don't believe it happened. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
So a video, with a BUNCH of people in it AT the location, showing a guy who's been shot, hearing constant gun fire including a bullet ricochet right near the camera, hearing the police take him out IS proof. You just choose to not believe it.
The police reports and footage of him being taken out on a stretcher IS proof, you just choose not to believe it.
You need to prove these things DIDN'T happen or they were faked. The pile of evidence is there, you're just choosing to ignore it.
Why don't you post this pile of evidence you have instead of just talking about it so we can decide for ourselves if any of it is credible?
And while you do this, let me let you in on a little concept you might be unfamiliar with called a cover-up.
A cover-up means that when you try to fake something, you actually have to make some effort to make it believable.
If all it takes to prove to you that a specific person shot a group of people in a wanton act of senseless violence, is the sound of gunshots and voices yelling, then your trust of the mainstream media is simply much higher than mine.
What I'm saying to you, and this might be earth-shattering, is that evidence can be faked.
This is a conspiracy forum, where we don't always accept mainstream media reports and we are aware of past conspiracies and falsified evidence.
I'm aware that evidence can be faked. My point is, is this sub's position that everything is a cover-up/conspiracy until proven otherwise? I mean, do you believe Hitler and Elvis are still alive? Do you not believe the Earth is flat? Does gravity work where you live?
For something to be a conspiracy, there has to be a reason for the conspiracy. What does someone gain by faking it? Then there has to be either a total lack of evidence or something wrong in the actual evidence.
Evidence: police reports, eye-witnesses, victims, perp is dead, amateur video.
What is the conspiracy?
Do you believe James Thomas Hodgkinson existed? Do you believe he is now dead? Because both of these are easy to prove/disprove.
Do you believe a shooting did or did not occur? If you believe it did NOT occur, what kind of evidence would change your mind since you weren't there? Obviously you don't believe in witness testimony or the amateur video of the event.
Do you believe the congressman was shot? HIPAA protects the medical records but would you believe the hospital or doctors?
If there were no witnesses, no police report, no victim, a perp that didn't exist, etc. you'd have a reason to doubt it but jeesh, this one is easy.
It's a good question of what the standard of proof would be for some skeptical conspiracist like me.
I don't need to see close-up HD autopsy photos or even footage of the attack taking place, necessarily. But there needs to be the three-dimensional appearance and manifestation, the flavor if you will, of a real shooting.
You say there are witnesses. Post the one you think is most credible instead of just talking about it. That's the point of this thread.
You say there is a police report. Where is it?
You imply that there is a victim. Ok..... yes there is a purported victim. Don't know what your point is here unless you can show me his medical record.
You imply the perp is a real guy. Don't doubt that, but again you cannot prove it.
And no, I do not need to know the motive behind faking a shooting to know it is fake. I can speculate, but one does not need to know someone's motive to know they are looking at a crime scene.
Feel free to post what you find to be the most convincing evidence that there was a real shooting, by the alleged culprit, that injured the alleged victims. Because right now you're just talking about it and for anyone who practices critical thinking when presented with lurid mainstream media reports, that's not enough.
My point is, all of that was EASILY found. It's not like I had some inside track to it. I expect the OP to make a case for their argument, not make an argument and expect someone else to do it for them. Let me guess, you're a millennial? I mean come on, make an effort.
I look at the things you posted and am unsure of what is supposed to be convincing.
The "witness" is a Congressman. Seems full of shit.
The "doctor" doesn't say anything particularly illuminating. The biggest word he uses is "transpelvic" which any decent script writer could have thought of.
There was a fake doctor in the fake Sandy Hook school shooting also, H. Wayne Carver. Because I see a guy at a podium with a white jacket that says MD I have to believe all other news reports?
We've already discussed the video and how it shows literally nothing.
The video of Scalise on a stretcher? Well that proves that he participated. He's not receiving medical care, I don't see any ambulances on scene, and there is in fact no footage of anyone receiving any medical care on scene.
You know what else is missing? Blood. There isn't a single drop of blood visible anywhere despite the reports of Scalise "crawling through blood" and the descriptions of how bloody the scene was.
You think if someone was going to fake a shooting and had pockets as deep as Congress they couldn't be bothered to at least film a scene of the guy in a stretcher with his shirt off (and no blood)?
While I'm not saying it was a hoax, at least not for sure, you can't just present a few insiders giving testimony and call that proof that the event occurred as it was reported. None of the above could not be easily faked, in other words.
view the rest of the comments →
HarveyKlinger ago
How about that I live in the Chicago suburbs and know someone who knew the guy. He's now dead and it fucking happened.
blackguard19 ago
Ok add to the list of evidence a random person on the internet saying that "it fucking happened."
HarveyKlinger ago
Sticking your head in a hole and ignoring all facts is not how a conspiracy happens. Do you have a single shred of evidence that it DIDN'T happen? Start there.
BTW, in that video you don't find credible, around the 4 minute mark you hear a bullet go by the camera. Please explain how that was faked.
blackguard19 ago
The burden of proof is on the claimant, in this case the MSM. I don't have to prove a negative.
HarveyKlinger ago
LOL, when you're entire reason for the post is to disprove that it happened, you do genius.
blackguard19 ago
The entire reason of the post is to compile proof that it did happen, genius. Read the title maybe?
So far I don't see any proof at all and you are 0/3 in your comments.
By the way, the sound of a bullet whizzing past a camera proves what exactly? That someone shot a gun there for the video? You don't suppose that sound effect has ever appeared before in any movies do you? We can assume, I guess, that all movies are real.
HarveyKlinger ago
Compile proof that it DID happen... because you don't believe it happened. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
So a video, with a BUNCH of people in it AT the location, showing a guy who's been shot, hearing constant gun fire including a bullet ricochet right near the camera, hearing the police take him out IS proof. You just choose to not believe it.
The police reports and footage of him being taken out on a stretcher IS proof, you just choose not to believe it.
You need to prove these things DIDN'T happen or they were faked. The pile of evidence is there, you're just choosing to ignore it.
blackguard19 ago
Why don't you post this pile of evidence you have instead of just talking about it so we can decide for ourselves if any of it is credible?
And while you do this, let me let you in on a little concept you might be unfamiliar with called a cover-up.
A cover-up means that when you try to fake something, you actually have to make some effort to make it believable.
If all it takes to prove to you that a specific person shot a group of people in a wanton act of senseless violence, is the sound of gunshots and voices yelling, then your trust of the mainstream media is simply much higher than mine.
What I'm saying to you, and this might be earth-shattering, is that evidence can be faked.
This is a conspiracy forum, where we don't always accept mainstream media reports and we are aware of past conspiracies and falsified evidence.
HarveyKlinger ago
I'm aware that evidence can be faked. My point is, is this sub's position that everything is a cover-up/conspiracy until proven otherwise? I mean, do you believe Hitler and Elvis are still alive? Do you not believe the Earth is flat? Does gravity work where you live?
For something to be a conspiracy, there has to be a reason for the conspiracy. What does someone gain by faking it? Then there has to be either a total lack of evidence or something wrong in the actual evidence.
Evidence: police reports, eye-witnesses, victims, perp is dead, amateur video.
What is the conspiracy?
Do you believe James Thomas Hodgkinson existed? Do you believe he is now dead? Because both of these are easy to prove/disprove. Do you believe a shooting did or did not occur? If you believe it did NOT occur, what kind of evidence would change your mind since you weren't there? Obviously you don't believe in witness testimony or the amateur video of the event. Do you believe the congressman was shot? HIPAA protects the medical records but would you believe the hospital or doctors?
If there were no witnesses, no police report, no victim, a perp that didn't exist, etc. you'd have a reason to doubt it but jeesh, this one is easy.
blackguard19 ago
It's a good question of what the standard of proof would be for some skeptical conspiracist like me.
I don't need to see close-up HD autopsy photos or even footage of the attack taking place, necessarily. But there needs to be the three-dimensional appearance and manifestation, the flavor if you will, of a real shooting.
You say there are witnesses. Post the one you think is most credible instead of just talking about it. That's the point of this thread.
You say there is a police report. Where is it?
You imply that there is a victim. Ok..... yes there is a purported victim. Don't know what your point is here unless you can show me his medical record.
You imply the perp is a real guy. Don't doubt that, but again you cannot prove it.
And no, I do not need to know the motive behind faking a shooting to know it is fake. I can speculate, but one does not need to know someone's motive to know they are looking at a crime scene.
Feel free to post what you find to be the most convincing evidence that there was a real shooting, by the alleged culprit, that injured the alleged victims. Because right now you're just talking about it and for anyone who practices critical thinking when presented with lurid mainstream media reports, that's not enough.
HarveyKlinger ago
blackguard19 ago
Finally! Now we can look at all that and see if it passes the sniff test.
HarveyKlinger ago
Ugh. You were just too lazy to look anything up for yourself? WTF?!
blackguard19 ago
Before that comment I was the only one who had posted any other link here.
HarveyKlinger ago
My point is, all of that was EASILY found. It's not like I had some inside track to it. I expect the OP to make a case for their argument, not make an argument and expect someone else to do it for them. Let me guess, you're a millennial? I mean come on, make an effort.
blackguard19 ago
I look at the things you posted and am unsure of what is supposed to be convincing.
The "witness" is a Congressman. Seems full of shit.
The "doctor" doesn't say anything particularly illuminating. The biggest word he uses is "transpelvic" which any decent script writer could have thought of.
There was a fake doctor in the fake Sandy Hook school shooting also, H. Wayne Carver. Because I see a guy at a podium with a white jacket that says MD I have to believe all other news reports?
We've already discussed the video and how it shows literally nothing.
The video of Scalise on a stretcher? Well that proves that he participated. He's not receiving medical care, I don't see any ambulances on scene, and there is in fact no footage of anyone receiving any medical care on scene.
You know what else is missing? Blood. There isn't a single drop of blood visible anywhere despite the reports of Scalise "crawling through blood" and the descriptions of how bloody the scene was.
You think if someone was going to fake a shooting and had pockets as deep as Congress they couldn't be bothered to at least film a scene of the guy in a stretcher with his shirt off (and no blood)?
While I'm not saying it was a hoax, at least not for sure, you can't just present a few insiders giving testimony and call that proof that the event occurred as it was reported. None of the above could not be easily faked, in other words.