Group A wanted another crazy white dude. I think a lot of people just expected this because, well, the profile fit the basic nature of the crime.

Group B wanted anyone but and Islamic radicals fit the bill pretty well.

>ONE DAY THEY REPORT ONE THING (WITH SEEMINGLY CLEAR FACTS)
>NEXT DAY NEW PEOPLE FITTING ALREADY PROPOSED AGENDA.

Well the two that were shot were shot and identified on the same day. The gear and the SUV are the same as what was reported by eye witnesses. The initial identification of “white males” by a couple of people is….. Interesting. I did come across a second witness who reported white males.

but I imagine with all the gear they were wearing

I AM
>SORRY FOR THOSE WHO PERISHED, BUT WHY CAN'T THINGS BE LESS
>CLEAR THAN WHAT IS REPORTED? WE ALREADY KNOW WE ARE SPOON-FED
>INFORMATION (TRUE OR OTHERWISE) ON A DAILY BASIS. I CAN'T
>SIMPLY BELIEVE THE NEWS BECAUSE THEY SAY IT IS SO. IN THIS DAY
>AND AGE EYE-WITNESSES ARE BETTER THAT REPORTERS.

Oh this is an absolute wash IMO, at least depending on what we’re discussing. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable and a 50-50 bet to get accurate information. Her skin seemed particularly light and I assume she had some sort of covering for her face (don’t know this detail) but even if she didn’t, and I don’t say this to be disrespectful, but her face isn’t particularly feminine and could easily be mistaken for a guy at a glance, especially in the midst of such chaos. She’s not terribly dark either.

He’s darker but not so dark that it’s not unreasonable to mistake him for a tanned white guy in a situation like this unless you get a good, long look at him.

Also, the time of the shooting and the time of the shootout with the cops was what, five hours? Six?

This would basically have had to be planned well in advance. I listened to the police scanners during that entire portion in real time and heard multiple reports of the SUV while they searched for it as well as a mention of the home in Redlands. The setup for something like this seems like it would have had to be meticulous to ridiculous levels in order to have three white dudes do the initial shooting and swap out these two as patsies.

There was a third witness who was a coworker who also says it wasn’t Sayd, however the verbal statement I saw of this was more of “I couldn’t believe it, I told them, he’s so quiet”. Not “I saw all three shooters and none of them were Sayd”. There was a written report of what he said that said he saw “one of the shooters spraying bullets”.

Most of this stuff is showing up on websites that traffic in counterculture news such as Info Wars and numerous other third rate hack sites and the most rational agenda to follow IMO is web clicks for those sites because everyone and their mama is posting links to these places on Facebook.

The part that bothers me is that a third shooter seemed pretty definitive, even in the police scanner that I listened to. I think there are reasonable mistakes that can be made in terms of identifying the appearance of the shooters and think those accounts either have holes (one woman said they were all tall and athletic, but she was looking down from the second story which makes her description of “tall” suspect at best.) or are being somewhat misreported, as in the third witness I spoke of.

But a third shooter seems like a pretty hard detail to screw up and that’s the one element that isn’t passing the smell test. Not running into any conspiracies with that part just yet but that’s a glaring change that I don’t have any reasonable explanation for and I haven’t seen one.