AlicetheKurious wrote:I was referring to the part about the guns and the SUV supposedly used by Farook and his wife being standard government-issue for those who just happened to have been mobilized in advance to respond first (including the ATF), about the eyewitnesses' accounts of three tall, "athletic" men, the drills and the run-up to the event, including the mysterious ad for actors who must sign confidentiality agreements for a job that would take place on December 2, 2015, and the fact that the contact number in that ad had been disconnected for a long time before, and after, the run-up to the event.
I'm coming around fast, and yes there are some very worthy and salient points in the video, but the presenter's rigor—so critically important—falls down with some of his claims and interpretations. Once you start adding in too many questionable dots, the whole framework suffers.
I'm not sure how "standard issue" the (allegedly) seized AR-15s are; the presenter shows a bunch of similar-looking AR-15s and my feeling was, "so what?" Commercially available AR-15s can be 'tricked out' with readily available accessories. The presenter makes a big deal out of the
strap, which can be purchased at most sporting goods stores.
There is one curious thing about the AR-15s in question and the story behind them (supposedly the neighbor purchased them at a local gun shop, yes?): the foregrips. The legality of putting a foregrip on an AR-15 is iffy, but the bottom line is, I don't think any storefront gun seller in the U.S. would offer an AR-15 pre-fitted with a foregrip; not worth the hassle or even prosecution from ATF. That said, Farook and/or the neighbor could have added the foregrip after the rifle was purchased.
As to the car, yeah—I'm still waiting to hear why the couple would have rented an SUV. And that brings up another sorta goofy claim about the SUV: the flashers; all cars have them, duh.
And yes, totally agree about the value of witnesses reporting three tall men! Comparing with the Paris witness accounts suggests a pattern of white-skinned men carrying out shootings that are immediately blamed on brown-skinned Muslims.
The Craigslist ad is a bit odd for sure, I'd say. Perhaps Nordic knows whether or not So Cal casting calls ever demand a non-disclosure agreement? (Mr. Nordic... Mr. Nordic... please pick up any white RI telephone.) Was there a rescue exercise or similar simulation going on elsewhere in the area, using actors, including actors in police garb?
Someone might want to scour the local actor forums for clues; someone who replied to the ad might have mentioned
something about the gig.
As to the old phone number in the Craiglist ad—"where they hired the crew"—numbers get recycled all the time, with a period of retirement between uses. And a production co. might rent a landline for the period of days or weeks, then cancel it when the production is over. That makes sense, especially for casting calls; nobody would want their personal cell phone used for that, in SoCal especially I would think, if they didn't want a hundred wannabe actors calling and pestering them. So, I'm not sure the temporary phone number is "convincing." Don't get me wrong—that CL ad
is a very good clue to note, and could lead to something more solid.
So for sure, there is worthwhile information in the video, but the case for his central claim—that the Christmas party was fake, populated by actors who played that part of the victims etc etc.—is neither convincing nor damning. The video presenter makes a huge deal out of the readily-available
strap on the AR-15, as if it's a "gotcha!"
The evidence on both sides of the question needs to be solid, and the MSM evidence is unconvincing.
For our part, let's do better than that.
