• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false

Neveos said:
kinda like that first welcoming rebuttal, right? ;)

So let's take it slow :D

"we heard a hiss"

Anybody feel like explaining this "hiss"?
Click to expand...

You seem to believe there is a hiss to explain.

There isn't.

Only somebody saying something they heard was what they would describe as a hiss.

Care to provide a reason to assume their claim can be assumed to be objective fact?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Why is it these threads have "proof" in the title but no "proof" in content?
Click to expand...
This could be a variant on Betteridge's Law? Perhaps Tomtom's law? :)


Neveos said:
hahahaha. predictable. I remember the purpose of the forum.
Click to expand...
That'd be to "discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way" not where we accept unquestioningly the paranoid rants of internet loons.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You seem to believe there is a hiss to explain.

There isn't.

Only somebody saying something they heard was what they would describe as a hiss.

Care to provide a reason to assume their claim can be assumed to be objective fact?
Click to expand...

So you would rather believe they experienced a joint illusion? Ok, that's fine. Horribly weak position, but that's fine.

Let's remember, they did not know there was an explosion, whatsoever. Despite feeling heat, hearing a hiss, seeing smoke, seeing flashes, being told they had shrapnel injuries, having an extra wall in the way, being four seats in... They did not question the official story. Ostergaard, their teacher, is the only one we have on video wishing to see the walls for himself, and even then, he is not questioning that his officials could have been wrong.
 
This all seems very strange to me. I'm not sure I properly understand the claim. It appears to be that a very small number of the people in the theatre give claims that are not entirely consistent with those reported in the newspaper. What others report about the attack is not known, nor are the details of the inconsistent reports. Some of the clips are very short. Information about the people involved and their accounts are unknown.

I can understand someone might still have problems with police accounts, but that's a different problem. Why would anyone want to construct a theory about what happened during the attack from this kind of information? It may, some think, make a cool Youtube video, but you couldn't possibly think it's convincing or even interesting without some serious legwork investigating other possibilities.

Who cares if a handful of people give some strange accounts after their lives were threatened? That's not how you construct accounts of traumatic situations.
 
I'll explain the "hiss."

Ready?

The null hypothesis is that a man fired a gun on a crowd of unsuspecting movie patrons, killing and injuring many. He was captured shortly thereafter. His home was found booby-trapped.

If you want to propose some alternate to this well-established narrative, it's up to you to provide evidence that can lead to a different conclusion. You do the work, not ask others to lift random stones you toss here and there.

So...that "hiss?" I expect it's the steam of frustration rising from your ears.
 
The "hiss" was the sound of the Reptilians as they planted explosive devices in the name of their Rigelian overloards. The Rigelians' plan is to trick America into banning guns so that our country can be more easily invaded. Then, after their victory is assured, they will enslave mankind and use us for cheap labor and food.
 
Last edited:
unclear why the -sources- are being attacked. Do people have problems with these news sources? Are these sources purposely misleading people by creating false witnesses and witness testimonies? Care to expand on why that is occurring?
 
Neveos said:
kinda like that first welcoming rebuttal, right? ;)

So let's take it slow :D

"we heard a hiss"

Anybody feel like explaining this "hiss"?
Click to expand...

Anybody feel like providing a source or context?


Was there a snake?
 
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I'll explain the "hiss."

Ready?

The null hypothesis is that a man fired a gun on a crowd of unsuspecting movie patrons, killing and injuring many. He was captured shortly thereafter. His home was found booby-trapped.

If you want to propose some alternate to this well-established narrative, it's up to you to provide evidence that can lead to a different conclusion. You do the work, not ask others to lift random stones you toss here and there.

So...that "hiss?" I expect it's the steam of frustration rising from your ears.
Click to expand...

^bingo^
 
Neveos said:
unclear why the -sources- are being attacked.
Click to expand...

It's unclear to us why a "hiss" makes you instantly think there must be some conspiracy going on.


Do people have problems with these news sources?
Click to expand...

Which news sources have said that there was a conspiracy?


Are these sources purposely misleading people by creating false witnesses and witness testimonies? Care to expand on why that is occurring?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you just calmed down that imagination of yours, you wouldn't see conspiracies behind every "hiss".


Seriously though...you really haven't given us anything to debunk, and if this is the best you can do, then this thread is over....
 
Horatius said:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110125092233.htm
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._eyewitness_ids_they_re_often_unreliable.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/29/140039620/reliability-of-eyewitness-testimony-under-scrutiny
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...t-eyewitness-testimony-reliability/51049540/1
http://theweek.com/article/index/221008/is-eyewitness-testimony-too-unreliable-to-trust


Any other questions?
Click to expand...

Oh so the news sources, themselves, are ok? Just the multiple eye witnesses and some of the reports are not. As well as the officer who announced over the radio: "I don't know if this information has already been put out but I've been talking to people getting statements. It sounds like we have possibly 2 shooters, one that was in theater 8, seated." Suspects seated in theater 8? Added to the theater 8 witness who said "They set gas bombs as they were leaving", well my my my...
 
Neveos said:
So you would rather believe they experienced a joint illusion? Ok, that's fine. Horribly weak position, but that's fine.

Let's remember, they did not know there was an explosion, whatsoever. Despite feeling heat, hearing a hiss, seeing smoke, seeing flashes, being told they had shrapnel injuries, having an extra wall in the way, being four seats in... They did not question the official story. Ostergaard, their teacher, is the only one we have on video wishing to see the walls for himself, and even then, he is not questioning that his officials could have been wrong.
Click to expand...

You pretend to know an awful lot about what I would rather believe. Odd it bares no resembance to what I said. That is called a straw man fallacy.

Witnesses are not reliable sources. Their claimas are subjective, your reading further subjective. Do you happen to have objective evidence or would you rather guess what might make what sound?
 
Neveos said:
Oh so the news sources, themselves, are ok? Just the multiple eye witnesses and some of the reports are not. As well as the officer who announced over the radio: "I don't know if this information has already been put out but I've been talking to people getting statements. It sounds like we have possibly 2 shooters, one that was in theater 8, seated." Suspects seated in theater 8? Added to the theater 8 witness who said "They set gas bombs as they were leaving", well my my my...
Click to expand...



That would be the police officer repeating (ever play the telephone game?) reports from witnesses (who we know are unreliable), during the event, when we know that everyone, witnesses and police both, would be under massive amounts of stress.

So why exactly would you expect this second hand account to be accurate?

Did you bother to read any of the links I provided? Go and read more about the ever-accumulating scientific evidence that shows quite clearly that people's recollections of events are almost always unreliable. That's why we don't take these "theories" seriously: They are based, exclusively, on the absolutely worst possible evidence you can use (that being, unreliable witnesses), and utterly ignore the best evidence available (that being, expert analysis by doctors, and crime scene investigators).

Seriously, ask yourself who would be the best qualified to identify the source of a particular wound: The doctor who treated it, and removed the object that caused the wound (a bullet), or the person who had just been shot?
 
Tomtomkent said:
You pretend to know an awful lot about what I would rather believe. Odd it bares no resembance to what I said. That is called a straw man fallacy.

Witnesses are not reliable sources. Their claimas are subjective, your reading further subjective. Do you happen to have objective evidence or would you rather guess what might make what sound?
Click to expand...

One incident I have first hand experience with was a shooting where a witness described the weapon used by the shooter as an "Uzi," but the fired cases recovered at the scene had been fired through a Glock pistol in .40 Smith & Wesson, and the projectiles recovered likewise.

Eyewitness reports from untrained observers tend to be fragmented and conditional as to what they describe - the guy described in the above shooting evidently knew the model name "Uzi" so that's what he reported when interviewed - it's often quite common when a firearm is involved that every bolt action rifle is a "30/06" and every revolver is a ".357 magnum," because that's the phrase that the witness associates with that particular type of firearm.
 
Neveos said:
I guess this issue will just be ignored? I certainly don't expect people to go "ah, oh my god, what are the implications of there being a conspiracy?"

No. In fact, I'll just do everyone a nice favor and let you know what you should do in light of this revelation:
Keep the story on your minds.
Spread the word of the issue. (trust me, there are -plenty- more, which I will ignore for now)
And finally, extrapolate upon the notion that such an event could be an act of conspiracy, and what enormous implications quickly become apparent.
Click to expand...
Translation: "I have nothing to say"
 
arguments relying on institutional analysis lose weight when arguing on matters of corruption and conspiracy. In fact, as time progresses, the more weight they lose. Do they have weight? Sure. But one wishing to rely solely upon it must first counter the criticism that the institution could be corrupt, and would therefor act unreliably.

Indeed just looking at the evidence and witness testimony for yourselves should do exactly that: wager a case for corruption.
 
Neveos said:
arguments relying on institutional analysis lose weight when arguing on matters of corruption and conspiracy.
Click to expand...



So, any time anyone, regardless of any evidence provided, claims "corruption" or "conspiracy", we can just hand-wave away all the evidence that contradicts their claims.

How convenient.

At this point, there's really no point in continuing to discuss this with you any further. You've chosen to disregard anything but the eyewitness accounts, while the rest of us understand that eyewitness accounts are inherently unreliable.

Until you either come up with better evidence than that, or begin to agree with us on the nature of eyewitnesses, there's nothing more that can be said about this particular CT, or really any others.


So, would you like to turn this into a discussion of the limitations on eyewitness testimony in general, or would you rather continue asking us for evidence that you've already decided to wave away?
 
You have provided no evidence for corruption, so there is no evidence to weigh in favour of it

Perhaps you could supply your objective evidence soon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom