Does anyone else think its suspious that mere minutes after every single tragic event to happen in the world, someone comes on here and tries to claim its a false-flag with no actual evidence to prove it?

I think its a part of some kind of coordinated shilling campaign. If you ingrain that its a false-flag from the start, people will blindly believe it and stop questioning the lack of evidence to prove it is a false-flag. This is not the first shooting I've seen this happen with either; it happens with every mass-shooting event.

I mean holy shit, tragic events do happen. From browsing this subreddit it seems that we live in a world where no one ever dies tragically ever and every tragic event to happen is a false-flag.

Does anyone else think its suspious that mere minutes after every single tragic event to happen in the world, someone comes on here and tries to claim its a false-flag with no actual evidence to prove it?

That's how a vast percentage of conspiracy theories work: They are a reality denial mechanism. 2nd Amendment fantatics are FURIOUS that gun massacres give political and moral leverage to gun control advocates. So the pro-gun fanatics react the only way they can: They simply refuse to accept that the massacres are real.

They refuse to give one moral inch to the gun control side, and the easiest way to do it is to say "IT'S A PLOT BY YOU AGAINST ME TO TAKE AWAY MY LIBERTY!"

It's totally infantile, but it also describes the thinking of millions of Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, neo-confederates, etc.

The best part about your post is that you're a reality denying fanatic who is complaining about other reality denying fanatics.

Please don't vote. We have enough people like you destroying any chance we might have of gaining legitimate representation.

Suspicious? No.

Paranoid? Very.

A lot of people believe that the media has been hijacked and is being used to push propaganda. That means that any story that goes national is automatically suspect.

Couple that mindset in with the vast amount of recent news stories on shootings and see where that gets you. People are going to be a lot more critical of events even though they might just be random acts of violence.

I would argue this is not a bad thing (albeit a bit depresing).

Where would you expect people to discuss those theories?

Loonie bin or prison, according to David Cameron anyways, we're just as bad as terrorists in his book

If people want to believe something without doing their own bit of research, that is their problem. In no way/shape/form should people ever stop using the internet as a medium to discuss theories of all kind. The damage that would cause far, far exceeds the damage caused by ignorant people being ignorant, as they'll always be, regardless.

Or maybe just every heavily publicized one. I can understand the media attention with this shooting, with it occurring on live tv and and all. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find it were a legit tragedy, no strings attached.

What I want to know is, what about the other shootings? There are more than 8,000 people killed by firearms each year. How many of those gain media prominence and are declared false flags every year, maybe a half-dozen to a dozen? What about the more than 8,000 other shootings? Are those false flags or real? How do they fit into the conspiracy narrative?

if a shooting does not get publicized you can be sure it is not a false flag, if a shooting gets a small story in news and is never splashed across every channel for days - you can be sure it is not a false flag. false flags are done for the effect they will have on public psyche, they are crafted narratives where the bad guy represents a latent societal psychological evil (isolation, racism, anti American or anti giv or anti social) - not a "normal" motive - like money or a broken heart/jealousy or revenge, etc. -- and then that latent psychology is given a face - this bad guy - who conveiently writes a long confession/manifesto explaining his bizarrre nonsencical motive for all to research - be directed to be news stories -- and then - we always get the respectable wel groomed people saying - please no mure guns that what these victims would have wanted, after the bad guy is caught, and there is zero doubt they got the right guy or that there is any more to the story. --- those are the events that are most likely false flags. and if one like that is not a false flag - i'd like to know about it, i'm not sure what it is.

nah - there are plenty of real tragic events. the fake ones have certain indicators. once you start to see you can pick them out among the real ones. also -TONS of people die tragically but the news so rarely gives much time to the stories, I think it's because they can't control the resolution and they are not guaranteed a resolution at all. and lack of resolution does not sell. consider - next time one of these events that people call hoax on - watch if the bad guy gets caught withn hours.days. or at the least they locate him that soon and then give you play by play of the manhunt for up to a few weeks at most - even thoug broadcasting where the cops are searching should be giving the wanted man way too much information/advantage - but the story is for the viewer - not about a real man hunt - then he kills himself/gets shot because they had to/ or is caught and we never see him free again. watch if that happens. because in normal life they don't catch people for years or if ever but every single time - in these fake things - they catch the bad guy fast, and all is resolved quite quickly, just watch for that pattern and you might start to have your own suspicion.

persnally I'm not inclined to see somebody say something is a hoax and then believe it, but I will look into the event and see if it looks suspicious to me, and I'll look at the reasons people are saying it is fake and see if I agree. for example people say sandra bland was a hoax - I think she really commited suicide from depression. I can see what people were reacting to but I disagree - I think they got that one wrong. but with this one - it is a hoax. imo.

I guess if you are sure there are never hoaxes then you are going to think all "hoax" calling has to have bad motivation. but there are hoaxes, that's the horrible bizzare reality, once you see that fir one of them you can be open to consider the possability for others, and make up your own mind each time. the most bizzare thing is -- they are happening a lot. and they are the crimes that are most featured in the news, so while real terrible things happen all the time - a large portion (20%?? I don't know. ) of the terrible things on the news for last few years are not authentic.

[deleted]

Your telescreen would never lie to you.

No govt is always right and does not use propaganda on its viewers your so correct.....work, watch tv, pay bills,.....repeat (good citizen)

Fair. Many citizens take on the duty of looking deeper into these situations, since we cannot trust our news media to investigate everything on their own. Certainly, many of those will make dubious claims without evidence. We have no evidence right now, and we may not ever. It's a suspicious event. But we need SOME facts to come out first.

Many citizens take on the duty of looking deeper into these situations

LMAO! Onward Reddit Citizen journalists! Onward! Your work is the Lord's work.

Thanks for your wit.

No he's right guys, we're slaves, not citizens.

It's a suspicious event.

Guy shoots two people. How is that "suspicious"? "Suspicious" would be every single person running against Trump for the Republican nomination dies in separate plane crashes within one week. Around here, a ham and cheese sandwich is deemed suspicious.

If you don't like this place, why come here?

So, a large man walks up to a group of people in a secluded spot. He draws a gun on two women within their field of vision from 3-4 feet away, and it's not suspicious to you that neither of them so much as bats an eye at him? Don't tell me they didn't see it, especially the woman on the right. What fucking planet are you from that this isn't suspicious?

Shooting is fake.

Trained actors are used.

Someone is directing this (in some sense)

No one tells them "hey, be sure not to glance at the gunman and give away the fakery"?

If the government didn't take away all guns after Sandy Hook, they're certainly not going to fucking get it accomplished after a black guy kills two white people off-camera.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Not entirely sure what you're insinuating. The guy holding the cell camera screwed up by drawing the gun while the cameraman was still panning. This threw Alison off, which is why she is caught glancing at the cell camera after he puts the gun down. She wasn't supposed to look, but this was a live, one-take deal.

Nobody said they're succeeding in taking away the guns. Sandy Hook was the big, huge event that was supposed to get things going, but it didn't. Subsequent false flags have been lower-budget. For the NWO to take hold, they HAVE to minimize the guns in public, which is why they're continuing.

It's so transparent. Andy Parker, who is a high-level banker and founder of an acting group, was on TV that very night, unemotional, begging for new gun control measures, chastising the congressmen who don't support them. In fact, it's now his "life mission".

But that's regular human behavior, right? As is Chris Hurst's pitiful acting job, pretending he just lost the love of his life. Total bullshit.

nah its just people here have trust issues and rightfully so, I'm tired of the lies

Okay, but automatically assuming news like this is likely false because of your trust issues is almost as bad as just believing everything you read.

Nobody on this thread is giving any indication they think this WAS a false flag, except how OP's initial suspicions may be interpreted. We've been lied to a lot - nothing wrong with discussing this.

I know, I was pleasantly surprised by the comments in this thread. For whatever that's worth.

It won't last.

Some of us are fairly logical...though we can't associate ourselves with everyone here.

Divisive speech. Yuck. I didn't downvote you though, brother. Namaste.

You're right, it wasn't necessary. Noted.

I don't personally think it is a false flag with the given information, all I'm saying and what this sub will teach you is hold your judgements until all the info is in.

But that's just ridiculous. An apple falls off the table. Gravity? No, it could be a false flag operation by Joe Biden! Let's hold our judgements until all the info is in!

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you assume it's a duck unless and until something appears to suggest otherwise. You'll go crazy entertaining ever 0.000000001% likelihood for every event.

I'll be more impressed with real factual looking shootings , here's an example of what someone getting shot looks like. After leaving this video for you to sample, I'll admit that I personally am assuming that it is a legit shoot.http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=725_1440438616

the way the camera falls just to be able to catch the face of the shooter

The cameraman was busy dying while holding the camera. So that may explain the image.

From the shooters perspective video, he doesn't shoot the cameraman until at least shot 4 or 5. Way before he drops he camera

He dropped the camera to either run for his life or fight the shooter. Did you want him to stand there and just film the whole thing?

I agree...we can't make a judgement based on when the camera falls. I would probably drop the camera too if somebody shot a gun right next to me.

You are misinterpreting four2oh's comment. Have you not seen the shooter's perspective video? If you see that, you may think twice about whether this is not a false flag.

Why are "false flags" always so badly arranged that they are dripping with suspicious evidence?

Right. If this were arranged it would be cleaner. Why would they script the whole part where he stands there pointing the gun seemingly in their line of vision? How would that part lend to selling the lie? "Stranger than fiction" comes to mind.

Almost as if it's a technology that captures images. Better look into this.

How did I know as soon as I got on here I'd see a fasle flag post. Luckily there hasn't been an actual shooting or event happen since you guys came around. Mental health issues are at an all time low and basically not a problem!

Just wait. Congress is going to do something today and we're not going to hear about it. Maybe they killed two people in Virginia to distract us from finding out that they legalized armed drones in North Dakota. Because, you know... we can't pay attention to more than one thing at a time.

Or maybe a pissed off guy who was mentally unstable some how got a gun and shot his coworkers.

You could be on to something.

How about: A heroic last minute action by the dying cameraman to capture the face of the killer?

I think everybody needs to take a better look at the definition for the word "heroism." It's a loosely-used term. It's a valiant act, if this was indeed his intent.

That's fine; valiant is a good word. Thank you for your input!

I hope you're not being sarcastic, lol. It's quite pedantic of me. But "Heroic" acts are always a good distracting story in false flags.

I'm not! I like the word "valiant." And while the potential for a false flag is always there in today's propaganda-driven media, this is looking like a spurned or bad romance driven act of murder.

So far, yeah, it does. The shooter's face looks like the pictures of Flanagan to me. Hand looks white...but it's a crappy cell phone video. Still, with a live shooting on TV, we'd be crazy NOT to consider the possibility of something deeper going on.

I agree; we need to watch this closely. But we also need to remember that crying "false flag!" every time something like this happens makes /conspiracy look like we cry wolf every time. The wolf's not there every time. Just a lot more than people realize.

Well put!

Not a conspiracy, imo. You have live video from the television station, video the shooter took. Confession from the shooter. Social media posts by the shooter. We have motive, and prior history with shooter and victims.

It's weird it happened live on air, but what about this is strange otherwise?

<Devil's Advocate> A confession in the form of a manifesto and social media posts could be made by someone other than him. Maybe we will see a video confessional, but online activity cannot be considered proof as far as I'm concerned.

As far as strange things. The shooter whispers "bitch" before aiming, then waits for the camera to pan back to the interview, when he takes aim again and begins firing. If this were staged, the whisper could be a cue for the cameraman to get ready to drop the camera. It's a little odd that this guy walks all the way up to them in an isolated area and nobody even bats an eye at him. The interviewee could have noticed the gun, but it's also possible she was so focused on being interviewed that she wasn't in touch with her peripheral. </Devil's Advocate>

Just giving some thought to this. It's definitely a conspiracy "theory", but that's what this is for, no?

This is the best theory I have yet to see. The code word especially. I thought it was very odd that he points the gun (and at that moment seemed impossibly close for no one to notice) and then actually puts it away again. It looks very unnatural.

Granted he could just be waiting for the cameraman to put the camera back on them because he wanted this to be on live TV from the start.

The only thing that makes me feel this may be as simple as it seems is the fact that, as journalists, they are messed with by people all the time and are trained not to pay any attention to them. Furthermore, maybe someone did look and see who he was, and then just figured "oh look it's him, probably just waiting for us to finish up so he can say hello and catch up with how we're doing".

Right now I guess I'm convinced it was real. The hysteria over it and massive push by national news to make sure everyone knows? Dunno if I'd call it fishy, just extremely scummy of them to take advantage of a shooting and turn it into cash while injecting the nation with paranoia.

Yeah I still don't know. I have no doubt the newscaster could ignore the guy, maybe even if she DID see the gun at some point. But for the interviewee, she HAD to have seen it. This was an isolated area, early in the morning, and this dude is alone and dressed in something that looks like tactical gear. She's going to completely ignore him without as much as a quick glance? It's really unnatural to me.

As far as the "bitch" whisper. Perhaps he was doing it for effect. But he never actually talks - could it be that he's hiding his voice so we don't find out it's not him? We already have the suspiciously white hand. I'm willing to give the bright lighting and crappy camera the benefit of the doubt though. And as far as the face shot, is it truly conclusive that it's Flanagan? Not so sure, but there's a similarity.

I try think in terms of how things may have happened in the event this was some sort of hoax. We don't see anything in the videos proving it isn't, but we can't conclude it is either. It's somewhere in-between. Have we really gone from the weak execution of Sandy Hook, with distant helicopter footage and zero evidence, to being fed first-person views of a shooting to bring us further to our knees?

I am not convinced it's a hoax by any means right now, but you'd better believe this is quite intriguing.

This new shooting seems a little fishy, the way the camera falls just to be able to catch the face of the shooter, I'm just going out on a limb with my theory.

Oh, you're in perfectly safe territory. You will find loads and loads of conservatives who are desperate to agree with everything you said: whatever it takes, they will believe anything in order to deny that American gun culture has led to a non-stop bloodbath with tens of thousands of innocent victims every year.

That is a fact and a reality not permitted inside the heads of wingnuts, lunatics, and sociopathic conservatives, and so a whole industry of reality-denying conspiracy has been born up around it.

You, OP, have tapped into that perfectly. You only need one line in your script and you will be in good wingnut company everytime someone shoots another human being.

Just say:

It was a plot by the Marxists to take away our guns!!!1!

That's the only line you will ever need to be a "Second Amendment Loving Patriot!!1!"

Still reserving judgement on this shooting, so far, everything appears to be legit.

There IS a gun culture in this country, and mass media has almost everything to do with it. But oppressive governments do want gun control, and regardless of whether or not this is a false flag, we know how this will be spun.

Do you believe what happened at Sandy Hook was exactly what was reported?

People will always find a way to kill other people, regardless of weapon. Why should I not get a fighting chance to protect myself from weapon-wielding lunatics?

It's concerning that the public is being swayed in the direction of disagreement with one of our most essential amendments to the constitution. The forefathers KNEW that power corrupts absolutely, and that those in power down the road would once again be in favor of disarming the public as a means to take more tyrannical control.

Despite some 30,000 gun deaths a year, it takes a mass shooting event (some of which have certainly been fabricated), or a murder on live TV before people begin to not only ask for gun control, but refer to gun supporters as "nuts." Nuts, for agreeing with those who sparked the revolution to ensure our nation was truly free? Wow! There are so many guns, they will never be able to take them all of the streets, ever. So if I'm approached by someone with a gun, I'm just screwed? That's crap.

I agree with you completely. There's no way they could ever have "gun control". And even if it worked, you think the real nutjobs and criminals of the world are gonna follow the rules? If that was the case, the idea of "gun free" zones would have worked and we wouldn't have school shootings. Putting our fingers in our ears and screaming "you can't hurt me" isn't working.

Gun control seems to be effective in reducing homicides in other countries, and I'll give them that. But there's two main points about this:

• Tyranny will not take hold in unarmed nations as long as there are nations that exist that are armed to the teeth like the U.S. is. That would then ENSURE we would never give up our guns if we see the results.

• No other country has attempted gun control when there are close to 300 million guns already in circulation. How are you going to confiscate that many guns? Forget about it. Might as well let everyone have them, if only to strike fear of getting retaliated against in potential criminals.

How did I stumble across this. You're an idiot. Get a life.

The most suspicious thing to me is how the reporter takes three bullets to her midsection and continues to run in her heels just fine as if nothing happened. Are we to assume that the shooter missed all three shots from point blank? What the fuck was up with that?

Its actually very common. People shot with small calibre guns often don’t realise they are shot initially and as the entry wound is small there is often very little blood. Hollywood has given us this impression of people falling over instantly after being hit and as many things with Hollywood, it's nonsense.

But in heels doe.

The only thing I find suspicious, is that her father, only hours after his DAUGHTER is gunned down and executed on live tv..is himself on tv..dry eyed, calling for gun legislation.
Being a parent this just strikes me as odd. Her fiancé didn't seem very emotional either.

My question is how did the girls boyfriend post that stuff on twitter 12 minutes before the shooting took place? Is that an error on twitters part or am I missing something obvious?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/virginia-tv-news-shooting-vicki-gardner-injured-woman

how funny is this - woman who survived the "shooting" said reason she did not see shooter was because she was "blinded by camera light"

hahaha. what camera light? it is day time! there are no lights used in their interview, "camera" or otherwise. hahaha. lies.

In the video of the shooter, you can clearly see she is unaware of him. He holds up his gun a few feet from her behind the camera man's back. She is in her own little world, just trying to get through the day and bang bang bang bang bang bang.

oh please, she is clearly pretending to be unaware of him. as for the size of her world and if it belongs entirely to her or not - I can't speak to that.

Hello.

You make a good point here. However, in order to further advance your position I would encourage you to revisit the phrase "no lights."

You see, there was one, small--highly directional--yellowy light mounted on the camera.

Track its motion with your own eyes. The FPS version shows it with decent clarity iirc. ;)

thanks I had somebody else point out there is a small camera light in camera. point very taken. --- i'll now just go with - he's not actually pointing the camera at the women as gun men approach - so they should have no reason to be distracted by the small directional light that is aimed over the railing at the time,

it's super fishy for so many reasons, it screams "packaged" propaganda. the way the people who get interviewed behave is clue #1. they are so cheesy and quick to hit talking points, I do not believe any of them are in anything remotely akin to genuine human grief. clue #2 is how the story /motive is toed up neat with a bow. he was a powder keg - see he said so himself, about himself - so that explaines that. normally the humam psyche is complex, normally murder were sex or money are not the motive are hard to explain and take time to make sense of. #3 that is one fake shooting. on camera blair witch project bs. #4 the massive amount of news coverage, people are murdered in terrible ways all the time, most stories are completely ignored by the news - the news like the fake stories were a resolution is prescripted, you can always trust in these fake crimes - the bad guy will get caught - and the authority figured will win out. --- this is not that normal - im real crimes there are slow seps taken to build a case before anyone is named a suspect much less "proven" (without a trial) to be guilty. #5 he really had no motive. he says they were racists to him - ho many milliions of people experience far worse racism every day, the do not murder their coworkers on camera and then acidentally capture their own image on the camera - and post the whole thing to facebook - over it. -- stupid contrived bad scripted lies & melodrama.

First and foremost I feel terribly sorry for the families who lost their loved ones.

With that said, the only thing I find a little confusing or odd with the shooters perspective video is that he is STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM when he points the gun and NO ONE NOTICES HIM STANDING THERE??? Not the reporter, not the interviewee, and not even the camera man. You can't tell me he didn't make a sound, a noise of some kind. He points the gun, then turns away, before pointing it again and then shoots. Someone is going to see that out of their peripheral vision. It would have been impossible not to!

I think it has less to do with showing the gunman's face than it does murdering people on live TV. The term "false flag" may be thrown about, however, it very much appears to be a real shooting. Virginia is the home of the CIA...a bit over 3 hours from Roanoke.

Anyone who's been enlightened to the recent false flags has every reason to believe right now that this could very well be an inside job, meaning, this was done to further the gun control agenda. If this is indeed the case, it's pretty frightening that they are going to these lengths.

Ultimately, two people lost their lives in tragic fashion, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. One may hope this is just one random act and not indicative of something bigger, but it's too early to tell. I will look forward to seeing more information as this moves forward.

Agree.

Virginia is the home of the CIA...a bit over 3 hours from Roanoke.

Of what possible significance is this geographical fact?

Anyone who's been enlightened to the recent false flags

You've proven there's been a false flag operation? Great, please contact the Attorney General immediately and forward your information to her so she can begin prosecution and Congress can commence impeachment proceedings.

his was done to further the gun control agenda

Yes, people who support gun control do it by hoarding weapons and using them on civilians, just as pro-lifers support their cause by getting abortions every year.

but it's too early to tell

No, no it's not, just as it's not too early to tell that Joe Biden isn't a space alien, even without a DNA sample.

Interesting response, I guess, considering I never said this WAS a false flag. Of course there's been false flags...but if you came here to just snip quotes from my post out of context, then I'm quite certain you won't be able to think critically about Sandy Hook and realize that it was a fraud.

Any evidence that would PROVE a false flag, Sandy Hook as the best example, is suppressed, which is why they can't prove that it DID happen either.

But your last retort told me everything I need to know about how many more posts I should make addressing you.

The shooter has been ID'd and is believed to be a disgruntled former employee. They seem to be in pursuit now. No real signs of a false flag right now.

dude's hand appears white... discuss.

Auto white balance on phone cameras is terrible and in a bright scene will blow out the entire image.

Remember that dress that caused the whole internet to argue over its color?

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/54efd8326da8113c36d8fa88-600-/slack-imgs.com-4.jpeg

Well heres the same dress but with proper white balance

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/54f0354d69bedd1339cb781c-1193-805/screenshot%202015-02-27%2009.02.51.png

Yes, the dress was the first thing I thought of when I saw tweets saying it looked like a white hand.

I agree, it does. His face, however, does look like the suspect they're after. Do you agree?

maybe it's just lightskinned. shooter is dead now. coward suicide. i'm still shaken from watching that.

Flanagan has (had?) fairly light skin, so I don't think his hand would be that dark anyway. Twisted fuck.

Okay, but automatically assuming news like this is likely false because of your trust issues is almost as bad as just believing everything you read.