• 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

It's curious that Neveos and skepticidal seem to think that everyone else here is somehow invested in a particular version of events at Aurora.

If you have a particular version of what happened, by all means let's have it. I invite you to convince me.
 
Last edited:
I'm not particularly invested in any version beyond the guy shooting a bunch of people. But you start adding in other people tossing hissing flashbang legburning bombs designed to prevent football teams from interfering well you better have something besides a few odd & assorted eyewitness comments and some ghoulish whining about not getting to see any security videos there might have been.
 
skepticidal said:
Biscuit -


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.
Click to expand...

The point is you don't know if there even is any video so your incredulous insinuation that the lack of video of him buying popcorn is evidence of a cover up is ridiculous.

Further more I am not sure what video of Mr. Holmes at the snack stand would even prove unless you believe he was never even in the movie theatre. Even this you would most likely call a fake and continue to believe whatever suites your bias.

The problem is you come into this seeking only to confirm your conclusion not to weigh the evidence and draw a conclusion from that. You will dismiss or hand wave anything that doesn't confirm your bias.

Th remainder of your post was a perfect example of the circular logic that CTers use and I will not be addressing it.
 
Neveos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am going to keep asking for your sources please.
 
skepticidal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Holmes being arrested while simply standing by his vehicle with apparent lack of urgency is suspicious only if one assumes that he was rational and did not want to be arrested. Given that there is evidence that he was not behaving rationally on that day, his behavior at the time of arrest is not evidence that the "official story" is less than believable.

As for there being two conflicting stories, so what?

ETA: if you are pressed for time, post #250 is more important than this one.
 
Last edited:
skepticidal said:
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)?
Click to expand...

I will consider this question and provide my answer in a day or so.

...............

Is it your contention that the vast majority of shootings in the past few years were influenced or even initiated by a specific cabal? Are you broadly asserting that virtually nothing that dominates a news cycle for more than 48 hours happens by accident?

I apologize if these questions grossly misstate your position.
 
skepticidal said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yeah?...so what??

Personally, I demand that evidence for an idea actually be presented before the proponent of said idea declares "victory".

Is that too "fussy" for you?



Because my time here will likely be cut short...
Click to expand...

You know next to nothing about this board, yet you assume your time will be "cut short"?

Interesting...
 
skepticidal said:
...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)?
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence???

No...not what proponents consider evidence, but actual testable evidence that is convincing.

..and the more we ask for that evidence, the more proponents "tap dance".



...so your question is moot...that "point" is unattainable, because conspiracy proponents simply can not provide that which does not exist.
 
Skeptical is an appropriate handle for the poster, as he is attempting to kill skepticism.
 
Neveos said:
lol what a hilarious forum, attacking multiple eye witness accounts...
Click to expand...

"Attacking," no. Evaluating by prevailing standards of evidence for real investigations, yes.

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

Sour grapes. You were asked to provide evidence. You provided it, and it wasn't convincing. Now you're trying to save face by belitting people who don't agree with you. That's unproductive.
 
skepticidal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Try perusing the rules subforum. The short version is that no one gets suspended or banned from the JREF forum for their ideas. If they are sanctioned it's because they broke the rules. If you remain civil, attack other's arguments and not the arguers themselves, don't promote illegal activities, and stick to "family friendly" posts (ie. no porn, nudity, explicit descriptions of sexual acts etc.) you're likely to stay out of trouble here.
 
BazBear said:
Try perusing the rules subforum. The short version is that no one gets suspended or banned from the JREF forum for their ideas. If they are sanctioned it's because they broke the rules. If you remain civil, attack other's arguments and not the arguers themselves, don't promote illegal activities, and stick to "family friendly" posts (ie. no porn, nudity, explicit descriptions of sexual acts etc.) you're likely to stay out of trouble here.
Click to expand...

nice avatar! GO BROONS!!
 
Want to give a little summary for those who can't or won't watch yet another YT vid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom