Dispatch Audio of Theater Shooting Indicates Multiple Suspects - FALSE FLAG?

[RCA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XID1dril3t4

[Indy Vidual]

The tear gas and general confusion make it hard to know for certain re: any second suspect.
^^
Now, if enough witnesses saw two suspects before the tear gas went off.
^^^
The credibility of the witnesses will be questioned...

[RCA]

The tear gas and general confusion make it hard to know for certain re: any second suspect.
^^
Now, if enough witnesses saw two suspects before the tear gas went off.
^^^
The credibility of the witnesses will be questioned...

Did you not hear the part about a second suspect fleeing the scene with a red backpack, black camo, and multiple long guns?

[Indy Vidual]

I saw written quotes from police audio earlier, which were not that clear at all.


Did you not hear the part about a second suspect fleeing the scene with a red backpack, black camo, and multiple long guns?

This one is ~48 minutes, do you know about where the spot you're quoting starts, thanks.

[RCA]

I saw written quotes from police audio earlier, which were not that clear at all.



This one is ~48 minutes, do you know about where the spot you're quoting starts, thanks.

There's time stamps under the description of the video on YouTube.

[Galileo Galilei]

this needs to be analyzed.

[hazek]

Actual multiple shooters or confused and scared out of their mind victims unintentionally giving conflicting reports, hmmmmm which sounds more plausible, hmmmm let me see here, hmmm how to figure this out... Hmmm I KNOW! I'll use common sense and Occam's razor, scared and confused victims giving inaccurate info it is!

[Bruno]

Actual multiple shooters or confused and scared out of their mind victims unintentionally giving conflicting reports, hmmmmm which sounds more plausible, hmmmm let me see here, hmmm how to figure this out... Hmmm I KNOW! I'll use common sense and Occam's razor, scared and confused victims giving inaccurate info it is!

You are obtusely hiding behind Occam's razor. Razors are very thin, ai can see you peeking around the blade. Come on out and think openly.

There is no reason to not suspect a 2nd shooter when:

Reports of man with stocky build running oddly with suspect to his apartment five hours before. Seen by credible neighbor in daylight.

Reports of person talking on cell phone to someone else outside the theater door.

Reports of differing height of suspect compared to shooter.

Reports of a smoke bomb coming from opposite side of theater from the shooter.

Reports of a man in camo with backpack and rifles running from shooting.

There doesn't need to be some vast conpsiracy for there to be a second shooter or accomplice. Remember Columbine? There is plenty enough reason to suspect there may have been another person. Enough that it warrants further investigation.

Cops get the wrong suspect all the time across this country, and/or miss a 2nd suspect. Innocent people are in jail and released all the time when new evidence is presented. That situation could be present here.

It would also be interesting to see that notebook. Will we? How may people are on the pictures shooting people?

[MelissaWV]

Agreed that they should investigate every avenue.

Disagree that most of those things cannot be explained without a second shooter.

[Bruno]

Agreed that they should investigate every avenue.

Disagree that most of those things cannot be explained without a second shooter.

They shouldn't try to explain away the actual eyewitness accounts. That is working backwards. They should investigate from that angle fully until they know there was only one person involved.

If this was a bank robbery, I doubt they would just give up when they had one suspect if there were reports there were two.

At the very least, who in the hell was with him five hours before running to his apartment and why? Wouldn't you think they would want to find that guy to ask him questions about his relationship to the alleged shooter?

[MelissaWV]

They shouldn't try to explain away the actual eyewitness accounts. That is working backwards. They should investigate from that angle fully until they know there was only one person involved.

If this was a bank robbery, I doubt they would just give up when they had one suspect if there were reports there were two.

At the very least, who in the hell was with him five hours before running to his apartment and why? Wouldn't you think they would want to find that guy to ask him questions about his relationship to the alleged shooter?

Of course, which is why I said I agree they should investigate every avenue.

Working backwards is exactly what they should be doing. For instance, a cannister "coming from the opposite side" could have actually originated on the side with the alleged lone gunman, thrown and bounced in some way to appear that it was rolling from the opposite side. If this is so, then there is going to be evidence of the cannister striking something on that side. Look for it. Not there? It bolsters the idea that the cannister did in fact come from the opposite side.

This also works to eliminate future avenues of defense for this and any other suspect brought to trial.

[jonhowe]

Stop.


Stop.



Stop.



IF there was a 2nd shooter, WHY DOES THAT MAKE YOU THINK FALSE FLAG!? Why doesn't it just make you think SECOND SHOOTER, or, more likely, confusion at the scene of a mass shooting were half the crowd was in costume???



WHY DOES EVERYTHING MAKE YOU GUYS THINK FALSE FLAG!?

[hazek]

Bwahahahahaha I just can't help myself, in my book delusional thinking just needs to be ridiculed, period!


You are obtusely hiding behind Occam's razor. Razors are very thin, ai can see you peeking around the blade. Come on out and think openly.

There is no reason to not suspect a 2nd shooter when:
No, there is no good reason to suspect a 2nd shooter.


Reports of man with stocky build running oddly with suspect to his apartment five hours before. Seen by credible neighbor in daylight.
Why add "credible", are the rest of the neighbors not credible? To me this sounds like a fabrication, otherwise I'd expect to hear more about it. But even if true, 5 hours prior -> proves absolutely nothing.


Reports of person talking on cell phone to someone else outside the theater door.
Or he could have faked it. :rolleyes:


Reports of differing height of suspect compared to shooter.
Riiiiiiight victims remember the exact height of some guy out of who knows how many in the theater that they paid 0 attention to before it all happened. :rolleyes:


Reports of a smoke bomb coming from opposite side of theater from the shooter.
Again.. victims have a perfect recollection of this highly traumatic event that lasted for no more than 5min, they know everything, what hight everyone else was, how they looked like, what they were doing exactly and what objects flew into the theater from where. Please... :rolleyes:


Reports of a man in camo with backpack and rifles running from shooting.
"reports"? Who's "reports"? Again the problem of trusting every victim reporting exactly what actually happened and not just what they remember of that chaos, there were so many people running in a panic and screaming I wouldn't be surprised if someone remembers seeing Elvis running away from the scene. :rolleyes:


There doesn't need to be some vast conpsiracy for there to be a second shooter or accomplice. Remember Columbine? There is plenty enough reason to suspect there may have been another person. Enough that it warrants further investigation.
Yeah I remember columbine and there there was no question that there were two shooters, they were found near each other, dead, with self inflicted gun shot wounds, they were seen on all the security camera footage and they were heard over victims' phones. Those are some hard FACTS no one can dispute there were two.
But what you have here is a bunch of scared victims who RAN IN A PANIC FROM A LIVE SHOOTING SCENE TRYING TO SAVE THEIR LIFE and you want to hang onto what ever weird shit a few out of probably more than hundreds remember? It's down right idiotic what you're doing. :rolleyes:


Cops get the wrong suspect all the time across this country, and/or miss a 2nd suspect. Innocent people are in jail and released all the time when new evidence is presented. That situation could be present here. It's hard to get the wrong guy when you catch him and he's wearing a riot helmet, a gas mask, a tactical west, a uniform with soft spot protection and GUNS IN HIS HANDS.. But noooo you're right, they got the wrong guy! :rolleyes:


It would also be interesting to see that notebook. Will we? How may people are on the pictures shooting people?
Yeah it would be and it is possible he talked it over with someone who didn't stop him but to assume that that is the baseline is again downright idiotic. :rolleyes:


You know I have one simple question for you: What is your standard for credible evidence and why do you appear to a double standard; one for the LEOs and one for the victims??

Btw, I already know the answer to the second part.. It's because you are desperately trying to make anything you hear about this tragedy fit your delusional view of how the world full of grand conspiracies and conspirators really works like. It can't just be "shit happens" for you, no no, for you it has to be some grand conspiracy every single time. :rolleyes:

And yes conspiracies happen BUT NOT EVERY SINGLE FKING TIME. :rolleyes:

[John F Kennedy III]

Actual multiple shooters or confused and scared out of their mind victims unintentionally giving conflicting reports, hmmmmm which sounds more plausible, hmmmm let me see here, hmmm how to figure this out... Hmmm I KNOW! I'll use common sense and Occam's razor, scared and confused victims giving inaccurate info it is!

Lol. The sad thing is you're serious.

[Bruno]

Stop.


Stop.



Stop.



IF there was a 2nd shooter, WHY DOES THAT MAKE YOU THINK FALSE FLAG!? Why doesn't it just make you think SECOND SHOOTER, or, more likely, confusion at the scene of a mass shooting were half the crowd was in costume???



WHY DOES EVERYTHING MAKE YOU GUYS THINK FALSE FLAG!?

Find false flag in those posts. I never said false flag. Geez man.

Could there be? Yeah. One thing at a time though.

[phill4paul]

. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[kathy88]

They did interview that guy who supposedly sent threatening messages if the man in custody was not released. They dismissed his involvement VERY quickly, I thought. At the least, they should show pics of him to the witness who saw two men together at his apartment 5 hours prior.

Maybe there's something in the investigators' thought processes that don't want there to be more than one shooter, because that opens so many other pretty awful possibilities?

[Bruno]

Hazek, I am on my phone, so I'm not going to waste a lot of thumb time with your silly replies. But I will say you have an uncanny knack for twisting someone's argument and ignoring their main points to answer your own version.

One example, the point of bringing up Columbine is two shooters have caused a mass shooting before, and here we have witness accounts of another man. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE WITHOUT IT BEING A FALSE FLAG. But way to ignore that. Now you being obtuse has caused me to shout. :)

You also lump "you guys" comments in response to me. And when did i ever say conspiracies happen all the time? Please point that out for me.

And you also are as extreme as those you profess against, refusing as much in possibilites of conspiracies in general (though many have proven true), as "those guys" who believe in a conspiracy behind every bush.

[hazek]

Let me repeat myself:

I have one simple question for you: What is your standard for credible evidence and why do you appear to have a double standard; one for the LEOs and one for the victims??

[hazek]

And you also are as extreme as those you profess against, refusing as much in possibilites of conspiracies in general (though many have proven true), as "those guys" who believe in a conspiracy behind every bush.

I don't think there isn't a possibility, I just don't pretend it being a possibility is evidence in of itself. I've said it many times already, be suspicious all you want, just don't pretend that your version is actually what happened or that the official version is not what happened. First find some proof to support your claims and then we can talk. What you listed is no more credible than what I can list taken from the official story.

[pcosmar]

Let me repeat myself:

I have one simple question for you: What is your standard for credible evidence and why do you appear to have a double standard; one for the LEOs and one for the victims??

Standards?
I generally assume that the media reports with extreme bias. and very little if any independent investigation.
I generally assume the government (at all levels) lies.

When the media is reporting the governments lies, I look beyond what is reported,, and attempt to understand what might have actually happened.

Two questions come to mind in every story..
What are they lying about? And Why?

Credibility? Neither the police nor the MSM have any. Proven countless times.

[Dr.3D]

Standards?
I generally assume that the media reports with extreme bias. and very little if any independent investigation.
I generally assume the government (at all levels) lies.

When the media is reporting the governments lies, I look beyond what is reported,, and attempt to understand what might have actually happened.

Two questions come to mind in every story..
What are they lying about? And Why?

Credibility? Neither the police nor the MSM have any. Proven countless times.
True, anybody who believes everything they see/hear from the MSM are naive to say the least.

[hazek]

Standards?
I generally assume that the media reports with extreme bias. and very little if any independent investigation.
I generally assume the government (at all levels) lies.

When the media is reporting the governments lies, I look beyond what is reported,, and attempt to understand what might have actually happened.

Two questions come to mind in every story..
What are they lying about? And Why?

Credibility? Neither the police nor the MSM have any. Proven countless times.

Oh ok, if the media doesn't have any credibility then I assume you yourself went down to Colorado and talked with all the victims/witnesses in person in order to get their accurate story since you can't trust the media is accurately reporting their testimonies, basically I'm asking if you conducted your own proper investigation?

[pcosmar]

Oh ok, if the media doesn't have any credibility then I assume you yourself went down to Colorado and talked with all the victims/witnesses in person in order to get their accurate story since you can't trust the media is accurately reporting their testimonies, basically I'm asking if you conducted your own proper investigation?

Nope,,
I am observing,, and parsing.

I have already guessed correctly at a couple aspects of this event,, using history as a guide.

The internet,, and private investigations are more valuable in the long run than the statements of Governmental functionaries who are covering their collective butts.

[Revolution9]

I'm asking if you conducted your own proper investigation?

A citizen's investigation is taking place all over the web. Whilst you have not done any and insist that your razor thin version of reality speaks to investigatory processes you are entirely bereft of anything except ridicule and bogus premises.

Rev9

[thoughtomator]

WHY DOES EVERYTHING MAKE YOU GUYS THINK FALSE FLAG!?

pattern and practice

[hazek]

AAAhhhhhhh riiiiight I see :rolleyes:

So the media reports aren't credible, except when it suits you, ahh I see and I agree that is probably the best strategy to use to support your own conc(de)lusions, you're right, not so much to get an accurate account of what happened, but hey, who cares about that, right? As long as you can show it was a false flag! :rolleyes:

[hazek]

Whilst you have not done any and insist that your razor thin version of reality speaks to investigatory processes you are entirely bereft of anything except ridicule and bogus premises.

Actually that's not true. I just took the WHOLE STORY the media is telling, however credible that might be, and have concluded the official story makes sense. You on the other hand pick and choose only parts of the whole story and it's parts that suit your specific version of events. That's the difference between you and me.

[CaptainAmerica]

Agreed that they should investigate every avenue.

Disagree that most of those things cannot be explained without a second shooter.

The news outlets kept saying that there were 2 gunmen when early reporting similar to when the Jared Loughtner shooting occurred there were reports that there were multiple gunmen and then poof the media shut up completely about the 2nd gunman and never mentioned or corrected themselves in regards to multiple gunmen as reported by witnesses.

[CaptainAmerica]

So let me get this straight, the cops did NOT go in and stop the killer because they were waiting for gas masks?really..........

[phill4paul]

AAAhhhhhhh riiiiight I see :rolleyes:

So the media reports aren't credible, except when it suits you, ahh I see and I agree that is probably the best strategy to use to support your own conc(de)lusions, you're right, not so much to get an accurate account of what happened, but hey, who cares about that, right? As long as you can show it was a false flag! :rolleyes:

And the media is credible? :rolleyes: Why was there a 'Black THIS Out' moneybomb? :rolleyes: Was it because our conspiracy mindset only led us to believe that Ron Paul was getting less on air time than other opponents? :rolleyes:Or that he received less debate time than other opponents? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[hazek]

Ok, the media isn't credible, but why then do you pick and choose what out of their reporting you believe? If they aren't credible you shouldn't believe any of it. But no, instead you dismiss some of their reporting and jump on and put up on pedestal as if it's the truth and nothing but the truth other parts of their reporting.

If they aren't credible for the official story, they also aren't credible reporting on what some witnesses saw. Is your brain capable of at least this little bit of logic so you'll understand this point?

[Dr.3D]

Ok, the media isn't credible, but why then do you pick and choose what out of their reporting you believe? If they aren't credible you shouldn't believe any of it. But no, instead you dismiss some of their reporting and jump on and put up on pedestal as if it's the truth and nothing but the truth other parts of their reporting.

If they aren't credible for the official story, they also aren't credible reporting on what some witnesses saw. Is your brain capable of at least this little bit of logic so you'll understand this point?
I'm pretty sure people are taking what would be considered as conflicting MSM reports and going from there.

The MSM, in order to appear to have credibility will report mostly what is true. They also mix in enough untruth to make that seem to be fact when taken with the truth they do report.

[hazek]

And how do you identify which part of their reports is accurate and which isn't?

[Dr.3D]

And how do you identify which part of their reports is accurate and which isn't?
Myself... I look for what appears to be a conflict in their reporting and then check other sources to see what they have to say about it.

[hazek]

And when something is conflicting, how do you decide which of the two or more conflicting reports is the accurate one?

(Logic is a bitch, isn't it?)

[NoOneButPaul]

Actual multiple shooters or confused and scared out of their mind victims unintentionally giving conflicting reports, hmmmmm which sounds more plausible, hmmmm let me see here, hmmm how to figure this out... Hmmm I KNOW! I'll use common sense and Occam's razor, scared and confused victims giving inaccurate info it is!

Sorry this is RPF where Common Sense no longer exists...

[Dr.3D]

And when something is conflicting, how do you decide which of the two or more conflicting reports is the accurate one?

(Logic is a bitch, isn't it?)
Again, I said we check other sources. Search engines are your friend.

[hazek]

What other sources?

[Dr.3D]

Again, I said we check other sources. Search engines are your friend.


What other sources?
That's what search engines are for!

[Revolution9]

And how do you identify which part of their reports is accurate and which isn't?

Facts. Discernible, verifiable, linkable, eye-witness corroborating..facts. Anomalies are to be studied as major clues to the real nature of the crime. Detectives from Sherlock Homes through to Colombo through to real world investigators like Sherman Skolnick, Scotland Yard, etc... all employed the honed conjecture based on informative clues technique, discarding along the way that which did not fit the facts as they unfolded.

HTH
Rev9

[kathy88]

Ok, the media isn't credible, but why then do you pick and choose what out of their reporting you believe? If they aren't credible you shouldn't believe any of it. But no, instead you dismiss some of their reporting and jump on and put up on pedestal as if it's the truth and nothing but the truth other parts of their reporting.

If they aren't credible for the official story, they also aren't credible reporting on what some witnesses saw. Is your brain capable of at least this little bit of logic so you'll understand this point?

Because we pay attention. We know which reporters are credible, and to what level. WE've been on this roller coaster a long time, and we know where all the scary parts are.

[Revolution9]

Sorry this is RPF where Common Sense no longer exists...

.How true. We have police audio stating it and some here are already mind controlled they didn't hear that. Just like the cops in NYC arrested two guys in a van with planes flying into the towers and the arresting patrolman stated the van was loaded with tons of explosives. This was one block from the WTC..not the guys in NJ cheering for them..Millions of people heard that in the unfolding reports yet most have forgotten. Why?

Rev9

[hazek]

That's what search engines are for!

In other words you pick and chose which parts of the media is reporting accurately to suit your own conc(de)lusions. Good job.

[hazek]

Because we pay attention. We know which reporters are credible, and to what level. WE've been on this roller coaster a long time, and we know where all the scary parts are.

Riiight, you just know huh? Is that like a gut feeling? Must be one accurate gut if it is a gut feeling.. :rolleyes:

[hazek]

Facts. Discernible, verifiable, linkable, eye-witness corroborating..facts. Anomalies are to be studied as major clues to the real nature of the crime. Detectives from Sherlock Homes through to Colombo through to real world investigators like Sherman Skolnick, Scotland Yard, etc... all employed the honed conjecture based on informative clues technique, discarding along the way that which did not fit the facts as they unfolded.

HTH
Rev9

Yeah, how many facts did you personally go to Colorado and verified?

[Dr.3D]

In other words you pick and chose which parts of the media is reporting accurately to suit your own conc(de)lusions. Good job.

Yeah, picking the fly shit out of the pepper is a tough job. I guess you would just go ahead and consume it without even attempting to separate the two.

[hazek]

Nah, I wouldn't risk missing any fly shit, unlike you I'd throw it all away and buy a new bag, cause see.. that's what rational people do.

[Dr.3D]

Nah, I wouldn't risk missing any fly shit, unlike you I'd throw it all away and buy a new bag, cause see.. that's what rational people do.
Yeah.... and your new bag is the same as the old bag. You sure are a trusting soul.

[hazek]

Nah, unlike you, if I really wanted to make sure the new bag was clean I'd go and make it myself.

[Dr.3D]

Nah, unlike you, if I really wanted to make sure the new bag was clean I'd go and make it myself.
So you would make the news. Now I understand.

[hazek]

Honestly it doesn't surprise me you'd assume something so stupid.. No, I'd conduct my own investigation.

[MelissaWV]

.How true. We have police audio stating it and some here are already mind controlled they didn't hear that. Just like the cops in NYC arrested two guys in a van with planes flying into the towers and the arresting patrolman stated the van was loaded with tons of explosives. This was one block from the WTC..not the guys in NJ cheering for them..Millions of people heard that in the unfolding reports yet most have forgotten. Why?

Rev9

The trouble with initial reports is that they are initial. I'm only quoting you because it brought to mind the fact that there were numerous incorrect reports the morning of 9/11/01 that had me running all over the place trying to figure out which end was up. The most obnoxious of these was that a car bomb had been detonated at the State Department. It isn't that I'm saying there is no chance there isn't a second shooter. It is that I think you could get a different description of the shooter(s) from almost every person there, especially once the running and smoke began.

[Bruno]

Honestly it doesn't surprise me you'd assume something so stupid.. No, I'd conduct my own investigation.

So you agree you'd conduct your own investigation if the current one stinks.

See, that wasn't hard, was it? :D

[hazek]

So you agree you'd conduct your own investigation if the current one stinks.

See, that wasn't hard, was it? :D

Are you saying that that is what you're conclusions are based on, your own proper investigation? Did you go to Colorado, examined the crime scene, Holmes' apartment, questioned all surviving victims, ect ect? Is that what you do did?

Because if you didn't do all of that, what you think you know about what happened isn't worth a flying fuck and I really don't care about your worthless delusional conclusions.

[phill4paul]

Are you saying that that is what you're conclusions are based on, your own proper investigation? Did you go to Colorado, examined the crime scene, Holmes' apartment, questioned all surviving victims, ect ect? Is that what you do did?

Because if you didn't do all of that, what you think you know about what happened isn't worth a flying fuck and I really don't care about your worthless delusional conclusions.

:rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

:rolleyes:
Seems he does, or he wouldn't be posting all over this thread about it.

[pcosmar]

The news outlets kept saying that there were 2 gunmen when early reporting similar to when the Jared Loughtner shooting occurred there were reports that there were multiple gunmen and then poof the media shut up completely about the 2nd gunman and never mentioned or corrected themselves in regards to multiple gunmen as reported by witnesses.

There was also with the OKC Bombing. as well as reports of multiple bombs,, some found undetonated.

Many eyewitnesses reported several others involved with Tim McVeigh.

Physical evidence showed multiple bombs were used.

The media shut up about it and about the other suspects. Private investigation has proven multiple explosions..

Tim McVeigh was a government soldier, and that bombing was a government op. A False Flag attack.

It was meant to stifle the growing Patriot Movement. And for the most part it succeeded.

NO<< I trust neither the media nor our present Government.

The media "sold" the Gulf of Tonkin.
The Media "sold" the Iraq war,,and Afghanistan. (Libya,,Africa etc.)

CIA is intimately involved in the MSM. There is NO Credibility there.

[Revolution9]

The trouble with initial reports is that they are initial. I'm only quoting you because it brought to mind the fact that there were numerous incorrect reports the morning of 9/11/01 that had me running all over the place trying to figure out which end was up. The most obnoxious of these was that a car bomb had been detonated at the State Department. It isn't that I'm saying there is no chance there isn't a second shooter. It is that I think you could get a different description of the shooter(s) from almost every person there, especially once the running and smoke began.

That is why info is vetted and cross referenced. This is so elementary to me but apparently others do not think like I do. This clown Hazek is the worst. Your assumptions aren't quite what I am doing either.

Rev9

[John F Kennedy III]

Standards?
I generally assume that the media reports with extreme bias. and very little if any independent investigation.
I generally assume the government (at all levels) lies.

When the media is reporting the governments lies, I look beyond what is reported,, and attempt to understand what might have actually happened.

Two questions come to mind in every story..
What are they lying about? And Why?

Credibility? Neither the police nor the MSM have any. Proven countless times.

Well said.

[John F Kennedy III]

Actually that's not true. I just took the WHOLE STORY the media is telling, however credible that might be, and have concluded the official story makes sense. You on the other hand pick and choose only parts of the whole story and it's parts that suit your specific version of events. That's the difference between you and me.

The official story makes sense? This is hilarious.

[John F Kennedy III]

And when something is conflicting, how do you decide which of the two or more conflicting reports is the accurate one?

(Logic is a bitch, isn't it?)

You haven't shown any logic in this thread.

[John F Kennedy III]

Nah, I wouldn't risk missing any fly shit, unlike you I'd throw it all away and buy a new bag, cause see.. that's what rational people do.

You're not rational.

[John F Kennedy III]

Are you saying that that is what you're conclusions are based on, your own proper investigation? Did you go to Colorado, examined the crime scene, Holmes' apartment, questioned all surviving victims, ect ect? Is that what you do did?

Because if you didn't do all of that, what you think you know about what happened isn't worth a flying fuck and I really don't care about your worthless delusional conclusions.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/24100428.jpg