Dallas Police Shooting: Misinterpreting Visual Evidence?

Some commentators have argued (e.g. here and here) that Dallas Police officers brandished weapons that fired blanks

Close visual analysis may suggest otherwise

MHB Commenter ‘Toni’

View post on imgur.com

There’s been conjecture about the above image to which I must take exception. The image, showing police grouped against a wall during the Dallas shooting event, is said to reveal an officer holding an orange training pistol, as well as many red blank-fire adapters attached to several of the weapons.

But close observation tells me that these colorful details are, in fact, visual aberrations that regularly manifest in the kind of low resolution screen grabs that come from a cell phone video, as this appears to be.

Let’s start with the orange pistol. If you magnify that part of the image you will see that the officer’s left hand is resting palm-down on the back of the officer in front of him, making any grip on the alleged gun, which appears to be pointing to the sky, decidedly tenuous.

Underscoring the insecurity of his hold on the so-called pistol is the fact that the officer is not left-handed. If you look at the left hip of the officer in question, you will see his taser holster with the butt of the taser pointing forward, ready for a cross-body grab with the right hand. This means the officer is right-handed and thus unlikely to be holding even a training pistol in his left hand, supposing such a pistol existed in this image, which it does not.

View post on imgur.com

Further magnification of the orange artifact that reads “gun” to the casual glance, shows that the orange color smears to the right, while the hand of the officer has no such smearing. This indicates that the orange is an artifact.

View post on imgur.com

Orange, and especially red, bleeds are very common video artifacts. They can be seen in this image, flaring off some of the other weapons. These artifacts have been identified by the training gun advocates as blank-fire adapters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank-firing_adaptor

But the red adapters are not correctly positioned out at the end of the gun barrel where they should be, as demonstrated in the theorists’ own support evidence. The alleged blank-fire adapters in the Dallas event image are all over the place. On the rifle on the left, the adapters appear to segment the rifle barrel an impossible two times. While in this close-up, one adapter shines from within the hands of an officer, and another adapter rides askew on the mid-barrel of the gun.

View post on imgur.com

And how lucky can one image be to capture the exact moment that the blank-fire adapters on the first officer’s rifle line up perfectly with breaks in the text on the Bank of America sign? Is that serendipitous, or what?

View post on imgur.com

Mocking aside, my interest here is not that someone may have come to a mistaken conclusion. My concern is for credibility; less for that of the theorists, and more for the credibility of those who are uncritically spreading a false story, especially one that’s been artificially told.

I am troubled when there is a question that evidence may have been manipulated to further a certain set of conclusions. In this case, it appears the vivid visual aberrations used to elaborate the orange gun/red adapter stories have been bolstered by turning up the over-all color saturation in the image.

Consider the two pictures below, which have been cropped for comparison. On top is the image circulated by the blank-fire theorists; at bottom is the original image taken from the Wall Street Journal. The manipulation in the top picture is unmistakable. The jacked-up color saturation benefiting the theorists’ version can be seen shining on the faces of everyone in the shot.

View post on imgur.com

Original image from the Wall Street Journal:


84 thoughts on “Dallas Police Shooting: Misinterpreting Visual Evidence?”

    1. Thanks, Patrick, and thanks ppjg, elfmom, Ric, and dachsielady for your support. And thanks to PeaceFrog and everyone else for their comments in this thread.

      Thank you, MHB Administrator, for posting my comment, and for the opportunity to think and write in this forum.

      And Recynd! Shout OUT, grrrl!

      1. This is to the tune “Return to Sender” by Elvis.

        Return Recynd’er
        Locale unknown
        Return Recynd’er
        Your welcome Home

      2. Thanks again for pointing out what should be obvious by now. It makes me crazy. Why do they WANT to BELIEVE? That’s why I don’t own a Kirby or have three layers of vinyl siding on my house.

        We’ve spent hours looking at extremely esoteric elements of their stories. That’s because we wanted to be certain that what we claimed was close to correct. These recent ones are SO bad that it isn’t even necessary to delve that deeply.

        Anyone believing these should be made wards of the state. No wonder we have so many alcoholics. “Better a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy”.

  1. Does anyone really believe the black surgeon crying for ‘unity’ after supposedly operating on the cops?

    That concludes it all for me personally, although I appreciate the scrutiny paid to forensics which I don’t analyze as well.

    One big fake. My only question is how much was black op versus psy op (totally faked). Dallas was where the Mossad chose to black op Kennedy’s assassination; the police collaborated in the whole production, especially Oswald’s murder, at least top brass anyway. Texas in general is a zionist stronghold, while also being a key state in the battle over gun rights and ‘mental illness’ protocols.

    I wonder how this will impact Senator Corbyn’s (from Texas) campaign to add his amendment to Murphy’s bill (which has left the House 422-2 last Wednesday). Corbyn wants to impose a mandatory court hearing on the bill that determines whether a person deemed ‘mentally ill’ should have their 2nd Amendment rights suspended. This would be after someone is discharged after being imprisoned and ‘treated’ without any due process or science.

    Both sides of the political spectrum are being portrayed as peopled by ‘self radicalized’ ‘mentally ill’ extremists bent on murdering and dirty bombing the citizenry. Only now does the mainstream media admit to militant blacks wanting to ‘kill whites,’ while this ugly and shockingly banal truth went repressed for decades until Big Brother decided it’s now time to reassure the center-leaning types, particularly, whites, that everything is under control. The central government’s got our back and represents the sober, fair and middle ground path.

    Murphy’s Stasi State will probably take up to a year to really start to implement, as during that time bodies will be grabbed from prisons and the streets to justify the mushrooming bureaucracy. Psy ops will be less frequent except for those ‘proving’ the necessity of even ‘longer term treatments’ since even the cops or military and psychological testing couldn’t detect the ticking time bomb within aka ‘mental illness.’

    Check out the trailer for Imperium, about ‘white supremacists’ plotting to dirty bomb their own endangered people. White men become too suspicious to continue fictionalizing about in the psy ops, but we have the movies to convince us it’s all ‘radicals’ and challengers to the NWO who will need ‘treatment.’

    This all happened, more or less, in the Soviet Union. People really don’t learn from history.

    1. Dallas is a masonic stronghold before being a zionist stronghold.
      It isn’t called a cabal (kaballah) for nothing. So who was shot, how many died, (if any), who was involved, etc., etc., is simply all a distraction. While everyone keeps guessing about the details, the agenda moves forward. Ultimately, proving the details of any particular event won’t really convince people en masse. Everyone knows LHO didn’t kill Kennedy –but now it’s history, it’s old news, and most are sublimated by dis-information overload and happy if they have a job to wake up to and hamburger to eat.

      This is speculative freemasonry or the mystery religions/mystery schools at work and running the planet for many thousands of years. Until we have enough regular citizens to comprehend that we are ruled by a secret society, we cannot break free. Most are living under a spell and they don’t feel the need to break free or need for the truth. They think they have the truth and know the truth.

      The ‘militant’ blacks are the least of our problems, certainly in terms of sheer numbers. Whether they have more weapons, on average, than white folk, I don’t know.

      1. “Dallas is a masonic stronghold before being a zionist stronghold.”

        True, but basically one and the same.

        Suggest book…

        Freemasonry and Judaism: Secret Powers Behind Revolution Paperback –
        by Vicomte Leon De Poncins (Author)

        Also, Dallas is a home of

        Trinity Broadcasting Network,

        “Christian Zionism” (oxymoron of the day) on steroids, aka ‘dispensationalism.”

        Dallas home of …

        Dallas Theological Seminary, where con-artist, bible faker Cyrus I. Scofield, of Scofield bible fame, was “Professor” . Scofield was personally funded by Samuel Untermeyer, New York financier.

        Freemasonic Southern Baptists coming out the ears in Big D.

        And before there was freemasonry, which started in about 1717, there was Cabalism from whenceth only Luciferian evil flows.

  2. Yes and maybe? But ‘our’ best commentators are few. And one – the only person, I communicate directly – an hour ago said/to: “you wouldn’t be right without getting it wrong”. Risk essential, mistakes inevitable in doing true-truth-seeking. In basketball a foul or two could be part of a well-fought and healthy effort. Welcome error – rather this, than sanitised safety. Reminds me of the book/title; Addicted to Mediocrity. ‘Take exception’ – rightly cry-out but with respect, this example: https://crimesofempire.com/2016/07/10/special-effects-and-modified-weapons-expose-dallas-deception/ is more, rare-righteous triumph, on a beacon towards truth and liberation. Good post Question is…

  3. Actually, I’m less concerned with the misinterpretation of evidence than with its manipulation, as appears to be the case here.

      1. What is your opinion of my charge that the image used by the blank-fire adapters/training gun theorists was manipulated by them to support their claims?

        This is the real issue.

        1. At a minimum, I believed that the picture was staged in a deceptive way to produce intentional anomalies. This was sufficient, calculated bait for conspiracy researcher misanalysis. Mission accomplished.

        2. I don’t believe this image was provided to sow dissension. I think there was no real photographer there and so a national newspaper went with a dramatic cell phone grab for the scoop before deadline.

          I don’t believe there are outside forces tricking us into this story. There is an ethical breach here, and it’s self-inflicted. This is deception practiced by the theorists themselves. In fact, I hadn’t even considered that their part in this is more than self-serving. I’m not ready to believe they are part of the larger false narrative of the Dallas shooting event.

        3. I believe that it was some sort of video grab from a street light or business camera. Who in their right mind would stand and film right behind a shootout when even police are positioning behind the wall for cover?

        4. Assuming the official argument true, arguendo, then the question becomes was the force reasonable under the circcumstances, i.e., was he an immanent threat to police in that while holed up in that garage ? Could nonlethal measures such as tear gas been used? This has some similarity to the the 1981 Philadelphia MOVE bombing.

        5. If that is the case, then the photographer is in the direct line of fire without any cover, lol! That would never happen in a million years. Therefore, the picture could never have been taken if this were a real sniper, no way, no how, never.

        6. Amazingly, they do it all the time. I’ve remarked on it many times. It is one of the surefire ways to spot a hoax. They have photographers in the line of fire. They have bystanders wandering through the scene.

          They’re not worried. It’s a drill. Does anybody actually believe that these alleged cops would show up to a shootout without body armor and helmets? How about communication gear?

          Remember some of the footage where they drive a cruiser right into the live fire? Why would anybody do that? Easy, they wouldn’t.

        7. If the manipulated picture of the police with, what looks like blank-fire adapters and a training pistol, were altered by the blank-fire adapter/training gun theorists it would NEVER have ended up in the Wall Street Journal. The CIA planted that picture, just as they staged the drill.

        8. Toni, they ran that picture on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. So, i would have to guess that the “they” in discussion are TPTB. I’ve said countless times (and I believe it), that NOTHING sees print or air time without careful vetting. If its there, its there for a reason.

          Now, it is possible to overlook minor problems with props if the overall impact outweighs the risk. That’s not the case here. This is in your face. Everything about it is wrong.

          I can only conclude that it is wrong on purpose. I think this is because someone wants to put this up on the screen and say; “all you out there who love your mothers, apple pie and baseball will form a line behind me and say that you believe my picture here to be a true depiction of my self-described tragedy and that it happened just like I say it did”.

          “Anyone who refuses to do that is a godless commie “extremist” and will be placed on the no-fly list and made to listen to Obongo speeches.

  4. Is there no special investigation unit that investigates when the police is involved in a shooting? (I don’t live in the US, so I find it odd that there is no mention of this.)

    For instance how many bullets were fired and where did they hit? Were the shell casings removed from the scene? It should be possible to see markings or holes everywhere on buildings where the bullets hit.

    Get Off The BS blog has pointed out that it is curious that there is no trace after police bullets around the place where a shooter was allegedly placed. If they shot back at him, some of the bullets should come close even if they missed.

    1. Every time a cop shoots his or her firearm this has to be reduced to a written record stating why, how many times, etc. The police keep records on everything they do, and they are real sticklers about discharges. Even accidental discharge of a firearm has to be put in a written report by police. Remember that the average cop rarely uses his firearm in the entire course of his or her career.I believe that anytime a cop pulls his gun from the holster this must be included in his police report.

      1. Preferably, there should have been an independent unit, like the internal affairs, to review or investigate the use of weapon, to provide oversight.

        A full report should be made available to the public. In this case where a robot reportedly has been used to kill the suspect, there is all the more a need for transparency and oversight.

      2. I would be surprised if any of them paid much attention to that. If they declare “shots fired” I think they have to report it. They pull their guns (and stick them in people’s faces) all the time.

        What about their “drop pieces”? They all have those as well. If they shoot an unarmed person they just make sure they were “armed”. I personally saw one of these several years ago. A cop’s house was robbed and the cop shot the guy dead. Every cop within fifty miles showed up at his house. When the coroner rolled the corpse there were four guns under him! He must have been a bad hombre.

        1. I grew up in Queens. The NYPD is almost like a fifth LCN family. The Shades of Blue series rings true. I knew two guys who got on, one was A.C.D.’d on a possession of stolen car parts. The other one was an alcoholic who ran over his girlfriends (my neighbor) uncle-he’s working narcotics!

  5. Good Work, Toni. The red markings on the mid barrel of the pistols are directing the ejection of the blank rounds that these actors are firing. Blank rounds DO NOT enable a semi auto pistol to cycle at all without a device present to facilitate the cycling. The only weapons that fire blank rounds without assistance are revolvers, pump shotguns, and bolt action guns.

    These actors are holding semi auto weapons, modified to fire blanks, such as the third actor in line from the left is holding.

    1. Also, why would the third one in line be handing a pistol to the second actor in line? There is no legitimate reason for that to occur, unless it is a prop. During combat, no one would ever play with, inspect, repair, look at, hand over, etc. a weapon in that fashion.

      1. You can fire a single round without an adaptor. If you want the weapon to respond normally and eject shells automatically you need the adaptor. It provides needed back pressure that the bullet normally produces.

        The color is purely a safety issue. When practicing with weapons where there is simulated fire they want to ensure that all weapons involved are clearly shooting blanks.

        Personally, I have never seen the red markers on the ejector slots. If they’re there I’d have to guess it is to provide even more visibility to the blank issue.

        It is incorrect to assume that a gas-operated semi automatic will perform using blanks without the adaptors. You will be able to fire one round.

        There was nothing that I regard as “real” about the images. The most likely explanation is that they were shot during a drill. That explains the weapons and the lack of armor, abnormal procedures, etc..

        I think we’ve passed a threshold where they will just continue to produce these things and they couldn’t care less if some disbelieve them. They have enough sheep who’ll buy into it.

  6. What is missing from these costumes, besides the issue of whether or not the guns are legitimate, are head pieces or shoulder mounted communication devices (walkie talkies). These have been in use by all law enforcement agencies over the past two decades.

    Someone really messed up in wardrobe on this one.

    1. There are only two visible communication devices in the blow up of the photo, for the two actors (handlers?) crouched down in front of the pole.

  7. The blank adapter does not “ride askew on the middle of the gun” on the fourth picture from the top, but rather, it is clear that the chamber is colored orange. This can not be explained by the glare from the sign as easily as the illuminated faces of the officers.

      1. No one knows less about guns than me, unless maybe it’s you. And I never even heard of blank-fire adapters before this theory was put forward.

        But 5 minutes on the internet tells me that the blank-fire adapter goes in the end of the barrel, and not just to signify blank rounds, but to create pressure to open the slide and eject the cartridge.

        Putting the adapter on the slide makes no sense.

        1. Toni,

          I understand your point but that picture is available on the WSJ website anomalies and all.

          I admit, those weird”Red” goodies placed strategically on each guns extractor is strange and I can’t explain them.

          What do you thing caused these “Red” anomalies? They are right on the original pic at the WSJ.

          Someone know what these are somewhere. It’s true semi-autos Need adapters to shoot blanks but they are typically on the Nose of the barrel.

          Is this something new? I don’t know. But it’s there for all to see.

        2. Like the others, thanks Toni. I know about this. They are blank adaptors. The orange gun is used for drills. The picture was obviously shot during a drill. If not, they would have had to photo shop the adaptors into the scene and I see no reason to do that. I suppose it could be that they tried the opposite and grabbed an early draft version. Who knows?

          I was drafted years ago. Trust me, the adaptors are necessary to make semi-automatics, that rely on gas pressure, to fire multiple blanks.

    1. Peace,

      The Red adapters are placed correctly according to the type of weapon.

      The Pistols eject from the Top and the Rifles eject from the side.

      That’s exactly where they are positioned.

      1. Ric, just to try to put this to bed, normal blank adaptors fit on the muzzle. They are there to create back pressure lost by the absence of bullets in the blanks.

        The red things that appear on the ejector ports are probably either some sort of sticker or a red bolt/extractor assembly fitted to show others involved in the drill that the holder is firing blanks.

        The basic idea is that, someone could accidentally walk into a drill, pull their service weapon and………that wouldn’t be good. So, when they are practicing they want everyone to see that they are shooting blanks.

        That means that this shot came from an earlier drill. So the shot is “real” in the sense that it depicts what it depicts, drill participants in a photo op.

        Inserting this into the operation was a mistake. Of course they don’t expect anyone to actually look beyond an impression. That’s why none of these will pass the sniff test.

        If you ran into the squad room and told the DPD that there was someone shooting outside do you think they would run out there without armor? I don’t. They’d hang back, assess the situation, go get the MRAP, etc.. Their first loyalty is to themselves.

        This is the usual mix of drill footage, stock footage, ridiculous narrative and no proof. Fortunately, for me at least, I don’t need any more proof on this one. It’s done, stick a fork in it.

    2. The imaginary adapter is riding askew because it is not parallel to the gun. Take a look.

      Also, take a look at the background of the BofA sign. It’s orange. Look at the BofA logo on the orange background. That’s real red.

      Visual anomalies abound in low-res images. If you look closely at the image with the jacked up color saturation you can see one of those “adapters” on the back of the boot of the second officer.

      1. Red Reflections? It’s Possible but there is too many different angles for them to wind up on each weapon on the place the cases eject.

        It could be. I don’t know.

      2. Toni,

        You are Correct. I blew the picture up and found this.

        The Red goodie that appears on the front cops rifle is actually “Under” his barrel which make it appear to be where the cases are ejected and the one pistol is the reflection of the Cops watch and the other is reflecting off the top of his Pistol.

        Case Closed.

      3. A “potential” explanation could be that they shot this during a drill and later decided to use it in the production. Someone tried to edit out the adaptors and orange gun and this represents a work in progress. It does look strange but it doesn’t change the fact that there are such things and we know their use.

        There is absolutely NO excuse for their use in a real situation. Secondly, in this day and age. you couldn’t get a cop within a mile of a bullet without armor. They’d be a mile away in an MRAP or something.

        This is designed to play on people’s imaginary beliefs. This is pure bad theater.

  8. Great Toni !

    First, If those “Red” things are really adapters for semi-auto rifles/pistols to shoot Blanks, we have factual evidence something is wrong with this picture. The ‘orange artifact” means nothing.

    The fact some cops have identifying Patches and some don’t on top of some have radios and some don’t is also disturbing.

    The “America” in the background right above their position looks Staged.

    One said this picture may have been taken the night before because it would not have made it to “Print” in time for the WSJ to publish. That I can’;t verify.

    If this is staged and those Red things really are adapters for shooting blanks, that would mean WSJ participated in the hoax.

    That’s just as disturbing and maybe more so as anything else.

    We are in a heap of hurt if any of this is true.

    If it is in-fact true.

    I then wish Drudge would Headline this as “Proof” we are being Hoaxed.

    But then, he would lose his website and livelihood.

    This is why some infowarriors can only go so far and then get criticized as traitors when they don’t.

    It’s all economics and They know it.

  9. Thanks, Toni, for helpful insights toward truth.

    I would not call the Wall Street Journal photo “evidence” but rather would call it the Before photo chosen for your comparison and analysis.

    Photo analysis certainly is important in studying false events but I have seen, regarding 9-11, how even when done very professionally it can go very wrong leading to inconclusiveness and blurred factual data. (Sort of seems analogous to me of only way of getting a real identification of someone is getting DNA data from the government.) Will the real photos from real sources please stand up?

    There were so many alternative “truth” theories and groups after 9-11, some sincere truth seekers, some fake “truth” seekers. One fake theory and group was chosen and made dominant over all the other alternative theories and remains mysteriously very well funded and is still pumping out ridiculous fake 9-11 “truth” videos.

    When looking at the big picture of the modus operandi of these false events, it looks like they have of late chosen rapid-fire perpetration of false events, and that is for effecting the now overall goal of injecting CHAOS and CONFUSION.

    It has been so long since we have seen a real active shooter event that we do not know what natural chaos and confusion looks like and certainly cannot remember seeing trained leaders/responders on the scene masterfully dealing with and getting the chaos and confusion under control.

    “Everything is Believable, Nothing is Knowable”

    James Fetzer

  10. Looking at your pictures Toni, I do not believe that the orange image is a pistol. However, I do not believe that such an astronomical coincidence, of its appearing to be a gun, in the picture, in the officer’s hand, is coincidental. Rather, I think that this picture, even if it was a screen grab, was a carefully crafted hoax, carefully calculated to deceive conspiracy researchers, and, ultimately, to manage the perceptions of the public regarding the claims of conspiracy researchers. A brilliant PSYOP!

    1. I’m pretty sure that is exactly what it is. They make them for drills to show everyone involved that it won’t actually shoot. The red things are blank adaptors.

  11. Thanks for Freemason connections updates. Also, this event occurred on 7/8 which was the scion John D Rockfeller’s birthday in 1836.

    Also, what can be said about the lighting of this event? It looks like a stage. I can’t tell if it’s daytime, night time or when it is. The lighting alters perceptions of everything in the photos/videos whatever and it’s clearly planned that way. I remember seeing footage with this strange, pink, brothel lighting as well as footage in broad daylight and there’s no way that was the same time.

    Pure psyop for me, the question is, did anyone actually die?

  12. Thanks for the very useful analysis. Meanwhile, the orange and red artifacts or reflections aside, this photo was 100% staged. The police are not wearing proper protective gear to deal with a sniper attack, and they are lined up artistically in front of a red-white-and-blue sign that says “America” in big bold letters. They are positioned in a totally artificial manner, and they all look like props.They ARE props. The photo was published in the WSJ print edition before it could possibly have appeared, had it been taken during the alleged attack:

    All this being the bottom line, for me, the details, while certainly of interest, need not be parsed infinitesimally.

    1. Yeah, Vivian Lee, I’ve seen that video, too.

      It wasn’t me that brought forward the evidence of blank-fire adapters and an orange training gun. I only explicated the theorists’ misinterpretation in order to show that they MANIPULATED THE EVIDENCE to make their arguments more compelling.

      There seems to be a giant blind spot to the ethical question here.

      I guess it’s a parse too far.

      And if you seriously want me to answer the “yeah, but…” argument you’ve tried to substitute for my thesis, you should offer some evidence stronger than that video. Perhaps something of your own. You know, something a little more “finitesimal.”

      1. Nothing ‘parse’ about it Toni except you’re unable to rightly question something without asserting too far. Is it plausible someone… – ok, why not say it, JAMES (since you like to capitalise) – spends years bashing away for justice and suddenly decides to fiddle with photos for..? Or would you like to find other examples of him ‘manipulating evidence’? How many websites out there worth looking at? This one, James… and..?

        There’s no ‘blind spot’ only little/no evidence in your ‘thesis’ it’s ‘intentional manipulation’? This kind of thing always reminds me of what D.L. Moody said to a woman who approached him to moan about the Ira Sankey’s hymns. He reportedly said, “Madam, I like the way I do it, better than the way you do not”.

        1. Yet to defend? You jump from unintentional/understandable to deception/deceiver – ‘who knows why?’ – without sufficient backing. If, as is so… SO… stupidly common, let’s say me assert; “you’re a shrill/troll” – all that/almost always, unfounded garbage – you might rightly take exception? You have all the room to question opinions but the claim against character is of another order. ‘Intention’ would require motive and typically this seen in historical terms or otherwise. This bedraggled and internally witch-hunting, smashed-up network, Memory Hole and like site’s on, has one or two serious issues. Policing others being a classic disrupter. You make the claim… ‘ethics’ – please expand or how can anyone ‘defend’? Calm as: Me. No disrespect and you. Genuinely grateful you made your comments/this post but when anyone gets on this horse I tend to spark up. Why? Because we should all – me inc. – better disagree and offer a whole lot more mutual support. Therefore, please excuse my reaction, it’s not about what you particularly write but touches into blind spots/ethics that rips the life out people trying to publicly speak-up. Again, not saying you, but in-fighting and childish put-downs might be a lot of why, broadcasting alternatives are so beleaguered. Understandable in light of trying to face this angst-world. (Name of the band ‘pop eats itself’ always coming to mind). But THIS I maintain a BIG ish. This the why we’re not the holy racket could be. This why comments aren’t posted and new web-based platforms aren’t jumping up. So… yup, this why, what you imply matters. Go ahead – but there’s a wider backdrop.

        2. Toni, I guess your a Shill, Mark said so whoever “Mark” is?

          We need to start a “Go Fund Me” page so Mark can get his Meds……

        3. Ric,
          I should get a t-shirt that says, “Will Shill for Truth.”

          To be fair, and although it’s a little hard to tell, I think Mark is asking me if I would take exception to being called a shill. I would be right to object, in his estimation.

          His point seems to be that it’s not nice to judge, and that I have no right to question character.

          I disagree.

        4. You read all that compassion in a Mad Mans rant?

          That’s why God made Man and Women.

          I would have just sent a Robot with a bomb attached on it, you know, the New Normal….haha

          No offense Mark

        5. Judge all you like, nothing nice or otherwise to do with it but you’re talking about years of a some bloke’s writings. Credibility, reputation. There’s not a shred of relationale why he’d manipulate a photo, for what..? No, he’s doing something and – like I said – an unusual rare outpost. Why you can’t stick to plausible error? Probably about this struggle and ways to cope… what-ev. enough of me/this post. And ‘who’ am I? Hardly hidden. Flippin’ blabber-mouth.

        6. Ric has grasped the significance of the “robo-bomb” tactic. So simple, so ……., clean.

          Marc (whoever that is), is stuck on hysteria. “Marc” appears to be a “limit man”. Toni bumps his envelope.

          Heh, heh, all this angst over dummy pictures from hoax drills. i know a thing or two about Toni and she’s NO shill. Toni is a “stand up” girl. If you don’t agree with her you can say so. If you treat her with the respect she deserves you can walk away friends, even if you don’t agree. What’s wrong with that?

      2. Of course, there is intentional manipulation here. And that is the manipulation of the public through the press, with this ludicrous, laughable, totally staged photo. Anyone who takes it seriously is missing the point – although, obviously, the details are always interesting.

        1. Ok, we’ll just take your word for it then, Vivian Lee.

          And I thought you were a researcher.

        2. The photo is real, the question is was it a staged photo?

          Odds are probably but the weird Red things are reflections for sure.

      3. Toni, I understand your point. I happen to think it more likely that it is as I suggest elsewhere here. The picture is of a drill. Maybe someone wanted to use it as support for their action movie. They tried to edit out the training pistol and blank adaptors. Maybe there’s a clean version and this one is a work in process.

    2. To begin with, our default position should always be disbelief. To do otherwise would deny what we already know about these. You are quite correct to say that we do not need to “parse infinitesimally” every detail of these. They are sloppy enough that they do not require that level of scrutiny.

      Given the orange trainer and the blank fixtures, it was probably filmed on another day during a drill. When I was in the Army we used these things as well. They create back pressure to allow the gasses to work the action on semi-automatics shooting blanks.

      The facts are that they don’t care how ridiculous these presentations become. It has to be deliberate. The idea (I believe) is to establish “blind belief” as a standard of behavior expected from all New World Odor aficionados.

      Logic and reality are to be dismissed in favor of “belief”. Look at the shift, for example, between multiple shooters and the “lone nut”. Or how about drone robot execution by bomb? That’s pretty special as well. Note that the “media” did not question this.

      The simple truth is that every one of these are contrived. I really don’t care if they shoot people or not. They are artificial presentations designed to provide justification for them implementing their plan.

      Most of us have realized by now that these have not improved with practice. If anything they have gotten worse.

  13. The most encouraging thing I see here is dozens of police officers, many veterans resigned their jobs in May. Reports are so many were quitting it was hard to handle the magnitude of paperwork. Doesn’t that scream something was about to happen they refused to be a part of?

    It screams the drill was explained to them and they decided they would look for a normal police department to work in rather than soil their reputations.

    1. At the risk of losing your support Mick. The best outcome would be to have about 85% of them, countrywide quit, period.

      It ‘could’ be that some of them developed principles. I can’t say that it is normal to have principles beyond those normally found among the breed. That’s not a complement.

      Most of the ones I’ve known would willingly participate in anything that paid and had the potential for a nice little pat on the head and praise from their “betters”.

      That’s one of the reasons (as you so adroitly pointed out) for reducing the IQ of the applicants. I wouldn’t go to a police station if I were looking for a philosopher.

    2. This is a couple of years old, but, the trend in official resignations include police chiefs, and other higher up in command “white shirts”, resigning in record numbers:

    1. What exactly do you mean “staged”? There seems to be on google earth two such signs at two corners of the BofA building

    1. I believe the reason there is no comment button with the Hildebeast piece is that it is a Jonathan Turley article and to read the entire piece you must go to his site and comment there. Dr. Tracy posted at least one other article by Turley and it worked that way then too.

      I always liked listening to Turley when he was on Fox news and way back when when I believed Fox news was the real deal.

    2. Lophatt, Agreed.
      Maybe MHB has accepted some Clinton Foundation funds?
      Why everyone else has. haha

      Kidding James.

  14. What is going on here at the NE corner of Main St and Lamar with these officers lined up on Main St facing west straight down Main St and the camera looking up Lamar? The black gentleman with rifle appears to be looking a bit across Lamar toward the front of El Centro but others are looking straight down the sidewalk with guns angled upward toward 2-3rd floor of El Centro, not angled across Main to parking garage. Background up at intersection of Lamar and Elm is magnified, but too much? We see over hanging Elm St sign and ONE WAY sign but yet to left is another, smaller Elm St sign. Where did that come from? Why would there be a need to fook around with background ?

    1. There is a new development today, with the NYT reporting that the “standoff” with Johnson was “inside El Centro College” and not the parking garage!


      Prior reporting has cited the second floor of the parking garage, where “negotiators spent hours trying to get him to surrender.”


      This earlier article, which talks about the parking garage, also features the staged photo that is the subject of this MHB post.

      Perhaps while they were negotiating with Johnson for “hours” they thought they were in a parking garage when they were actually in a college. Granted, one could easily be mistaken for the other…

  15. This is clearly a staged photo – real ‘assault’ weapons would have a high tech scope on the top. Notice #2 does not have the proper uniform, the boots and stripes on his shirt sleeves are unique – he appears to be getting a gun lesson from #3. 5 of the officers are looking at the out of place cop – that tap on the back could be alerting the instructor that their picture is being taken. Looks like their is a light illuminating the sign right above the hand that could look like a gun.

    Recall just before this event our ‘leader’ for the 5th time declared cops are racists before the details of another shooting of a thug is known. This is a war on cops and many would say he has blood on his hands.

    This actually could be a unifying event – yes most of us would agree the criminal justice system is rigged and the hildebeast and company need to be dethroned!

    1. “Recall just before this event our ‘leader’ for the 5th time declared cops are racists before the details of another shooting of a thug is known. ”

      This floors me. Did not know Obummer would have the off-the-charts audacity to make such unpresidential unseemly statements.

      Would be so cool if someone could put together a compilation of short video clips of these instances of “him” spewing these most fomenting- to-hate words — and done at this pivotal time in relation to wipe out of overall multiple false event scams and impending scam US presidential elections.

      1. The first spewing that I recall was when the Stanford police arrested a man a neighbor reported to of broken into a house. Turns out the black college professor broke into his own house but refused to offer any from of id and our ‘leader’ came right out and declared the police acted stupidly.

        Hildabeast is also on record repeatedly telling white folks we don’t know how to act and cops are racists.

        Does not get much worse than scolding officers at a memorial for murdered cops for being racists.


    2. Guess I triggered the moderation button with the h word. Will wait to see if I ever make it out of purgatory.

  16. Well-done! I wasn’t even aware of this line of inquiry. Seems more likely to me that if anyone fired blanks, it was the alleged snipers themselves. That ruse, however, may have been harder to pull off than simply staging a real attack.

    Snipers with blanks would have necessitated the cooperation of Dallas police to a certain extent.

    Of the competing theories (in a bastardization of Ockham), it seems likely the officers in question did actually die. That would have been simpler.

    But the single-shooter conclusion is very problematic considering initial reports from the police chief himself. There’s too much at the beginning diametrically opposed to the final narrative. This can’t be blamed on poor journalism (at least, not any more poor than usual). An official police statement carries some weight.

    Why didn’t the chief wait if he was unsure? I think it’s because he was convinced of the veracity of a broad plot (of which Micah Johnson was just one part).

    Wonder who was paid-off? The mayor, perhaps?

    All that said, the chief seemed oddly calm right before obliterating the final suspect. He had asked for “plans” regarding how to neutralize the suspect. Did he have any idea how kooky and illegal those plans would be?

    One final thing: the risk of blowing up Micah Johnson (assuming any part of this story is real) does not conform to the reward of neutralizing him.

    The ostensible aim was to protect officers and civilians.

    Johnson was blown up because of the explosives detected, yes?

    The chief was also very “generous” to quote Johnson verbatim and at length during the press conference night of. “The end is near”…all that rubbish.

    If any of this story is true, then the police must have made the decision to gamble: they decided Johnson was bluffing about bombs being all over the place.

    If they truly thought he was bluffing (which they evidently did), then why the urgency to blow him up? That course of action would not have decreased risk, but rather increased it.

    All in all, the fanciful death indicates to me that something is “off” about this whole event. It’s a bit too theatrical. Too convenient a precedent. Figuring in Dallas and “triangulation” and “camouflage bags”. Doesn’t add up.


Comments subject to moderation