Before It's News
August 27, 2015
[Updated @ 4:42AM PDT]
As a young man growing up in Lynchburg, I visited Smith Mountain Lake several times. It’s a beautiful location that brings back a lot of memories for me and I wish it hadn’t been used in such a manner as it was yesterday morning.
While some supposedly alternative websites are busy pushing any race-baiting angle they can come up with regarding this event, I’m going to take a slightly different tack, the one alternative sites USED to take before they all became to frightened to speak out. I’m going to evaluate it as an investigative journalist should, on it’s merits, and make a determination as to whether or not it’s a real tragedy or something else.
The story about WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward being shot on live television while doing a promotional spot for Smith Mountain Lake in Moneta, Virginia at 6:43 am is riddled with serious flaws and being covered in such a way as to remind me of all those phony “ISIS™” beheading videos that were anything but videos of someone being beheaded.
We’ll take them one at a time:
The “horrific” and “graphic” images that weren’t
If you remember back when they were still running those fake “ISIS™” videos of the staged beheadings that never seemed to happen on camera, you might recall a campaign emerged from the MSM telling people if they watched the actual videos that had been put out there, “ISIS™” would “win”
There was a major effort put out telling folks not to view the actual videos but instead just to take everyone’s word for it that they were “horrific” and “graphic” and they should hate “ISIS™” and support Obama’s re-engagement of Iraq and bombing of Syria and just leave it at that.
Well, there was a reason for that if you remember. It was because the videos were poorly made at first and not only did they not show people getting their heads cut off, they seemed to show some guy pretending to cut another guy’s neck with a plastic knife.
Of course they didn’t want you too see that because seeing those videos for what they were, or, more accurately, for what they weren’t, would harm the propaganda value of the project. It’s really just that simple.
Seems we have the same thing developing around this story as well.
- New York Daily News Shocks With Graphic Cover Of Murdered Journalists
- The Reason You Saw The Virginia Shooting Video, Even If You Didn’t Want To
- How Most Major TV Networks Handled The Graphic Footage
Do you see anything “graphic” in that image? Seems to me he missed. I mean, after all, if you watch the full video that the man took himself, you can see her run away after he fired a number of shots at her at point blank range. She never seems to react to being hit by a hail of bullets at all. And in the case of this image, she clearly is doing the same thing right before she turns and runs down that deck.
So, you have to ask yourself, why the big deal about not showing the full video of the attack. Why is it being pulled everywhere it’s uploaded? Why are the MSM talking heads acting as if this is the most shocking thing they ever saw? It’s ridiculous. And speaking of ridiculous:
Heavy.com posted this dire warning before showing the video of the shooter POV video. Of course, there is no graphic content in the actual video itself.
Graphic images have been shown on the MSM before. Real graphic images.
In this case, the Telegraph slightly blurred out an image of Mike Brown’s body lying dead in the street with a trail of blood coming from him. Is that more horrific than an image of a shooter missing a woman at point blank range?
In this case, CNN published then rebroadcast the iconic image of that burning monk in Vietnam. How many nightmares would that cause Dan Abrams?
And that’s too say nothing of what the Times UK published after 9/11:
That’s a horrific image. That will give you nightmares.
So you have to ask yourself why the big deal being made out of showing the images of this event when they were neither “horrific” nor “graphic”… and the answer is pretty obvious when you look at it realistically.
How did the shooter know where to find these two at 6:43 am?
Something that very few people seem to be asking is, to me, the most obvious: how did Vester Lee Flanagan know where they were going to be for the promo shoot?
Seems like another obvious question, doesn’t it? Smith Mountain Lake is an incredibly isolated area and it’s massive. Finding these three people in the remote location would be like finding a needle in a haystack and that’s assuming that somehow or another Vester was able to figure out they were doing a morning shoot there in the first place.
It’s about an hour from Roanoke and if you know anything about these kinds of promotional shoots, you know it takes about an hour to set one up which means if he had followed one of them from Roanoke, he would have had to have been staking out their cars somewhere around 3 or 4 am. Who does that?
I’m not ready for my close-up Mr. DeMille
This is probably one of the most damning aspects of this investigation of mine so I want you to follow along with me.
What I intend to show here is the fact that Mr. Flanagan was a bit early on his cue and hit his mark before he was supposed to, so he simply stepped back, waited, and then made his entrance again. This might actually be one of the main reasons they don’t want you watching that video.
And remember, he gets there ahead of time so he can set up his props as well. He’s got some kind of body camera on and his gun of course, but he also had to walk to the shoot location, supposedly without being seen by the three people involved in the promo. Ask yourself how that was possible, then go watch his video here.
It’s not “graphic".
What we have here is someone entering a scene, hitting his mark early, stepping as if he made an entrance onstage too soon and jumped back in the wings hoping no one would notice. Then, he waits, and resumes his entrance. The others take no notice of him, but that’s ridiculous. Of course they would notice him. How could they not notice him. He’s a large man with a gun pointed at them 4 feet away.
According to his “manifesto”, Flanagan was enraged at this woman. He was a “powder keg” just waiting to go off at her.
In it he wrote: ‘My anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!’ Daily Mail
So why is it that he was so concerned about making sure the shooting aspect of the scene was on live TV? I thought he wanted to go “boom!!!”
Wouldn’t it be enough for him to shoot them and have the audience hear it? After all, he was recording it himself. He knew the video would be out there soon enough. So why wait? Why risk his big move? That camera man could have noticed him at any point and dropped his camera and grabbed the gun. After all, he was practically resting it on the guy’s shoulder. So why wait when all that could achieve would be to put his big plan at risk? If he and the cameraman start rolling around for the gun, the supposed target, the reporter, could get away. So why wait?
What was more important? Going “boom!!!”, exacting his revenge on her for something she had nothing to do with… or getting it on live TV? Apparently you have your answer.
He waited because the “shock and awe” aspect of the shooting was all about being live on TV. That’s how it worked. How it was scripted to work. Like the second plane hitting the South Tower 15 minutes after one hit the North Tower. Cameras were all there filming the burning building for live TV broadcasts and here comes another plane to slam into the other tower. Shock and awe.
That’s why he waited and that’s why they paid no attention to him.
When I was in high school back in ’84, I was an actor. We did a production of Anastasia in the round and I played Prince Bounine. The stage was set up with the audience seated on it and they were less than 10 feet from the action. This was before the musical version came out. As the play opened, there was a meeting taking place between myself and several other actors one of whom showed up late. Real late. Like 4 minutes or so. Those of us on stage had to improvise, cover for his absence and get the important information out that his character was supposed to introduce during the “meeting”
When he finally rushed on stage looking panicked, he immediately started in on his first lines, taking us way back to the first lines in the script. Others sat there staring at him not knowing what to do. Since I was “in charge” of the meeting, being Prince Bounine, I told him to “be silent” in my best Yule Brenner impersonation (I wasn’t a particularly good actor as a kid), told him to be silent and sit down. Since he chose to be late to our meeting, he could just sit there until we needed him. Which, to his credit, he did until we rounded back to a point in the script where he could figure out where we were and continue on with the play as normal.
I tell you this because I’ve been there. Live performances are so much more challenging than recorded ones and that’s because you never know what is going to happen. Someone comes in late… someone comes in early. You have to be able to adapt and adjust on the fly and while doing so, make it look organic to the scene.
That’s what didn’t happen yesterday morning in Smith Mountain Lake. And that is obvious when you watch that video he made… you know, the one someone edited.
The getaway, the rental car, the crash, the obligatory “manifesto” and the “I’m so crazy” video
If someone were to make sure everyone knew he was a shooter in this case, why would he try to get away? What’s the point?
In this case, the shooter not only left the scene, he drove more than 3 hours away, “hundreds of miles”, in morning traffic, on his way to DC from the look of it. Why would he do that?
We have been told that law enforcement figured out what car the shooter was in (somehow) and tracked him for “hundreds of miles” on interstate 81. Did they track him to the Fed Ex where he supposedly faxed his “manifesto”? They would have had to, right? He did that two hours after the shooting. Why didn’t they stop him then?
Then we are told there was a chase and a “crash” after which, the shooter took his own life with a handgun in a rental car. Below is a picture of that ‘crash’ and the rental car. Does that look like a ‘crash’ to you? There aren’t even tracks or skid marks in the soft grass behind the car, which apparently hit absolutely nothing. Seems to me he pulled off the road in complete control and someone… got out.. possibly disappearing in the woods? Remember the “crash” at the Navy annex building in Tenn? The “crash” into the gate that left no marks on the vehicle? How about Miriam Carey “crashing” into the gate at the White House? Remember those?
In the video you see his nice car, a Ford Mustang. Why did he rent one? Did he sell his Mustang prior to this? Did he get the extra insurance on the rental?
And while we are on the subject, why would he take his own life right next to that patch of woods right there? I thought he was seeking vengeance for all the white on black murders as of late. Well, didn’t the cops perpetrate most of that? Has he never heard of Freddie Grey, Mike Brown, Walter Scott and Miriam Carey? Why go “boom!!!” on the white woman who had nothing to do with any kind of harm toward black people and then, when being confronted by those that did, you opt to take your own life rather than attempt to harm them?
I’m not suggesting someone do that, I’m just curious what the logic is there? Where’s the f’in “boom!!!”? That’s going out with a whimper but you see, many of the American Gladio shooters did the exact same thing. In fact, many wrote their “manifestos” as well. Seems like a pattern to me. How about you?
Reporters told to delete video of “crash” scene?
Jan10 sent me an interesting link which you guys should be made aware of. She herself is having a hard time accepting my conclusions on this matter, but this story stands out so much she thought I needed to see it.
“The suspect vehicle refused to stop and sped away from the trooper. Minutes later, the suspect vehicle ran off the road and crashed. The troopers approached the vehicle and found the male driver suffering from a gunshot wound. He is being transported to a nearby hospital for treatment of life-threatening injuries,” the report says. Flanagan later died, the BBC reported.
The BBC reporters, Strasser and McKelvey, were reporting from the scene of the crash when they were told by police to delete their video footage. PRI
As I have shown, there was no “crash”. The car seems to have simply pulled over and stopped. That aside, the reporters can’t quite figure out why it is if the cops view the video as evidence, why do they want it erased? Because that is what they did with it. Why erase footage they would need later for the investigation? Makes you think doesn’t it.
Whatever happened to the security camera footage from Sandy Hook? How about all the cameras from that theater in Aurora? How about the eighty-something cameras that surrounded the Pentagon that would have captured Flight 77 hitting the building? Whatever happened to them or that video of Timothy McVeigh’s accomplice getting out of the Ryder truck?
We starting to see a pattern?
Motive, motive, motive and then motive. So where’s the motive?
The faxed “manifesto” is not a motive. It is not a confession. It’s a drop gun. It’s crack sprinkled on yet another black man’s face when he was lying dying on a street corner somewhere (thank you Dave Chappelle)
This is called presumption of guilt and it’s used in lieu of an actual investigation. It is not a motive.
Many of the American Gladio operations lack motive. Holmes had none and God knows Adam Lanza didn’t. Those Boston Bomber brothers? What was their motive?
In this case, the “manifesto” faxed supposedly while the suspect was being tracked up I-81 for “hundreds of miles” contained what appears to be incriminating statements and what PASSES as a motive, but on further examination, it really doesn’t.
Being angry about what happened in South Carolina at that church is not a motive. If it were, he would be seeking out Dylan Roof, not this reporter who had nothing to do with it.
Claiming she made racist statements doesn’t amount to motive either especially when he shoots the cameraman who made no racist statements then leaves the head of the local Chamber of Commerce alive at the scene.
You can say he was a mad racist all you want, but her being left alive undermines your conclusion. In fact, from the video, you can see he never even targets her unless that happened during the edited out portion.
These two aspects of the story are included in the “manifesto” in order to be able to provide a pretext for the media to convict the guy in the court of public opinion without real evidence. They are indicators, not evidence. And though race-baiting interests like those who play the divide and conquer game with us everyday, would have you believe this is the motive, it isn’t. It doesn’t rise to that occasion.
Were this to end up being an example of a news organization manufacturing a story in order to promote a nation-wide agenda, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that happened. You have to remember, fascism doesn’t happen just from the upper reaches of society. When it comes to a nation, it always has support from the bottom rungs of society as well. People looking to carve out a niche for themselves in the new order of things.
We see this everyday in Syria. We see it everyday with “ISIS™” or the attacks on real populist candidates. We saw it during the lead-up to the humanitarian bombing in Libya and we saw it decades ago when they were setting us up for the same treatment of Yugoslavia.
We saw it when CNN reporters pretended to be under a scud missile attack back in ’91.
We saw it during the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation.
We see it every year when they do some official story promoting spots on the anniversaries of 9/11 or the shooting of JFK.
News as activism is nothing new. It’s been a part of the “journalism” profession for a very long time. We have to acknowledge that and remember it when viewing something like this.
As Obama and so many other politicians leap to the stage to demand gun control measures as a result of this event, we have to remember it wasn’t that long ago that our beloved leader said on live TV that the biggest regret he has had thus far during his tenure wasn’t the 4 State Department members killed in Benghazi or all those drone strikes killing folks overseas.. no, it was that he has yet to be able to do away with the second amendment in light of all these American Gladio operations.
I deliberately waited on writing something about this event because I wanted to cover it as best I could, absent any misinformation that was generated in the early stages of it. As I have written before, I don’t like to jump on stories like these before doing a good deal of research into them. They are difficult stories with difficult conclusions.
Regardless of the history of so many manufactured news events, this one, like all the other American Gladio operations, has to be evaluated on it’s own merits and I think I have done a respectable job in that regard.
Based on how it’s being handled by the media, on how the event unfolded, how the shock and awe aspect of it plays perfectly into the current gun-grabbing agenda of the current administration, the inclusion of the divide and conquer racial elements of it and how the police seem to want to destroy evidence rather than collect it, I have to come to the conclusion that something is terribly wrong with the official narrative of this event.
It simply doesn’t make sense the way it’s being framed. But it does make sense in another way. In fact, that makes perfect sense.
How did he know to be there? Why did he wait for the cameraman to change his focus? Why didn’t they react when he’s 4 feet away from them with a gun pointed at them? How did he miss at point blank range? How was she still able to run after 6 shots at point blank range? Why leave the other white lady alive? Why is the MSM refusing to show that video? How did they find him in that rental car? Why destroy the video footage shot at that scene? Where is the “crash” they talked about? How did he have the time to edit that video and upload it to Facebook, post Tweets announcing his video and guilt and fax his “manifesto” while being tracked by law enforcement for “hundreds of miles”?
Way too many serious questions about this event leads me to conclude it was a staged event. Just one more in a long line of them making the general public ready to relinquish just one more of their constitutional rights.
That’s my conclusion and that’s how I reached it.
After reading the above article I started looking into things myself. Personally, I am not 100% convinced this is a 'staged' event, government or otherwise. Yet, either way, you can bet that the government will capitalize on it in its struggle against the U.S. Second Amendment. With that said, there are some serious questions surrounding it.
Another compelling question is what type of device was used to record the video from Flanagan's perspective. Many media outlets are stating that it was a GoPro type of device, yet exact information has not been provided by anyone. Outside of obvious questions, such as, if it were a GoPro why was it dropped, it is essential to answer questions on how Flanagan uploaded the footage to social media while in transit after this heinous event.
And of course, as stated in the piece I've shared above, how did Flanagan know where they were going to be?
Why didn't Parker or the woman being interviewed notice a huge man with a gun pointing at them? How did Flanagan edit his video and get it online?
This guy is either a horrible actor, suffering from the worst case of Asperger's ever seen, or not in reality. But hey, he is calling for more gun dialogue - right on cue. I realize that people handle grief differently and that some can appear rather disaffected - but his quick turnaround for media interviews, coupled with his behavior during interviews, strikes me as odd. Further, I find it rather odd that the immediate agenda of this man and Parker's father is gun control - not taking time out from the public eye to grieve privately. Again, it's the entire concoction, that when put together, just feels unnatural. And without trying to sound completely insensitive, if you didn't know any better he sounds and looks as if he is talking about an event that did occur years ago.
Oh, there's more smiles:
Oh, there's more smiles:
Lots of blue. Smiles. Lots of blinking. Eyes at half-mast. What does that mean?
With that said I do have issues with some of Scott Creighton's angles. His statement that there was not crash is not valid; it was reported that he went off the road and his vehicle was stopped by a natural bank. The term crash is obviously used rather loosely. He chose to use a picture that fit the 'no-crash' scenario. Further, it's been reported that, once identified as a suspect, law enforcement tracked his movement via cellular towers - it was not as if he had a helicopter trailing him at all times.
Still, I am left with questions that will likely go unanswered.