The
Mystery Deepens
The Mystery Deepens
Paul Craig Roberts
This analysis seems to make sense. If it has been
done correctly, it is evidence of a second Las Vegas shooter. It is evidence
not only of two sets of gunshots but of bullets hitting the ground from two
different distances. So unless the bullets were being fired into the ground
only, it seems people will have been hit.
On the other hand, we have what seem to be videos
of crisis actors carrying pretend wounded people into a hospital, and we have
videos of hospital visits with alleged seriously wounded people who have had an
almost instantaneous recovery. As the letter from the purported military
surgeon pointed out, quick recoveries from gunshot trauma are not the norm.
Remember also the Republican congressman, Steve Scalise, who was shot in the
hip last June in D.C. He was in critical condition for some time, and was in no
condition to be giving interviews a couple of days later. Yet, here is a video
of a young woman allegedly shot in the hip at the Las Vegas concert all rosy
cheeked and chatting away a mere 3 days after being “nearly paralyzed” by her
gunshot injury.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtKJuJMQa94
If there are dead and injured, what is the point of
crisis actors and interviews with victims who show no sign of trauma?
If there is acoustic evidence of two shooters from
two locations, why is the official story insistent on one shooter from one
location?
You can see how difficult it would be to try to get
the truth. There are too many other things that need my attention, and for
which I am better qualified, for me to commit any more time and energy to the
Las Vegas shooting.
As in every other case, there is an official story,
one that always seems to be ready in advance, and one from which authorities
and media do not depart. The “investigation” looks more like the imposition of
an official story. The media and the public authorities are content to dismiss
suspicions by calling them conspiracy theories. This makes it impossible to
clear up contradictions and anomalies.
I promised you an account of any qualified replies
to the purported military surgeon’s letter. This is from a person who
identifies himself as a paramedic for 22 years:
“Sir,
After reading the letter from the retired surgeon addressing gunshot wounds, I
wanted to comment that I, too, am mystified by the set number of fatalities and
absence of fatal complications. I spent 22 years employed as paramedic and have
seen many gunshot wounds. Granted, the distance of the shots can explain the
lesser number of horrible, graphic wounds, but the publicized accounts of the
wounded seem very inconsistent with my experiences with gunshot wounds and the
recovery of those who have been shot. I understand we are not witnessing the
day to day progress of those who who survived, but I agree with the surgeon
that it doesn’t add up. Thank you.”
I have had two confirmations of the veracity of the
surgeon’s letter from trama RNs. However, one of them tells me she knows of
someone who was killed.
I have not heard from any surgeons familiar with
gunshot wounds. I would imagine that they want to stay clear of all of this.
People with extensive firearms experience call
attention to the photo of the dead Stephen Paddock in the hotel room. Where
they ask are the thousands of shell casings and empty ammunition clips from the
extensive automatic fire? Others point out that the few casings in sight are
mysteriously on top of Paddock’s blood, not covered by it.
I can’t explain any of this. We have an official
story, and that is all we are going to get.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.