• 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

The Secret CCTV Footage
Speaking of secrecy, is it customary to withhold all CCTV footage in cases like this? I've seen hidden-camera video of a nanny punching a baby filmed in a private residence broadcast on the evening news. Yet, we don't even get a 10 second glimpse of Holmes at the snack counter?
Click to expand...
Better question: who died and made you chief investigator? Are victims of tragedies now required to hand over any and all evidence to conspiracy theorists, who will, as others here have pointed out, just use it to make their CTs even more elaborate (and silly)?

ETA
Neveos said:
lol what a hilarious forum, attacking multiple eye witness accounts...
Click to expand...
Backed up in a corner, are you?
What about the survivors who don't say what you want them to? Do you disagree with or disbelieve those? If yes, aren't you "attacking eye witness accounts" just as much as we are?

This is typical CT-er behaviour, by the way. You start a holier-than-thou thread about some random event (I remember when conspiracy theorists only made CTs about major events, those sadly aren't the times we're living in today) and either "ask questions" or spam links, or both, and then when your audience doesn't react in the way you would like it to, you go into full-blown personal attack mode and start shouting at us instead of answering our questions.
 
Last edited:
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...

We do have a posted rule about not advocating that other posters kill themselves. I only mention it because so few other boards have that rule and because it is strictly enforced.

ETA the other reason it is useful for new members to know the rules is that if you spot a rule violation, you can easily report it.
 
Last edited:
I mean, it is, in fact, possible to explain the bullet trajectory NOT going through three walls to hit Gage and his teacher, I'm just wondering who is going to be brave enough to actually do it.
 
Neveos said:
I mean, it is, in fact, possible to explain the bullet trajectory NOT going through three walls to hit Gage and his teacher, I'm just wondering who is going to be brave enough to actually do it.
Click to expand...

Was it the old caretaker, diguised as an ice cream seller with a false beard and glasses? I always thought that guy looked shifty.
 
Neveos said:
I mean, it is, in fact, possible to explain the bullet trajectory NOT going through three walls to hit Gage and his teacher, I'm just wondering who is going to be brave enough to actually do it.
Click to expand...

When you are brave enough to provide the sources I have requested I'll think about it.
 
Neveos said:
sry, i tend to accept things like eye witness testimony
Click to expand...

Which, criminal psychologists, police DAs and related will happily tell you is usually some less than trustable. Have you, by wild chance, studyed this subject much? at all?

I tend to trust the full reports of the individual witnesses plotted against each other and against the physical evidence. What matches the physical evidence is highly likely to be correct. What matches the stories of multple witnesses and pretty much resembles the physical evidence results is reasonably likely. What matches the stories of witnesses but is clearly countered by the physical evidence is not reliable. Note: reliable means likely to be usable and successful in a trial by the prosecution and which the defense will try to find some way to exclude or experts who will lie on the stand/mislead on the stand for pay. (Note, I am suspicious of most expert witnesses - especially as a number of same make up/bend science for hire).
 
Ladewig said:
What do you do when two eyewitnesses provide two conflicting accounts?

What do you do when five eyewitnesses provide five conflicting accounts?
Click to expand...

Criterion: I like to believe five impossible things before breakfast.
 
lol, I'll just quote it for you:

"we were sitting on the right side of theater 8, we had a wall for the stair way, and a wall for the hall way" 0:25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-Su7ZIFjA

You, know just forget about this part:
"To the right of us, right by the stairwell, all 12 of us, heard hissing, and started seeing smoke, saw a/heard a boom and a flash, we heard what we thought were fire crackers, we thought kids were throwing fire crackers"

and ya know, this part

"If I had one wish, and I'm sure I won't be able to see it till after the court case (well now he never will), is what theater 8 looks like right now, because for me, that would really help me figure out what happened, like the walls, like they said, are there really bullet holes through the walls where the gunmen shot? And is part of the stariwell blown off like I thought I saw? Because I saw an explosion! So what really happened, because it was dark in there? If there's one thing I wish I can see, that's what I'd really like... I'm hopin I can one day, because it will happen for me with my process- what happened for me.

Theaters 8 and 9 both had these stair-wells on either side of the auditorium. Meaning they also had another wall, which is the wall for the stair way in theater 9.

Now, some (maybe even most) reports say the gunmen ascended the right side of theater 9 (the side closest his entry, thus pointing towards theater 8), and it is only Jennifer Seeger which says he ascended the left side (implying he crossed in front, and thus pointing away from theater 8). So assuming he is, in fact, ascending the right side, AND pointing at theater 8, are you willing to believe that Gage and Ostergaard were injured from bullet(s) penetrating through three walls and striking them with multiple fragments? Gage is seated four seats in, by the way. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/07/23/Ohioan-recounts-Colorado-chaos.html
Meghan Walton, wearing shorts, is sitting right next to Hankins and feels a bunch of heat on her leg.

But I guess it's just witness testimony where they are sitting. Just like it's the reporter's witness testimony that they were there, and were even a part of the incident...
 
R.A.F. said:
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?





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

Interesting...
Click to expand...
Hopefully (and I assumed this when I first read it) s. meant he would be leaving us for more reasonable people who who would accept his (or his and n's)words at their value on them.

I don't really follow unless one or both thinks we are like the conspiracy or fundy religious forums who kick off everyone who disagrees in the slightest with the Secret Masters of the Forum.

While our mods are great and powerful, you have to do some pretty obvious naughty stuff before you get the boot and being willing to treat eyewitness accounts as pure revelation of THE TRUTH regardless of information that shows it not really adequate is not that - nor is not understanding the requirement/s of real science to be evidence are not things that will get anyone booted.
 
Last edited:
Neveos said:
I mean, it is, in fact, possible to explain the bullet trajectory NOT going through three walls to hit Gage and his teacher, I'm just wondering who is going to be brave enough to actually do it.
Click to expand...

I see....if we don't accept your "challenge", then we must be afraid of the "truth"....right??

How friggin' typical...

When will you be getting around to providing that convincing evidence we so "nicely" keep asking for...hmm???
 
Neveos said:
lol, I'll just quote it for you:

"we were sitting on the right side of theater 8, we had a wall for the stair way, and a wall for the hall way" 0:25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-Su7ZIFjA

You, know just forget about this part:
"To the right of us, right by the stairwell, all 12 of us, heard hissing, and started seeing smoke, saw a/heard a boom and a flash, we heard what we thought were fire crackers, we thought kids were throwing fire crackers"

and ya know, this part

"If I had one wish, and I'm sure I won't be able to see it till after the court case (well now he never will), is what theater 8 looks like right now, because for me, that would really help me figure out what happened, like the walls, like they said, are there really bullet holes through the walls where the gunmen shot? And is part of the stariwell blown off like I thought I saw? Because I saw an explosion! So what really happened, because it was dark in there? If there's one thing I wish I can see, that's what I'd really like... I'm hopin I can one day, because it will happen for me with my process- what happened for me.

Theaters 8 and 9 both had these stair-wells on either side of the auditorium. Meaning they also had another wall, which is the wall for the stair way in theater 9.

Now, some (maybe even most) reports say the gunmen ascended the right side of theater 9 (the side closest his entry, thus pointing towards theater 8), and it is only Jennifer Seeger which says he ascended the left side (implying he crossed in front, and thus pointing away from theater 8). So assuming he is, in fact, ascending the right side, AND pointing at theater 8, are you willing to believe that Gage and Ostergaard were injured from bullet(s) penetrating through three walls and striking them with multiple fragments? Gage is seated four seats in, by the way. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/07/23/Ohioan-recounts-Colorado-chaos.html
Meghan Walton, wearing shorts, is sitting right next to Hankins and feels a bunch of heat on her leg.

But I guess it's just witness testimony where they are sitting. Just like it's the reporter's witness testimony that they were there, and were even a part of the incident...
Click to expand...

I am still lost as how the shooter's precise location was determined when this particular shot occurred.

Also, I wonder if spalling could have occurred on the concrete wall.
 
If he is climbing the stairs he only has to shoot through the wall separating the theatres. The stairwell walls would be below him.

Just quoting the yt videos does not help. Who is speaking, who are they speaking to, what is the full context, and how long after the event where these words said?
 
Hahahahaha. Well, please don't stop. Please do the best you can to prove the official story correct in light of my last post.
 
Neveos said:
Theaters 8 and 9 both had these stair-wells on either side of the auditorium. Meaning they also had another wall, which is the wall for the stair way in theater 9.

....
So assuming he is, in fact, ascending the right side, AND pointing at theater 8, are you willing to believe that Gage and Ostergaard were injured from bullet(s) penetrating through three walls and striking them with multiple fragments? Gage is seated four seats in, by the way. .
Click to expand...




You insistence that the bullets must have passed through 3 walls means you fail geometry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002989849

This post includes a commonly-reported diagram of where the shooter was in theater 9. There is a significant range of locations near the door he entered (upper right corner of this diagram) that would allow a shot to not hit the "stair well" wall in 9, thus only needing to penetrate 2 walls at most.

Depending on which row the person in theater 8 was in, the angle might only require passing through one wall.


When you consider the well-known penetration capabilities of rifles such as the AR-15:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOW59Ck9LU

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

http://youtu.be/Hxn8TS9cb3o?t=1m52s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Quq7zmNTWs

...it's not hard at all to believe that it could penetrate that far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom