MIT Shooting/Bombing Suspect Manhunt - Suspect 1: DEAD, Suspect 2: In Custody

• reclegend22

  

  WebFire;1432618 wrote:That to me isn't a conspiracy at all. That is just investigating whether there is more than 1 gunman.

  I think their assertion was that, if the Warren Commission was so quick to deem Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter, then there was a coverup of some nature.
  
  It's widely known that JFK wasn't very popular among higher-ranking officials in the CIA and military, so it definitely lends to suspicion. There are just too many elements to the case. The clear evidence of multiple gunshot wounds from different guns, Oswald -- the supposed solitary shooter -- being murdered almost immediately afterward, and the abrupt findings of the Warren Commission which seem to indicate the body didn't investigate the incident as thoroughly as possible.
  
  Who knows. It could have been foriegn-related.
• queencitybuckeye

  reclegend22;1432612 wrote:In that particular case, the select house committee never named a third party specifically, just stating that the evidence adds up to more than one shooter and therefore makes the findings of the Warren Commission inaccurate.
  

  From a purely forensic standpoint, I've seen cases made for a lone gunman that stand up quite well.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Bear in mind there is a big difference (IMO) between our government on the one hand, trying to cover-up or "whitewash" an event, as opposed to on the other hand orchestrating an affirmative action.
  
  There's no doubt the former has happened, and perhaps often but mostly to cover-up its own incompetence. But for the latter that assumes our government is remotely capable of pulling such an action off which is why conspiracy theories in that regard fail - to believe in the conspiracy theory is in itself a conspiracy theory.
  
  Take 9/11. It wouldn't surprise me that if the government hasn't been forthcoming in all information, but likely that is to save face (same thing with Benghazi). But there is no way they have the capability of orchestrating the event.
• reclegend22

  

  queencitybuckeye;1432627 wrote:From a purely forensic standpoint, I've seen cases made for a lone gunman that stand up quite well.

  There are also forensics experts who believe evidence shows that it's much more likely there was a shooter on the grassy knoll near Dealey Plaza than the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was using magic bullets. To be fair, I think both sides of this case could make a pretty effective argument when really trying to.
  
  And, unfortunately, we'll never know.
• FatHobbit

  

  reclegend22;1432630 wrote:And, unfortunately, we'll never know.

  Aren't there classified documents that have yet to be released about Kennedy?
• WebFire

  reclegend22;1432630 wrote:There are also forensics experts who believe evidence shows that it's much more likely there was a shooter on the grassy knoll near Dealey Plaza than the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was using magic bullets. To be fair, I think both sides of this case could make a pretty effective argument when really trying to.
  
  And, unfortunately, we'll never know.

  Then it's still a theory. So pointing out this case adds nothing to this conversation.
• reclegend22

  

  WebFire wrote:Then it's still a theory. So pointing out this case adds nothing to this conversation.
  

  Yes, it does. It provides testimony from an expert in forensic science who, after looking at all of the evidence, concluded that there is substantial proof that suggests a second or third shooter.
• WebFire

  reclegend22;1432652 wrote:Yes, it does. It provides testimony from an expert in forensic science who, after looking at all of the evidence, concluded that there is substantial proof that suggests a second or third shooter.

  Right. And that proves what exactly?
• reclegend22

  

  FatHobbit;1432646 wrote:Aren't there classified documents that have yet to be released about Kennedy?

  I actually don't know if there documents have yet to be released, but my guess would be that there are.
• reclegend22

  

  WebFire;1432653 wrote:Right. And that proves what exactly?

  It proves that there was likely more than one shooter. Not sure what else there is to comprehend.
  
  Anyway, that post was in response to queencitybuckeye, who said that certain forensic accounts lend well to the one gunman theory. I was simply pointing out that other forensic accounts demonstrate the opposite. Not sure why or what you are arguing.
• WebFire

  reclegend22;1432658 wrote:It proves that there was likely more than one shooter. Not sure what else there is to comprehend.

  Right. I said that. But you are trying to use this case as proof that a conspiracy theory has been proven true. And that is wrong. All it did is say there might have been more than 1 shooter. See, I said it again.
  
  Not sure what else there is to comprehend.
• reclegend22

  

  WebFire;1432659 wrote:Right. I said that. But you are trying to use this case as proof that a conspiracy theory has been proven true. And that is wrong. All it did is say there might have been more than 1 shooter. See, I said it again.
  
  Not sure what else there is to comprehend.

  Yes, and that was the point of my response to queencitybuckeye. That post was in no way directed to you, so, again, I am not sure why you are arguing. I wasn't addressing you.
• reclegend22

  

  And no, I am not trying to use that case as proof of a conspiracy theory. I am just laying out all of the information. So, no, I am not wrong.
• WebFire

  reclegend22;1432662 wrote:Yes, and that was the point of my response to queencitybuckeye. That post was in no way directed to you, so, again, I am not sure why you are arguing. I wasn't addressing you.

  But you did address me.
  
  http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?40177-MIT-Shooting-Bombing-Suspect-Manhunt-Suspect-1-DEAD-Suspect-2-In-Custody&p=1432595&viewfull=1#post1432595
• WebFire

  reclegend22;1432666 wrote:And no, I am not trying to use that case as proof of a conspiracy theory. I am just laying out all of the information. So, no, I am not wrong.

  And in the addressing, you DID try to use that case as proof of a conspiracy being true.
  

  reclegend22;1432595 wrote:A United States House Select Committee disagrees with you. During their investigation of the matter in 1979, they came to the conclusion that Kennedy's death was most likely the result of a conspiracy that involved multiple shooters and that the Warren Commission was flawed.

• reclegend22

  

  WebFire;1432691 wrote:And in the addressing, you DID try to use that case as proof of a conspiracy being true.

  First off, that's not even what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not the testimony of the expert forensic scientist was relevant to this conversation, and in the context that I posted it (in reply to queencitybuckeye's post about proof of one shooter), it was. End of disucssion.
  
  And, again, that's what I was referencing above when I said I wasn't trying to link the two. I never said that the forensic scientist's analysis proved a conspiracy. It simply proved there was likely another shooter.
  
  You are arguing for absolutely no reason. But be my guest.
• WebFire

  reclegend22;1432701 wrote:First off, that's not even what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not the testimony of the expert forensic scientist was relevant to this conversation, and in the context that I posted it (in reply to queencitybuckeye's post about proof of one shooter), it was. End of disucssion.
  
  And, again, that's what I was referencing above when I said I wasn't trying to link the two. I never said that the forensic scientist's analysis proved a conspiracy. It simply proved there was likely another shooter.
  
  You are arguing for absolutely no reason. But be my guest.

  All you have to do is go back and view the link I posted. You are wrong. You were replying to me about conspiracy theories and using this as your case. That's the end of the discussion.
• reclegend22

  

  WebFire;1432727 wrote:All you have to do is go back and view the link I posted. You are wrong. You were replying to me about conspiracy theories and using this as your case. That's the end of the discussion.

  I am not and it is not, but I do agree that this conversation is over.
• reclegend22

  

  CNN reporting that Russia alerted both the FBI and then the CIA about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's extremist background after Russia believed the initial warnings were not heeded seriously enough. Not looking good for the FBI.
  
  I get that there is only so much the FBI can do without turning our country into a police state and taking away the rights of citizens who have not broken the law, even if they are involved in questionable activity, but for Russia to feel strongly enough about Tamerlan to contact multiple U.S. law enforcement agencies, there must have been serious concerns.
• LJ

  

  Crimson streak;1432211 wrote:http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU
  
  Don't know if posted but still makes you think wtf lol

  It doesn't make me think WTF at all. The military looking guys are part of the CST, or Civil Support Team. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Support_Team They are typically deployed to large events like this. They are also trained by contractors like Craft International. The device the guy is holding is a Radiation Detector.
  
  And are they seriously trying to claim that the exploded backpack, that was blown up with gunpowder, is not the one the older brother is holding? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
• Mulva

  

  reclegend22;1432972 wrote:CNN reporting that Russia alerted both the FBI and then the CIA about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's extremist background after Russia believed the initial warnings were not heeded seriously enough. Not looking good for the FBI.
  
  I get that there is only so much the FBI can do without turning our country into a police state and taking away the rights of citizens who have not broken the law, even if they are involved in questionable activity, but for Russia to feel strongly enough about Tamerlan to contact multiple U.S. law enforcement agencies, there must have been serious concerns.

  http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/24/officials-dead-bomber-name-terrorism-database/pFChnS4kBCwNb5Xv102LHM/story.html
• gut

  reclegend22;1432972 wrote:CNN reporting that Russia alerted both the FBI and then the CIA about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's extremist background after Russia believed the initial warnings were not heeded seriously enough. Not looking good for the FBI.

  He was flagged when he left the country, but sounds like time expired for him to be on the list (the CIA had apparently tried to extend that, not sure what happened there).
  
  EDIT: scratch the rest sounds like he was in the database. I don't know why he wasn't pinged when he came back into the country.
• reclegend22

  

  Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but, with the revelations that multiple warnings came in from Russia about this one person being involved in apparently serious extremist activity, a concentrated focus should have been placed on following Tamerlan when he came back to the United States after spending a significant amount of time in one of the more dangerous and terrorist-infested regions in the Middle East.
• gut

  reclegend22;1433046 wrote:...a concentrated focus should have been placed on following Tamerlan when he came back to the United States after spending a significant amount of time in one of the more dangerous and terrorist-infested regions in the Middle East.

  But that's the problem. I'm not sure what exactly happened, but they were never alerted when he came back to the US. I'm also unsure if they could have or would have known where he traveled while abroad.
  
  Someone said to take Russia's warnings with a grain of salt because he's Chechen. That's a pretty despicable excuse.
• Glory Days

  

  reclegend22;1432412 wrote:
  There is no way the Tsarneav's acted alone. Either they had help here in the States, or the older brother was trained abroad and came back to plant those ideas into his younger brother's head. They had too many weapons, knew too much about bomb making and it just doesn't make sense.

  its actually not that out of the ordinary. I bet there isnt a college in this country where some chemistry or phsyics major hasnt built a bomb. now whether its functional or if they ever planned to use it is another thing.