49 victims in shootings at 2 New Zealand mosques

[Ryan]

Thanks Ryan. The place where the video was taken, though, does look exactly like the highschool if you compare on Google Street View, so presumably it was taken there but at some other time.

I think it is the same place, but like you say, from some other time. My guess is it was taken from footage supplied to police in relation to some other crime or suspicious activity and broadcast on one of those crime drama reality shows. Some loser probably then re-filmed it for Twitter in order to get attention but needed to create a fake account to post it with, as their regular account would have made the lie obvious.

 

[Windmill knight]

I have not seen the video, so this is just guess work. Having seen stills of the video I can say the quality/compression looks fairly low. Meaning small objects could easily 'disappear' simply because the image is such low quality.

I'd be careful of anyone claiming it's fake because of the slide into 'actors' territory, which discredits any exploration of a conspiracy.

Surely if there where actors involved, they'd all have to be killed off anyway just to stop them from talking?

I've seen the part they are referring to, and I think you're right. It's just a matter of the quality, exposure and compression of the video. As I said earlier, none of that video seemed fake to me. There are parts in which the guy is shooting at people who are already on the ground, either dead or dying, and you can see a slight 'recoil' on the bodies with each bang.

One has to wonder what would be the point of using actors, when it would be so much harder to set up and cover up. Are people suggesting that they don't mind trying to provoke a global 'civil war' and massacring entire populations in military interventions, but feel bad about hurting real people in their false-flag provocations??

 

[JEEP]

I have not seen the video, so this is just guess work. Having seen stills of the video I can say the quality/compression looks fairly low. Meaning small objects could easily 'disappear' simply because the image is such low quality.

Yes, one of the VT editors mentioned compression in response to a point brought up by a commentor to the article, but I think it was in regard to something else in the video rather than the disappearing bullets. I was going to try to put that video clip into my previous post, but when one attempts to access the article, this comes up:

Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 20971520) (tried to allocate 36864 bytes) in /home/veteranstoday/public_html/wp-content/themes/Newspaper/includes/wp_booster/td_util.php on line 1385

So that is in regard to the article claiming 'CGI used in New Zealand shooting'. The article 'The unraveling of an Israeli mass murder' also has two videos I did not view based on the text preceding them:

The video below clearly demonstrates that Tarrant was familiar with handling weapons and killing civilians. There is no question. We warn anyone about this video, it is reprehensible but also clearly demonstrates someone fully radicalized, we believe, from taking “pot shots” at Palestinians including children, from Israel’s “Trump-like” wall and its hundreds of sniper towers.

Listen to him chat about “combat” as he pumps round after round into women and children, spraying blood into the air. This isn’t his first rodeo.

and

Then the second video, we believe, shows his “helper,” which we believe to be a police handler:

Below the second vid, the article continues:

As with Sandy Hook, we have issues about the weapons used. We now see a single AR15 with bizarre “California” modifications, no flash suppressor and a rear stock to remove the hand grip. New Zealand has no such laws.

Remember Tarrant is not from New Zealand but Australia. How did he get to Australia? How did he get 5 military weapons, some of them extremely illegal? How were they carried on the plane? Where did they come from? Where are they now? Why can’t we see them?

Tarrant’s original shooting involved an Eotech sight, manufactured in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This unit has a serial number. What is it? It can be traced. The second rifle used in the video had a Swedish manufacture Aimpoint sight, also very expensive and serial numbered.

In the US, the “Eotech used is a “law enforcement only” verson. Also, as the weapon photographed was an early version of a specially modified AR15, much like the Clinton era “ban” era weapons in the US. None or fewer of these fake modified AR 15s from rural areas of Australia exist. The weapon was never used there as the .223/5.56mm cartridge was inadequate for long range varmint work and few were issued to Australian military and those in 20 inch barrel with Vietnam era and highly recognizable M 16 E1 characteristics.

Those sound like legitimate questions re the guns, but I have no real knowledge of such things. A few paragraphs later,
"So, where are we? We have a second shooter and guns there, strange video with “pre-killed” victims. We have silenced witnesses and banned videos." Nothing in the article substantiates "pre-killed" victims at least to me.

From comments:

Why is the video of the shooter so grainy, nowadays even the video cameras on low priced cell fones show a much higher pixel resolution.

• Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor March 18, 2019 at 10:01 am
  The lower quality could be due to compression used by Facebook.

Apparently the other now absent article talked about the lack of expected damage to walls, etc. from the flying bullets in addition to effect on victims. I agree it would make little sense to stage the massacre as these people have no qualms in killing innocents by the dozens/hundreds. But then, I really have no ability to discern the workings of an exceptionally evil, diabolical set of minds that are behind all of this murderous manipulation. It does appear likely that the public is going to swallow this latest scam hook, line, and sinker especially in regards to white men/guns bad! And we know this won't be the last. As the Cs have indicated, the idea is to terrorize the public to the point that they beg to have all liberties suspended in order to be 'safe'. They also indicated earth changes are what's going to derail these master plans. So, yeah - the cosmic equivalent of a large chunk of masonry (and ya gotta luv the irony of that!) falling and splatting the evildoers is really the only solution I see forthcoming.

 

[flashgordonv]

It is really interesting the effect this incident has had upon people in NZ. Take my situation. In the 13 years I have been involved with SOTT and the Forum, I have never been concerned about what I post, either here or on social media. Now, I stop and think before I post something, download something, or view something, and ask myself - is this something that could come back to cause me and my family grief with the government. Life has changed

 

[JEEP]

OK - so this fulfills either #6 or #24 on lists I've seen posted as to if an event is in fact a false flag > a drill is/has taken place:

NZ POLICE "HAPPENED TO BE IN A TRAINING SESSION" WHEN MOSQUE SHOOTING BEGAN
It took police officers in New Zealand 36 minutes to catch the terrorist who murdered 50 people in two Christchurch mosques last week. Dramatic footage shows that just two officers—only one of whom had a gun—apprehend the suspect after his bloody rampage. We are now learning that this response time would have been longer, but police happened to be conducting a drill nearby practicing for a similar attack.

In what can be described as an extremely strange “coincidence,” Chris Cahill, a detective inspector who is president of a local labor union for police officers, explained that officers were involved in a drill near the city center when the shooting broke out.

According to the NY Times,

The police said a special armed tactical unit arrived at Al Noor Mosque four minutes after the first officers, or 10 minutes after the initial emergency call.
Mr. Cahill said it normally would have taken longer, with team members summoned to a police station to suit up. On Friday, though, they happened to be in a training session in the city center and wearing their gear, he said.

“Any police force in the world — to get to the scene in six minutes, a specialist team there in 10 — that would be a success,” Mr. Cahill said.

Police in New Zealand don’t typically carry firearms, much less dress in tactical gear, so officers holding a drill with all their tactical equipment and weapons at the ready was a helpful coincidence indeed.

For those who may be unaware, the significance of the drill is important due to the fact that most terror attacks in recent history have coincided with drills very similar to the actual terrorism that unfolds.

Read more:

Article not found.

www.blacklistednews.com

 

[flashgordonv]

Just saw this in the local press"

Judge May hold trial behind closed doors

The judge who presides over the case of the accused Christchurch gunman may invoke a rarely used order and hold the trial behind locked doors to protect "the security or defence of New Zealand".

The trial may also be held outside of Canterbury and potentially without any Muslim jurors, but a criminal justice expert says a carefully selected jury will ensure a fair trial.

Concerns were raised earlier this week when the Herald revealed accused mosque gunman Brenton Tarrant will represent himself in court, potentially turning his trial into a platform for his extreme beliefs - detailed in his manifesto.

However, the High Court judge who will preside over what will be an unprecedented trial will have a range of laws at their disposal to maintain order - one of which will could see the trial held behind locked doors, with even members of the press banned from attending.

New Zealand's criminal justice system is generally open to the public, but under the Criminal Procedure Act any New Zealand judge has the power to clear their court.

This most often occurs in cases when a complainant gives evidence in cases of a sexual nature.

However, the judge has the ability to exclude people when it is necessary to avoid undue disruption to the proceedings.

Other reasons to close the court include; a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial, endangering the safety of any person, prejudicing the maintenance of the law - including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences - and when a suppression order is not sufficient to avoid that risk.

A judge can also clear the court if they believe it will avoid prejudicing the security or defence of New Zealand. This is also the only type of order which forces members of the media to leave a court.

Others allowed to remain in court regardless of any of the orders are the jury, prosecutor, defendant, lawyer engaged in the proceedings, officer of the court, and police officer in charge of the case.

So, potentially a trial where the public and the media are excluded due ti national security matters. The plot thickens

 

[Hi_Henry]

At the beginning in the video, before Tarrant goes out the first time from the car, there is a significant portion in the video where the sound appears to have been turned off completely and/or erased later. You hear absolutely nothing. How and why? It starts at around 03:06. You even see Tarrant saying something with his mouth, but the sound is gone. If someone was sitting with him in the car, that person must have been behind him in the backseat, since at one portion you see him turning to the left side inside the car and the passenger seat was laying flat on the backseat. Also at 03:06 he turns back the camera, showing his face and nobody appears to be sitting in the backseat behind him. He is saying something right before that point, which isn't understandable. If somebody was sitting behind him, maybe that person crouched down at the point Tarrant turned the camera to his face (so that he can't be seen) and they then had a short conversation?

Yes, it is amazing how genius Tarrant is able to do all these things on the fly. Just amazing. Hence it is best to block websites where this might be discussed a bit too loudly and make the video illegal to have so that first impressions can be corrected thanks to discussions on such disgusting sites as ZH or Disobedient Media.

 

[Hi_Henry]

As with Sandy Hook, we have issues about the weapons used. We now see a single AR15 with bizarre “California” modifications, no flash suppressor and a rear stock to remove the hand grip. New Zealand has no such laws.

Remember Tarrant is not from New Zealand but Australia. How did he get to Australia? How did he get 5 military weapons, some of them extremely illegal? How were they carried on the plane? Where did they come from? Where are they now? Why can’t we see them?

Tarrant’s original shooting involved an Eotech sight, manufactured in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This unit has a serial number. What is it? It can be traced. The second rifle used in the video had a Swedish manufacture Aimpoint sight, also very expensive and serial numbered.

In the US, the “Eotech used is a “law enforcement only” verson. Also, as the weapon photographed was an early version of a specially modified AR15, much like the Clinton era “ban” era weapons in the US. None or fewer of these fake modified AR 15s from rural areas of Australia exist. The weapon was never used there as the .223/5.56mm cartridge was inadequate for long range varmint work and few were issued to Australian military and those in 20 inch barrel with Vietnam era and highly recognizable M 16 E1 characteristics.

Now that is some list of "Please explain this" points that we can safely assume that the NZ gov. will not answer. These difficult to explain details point to anything but "Tarrent did it by himself." You only need to recall the current airport security check procedures to convince yourself that Tarrent had a lot of help just getting the guns not to mention pulling off the massacre. The more I read about such anomalies as these guns and their gun sights the more I am convinced that this was all done by lots of war hardened pros.

 

[Hi_Henry]

VT appears to have some really interesting points. As hard as I try there is no way to explain why the cartridges would not be seen hitting the ground unless the video is fake,

Disappearing in mid air

 

[Christine]

With a front camera, shouldn't we rather see the person being targeted and not his entire weapon!?
Because right now he's looking at his weapon and not at the person(s) targeted by IMO

 

[RedFox]

VT appears to have some really interesting points. As hard as I try there is no way to explain why the cartridges would not be seen hitting the ground unless the video is fake,

Disappearing in mid air

See the following from earlier in the thread:

I have not seen the video, so this is just guess work. Having seen stills of the video I can say the quality/compression looks fairly low. Meaning small objects could easily 'disappear' simply because the image is such low quality.

I'd be careful of anyone claiming it's fake because of the slide into 'actors' territory, which discredits any exploration of a conspiracy.

Surely if there where actors involved, they'd all have to be killed off anyway just to stop them from talking?

I've seen the part they are referring to, and I think you're right. It's just a matter of the quality, exposure and compression of the video. As I said earlier, none of that video seemed fake to me. There are parts in which the guy is shooting at people who are already on the ground, either dead or dying, and you can see a slight 'recoil' on the bodies with each bang.

One has to wonder what would be the point of using actors, when it would be so much harder to set up and cover up. Are people suggesting that they don't mind trying to provoke a global 'civil war' and massacring entire populations in military interventions, but feel bad about hurting real people in their false-flag provocations??

 

[Windmill knight]

With a front camera, shouldn't we rather see the person being targeted and not his entire weapon!?
Because right now he's looking at his weapon and not at the person(s) targeted by IMO

That depends on the angle of the camera, which is attached to his helmet.

 

[Christine]

That depends on the angle of the camera, which is attached to his helmet.

It's possible and yet on this picture you can see where he's aiming but on the video you can only see the weapon!

 

[Windmill knight]

It's possible and yet on this picture you can see where he's aiming but on the video you can only see the weapon!

I watched the full video. In some parts, you can see where he is shooting at (like in the picture you posted); in others the angle of the camera is a bit tilted downwards so you can only see the weapon. I don't see anything anomalous in that. The guy was wearing a helmet, which is likely to move a little backwards and forwards, and he is obviously moving his head. The attachment of the camera to the helmet could have shifted a bit as well with all the movement.

 

[Cosmos]

I watched the full video. In some parts, you can see where he is shooting at (like in the picture you posted); in others the angle of the camera is a bit tilted downwards so you can only see the weapon. I don't see anything anomalous in that. The guy was wearing a helmet, which is likely to move a little backwards and forwards, and he is obviously moving his head. The attachment of the camera to the helmet could have shifted a bit as well with all the movement.

Exactly. I would say rather than focusing on "non-existent cartridges" and all kinds of other "anomalies" of this "it's fake" variety, there are many things in the whole scenario that actually deserve investigation, but the "it's fake" ideas are just kind of crazy IMO, no matter how you look at it. The windshield example has been pretty much debunked by now by a bit of common sense, context, logical thinking and knowledge about how cameras work. I don't think the time and effort is worth it to investigate any more of these "fake" ideas. I think the "disappearing cartridges" and the "why is the camera showing the weapon" fall under the same category unfortunately.