The reporters were long known, that much is sure. And they're not on air right now, at least not as themselves. That much is clear.
Unfortunately, something may -- let us say at this very initial point -- may be wrong with the story. Or rather, everything may be wrong with the story. How so? Let us start with the father of the putatively deceased female reporter and move to the whole case.
But we must note at the start that someone, the putative shooter, ends up dead with a photo, no matter what -- right? Actually, the photo recently released could be him sleeping. It shows nothing tell-tale of death, so it might be death or rest. If it was real death, we can say that a few people were just acting and helping and being paid off, but one was not happy with his role, that one might well end up dead. Or that one could be a sacrifice to the operation, by -- now do not freak out here, it is known that such things run rampant in our world in certain ways -- by people who are cultists, hierarchy interested and also killers. How so? Intelligence services attract clean cut types and all other types. So do other areas of jurisprudence and corporate life, where gangland attitudes of supporting each other can also breed or attract already functioning "societies" of the semi-secret variety. This is hardly debated; it is the extent of such secretive (though often not totally secret) groups which is debated. But in fact, the photo does not have to be of the shooter dead.
Here is the photo (flipped in one, for some reason):
And lest one think he swelled up after death or his eyes did, note this photo of him:
So the shooter may not be dead either.
It's kind of nice to know that people may not die for gun control laws to change, but it is hardly okay that there are lies to make wrong history to attempt to change laws.
There will be lots of pictures. Enjoy.
But before we do, you will want to know one simple argument about the event:
There are *two entirely different actions from the reporter right up to the shooting*. Camera 1 (shooter character) shows she nods her head right up to the "gunshots" and does a big one right as the "shots" begin, while instead Camera 2 (the camera for the daily news, supposedly), shows no head impressive nod at the end, right before the "shots" begin.
1. Either one event was staged for a camera, then a real one happened,
2. Or they're both of the same event but not the same "take", which means she did not die and it is a fraud.
The video maker is being nice when he puts up the title of his video making the video comparison: he states "possibly" and "you decide" because some people just will not look otherwise.
Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=52&v=1wCd4bg2PuE&bpctr=1442102655
The case is closed on that one issue alone, but you need the fuller case.
Oh, and ignore the warning to beware of the video, please; the only offense here is truth, not any visual content.
"The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or graphic. Viewer discretion is advised Continue Cancel", says Youtube. Thank you so much. (I jest).
Many, many more pictures and many research points of just this one part (that the "dad" is not a real character), but rather is a known actor, just not extremely well known, will follow, but here are two more. And we will cover the whole basic case about the "shooting".
And what would that mean -- there is much more below on this father character's identification with an actor, but if everything is wrong, what would that mean? It would mean actually fake news. Not doctored news only and not news footage, grabbed footage from elsewhere, but misrepresented -- no, it would mean fully fake news.
It would mean that even if you can already expect such things from the USA (some people are cynics and some people are actually knowledgeable), we are getting fake history. It would also mean that even if you think the USA has too many guns for a calm, safe life to develop in a country, too much hype, that is, and laws which in some areas are a bit lax about who can get guns ... it would mean *fake history* and a racket of liars in news, government, spying and so on.
This is not so good.
It would mean (just to outline this for the moment), some people willing to lie and go into "witness protection" and be bought off, for a good cause (safer streets, they think, if guns are grabbed from civilians or if there are just tougher laws put into place about gun acquisition, they think). All right. So that's the idea. Plus the fact that if no-one died, that's kind of nice -- of itself. And if you know (do you?) that many people affiliated with government patriotic agencies (so they think), which we could colloquially call spy agents, but who are not all literally hired knowingly as such or maintaining full contracts with spying networks, do work in news service, we can understand more how this could be quite correct, at least hypothetically. And something seemingly live, seemingly shocking, is better (is it not), if staged, to convince people how awful a gun death is? Plus, live footage goes by quickly, and there seem to be no "tasteless", but able to be studied, captured videos of the event, whatever it was.
Now let us look at the case itself.
A putative father, mother, boyfriend are interviewed (mostly the father), all so clean, so unruffled. Much less is out there about the other reporter.
The putative shooter is putatively dead at the scene.
The footage of the shots is unavailable for study (as far as I can tell). The putative shooter posted a video from his perspective to Facebook and his footsteps creak on the boards, the shooter being a large man (a black man, which plays into the story as a revenge killing for racism, overtly mentioned by many news media). He also does not show any successful shots or the dead bodies. This footage is presented in cropped form, on newscasts: the sound of his footsteps and the fact that the woman reporter who putatively ended up dead actually looked at him out of the corner of her eyes, is cut and not emphasized. The shooter did actually know the woman and had, some years before, claimed there was racism at the news station. But could he take money and a witness protection program, plus think he will help change gun laws for the better, and be part of this as a lie?
No tears or stress are shown in the father and mother claimants. The father looks agitated at times, but with tiny gulps, many coherent longer interviews about, mostly, gun control. He does not seem horrified by the sheer loss and grisliness of identifying or arranging for his daughter's body to be laid to rest.
And the father is *exactly the same look in high quality photos and videos*, as an actor photo and many other photos and videos of the same actor, Andy Parker. Is the father this man? It has not been officially claimed that he is. Yet this man, Andy Parker, played in Les Miserables on Broadway. He also ran for public office and is supposedly linked to banking (Virginia National Bank), in Virginia, where the shooting took place. For the bank, he says he is a job headhunter.
That actor, if it is the putative father, has gone on an anti-gun discussion multiple times, in complex long interviews.
That actor, the putative father, it seems, could be the reporter's real father (but why not come clean about it)? Exactly. Or he could not be the man claiming to be the father. Yet, he most obviously is, in high quality photos and videos. He does look a few years younger, but in some video moments, one can note how the slightly older man (the putative father of the reporter) looked a few years before, because at times he looks younger as he speaks, which is quite normal.
The putative shooter posted that he was an actor as a child. He posted this to very few followers on Twitter social media, just before the shooting.
The putative boyfriend has very few photos of him and his putative girlfriend on his profile page. He also cannot keep his smile down in many interviews, repeats exact phrases and his voice tones for exact phrases.
Yet another man -- whose own Facebook profile is now unavailable -- had many, many photos of himself with the reporter woman. They are very physical, very together, very connected. If this was a previous boyfriend, would that not come out? Well, it has not. And one or two of his photos of the woman reporter, even with him in it, ended up in official story images. But she supposedly had a recent new boyfriend, who is not only odd -- or lying -- but humanly almost impossible. The latter does not react to the death with any horror.
Could it be that since, as the putative father says in an interview, Sandy Hook (a fraud) did not work, and Aurora (a fraud with real deaths and a real patsy now under death sentence), this supposedly live, supposedly horrifically "in your face" and "obvious" death had to be set up?
Is this a gun grab? Are most perpetrators -- not everyone would know -- believing the agenda they are part of is only going to make reasonable changes to the laws in the USA for how easy it is in some areas to get guns?
One way or another, the father character himself matches the photo of the actor.
And the news station? Yes, they seem to know. The two women reporters who were on the station that day, also cannot keep happy smiles away; they do not smile in a natural moment; they smile broadly, naturally but in an unnatural moment: there is nothing discussed which is funny, to which they are smiling. Ordinary logic would indicate they are suffering from emotional irruptions (interruptions): there must be a big payout coming. How? Will they win a rigged lottery? Have they been gifted their homes (given their homes) in a deal? Going to get part of sympathy money -- from duped public or by complicit parts of the government? Indeed, these are how it would be done and, from Sandy Hook evidence, was done there.
For more on the other aspects of the case than the shooter and father, see http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/is-the-virginia-shooting-hoax-blowing-up-in-the-msms-face.html
Enjoy. I want safer gun access laws for the USA, and economics which discourage gangland behaviour, but I do not like lies.
The actor's photo is enlarged on the left. The putative father of the reporter is interviewed (shown in low-quality video) on the right.
The following 3 screen shots are of the profile of the actor. We will return to the face of the actor in a moment.
That is the Virginia Bank connection.
Now again, here is the actor:
Now here is more of the video that was on the right in the screenshot above:
And higher quality video screen shots of the putative father.
And here is the actor in Les Miserables, a TV show and commercial:
This is the actor in 2013, when he played in Les Miserables:
And within hours of the posting of this identification of Andy Parker, the father in our death story in Virginia, and Les Miserables, the story, the search terms, were buried under a story of a real or unreal death, a man who supposedly was a very important actor playing in Les Miserables, in New York. This man (pictured below), if real, might have known something or been asked to help, suddenly. Or ... if he is not real (I think he is), of course it would even more indicate that the story was to bury the other identification in Internet searching. By the way, the man who died within hours (or did not), has a fake or real last name "Jean-Baptiste" and the date of the putative death of this putative man, is August 29, which is the feast day, the honourary day, for Saint Jean Baptiste (John the Baptist). How corny:
Here is Andy Parker, the actor who is seemingly the dad in the story of reporter deaths, with his Les Miserables cast (a photo from one of the cast members' Facebook pages):
Here is the actor's profile on LinkedIn:
These are obviously photoshopped Christmas photos of the now putatively dead female reporter and the actor (putative Dad), Mother and another. Why doctor real family photos for a newly dead woman? Really.
And that actor again one last time (then we will move to the putative shooter):
You think so the actor is the putative father of the putatively shot reporter?
And if we move on, we note the following (already mentioned above in text), that the putative shooter, now putatively dead, has a suspicious (though not impossible) claim to being a fake character, maybe revealed by a subtle whistleblower:
The video from which these particular screen shots about possible actors then goes on to say:
Again, more and different aspects of this case are at http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/is-the-virginia-shooting-hoax-blowing-up-in-the-msms-face.html
Have a good day.