One tactic used to pass off staged events as real is to introduce elements that appear to discredit the official narrative.

For the past few days, we have suffered through dubious eyewitness accounts and the dry-eyed “crying” of family/friends of alleged victims in Orlando. Those who have chosen to go beyond what the mainstream media is presenting have seen videos of the supposedly wounded being walked or carried back toward the club rather than away from it. (Where were they coming from? Why were they going back? Where were the EMTs? The triage area? The ambulances? The emergency protocols?)

Initially, we were supposed to believe that the shooter was motivated by rage after seeing two men kiss in public. Omar Mateen was 29 years old and living in Florida, so I seriously doubt that was the first time he had seen men kiss! All one has to do these days is turn on the television or watch a movie to see men kissing.

We are told this is a hate crime, although it is also being referred to as terrorism. Omar’s hatred for the gays and their lifestyle was the prime motivator, not Islam. Never mind the fact that he took time out of his busy killing spree to phone 9-11 and pledge his loyalty to ISIS. (Are we ever going to hear that phone call?)

Within 48 hours, the story began to change. Suddenly, Omar wasn’t a homicidal homophobe, he was a regular at the club—and he was gay.

Then several eyewitnesses claim there was more than one shooter, including a girl with a bomb vest. Sounds like terrorism, but no. After all, the FBI knew all about Omar, and he had Department of Homeland Security clearance. Surely, these agencies know a terrorist when they see one, right?

As I mentioned in my initial analysis, the story always morphs over time. What is initially reported is often totally contradicted in the days following the event. Our focus should be: was this event real or staged? What evidence has been presented? How can we confirm what the mainstream media is reporting is true?

When investigating a crime, we must first attempt to understand WHAT happened. Once that is established, the next step is to determine HOW it happened. With those two questions answered, there is hopefully enough evidence pointing to WHO committed the crime. If all three of these questions are answered, it may be possible to fill in the last, possibly most crucial blank: the WHY. This is often the most difficult question to answer, and virtually impossible if the perpetrator is dead.

What we need to be aware of is that the mainstream media always begins at the end, giving us the WHO and WHY first (Muslim, ISIS-inspired, hatred of gays, etc.) while providing very sloppy and frequently erroneous reporting on the WHAT and HOW.

If we start with an assumption of the WHY before we thoroughly investigate the WHAT and HOW, we end up trying to fit evidence and clues to a predetermined conclusion. If Omar is assumed to be a disgruntled, self-hating gay man, this entire event will be viewed through those narrow, biased and possibly faulty lenses. If Omar is assumed to have been an ISIS-inspired jihadi, off we go down a different road that may very well be a dead-end.

To my mind, the media and police have not yet even provided us with any solid evidence as to WHAT happened and HOW it was carried out.

Despite all the eyewitnesses, the smartphone cameras, the security cameras in and around the nightclub and the 9-11 call, we are presented with almost no hard evidence to support the WHO and WHY.

The claims of additional shooters, bomb vests, someone holding a door closed and other new information that seems to contradict the initial reports may lead some to believe we are not being told the truth about this event. Some may think this is evidence of a cover up.

We must be extremely skeptical about these claims. There is a strong possibility these are simply red herrings thrown in the narrative with the aim of convincing you that this was, in fact a real event. Real bullets were fired and people really did die. This is all we need to be convinced of. If we are convinced, all sorts of agendas can begin moving forward (gun control, hate speech/crime legislation, curtailed freedoms of speech, Internet usage, association, etc.)

The initial reports were so unbelievable, so ridiculous, that many people immediately suspected this event was a hoax. Above all, the public must believe that this was a real event, so this new information, while confusing, serves to reinforce the claim that 49 people died in a nightclub, half of whom were hunkered down in a toilet (neatly stacked like cord wood, apparently). Of those, many waited patiently to die as the shooter reloaded and made phone calls.

The point of introducing this new information is to confuse and distract those looking too critically at the details. Does it really matter if it was a hate crime or terrorism? 49 people are dead! That is all you really need to know, isn’t it? Stop disrespecting the victims and their loved ones with your critical thinking! Let your emotions take over and cry, dammit.

As the narrative breaks down and people begin to wake up, no amount of backpedaling and obfuscation will hide the glaring inconsistencies in the Orlando shooting. These peddlers of fiction need something to distract the detractors.

Then, as if on cue, we get a story about a toddler being eaten by an alligator at Disney World (in Orlando).

Sad and tragic? Yes. Fortuitously timed? Absolutely. This story takes our focus off the shooting event and tugs at our heartstrings. We are overcome with emotion (and our critical thinking is switched off). The poor little fellow! Unimaginable!

Well, if the powers that be have the chutzpah to stage a phony mass shooting in a gay club (or at an office complex in San Bernardino or at Sandy Hook Elementary, or fake the Boston Marathon bombing), wouldn’t they also fake a toddler’s death to take the heat off their rapidly unraveling narrative? And are we going to be shown any evidence (from guest’s phone cameras or Disney World security cameras)? Highly doubtful.

One of the things about Disney, they try not to kill their guests. Especially children. The idea that they would have created conditions that would leave even the remotest possibility open to a potential alligator attack is absolutely unthinkable. It simply cannot be believed. Same goes for the kid who supposedly somehow “fell” into the gorilla enclosure a few weeks back, but that is a whole other load of bullshit—I mean news story.

Beware distractions, lies and bullshit aimed at evoking emotional reactions rather than critical thinking. Be skeptical of dubious explanations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The only massacre that occurred in Orlando this week was the needless killing of five innocent alligators.