31 thoughts on “Virginia reporter and cameraman killed on live TV–video from shooter’s perspective.

    1. Exactly what we saw. A WHITE hand holding the gun, supposedly the footage from the actual shooter. Now the suspect appears to be black, huh?

        1. I don’t believe they were blanks. It was just that it was a 9 mm, worthless son of a bitch when it comes to knockdown power. The bullets just pass through unless they hit something vital. Well, I’d rather use a .22.
          Just my opinion.

          1. Yeah with a special bullet/exploding hollow point, you might just. Of course that last hundred yards to reach me while I’m firing at you with my .44 magnum super red hawk with an 8 inch barrel might prove a challenge.
            Stock out of the box with stock ammo I find the 9 mm grossly lacking. Of course I expect anyone who owns one to take offense, but I do speak as someone who has owned a 9 mm and used it specifically on a wounded deer, point blank through the head. And again, the .22 would work better under average normal conditions.
            By the way, my dog’s bigger than yours. 🙂

        2. Cell phone cameras use wide angle lenses. He wasn’t even at 10 feet. He shot three rounds at point blank range from what appeared to be a well-aimed pistol (looked like a Glock to me) at the female reporter and no hits happened (no jerk, no blood, no loss of balance) She is last seen running away before the camera angle drops to the ground.

          He was shooting blanks, or cannot hit the broad side of a barn at arms distance.

    1. I think you’re absolutely correct, Dot.

      No bullet holes/blood, no change in her forward speed, at POINT BLANK RANGE!!!

      It was also OBVIOUS the cameraman WANTED the audience to SEE the gun WELL before he ever fired it.


  1. Sure looks suspicious. Whenever I’ve shot anything, meaning small game, fruit, stationary targets like boxes and things, they’ll all respond when hit; no matter at point blank or 200 yards out. All I saw here was either 3 horribly placed rounds that completely missed at less than 10 feet, or someone firing blank rounds. So, why even do it?

    Well, here’s my real suspicion; what was everyone talking about yesterday morning? Now, what have they been talking about since this morning? There’s the answer.

    I froze images, exploded images, examined stills from multiple angles. You can’t find a hit anywhere in any of it. No ricochets, no dust, no impacts of any kind. Anyone else find anything?

      1. yeah, she looks like saw a spider or stepped on a snake or something . . .

        another thing I LOVED was how the reporter and person being interviewed acted like they didn’t see the “gunman” walking up to them.

        you just can’t find the quality in today’s false flags like there used to be.

        no on to the next thing – what freedom are they going to take away as a result of this latest travesty against truth? TSA at every mall?

        1. Good point. The woman being interviewed would certainly have caught the approaching gunman with her peripheral vision and at least glanced and seen the gun. In fact, the reporter would have as well. This is staged bullshit.

        1. yep – video keeps getting taken down, but people will have already saved it.

          what were people talking about prior to this latest false flag?

          1) That Israel likely used a dolphin sub to send a nuclear-tipped missile into the port near to Beijing?
          2) That thousands of pedophiles have been caught in an Australian sting organization (not just Aussies, but the evildoers in the UK, US, etc.)
          3) That the market was tanking likely as a result of Fed manuevers?
          4) That a different, obvious false flag happened last Friday on the train from Belgium to Paris?
          5) That israel’s drone got shot down in Syria revealing just what they are doing – hitting civilian targets/infrastructure, not aiming at their “ISIS” buddies.
          6) Mexican meeting re: citizen gun removal?

          There is much to choose from.

    1. Thanks a lot, Redhorse. I’d almost got over that old bitch. Now you’ve brought it all back, front and center. Thanks a lot buddy.

  2. I just love how none of the sites are running the footage of the video because it was too graphic, but give the “Trust us. What we’re saying is all true” speech and report. Just like they refuse to show the video of Osama Bin Laden because it was too graphic. Yet, when it comes to something else, they have no problems showing it. Typical. It’s also your typical false flag trademark sign write out of the false flag playbook.

    1. Thank you, Angel, our little eye in the sky;-) Also funny how audio did not change during her screams. Same distance from pickup with no fade out so she must’ve been very attached to that mic. Literally!

      1. Whole lot of dumb commentators on that site or filled with USGI shills to promote that edited version. My N64 007 video game is more realistic and the folks there are sold on it’s reality. Bring a shovel for your stupid friends in case they show up empty handed and believe this one. At least let em dig their own ditch.

    2. At this point, I’ve seen nothing that convinces me this is not a staged event. The newswoman would have been shot at least 3 times in the video but yet she is able to continue her screaming at the top of her lungs well after she was fed a few bullets. I find it hard to believe this woman could continue screaming bloody murder after taking, at least, 3 bullets from what footage I’ve seen. It sure looks like a staged event to me. I just wish the vomit would stop concerning media upchuck.
      Sorry to sound so cold, but I’ve had enough already.

      1. …and Millard, did you notice the lack of SHELL CASINGS? Dead giveaway, that. Even if he was a lousy shot, the casings would be flying every which way.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *