• 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

I'm not sure that I feel good poking fun at this person, since if he isn't trolling, then he appears to be literally deranged. Nonetheless, I'm a weak man, so here goes.

Neveos said:
The video originally linked was unlisted. Meaning no, that video was not featured anywhere in recent history, and was promoted solely for the purpose of discrediting me back then. imo, it was warranted, obviously, but regardless, I'm no idiot. Funny you would sell yourself out like that just to perform an ad hominem fallacy. You know actual rational people have already sided with me throughout the process of this thread, right? You guys basically failed pretty miserably at what you were supposed to do. Any college professor (you know, "people that matter") clicking the thread is completely turned to the dark side no matter what you do now. In fact, further "attacking" Thomas Brinkley just turns them on to bigger ****. So.......
Click to expand...

College professor lurkers support me? That's a pretty good one.

I suppose also that the claim "college professors are people that matter" is kinda funny, too.
 
The person in the heart attack gun video appears to me to be a very over-weight person, grossly obese even. I know this will sound crazy but is it even possible his massive weight might have everything to do with having a heart attack and nothing to do with a heart attack gun? I'll go away now.
 
Neveos said:
Oh the laughter, of which i am sincerely experiencing, is coming from the realization of the absurdity possessed by those of you that are trying to explain the experiences they report to have had as a collective illusory episode.
Click to expand...

No. Pointing to the well-known, well-studied, and well-established vagaries and uncertainty in eyewitness testimony as an explanation for why minority testimony ubiquitously exists is not equivalent to accusing a witness of lying or to asserting some hallucination took place. However this is what every conspiracy theorist tries to say, who rests his case entirely on outlying eyewitness claims.

Straw man rejected. Now please answer my previous question.
 
Neveos said:
You know actual rational people have already sided with me throughout the process of this thread, right?
Click to expand...

Not that I can see. Begging the question.

You guys basically failed pretty miserably at what you were supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Well, no, we didn't fall into your novice's rhetorical trap of accepting a shifted burden of proof. Having seen a number of poorly-prepared claimants breeze through here on a regular basis, we're making sure the burden of proof stays right where it belongs -- on you.

So far you've simply wrapped conjecture around some minority testimony. It's the same selective "inconsistency" argument that nearly every conspiracy theory espouses.

Any college professor (you know, "people that matter") clicking the thread is completely turned to the dark side...
Click to expand...

Well, I used to teach college and I will say that you've made an extremely poor showing. You have no clue what evidence is, no clue how to formulate a hypothesis, and absolutely no clue what it means to prove something.

Do you want me to give you your grade now? Or would you like another chance to redeem yourself?
 
Neveos said:
I was actually just wondering when the connection to Thomas Brinkley would have been conjectured for ad hominem attack. I knew I had won when that happens.
Click to expand...

You "won"?!?
So the murder of all these people is a game to you?

Nothing left to do but kitteh the thread.

 
The attack in theatre 9 was conducted with smoke bombs and high-powered weapons. Is it really so suspicious that it spilled over into the neighbouring auditorium? It's a theatre, not a bunker.

Meh.
 
Muc said:
Young Neveos tried to prevent an imaginary plot against Ron Paul, so TPTB staged the Aurora shooting to discredit him by picking a patsy that was based on his "persona" on purpose. However, when our brilliant protagonist started to "slam the entire operation" through vigorous YouTubing, they had to "kill or fire" a number of people "involved in the cover-up", including ... wait for it ... Tony Scott. This is only the synopsis from a YouTube video description, so there might be more scandal for anyone who actually bothers to watch one and a half hours of late night rambling. Naturally the evildoers are after young Neveos now, too, but apparently the death squads are to stupid to find his house.
Click to expand...

escalated_zps16b4eeca.jpg
 
Neveos said:
Oh the laughter, of which i am sincerely experiencing, is coming from the realization of the absurdity possessed by those of you that are trying to explain the experiences they report to have had as a collective illusory episode. For instance, the flashes, the hissing sounds, the firecracker popping noises, the heat, they were all experiencing illusions which coincided with shrapnel injuries, and bullet trajectory inconsistencies...

That is a totally valid conclusion. Not at all very sound, but totally valid. Hmmmm :-)
Click to expand...

Troll.
 
tsig said:
Where is the blast damage from explosives? Maybe it was a psychic bomb?
Click to expand...

Ostergaard: "Because I saw an explosion" - tone of voice is like "duh..."

Has a sling on. Student received shrapnel injury.
 
D'rok said:
The attack in theatre 9 was conducted with smoke bombs and high-powered weapons. Is it really so suspicious that it spilled over into the neighbouring auditorium? It's a theatre, not a bunker.

Meh.
Click to expand...

No I actually accept that a bullet penetrated the wall and struck Mickayla Hicks sitting next to her friend, Lori Schaffer. They were sitting at the very top left, and the bullet trajectory allows for that possibility considering where the shooter is primarily firing at first. However, just look at where Ostergaard and Hankins are seated, factor in the heat, the explosion testimony, the flash, the hiss, the smoke, and the numerous testimonies of "bombs" of whatever sort, and you have something else entirely.
 
A bomb goes off an all we have is one piece of shrapnel, some verbal accounts, and no physical evidence of an explosion whatsoever. Gotcha.
 
hahaha. Once you realize that no one is yet explaining or accounting for the experiences and literal admissions of explosive devices in theater 8, it becomes apparent that your rhetorical posts are actually just bumping a thread that is ultimately working in the favor of my case.
 
Neveos said:
oh do please alert people to that testimony video. please do so. but you didn't. Instead, you revealed something else about yourself entirely: that you linked to a video which was "unlisted". Meaning you had resources to have used that link.

But by all means, in your anxiety, that would be more than welcome. :-) Make a big deal out of it.

I have all the angles covered. The checkmate plays out on the news before your eyes.
Click to expand...

Checkmate? You mean fantasy, using testimony in the vacuum of a paranoid theory.
 
Neveos said:
hahaha. Once you realize that no one is yet explaining or accounting for the experiences and literal admissions of explosive devices in theater 8, it becomes apparent that your rhetorical posts are actually just bumping a thread that is ultimately working in the favor of my case.
Click to expand...

How do you account for the discrepancy between what you claim the witnesses described, and the fact that there's no reports of the physical evidence which would corroborate that?
 
Neveos said:
hahaha.
Click to expand...
Keeping it classy there.

Neveos said:
Once you realize that no one is yet explaining or accounting for the experiences and literal admissions of explosive devices in theater 8,
Click to expand...
Oh, so the explanations of why that alone does not give anything to account for missed you?

Here we go again: If you want an explanation for something provide evidence it happened. Your subjective opinion of subjective descriptions of subjective memories aren't good enough quality evidence to comment on. They weren't on page 1, and the Evidence Fairy has yet to make it so.

Neveos said:
it becomes apparent that your rhetorical posts are actually just bumping a thread that is ultimately working in the favor of my case.
Click to expand...

I do not think anything in this thread is helping your "case".

Care to supply any objective evidence for discussion? Please?
 
Neveos said:
Ostergaard: "Because I saw an explosion" - tone of voice is like "duh..."

Has a sling on. Student received shrapnel injury.
Click to expand...

What sort of explosion? Like a bullet bursting through a wall type of explosion? Where was the explosion located, or didn't he say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom