“Conspiracy theorists are pushing the idea that there are multiple shooters, but for all you know that is one of the things that they are investigating at this very moment! “
So then why is it a “conspiracy” theory if there is evidence to suggest that it is a possibility. It doesn’t mean there were multiple shooters. It means was there evidence to suggest that there might have been.
“So then why is it a “conspiracy” theory if there is evidence to suggest that it is a possibility.”
I didn’t say there was evidence to suggest it. I said that they could be investigating that possibility, because I think it’s reasonable to assume they would investigate, if only to rule it out. What makes it a “conspiracy theory” is when you suggest that there must have been multiple shooters on the basis of flimsy, misinterpreted or just non-existent evidence.
My point was, people are saying “there were multiple shooters”, “they’re covering it up”, etc. However, you can’t say they are covering something up before the “cover story” has even been released. How do you know the investigation won’t declare there were multiple shooters? Or conversely, how do you know they won’t debunk the idea of multiple shooters to everyone’s satisfaction? There is no possible way to know that at this point, but that will not stop the nuts from spinning their conspiracy yarns.