Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false

[Jrrarglblarg]

, i've made up my mind so the burden is on you to prove to me that it was real and there was actual real people and guns and death involved

i've made up my mind that you are really a Labrador Retriever named "sam" so the burden of proof is on you to prove you are a human

 

[Regnad Kcin]

saying "put up or shut up is a bit of an aggressive tone for someone demanding proof. The burden of proof isn't on me, i've made up my mind so the burden is on you to prove to me that it was real and there was actual real people and guns and death involved. Considering this was just another psy op I find it insulting to my intelligence that you would insinuate this was a disaster to any family members involved, the only disaster is that all you skeptics keep sucking up their fairy tale propaganda nonsense as if it was fact and consequently spreading misinformation.

You neglected to include a few LOLs. Y'know, for that extra sheen of scholarship.

 

[Biscuit]

saying "put up or shut up is a bit of an aggressive tone for someone demanding proof. The burden of proof isn't on me, i've made up my mind so the burden is on you to prove to me that it was real and there was actual real people and guns and death involved. Considering this was just another psy op I find it insulting to my intelligence that you would insinuate this was a disaster to any family members involved, the only disaster is that all you skeptics keep sucking up their fairy tale propaganda nonsense as if it was fact and consequently spreading misinformation.

Seriously amateur trolling. F-

 

[Neveos]

Golditch was hit in the head by a bullet or shrapnel, if I recall. Here is an experiment. Tap on your head. Now tap on your knee. The tap on the head sounds remarkably louder doesn't it? If that was a bullet strike, imagine how much louder. Also, the ringing could be due to injury rather than noise. I do not know the exact injuries, so that is a possibility I cannot rule out. Every single part of his testimony is perfectly consistent with being hit by a bullet/fragment.

Clean through and through flesh wound, they called it. Tapping skull resonates. Built your own straw-man with that. This is more like slashing quickly with a razor through flesh. You are better off claiming the ringing was a spike in blood pressure. There you go. Just forget the sound of firecracker going off behind his head, that he described as "loud", and a "black cat" firecracker. (nevermind the ringing in his ear afterwards).

Walton says her leg got hot. This could mean just about anything. If your leg falls asleep, it can feel hot as feeling comes back.

She actually said it got "really hot". So, her leg was asleep, and it caused her leg to "get really hot"?

If she hit or scraped her leg it could feel hot.

This is an equally insufficient explanation for "got really hot".

Or heat could be from a vent.

She is five seats in the middle section of the theater. Where is the vent? Why did it "get her leg really hot"?

The subjective sense of heat alone could be anything.

OK, but we're bypassing the argument of mass delusion and lying, and entertaining explanations for these testimonies.

If it was from an explosion and she was close enough to feel the heat, there should be other signs of this, injuries, and she should have bloody well heard the explosion.

Well, first, let's not forget this is a group of people with speech impediments. Many things could have been said which weren't, and were simply not reported. Many of these people did not realize how valuable their insight was that night before the gag order was put in place. Gage and Ostergaard both reported hearing it. Just because she didn't specifically say it in a rushed commentary doesn't mean she didn't. Personally, I find it bewildering that she couldn't add it up from the heat it caused her leg, but it would be rude for me to comment on people's capacity for independent thinking, especially with this crowd.

Also, the shrapnel was was apparently received by the person sitting next to her: Gage Hankins. Your argument is horribly horribly weak as far as explaining the source of this report of "my leg got really hot".

I mean, honestly, what is your sincerest opinion of that? It quickly becomes suspect that you are simply being difficult in the promotion of an agenda of protecting your predisposition.

Do you have more information? Do these other signs exist? If not, other explanations are more likely.

Hahahaha. Yes, let's hear those other explanations, because they are so much more likely than the explosives reported by these people...

Fedelli heard pops, not booms or explosions, and saw gas and/or smoke.

I believe she was sitting near the top, and what was pops to her, was described as a boom by ostergaard, and a "loud bang" by Hankins.

The pops fit gunfire next door, which we already know happened.

Can you elaborate. Be generous with your explanation to my argument. Because I would love to hear where you think these 3 specifically mentioned pops came from. "2 pops and a big cloud of smoke, then another pop, and more smoke"

So we only have to explain his smoke testimony.

It's a female, ftr, but yes, the smoke has already been attempted within the cover up with two separate explanations: Through the bullet holes: yes, a "witness" actually said smoke was coming through the bullet holes. This same witness uploaded the first cell phone video, and was said to have blocked people from going into the lobby. Once the smoke through bullet holes was seen as ridiculous given the amount of smoke, and the location of the smoke, the explanation was then pitched as it was coming through the vents.

So, to put it simply, the problem we have is:
If it came through the bullet holes, why does Fedelli say no one knew there was a shooting?
If it came through the vents, why does Fedelli (and others) associate the smoke with the sounds of explosives?

"2 pops and a big cloud of smoke, then another pop, and more smoke... people were saying it could have been fireworks... no one knew there was a shooting going on in theater 9" - Is theater 9 pressurized to be shooting smoke out in "big clouds" through bullet holes?

"Glasses girl" said gas bomb, which I assume means she saw smoke? Again this could be from vents.

Let's not build straw men here... Let's not suffer from having an agenda. She said "they set gas bombs as they were leaving".

That leaves Ostergaard, who says he saw an explosion, though describes the sound as like firecrackers.

Let's actually take the time to listen to those interviews, ok? This is more exemplary of an earlier problem you tried to bring up. He said he heard a "boom". And yes, he later described thinking it was a firecracker.

The sound again is likely gunfire next door.

Well that would be 100 times the magnitude of reporting one distinct boom, wouldn't it, given the amount of rounds fired? Again, why is Fedelli saying everyone in 8 didn't know there was a shooting. Why is she only reporting 3 pops? I mean, I'm making a Robert DeNiro face right now. http://www.gocitygirl.com/FashionImages/1_robertdeniromole.jpg

Then a flash and smoke in the stairwell. Smoke could be from vents. Flash could be a lot of things, from the movie, spark from bullet strike, breaking light bulb.

So the flash is from bullet ricochet? "All 11 of us saw a "boom and a flash"". Bouncing bullets... That's one of those things, I will let you settle on, because it makes your argument look silly. Valid, but horribly weak. Breaking light bulb would have been noticed, don't you think? Kinda stretching it there... Maybe you should start doing some soul searching.

Notice, I have assumed that the witness are accurately reporting what they witnessed, that their memory is not faulty, and that the quotes are not out of context. Almost all of it can be easily and better explained without explosives of any kind in theater 8.

You're simply being insincere. I commend you for being the first in 11 pages to step up to the plate, that's why I suspect you're legit, but if you took a few hours to stop and process, you would know that. I don't expect you to do so in front of me, but I know, one day, this will have affected you.

You have at best one witness from the entire theater who saw something explosive-like, but describes a decidedly unexplosive sound.

I assume you mean Ostergaard, and a "boom" is not an unexplosive sound. Go ahead, actually try watching the interviews I linked. We also don't have anything, because, well, the inconvenience of a gag order. Go firgure right? http://www.gocitygirl.com/FashionImages/1_robertdeniromole.jpg

If almost everyone in the theater saw or heard an explosion, then you would have something. Without the testimony of the rest of the people in that theater, I provisionally assume that these isolated statements are either misinterpreted or are outliers specifically selected because they are the absolute best for making the case for conspiracy, which turns out to be not very good.

Well there are actually others who reported the explosives, and in fact, if you would watch the interviews, you'd see the news reporter actually say the following: "I spoke with another man who said some kind of firecrackers went off, and that was the source of the smoke" Milano replies, "We had plenty of people telling us someone was throwing pepper bombs"

I will end by pointing out I am not an expert in any of this, and have researched this "theory" only a little. I welcome any corrections.

And, you gave it a nice shot. There is a very predictable stretched rebuttal you can make to all this, or you can simply concede and not waste any of my time having to re-rebut you, since you could simply draw from the vast resources of a cover-up that has had a year to process and eventually "feel" correct. However, I am now going to minimize my participation. The thread is what it is, at this point, I leave it to others.

 

[FrederickEason]

Neveos, why couldn't the "explosions" heard simply be the guns and smoke grenades utilized by Holmes?

Why couldn't the smoke be from the smoke grenades?

Why couldn't the shrapnel be from the bullets?

 

[abaddon]

saying "put up or shut up is a bit of an aggressive tone for someone demanding proof.

Sure, who needs proof or evidence?

The burden of proof isn't on me

Sure, you can make any claim you like. Doesn't have to be true.

i've made up my mind so the burden is on you

Yes, you have made your mind up ahead of time and to hell with the evidence.

prove to me that it was real and there was actual real people and guns and death involved.{/QUOTE]Fail. Your crackpot claim=your burden of proof

Considering this was just another psy op

Provide data. no? Because you cannnot. Fail.

I find it insulting to my intelligence

What an interesting observation.

that you would insinuate this was a disaster to any family members involved,

End of the world? Has any such prognistication ever happened? No. just a truck of fail

the only disaster is that all you skeptics keep sucking up their fairy tale propaganda nonsense as if it was fact and consequently spreading misinformation.

yet, you propose your particular fairy tale is true. Sure.

 

[Travis]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the so called "jury." You might find it odd that I will put forth the idea that the accused murdered the deceased by transforming into a sentient mop like creature that crawled through an air vent accessing a locked apartment with anti-gravity devices then killing the victim in such a way that it looks just like a stroke. But know this: I already made up my mind this is true. So I don't need to prove anything to you all. Convict him!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is your username a reference to "Jack in the Green?" For others, Jack in the Green is a symbolical figure sometimes acted out in some western-European parades on May 1st by covering oneself in green foliage.

No relation.

Jack by the hedge is an old common name for garlic mustard. I have no particular affinity with it or any other mustard. Sometimes a name is just a name.

In any case, your comment seems to mock the OP's point and I wonder what you hoped to provide or derive from that?

With my facetious response I had hoped to provoke the OP to provide more information on whatever pet theory he was so obliquely hinting at.

He implied that a particular bullet would be assumed to have passed through 3 walls before striking a victim, but that he had imagined a solution which meant that it did not necessarily do so.

It was not at all obvious to me that this bullet need necessarily have passed through 3 walls in the first place, so by responding to his entreaty for someone brave soul to dare to try to guess whatever he had in his mind, I imagined I might at least provoke him to give us a further clue to whatever it is he's talking about.

In hindsight, of course, it turns out that he imagined the intervening stairwell walls to be much taller than they really were, so his whole point appears to be moot.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

That heart attack gun video was priceless. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[skepticidal]

So is it accurate to say that while most major news sources, the White House Press Secretary's office, and most Americans state that these incidents are not related in any meaningful way (aside from mental illness being a contributing factor), you maintain that there is a strong, but not-easily-recognizable link?

When my research into the theater shooting in Aurora started looking as fishy as any other staged event, I wrote up an analysis of each prior event I thought would best help put things in perspective.

I wanted to provide key factors and set some historical precedent, so I wasn't able to profile all the events in the resulting video. Even still, it's 1:15 min. long and doesn't even get to the Aurora event until an hour in.

I present, THE BATMAN THEATER SHOOTING: It's Time to See Behind the Cloak

 

[NoahFence]

Just because the news says a man dressed in a batman outfit shot up a cinema doesn't make it true. The television/media has brain washed too many people and it's about time the masses start to acknowledge a few facts regarding the manipulated imagery that is being fed to us.

Lurking for over a year just to support the ...

 

[Scott Sommers]

Reading through these posts and the newer one now about Internet predictions of the Sandy Hook murders, I think most people would probably be wondering about the mental health of the individuals making these claims. While I continue to wonder about this, it has struck me that claims like these do have a precedent.

One of the things I been saying about the young (under 30) White Boyz talking up the conspiracy talk is that a lot of the images they create seem to be modeled after 1960s radicals. It's just in the new conspiracy stories, the heroes are the angry White Boyz hooked up with right-wing politicians like Ron Paul calling for more guns and a stronger America.

Haven't you heard these stories before? The government is out there oppressing, in this case, the White Boyz, there are some activists out there who threaten The Man, so the FBI or CIA or whoever take them out. Doesn't it all sound so familiar? Long strings of government sanctioned murders and then sloppy cover ups? It's what happened to the Black Panther Party.

This is just a rip off of 1960s murders of radical activists.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When my research into the theater shooting in Aurora started looking as fishy as any other staged event, I wrote up an analysis of each prior event I thought would best help put things in perspective.

I wanted to provide key factors and set some historical precedent, so I wasn't able to profile all the events in the resulting video. Even still, it's 1:15 min. long and doesn't even get to the Aurora event until an hour in.

I present, THE BATMAN THEATER SHOOTING: It's Time to See Behind the Cloak

You wrote an analysis, but somehow ended up with a 75 minute video which doesn't actually cover all the events and doesn't get to Aurora till it's 80% through?

Maybe you should have stuck to writing plain text. Seriously.

 

[carlitos]

When my research into the theater shooting in Aurora started looking as fishy as any other staged event, I wrote up an analysis of each prior event I thought would best help put things in perspective.

I wanted to provide key factors and set some historical precedent, so I wasn't able to profile all the events in the resulting video. Even still, it's 1:15 min. long and doesn't even get to the Aurora event until an hour in.

I present, THE BATMAN THEATER SHOOTING: It's Time to See Behind the Cloak

While the inability of conspiracy theorists to be concise never surprises me, a video about a shooting incident that doesn't actually address the shooting incident for 80% of its length is a pretty spectacular example.

I really hope that you get the help you need. Sorry to have argued with you on this board.

 

[Biscuit]

When my research into the theater shooting in Aurora started looking as fishy as any other staged event, I wrote up an analysis of each prior event I thought would best help put things in perspective.

I wanted to provide key factors and set some historical precedent, so I wasn't able to profile all the events in the resulting video. Even still, it's 1:15 min. long and doesn't even get to the Aurora event until an hour in.

I present, THE BATMAN THEATER SHOOTING: It's Time to See Behind the Cloak

Fishy is a very kind way of describing your research.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I have to agree. You conspiracy Boyz don't look entirely like you have a grip on things. I hesitate to use some of the labels that get often get used in these cases, but I do really wonder why you guys seem so disorganized and confused. These are problems often associated with mental illness. My experience with numerous conspiracy theory activists is that a lot of such people are just really badly educated. I've read all kinds of essays written by the conspiracy theory folk about their ideas. A lot of them show fundamental errors in organization, even punctuation and spelling. But what's really noticeable is the confused organization, even in papers written for writing classes. So the idea that someone could make a video and not actually connect the contents with the title doesn't seem so far out to me. Nor does it necessarily ring out mental illness. But it might mean in answer to the issue raised by carlitos that the help you need might just be a good English teacher.

And before you go saying bad things about me, good organization really helps your credibility. Without it..well you know...people laugh at you - at least the educated ones. And you end up hanging around with a bunch of dumb guys telling each other how smart you all are.

 

[carlitos]

To be fair, the video seems quite well-made from a technical standpoint. But spending 20 minutes telling me that my birth certificate is really a financial instrument that "they" buy and sell on the open market is not going to help me understand a shooting in a movie theater.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And, you gave it a nice shot. There is a very predictable stretched rebuttal you can make to all this, or you can simply concede and not waste any of my time having to re-rebut you, since you could simply draw from the vast resources of a cover-up that has had a year to process and eventually "feel" correct. However, I am now going to minimize my participation. The thread is what it is, at this point, I leave it to others.

Leaving so soon? But what about the "proof," as promised in the thread title?

A conspiracy theorist who doesn't provide proof and evidence? Why, I don't know what to say. This is unprecedented.

 

[Horatius]

To be fair, the video seems quite well-made from a technical standpoint. But spending 20 minutes telling me that my birth certificate is really a financial instrument that "they" buy and sell on the open market is not going to help me understand a shooting in a movie theater.

So he's into the Freeman/Sovereign Citizen stuff as well? Cute.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Leaving so soon? But what about the "proof," as promised in the thread title?

I know. Somebody should complain to Trading Standards.