Sunday 24 March 2019

Why I cannot trust the mainstream narrative on the Christchurch shooting

As best I can ascertain, although possesion and sharing of the video is illegal, punishable by 10 years in prison DESCRIBING what is in it is not.

Not yet anyhow.

Three reasons why the narrative of the Christchurch shooting is FALSE

Any possession of the video allegedly made by the Christchurch killer Brenton Tarrant and livestreamed on Facebook is well and truly illegal in this country, however it still seems legal to DISCUSS it

Here, for those unable to watch and analyse the footage is a first-class description by investigator Ole Dammegard that seems to me to be pretty accurate.

My concerns that there is more than meets the eye in this shooting are based on the video but also on publicly-available interviews from television:

- Witness testimony that Tarrant posted a warning on Facebook 3 days before and this information was gven to the police

- Testimony from a witness (actually the man who intercepted Tarrant) that the killer fled to the car which had SEVERAL ACCOMPLICES.

There are many,many other anomalies that have been pointed out but the above three factors that I identified independentally form the basis of my argument that this could not have been the actions of a lone gunman and that the official narrative that is now being solidified is actually false.

1 comment:

  1. I presume that the video footage livestreamed by the shooter is now in a forensic lab somewhere and being subjected to a detailed frame by frame analysis . Ideally this is being done in at least two different locations by different teams , with the results then given comparative analysis .
    If any of this video is not ' livestream ' then there will be forensic evidence indicating that fact , and with information regarding it's origin .
    If that is not being done it would raise serious alarm bells .


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.