Direct Link to Latest News


Bogus TV Report Casts Doubt on Ottawa Shooting

November 5, 2014

 Spot Shooter Shot by Kevin Vickers.jpg

These so-called "bullet holes" were already in the wall 18 months ago when Google took this picture inside the Parliament Building.

Reporter Evan Solomon of the CBC said they occurred Oct. 22 when Michael Zehalf-Bibeau was shot. If Bibeau was indeed killed here, where are the real bullet holes?

by DD

There are many pieces of evidence that suggests the "Attack In Ottawa" Oct. 22 was staged. In particular, a CBC video that purportedly provided the details of the event caught my attention.

The video starts with anchor Wendy Mesley stating that, "Tonight we can tell you precisely..." She then hands off to Evan Solomon. He starts his segment by saying,  "...dramatic details....of exactly..." There is no mincing of words. The smoking gun is when he shows the bullets in the alcove.

First watch the CBC Report (image below) where Evan Solomon shows where the shooter was hiding and finally shot dead. He is pointing to "bullet holes" that were already there! Moreover, there are no new ones! Were they shooting blanks? Was this another "drill?"

In my opinion, this event was staged and CBC lied to its viewers. It's a bold statement but I am very hard pressed to believe that the CBC allowed themselves to cover details that were SO wrong.

Bullet Holes Where Shooter Was Shot.jpgThen, they think that the following correction posted online Oct. 25 is adequate. It's NOT!

From CBC:
This story has been edited from a previous version that stated there were nine bullet holes in the wall near the Parliamentary library, based on information from multiple sources. In fact, upon further investigation, not all the marks were caused by the bullets. The exact number of bullets that hit the wall in the shooting is unclear‎. Also, the pistol used by the sergeant-at-arms is a semi-automatic, not an automatic as reported in an earlier version and in the TV piece attached.
Oct 25, 2014 5:15 PM ET

Ponder this for a second. If this shooting actually took place where they say it did, then how can these simple details get confused? 

The bullet marks should be there. First, they said they were there and now they say "they are not all bullet marks. "

In fact there are no new marks. This tells me,  they staged it. It's only difficult to provide accurate details if you lied and that is exactly what the CBC did. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts".

If you watch the Josh Wingrove video, you will hear a long series of bullets being fired when the shooter was killed. You would expect, after hearing that, that the bullets would have caused major damage to the wall behind the shooter but what we have are 9 discrete marks (in fact the picture shows 10) on the wall. None are new.

The CBC need to reveal their sources and explain how this happened. Canada, where is your outrage? This cannot be condoned and overlooked.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Bogus TV Report Casts Doubt on Ottawa Shooting "

Phil said (November 7, 2014):

Clearly bullet holes 2,3,5,7,8,9 were originally screw holes used to fix a picture frame or plaque on the wall due
to their symmetry. That is abundantly clear! 2,3,and 5 are in complete alignment as are 7 8 and 9. Looks like it was removed to put the much smaller plaque in place.

6 is on the corner of a stone block that might have crumbled and 1 is also on the edge of another stone block.
What a hoot!

Barney said (November 6, 2014):


It seems to me that the story of this Ottawa "shooting" keeps changing with every new report.

I haven't really heard very much about it here in England, but didn't they say initially that the gunman used a double-barreled shotgun? That's the way I remember it from early reports.

No bullets, just pellets. Two shots and then reload, allowing ample time to take him down.

I also seem to remember that the speaker of the house was said to have "just happened" to have access to an antique firearm, with which he shot the gunman.

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but the more they lie, the more they contradict themselves.

Btw, be on your guard this Sunday, November 9th. That's 9/11 over here, and it's 13 years since the WTC demolition. We know they're planning something "bigger" than that, and they do like their "magic" numbers.

Doug said (November 6, 2014):

Who could possibly believe that a guy walked into that building with a rifle in his hand ? When I hear quacking, I think its a duck until proven otherwise because I've heard lots of quacking before and saw ducks. This one is another duck. Who benefits ?

Its the same questions, and the same answers.

CF said (November 5, 2014):

In societies where integrity and honor was not yet extinct, citizens were innocent until proven guilty, and journalists searched for the truth. In the 'New Order', which is "neither new nor order", citizens are labeled guilty and put through the ringer, until they prove they are innocent; and journalists are nothing more than paid off shills, putting on a show.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed this first-hand in several countries: Riots started by disguised police and hired high school drop outs; fake killing sprees; bomb victims using 'crisis actors'; big media splashes made over what was - in reality - next to zero turn-out; and fake stories whose only purpose was fear mongering and manipulation. Meanwhile, the more frightening truth is continually buried, along with those who attempt to uncover it. This is the new norm.

Educate others and get them to PULL THE PLUG ON THE MSM. In the 'New Order', reactions and behavior can work both ways: Understand/Assume the MSM are now liar$-for-hire, first, until proven otherwise. The biggest 'manipulation' of all can come from the public, but only if they are awake, vigilant, and active.

Robert K said (November 5, 2014):

From the CBC report: "He didn't hesitate. Kevin Vickers takes his sidearm, dives around the pillar to the ground. WHILE HE'S IN THE AIR [emphasis added] he spins to land on his back, firing upward at Bibeau, hitting Bibeau as he himself hits the ground. Then Bibeau drops and Vickers continues to fire into Bibeau, emptying his entire clip."

This sounds more like a Charles Bronson movie scene than what one would expect from a paunchy, aging Sergeant at Arms who reportedly had never used his sidearm during his policing career.

Of course if he had not personally brought down the shooter, Vickers would have been in hot water immediately as the person responsible for such a gross failure of the Commons security arrangements.

Not to mention that some news reports say Bibeau had been shot about a dozen times before his encounter with the intrepid Sergeant-at-Arms.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at