Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, this thread has taken on new life!

Yet, try as I might, I can't seem to find any evidence within the impressive word flurry.

 

[skepticidal]

If five different eyewitnesses produce five conflicting reports of what happened, how does one decide which one is the most accurate.

By discerning the truth from the reports, based on your willingness or refusal to accept certain possibilities.

As for the ridicule, when a poster is asked over ten times to succinctly state his theory and continuously refuses to do so, then there is little reason to take the poster seriously.

I think he stated his theory (the official account is false), but you might be wanting him to provide all of his evidence in support of that theory. It might be a stalemate, if he expects you to run with it while you expect him to deliver it. I think of Jesus walking into town and being ignored because he says only, "I'm the savior of humanity. Check it out."

We are six pages in and still have no idea why the alleged football team is relevant in any way.

When I read that part of his post, I took away that the reason for bothering to stun the crowd in theater 8 "might" have been as insurance when the perpetrators observed a large group of hulking and healthy men, possibly hyped-up on Islamophobia.

I could be wrong, but I think you might be disingenuous by subtle claims that the OP isn't being cogent and unresponsive to other members. I say, his theater 8 information is intriguing but not giving me the spooks. But, I don't require him to deliver his message in any particular way.

I'll say this, I watched his entire 90 minute message about his personal connection to the Aurora event and some things branching from there. I said to a friend who was there for most of it as we quietly worked on a project together, "I think this guy's on to something. He doesn't get it all right, but I think he has picked up on unintended clues." I said I'd have to watch it again, but haven't.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

lol what a hilarious forum, attacking multiple eye witness accounts...

Nobody in their right mind takes you guys seriously, you should know that,... and you probably do.

Such a remarkable rebuttal, bursting as it is with intellectual rigor.

Goodness, you've certainly showed me!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I read a paper recently that laid out an almost totally unconventional theory that the Sun is actually waxing in its lifespan and not waning, as is the predominant view of the scientific community. The implications in areas like the age of Earth and other planets is huge. But, with only ancillary and even esoteric points I came away with a better "understanding" of how little is truly known.

Someone will ask for the source, so I'll at least add it was a paper entitled, "Geochronology - Hiding History in the Past" by an author going only by daniel.

Off topic, but here's a link to a copy of it for the curious and intellectually masochistic:
http://www.conscioushugs.com/geochronology-hiding-history-in-the-past/

Introduction
One of the advantages of being a subcontractor for “black ops” projects is that you often overhear the strangest things—things that sound like science fiction or a good Halloween story, but you soon learn are very serious topics and you need to keep your mouth shut, until you are well away from the situation. And when you are poking around in history with the Phoenix III equipment, a lot of unexpected things turn up. And so is the case with the origins of man. Jonathan Glassner and Brad Wright,1 hold on to your hats… because you were a lot closer than you realized.

Among the topics, a section on the "expanding earth" theory. Take that as you will.


/off topic

 

[skepticidal]

Biscuit -

Also I have a feeling that any video would be dismissed as fake by you and the OP.

That may be true, but my point was simply that no video footage has been provided and I have to admit that I don't think any ever will.

I have no qualms in stating that the somewhat abundant footage emerging from the Boston Bombing might have been a strategic ploy to counterbalance the total black-out of video in Aurora, Sandy Hook, the bin Laden raid, etc.

As a possible diversion, go to any source of the Zapruder film footage in good resolution and preferably slowed down. While watching the POTUS limo from the side view, focus on the car's speed relative to the surroundings. For no apparent reason, all passenger's upper torsos surge forward in unison in what I think you'll see as a familiar way. Sudden braking would cause this to occur, most would agree. Yet, the vehicle isn't slowing at all at the time. How can this be reconciled? I don't think it can. Therefore?

So, you would agree that I could easily suspect any Aurora footage of Holmes was fraudulent. Interestingly, it would be in the interests of anyone putting on a ruse to just release footage of a fully-armored and masked shooter. The figure would be assumed to be Holmes and I would have little to evidence that it wasn't.

I wonder sometimes if covert agents are intentionally unpredictable or simply afforded the luxury of laziness under the cloak of secrecy that authority grants them.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

1- Explosions don't "hiss".

They go BOOM really *********** loud. Ask anyone that watched the Boston Marathon bombing or the Olympic Park bombing. Really *********** loud boom.

2- You'd have hundreds of people saying they heard a bomb, or what sounded like a bomb, or a boom. Not hiss. Hiss is inconsistent with any kind of explosion or explosive.

Conclusion: You're wrong. On everything.

 

[triforcharity]

So, why again would this keep a football team from interfering with the massacre in the next theater?

Well, of course to avoid an offsides penalty. That'll set you back 5 yards....der....

 

[Ladewig]

By discerning the truth from the reports, based on your willingness or refusal to accept certain possibilities.


I think he stated his theory (the official account is false), but you might be wanting him to provide all of his evidence in support of that theory. It might be a stalemate, if he expects you to run with it while you expect him to deliver it. I think of Jesus walking into town and being ignored because he says only, "I'm the savior of humanity. Check it out."

Expect me to run where?
I have no idea why CS gas was mentioned. How can I run with it?
I have no idea what the folks built like football players have to do with anything. And where did the Islamophobia come from? All I was asking for was a brief summary of why these particular claims are worth talking about.

I'll say this, I watched his entire 90 minute message about his personal connection to the Aurora event and some things branching from there. I said to a friend who was there for most of it as we quietly worked on a project together, "I think this guy's on to something. He doesn't get it all right, but I think he has picked up on unintended clues." I said I'd have to watch it again, but haven't.

And as has been said many times, I am not going to watch 90 minutes of video. If you (or someone else) cannot or will not provide a summary, then no one here will take the allegations seriously

 

[Mudcat]

Well, in truth the comment was related to the thought that I might be banned. No offense to randi_org. I'm ignorant of any potential words or phrases that are deemed "wrong-hearted" on some forums and have been disappeared. My very first post on ATS was very appreciated........for about 74 minutes! My activity is always limited and my posts thoughtful, so it's kind of a drag.

I really wouldn't worry about it much if I were you. Anders Lindman, Calyton Moore, DOC, Epix, Robert Prey, and WTC Dust have been trolling here without getting banned for years, so you're in good company.

 

[Muc]

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

This has been asked several times before: What weight do the recollections of all the people in theater 8 that didn't notice an "explosion" have in your theory?

Ostergaard ... Has a sling on.

Unrelated. Broke his arm two days before the shooting.

Student received shrapnel injury.

Student said he felt pressure and warmth on his arm several seconds after he heard a bang and the first popping noises, which he thought were special effects related to the movie. I didn't hear him suggesting a connection between the wound and an "explosion".

 

[Muc]

The OP doesn't claim to have a theory. His primary claim appears to be "proving the official story false."

Which appears to be the usual modus operandi for CTs. Problem: There is no "official theory", and we will most likely not have anything that resembles one before the court proceedings. The very reason why some of the "alternative media" clings to cherry picked eyewitness accounts, supposed "inconsistencies" and vague, sometimes conflicting news reports is that the officials follow the established tradition of not broadcasting all results of their investigations to the internet. They have a very clear idea of the actual bullet trajectories, the damages and where exactly what kind of smoke or gas grenades went off and how the smoke/gas might have been distributed. We don't. Most importantly, the OP doesn't.

I can't resist pointing out that the footage you observed of Atta and accomplice was first reported to have been from an early-morning flight out of Maine. Later, persistence forced the FBI to reveal the footage to have been from a flight fully 2 weeks before 9/11.

Haven't heard of this one yet. Can you provide a source, please? Maybe there is a thread where this will fit in the 9/11 sub-forum.

When you accumulate some of this rarely viewed information, you might find yourself reading the words of Usama bin Laden or listening to Hitler lectures.

Ok, I'll ask: Hitler?

 

[SezMe]

The claims and observances of even the most weak-minded person hold treasures of truth; data that can be used to acquire knowledge.

Can you give a couple of examples?

I see that the goals for many here are often to ridicule the author and further establish the veil of intellectuality.

Citing the names of two or three people who post here would give some credibility to this claim.

Others seem to be employed to run interference for groups seeking to conceal the truth.

Posters here are not employed. But maybe you meant "engaged". Citing the names of two or three people who engage in such practice would give some credibility to this claim.

And lastly on this topic, (and this is meant to hurt a little) how much better are you than a confused conspiracy theorist if you're unable to convince them of your counter-claims?

It does hurt because it's such a dumb question. How much better are the CTs if they are unable to convince us of their claims?

The OP doesn't claim to have a theory. His primary claim appears to be "proving the official story false." He does claim that explosives went off, and that may be more difficult to prove. But, I don't wish to prove that. If it can be proven, then I hope it leads to removing "truth's protective layers."

You use that word incorrectly and WAY too often. What is sought here is not "proof" but verifiable evidence and a solid, reasoned interpretation of that evidence.

Seriously? Is it even possible that the learned members of this forum are not aware of Gladio? Dirty war?

Are you the younger brother of truethat?

What is preventing the very same actors involved in tearing apart the social and economic fabric of other nations from doing the same in Colorado?

Because they're almost all dead?

 

[SezMe]

Maybe seeing the official account of events as false might be easier by restricting the analysis to just the media reports of the event?

No, for a couple of reasons. First, media reporting in the first few hours and days of an incident like this are rife with "sources told me" reporting. There are intense pressures to be first, to have the best sources, and to fill up time between commercials or to have the most sensational headline in the next print edition or online. The bosses are screaming about deadline, the owner is demanding that her best advertiser not be mentioned, the producer is slipping his hand down the port-production assistants blouse and the camera man has a massive hangover. The result? Errors are made. Big ones. Second sourcing is forgotten. Fact checking goes down the tubes.

Thus, the media is just a starting point to figure out what happened. Especially reporting that occurs in the immediate aftermath of a major incident. Basing a skeptical analysis of just media is a fool's errand.

Second, forget deadline pressure for the moment. Every (and I mean "every") newspaper story I've read that I knew about from personal knowledge or involvement had errors in it. Reporters are not experts in what they are reporting on and don't have the luxury or resources for meticulous fact-checking every story.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

To skepticidal, a belated welcome to the forum.

Now then...

I have no qualms in stating that the somewhat abundant footage emerging from the Boston Bombing might have been a strategic ploy to counterbalance the total black-out of video in Aurora, Sandy Hook, the bin Laden raid, etc.

Anyone can claim anything "might have" been done for whatever reason(s). Without proof, however, it's dismissible without a second thought.

As a possible diversion, go to any source of the Zapruder film footage in good resolution and preferably slowed down. While watching the POTUS limo from the side view, focus on the car's speed relative to the surroundings. For no apparent reason, all passenger's upper torsos surge forward in unison in what I think you'll see as a familiar way. Sudden braking would cause this to occur, most would agree. Yet, the vehicle isn't slowing at all at the time. How can this be reconciled? I don't think it can. Therefore?

Therefore: if what you observe is defined and measurable, there's an explanation. But one that will square with the totality of the evidence (in re: the JFK assassination, that Oswald is the lone gunman).

Also, am I to gather that you are suggesting the conventional wisdom regarding JFK, Sandy Hook, bin Laden's death, Boston, "etc." are suspect?

So, you would agree that I could easily suspect any Aurora footage of Holmes was fraudulent. Interestingly, it would be in the interests of anyone putting on a ruse to just release footage of a fully-armored and masked shooter. The figure would be assumed to be Holmes and I would have little to evidence that it wasn't.

I wonder sometimes if covert agents are intentionally unpredictable or simply afforded the luxury of laziness under the cloak of secrecy that authority grants them.

I wonder why you wonder, considering - given an absence of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary scenarios - things are often simply as they seem.

 

[tsig]

I agree with the "fish in a barrel" analogy, somewhat. I differ on whether I've provided "any" evidence to support the theory that the official story is a lie.

Often times, I become frustrated with the requirement some have that I prove the official account or some alternative theory. I suspect those folks are probably referring to a scientific truth. I don't think such a thing exists in the case of institutional corruption, especially those involving social or psychological factors that may be woven in to complicate things.

But, I'm not so dense to miss the opportunity offered to at least "convince" the individual of my suspicions. I would bet they would accept being "convinced" over scientific "proof." I simply cannot prove anything, as I avoid belief in anything in favor of suspicion or consideration. Does that render my input pointless? That depends on your priorities. Do you want to learn something or re-learn what constitutes proof? Ahhhh.

Maybe seeing the official account of events as false might be easier by restricting the analysis to just the media reports of the event?

Does anyone believe that Holmes said something to the effect of, "I'm the Joker?" It was reported by numerous sources. They all chose to run with it. Why? It wasn't because the official account was factual.

Every single MSM outlet chose to report the arrest of Holmes in very similar ways and using very similar language. Most stated his arrest occurred "by his car." In contrast, the independent media mostly reported his arrest "after breaking the windows of his vehicle, in which he was found barely conscious." No MSM report bothered to factor in this "unofficial" account, despite it matching the available evidence. Not to mention that, Holmes being arrested while simply standing by his vehicle with apparent lack of urgency or exhibiting excitement is highly unusual. Why not simply report this different theory? It wasn't because the official account was more believable.

Easily obtainable lease docs for the apartment Holmes is said to have lived at showed he had only lived there less than a month by the time of the shooting. Yet, the MSM never addressed this as an inconsistency. Instead, they often reported very detailed accounts of his amassing an arsenal and other events spanning months in the very apartment he didn't live at. I know not all reporters were simply reporting from a press release, so why didn't they report his short tenancy? It wasn't because the official account was consistent with this evidence.

Literally dozens of detailed MSM reports appeared that each stated Holmes had his university access withdrawn either because of concerns over his mental health or he had dropped out after failing an oral exam. My personal analysis of the court-provided access logs show Holmes accessing the university in a regular pattern at least 5 days a week up until only 1 week of the theater event. To my knowledge, nobody has come forward as the source of this false account. If the MSM had access to the logs as I did, why did no report include these facts that conflicted with the more titillating version? It wasn't because an official statement existed to fall back on.

I could literally go on for another 20 or 30 examples. If I were to do so and each point was at least valid, would you personally begin to question how all of this could be true and the official account of events be true at the same time?

In other words, at what point might you begin to doubt your over-arching view of not just this event, BUT the greater scheme of divergent perspectives (propagandists vs. anti-authoritarians)?

These anomalies only exist because you think reality should happen according to some script running in your head. Event happen as they will and not as we want.

 

[skepticidal]

Mudcat -

...have been trolling here without getting banned for years, so you're in good company.

Brutal insult. Plausibly deniable. FYI, I keep no company.

 

[DGM]

I have no qualms in stating that the somewhat abundant footage emerging from the Boston Bombing might have been a strategic ploy to counterbalance the total black-out of video in Aurora, Sandy Hook, the bin Laden raid, etc.

If you knew that section of Boston, you would wonder why there wasn't more footage (especially during the marathon). Not exactly the same set-up as a single place, like a school or a movie theater.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Brutal insult. Plausibly deniable. FYI, I keep no company.

Welcome to the forum


Let's take a look at the first paragraph of your first post:

Admittedly, I've only read this thread and a few pages of another a few years back. So, I'm not able to gauge the value of the forum in whole. If this thread is fairly representative of the greater forum, what we have here is a fussy, analytical type watering hole; an oasis for the keepers (and stiflers) of science no less!

A word of advice: beware of rushing to judge an entire forum based upon your first impression. This isn't a rational approach, and suggests an emotional, confirmation-bias led mindset. (see spotlight fallacy). I'd suggest you strive to avoid extrapolation beyond the range of your sample data, as it weakens your position.

Because my time here will likely be cut short, I'll get my broader critiques on record before addressing the topic of this thread.

If you keep within the membership agreement you should be OK. Enjoy your time here.

 

[Garrison]

sry, i tend to accept things like eye witness testimony

Which simply displays your ignorance on the subject; people have tried to educate you but you choose not to learn.

 

[NoahFence]

Introduction to New Ideas
The claims and observances of even the most weak-minded person hold treasures of truth

Not if you think no planes hit the towers. That's clearly patently false.

So, when new ideas are presented to you can you be sure that dismissing it is in your best interest? In terms of knowledge acquisition, not in terms of Facebook friends.

The vast majority of conspiracy theories hold no actual factual data. None. No knowledge acquisition is possible.

What about setting a goal to avoid ridicule of others, in agreement or not? How might that benefit you? How might that benefit all parties? Why do so few "skeptics", quick to offer a quip and a giggle find it beneficial to enlighten the other party? Is intellectual debate really just a more complicated form of survival of the fittest? It's us against them? There will always be idiots, and I don't want that to rub off on me!?

^^



Kiddo - all we do here is correct these people, and we do it with facts, reason, citations and personal accounts. NONE of these methods are EVER employed by the conspiracy theorist.

And lastly on this topic, (and this is meant to hurt a little) how much better are you than a confused conspiracy theorist if you're unable to convince them of your counter-claims?

They're morons. Incapable or (more likely) unwilling to be convinced of anything. That's on them.