Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who "they" might be is a question that cannot be answered, and will never be possible without a full, complete and truthful accounting of the facts that are obviously not known now, and will likely never be known if the current course is followed. By the same token, this is not a relevant question that must be answered in order to prove inconsistency-cover-up in the story presented. And a conspiracy can take many forms, and is not isolated to only the scenario of dark shadowy figures planning a mass murder for the purpose of generating public outrage and hostility to further the efforts clearly underway in attacking the 2nd Amendment (like Fast & Furious), even if that is a distinct possibility. A conspiracy to protect people engaged in nefarious and illegal activities that had no intention of facilitating this event could also be a possibility. Must I really give you a detailed historical account of the enormous list of past events detailing some bone chilling activities in the world of psychiatry, and multiple accounts of programs of government mind control experimentation dating back 60+ years? Must I also point out that many of these dastardly deeds were conducted under the guidance and supervision of University Medical Centers around the nation, operating under grants from the Department of Defense? Must I also point out that Homes academic history is immersed in this area of study ... that those around him were ... that this new revelation of him being under the psychiatric care of a University staff psychiatrist who also has ties to the Department of Defense ... and that so do officials at the University ... including the head of that University Medical Center, who is highly connected ... including being a member of the board for the Gates Foundation? That even Holmes father has some affiliation in this area too? Jesus Key Riest ... what does it take to generate a question for some of you people? A GD video tape confession from the conspirators themselves?
Look ... just because you may not be aware of things doesn't make them untrue. There exists an endless list of conspiracies that are accurately labeled "conspiracy facts", and no longer live in the world of "theories", except in the minds of the masses like you who consistently and inaccurately dismiss them. Of course, I now expect a visit from a particular poster who will remain unnamed, who will soon appear, accusing me of being a "Scientologist", for pointing out the dastardly history of psychiatry, and it's frequent bed partners who include the CIA and the DOD ... for which it's nefarious story is still being written by it's continuing gross misbehavior, fracturing minds, and chemically lobotomizing study subjects to further their knowledge of how to create mind controlled automatons and super soldiers who will commit any atrocity on command, then have no memory of their actions afterward. Doesn't that sound the least bit familiar to what has transpired with Holmes?
In this particular case, with what has thus far emerged and been reported, this REEKS of a conspiracy of one kind or another .... and yes, at this point, it is just a theory ... though all conspiracy facts began as theories.
The most visible clue pointing to some type of cover-up/conspiracy comes from the unwillingness and deliberate avoidance of the possibility of accomplices by the "investigators". The official story tellers seem to want to promote this "lone gunman" scenario (of which we've had a long history of seeing falsely promoted), in spite of eyewitnesses indicating the presence of at least one accomplice. And if there is an accomplice, then the picture being painted is totally invalid.
But that's not the only red flag ... not by a mile. Actually, the lone gunman scenario is extremely remote, and the least likely scenario at this point.
Okay. First bolded portion of your post says that who "they" might be can't be answered. So whoever is behind the conspiracy in this case is far too vague for even those who can "see" the conspiracy to define.
Second bolded portion of your post. So the conspiracy in this case may be for the purpose of generating outrage in the public towards private gun ownership....the 2nd Amendment issue (which has been decided already by the USSC and public outrage wouldn't change the Court ruling).....So we have here the concern that there is a conspiracy by people in the government whom you think may want to take away your guns, so Holmes was programmed to shoot the people in that highly publicized Dark Knight movie in order to generate support for gun control. Interesting "they."
Third bolded portion. You're saying to most revealing fact that there is a conspiracy is that no one is looking for an accomplice/accomplices. First, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Of course, there is NOTHING going on which would prevent good investigative journalists or just interested private investigators from looking into that issue. HOW can information about the possibility of an accomplice be totally controlled by "they"? The investigators on this case are not the only people who can investigate such issues. A good P.I. could easily find people who were in the theater that night, contact them, ask questions and based on answers find others who were there, etc., etc. And, finally, this case has just begun. You don't know what will come out via discovery because I don't think discovery has begun yet.
And stating that I must prove to you that the the Sun sets in the west doesn't strengthen the legitimacy of your opinions.
LOL. How hard would it be for anybody to prove the sun sets in the West? Ever heard of "circumstantial evidence"?
If you made a CLAIM that the sun sets in the West every night, regardless of how simple that may be to prove, if requested to do so, because it's your claim, you must prove it. Most people realize that proof of such a thing would not be in the least difficult. I don't know what is considered the standard of proof on this forum, but I think it would be reasonable proof, not perfect beyond all doubt proof as that's impossible with anything. Bottom line, if you make a claim (not your opinion) but a claim, then regardless of how obvious it is, it's still your responsibility to provide some proof if you wish to be considered credible in your posting. You don't make a claim and then try to turn the tables and demand that anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't believe your claim prove that you are wrong.
How in Sam Hill did you come up with that? Have you seen the videos from the movie theater security cameras? Have you read the notebook Holmes wrote? Have you interviewed all the eyewitnesses and diagrammed their exact locations on a map of crime scene? Have you debriefed the cops who were on the scene? No, you haven't but you can bet your next year's wages that the police and/or FBI have done so and are busy putting all the pieces of that giant puzzle together. You, on the other hand, are going on rumors from unknown sources and guess work that all feed off from one another to the point you'd never recognized the truth if Jesus himself came down and told it to you. To you, it's easier to believe a conspiracy that would literally depend of 100's of people agreeing to keep their silence of a coverup.
LOL. How hard would it be for anybody to prove the sun sets in the West? Ever heard of "circumstantial evidence"?
If you made a CLAIM that the sun sets in the West every night, regardless of how simple that may be to prove, if requested to do so, because it's your claim, you must prove it. Most people realize that proof of such a thing would not be in the least difficult. I don't know what is considered the standard of proof on this forum, but I think it would be reasonable proof, not perfect beyond all doubt proof as that's impossible with anything. Bottom line, if you make a claim (not your opinion) but a claim, then regardless of how obvious it is, it's still your responsibility to provide some proof if you wish to be considered credible in your posting. You don't make a claim and then try to turn the tables and demand that anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't believe your claim prove that you are wrong.
Now your going to sit here and argue about the sun setting in the west. Continue on as your entertaining at least.
Okay. First bolded portion of your post says that who "they" might be can't be answered. So whoever is behind the conspiracy in this case is far too vague for even those who can "see" the conspiracy to define.
Yes, it would be pure speculation to claim to know something that is not known. Do you honestly think that every crime planned or committed by more than one person (the true definition of a conspiracy) is done by the same individuals? I mean that is what you are insinuating by demanding to know who "They" are. Speculation is fine .. but like I suggested, if you were accused of robbing a liquor store, you don't actually have to prove who did it in order to clear your good name ... you just need to prove that you couldn't have done it, which usually involves an alibi and witnesses. So no one needs to prove what actually took place leading up to and including the event, and by whom, to determine that what is now being claimed to have taken place makes little sense and doesn't fit the facts known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Second bolded portion of your post. So the conspiracy in this case may be for the purpose of generating outrage in the public towards private gun ownership....the 2nd Amendment issue (which has been decided already by the USSC and public outrage wouldn't change the Court ruling).....
Right here we have you caught in blatant intellectual dishonesty, as the SCOTUS has not ruled against gun regulation, .... and one consistent theme that IMMEDIATELY began ringing over the airwaves was the question of tightening regulation of firearms in response to these murders. Right there is proof of linkage ... I didn't create that linkage ... nor is it a figment of someone's imagination. We have politicians and media talking heads all singing the same song .... gotta stop these assault rifles from being sold!!
Not only that, but memos revealed that Fast & Furious held that same agenda to gain popularity for stricter gun regulations pertaining to gun dealers. Then we have the UN Small Arms treaty CURRENTLY under consideration by congress ... so yes ... it doesn't take a wild imagination to SEE this link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
So we have here the concern that there is a conspiracy by people in the government whom you think may want to take away your guns, so Holmes was programmed to shoot the people in that highly publicized Dark Knight movie in order to generate support for gun control. Interesting "they."
There is no "may want to" involved in this. There IS a very large percentage of liberals, both politicians and nitwits among the general population that would BAN firearms tomorrow if they could get away with it. They can't, so their only alternative is to attempt to regulate them out of existence, slowly, step by step. And there has been no end to the efforts of certain democrats in congress for restricting guns ... and yes, some of these frontal attacks on the 2nd Amendment use "shootings" to justify their passage. The "Brady Bill" is one such example .... and guess what ... neither the news media or law enforcement investigated or talked about the fact that John Hinckley Sr. (the shooter's father) had very close ties to then VP George Bush Sr. for 20 plus years at the time, who temporarily assumed the duties of the President after the shooting. Had John Hinckley Jr. been successful, Bush would have become President .... but that's no motive for murder, right? It's way more believable that Hinckley Jr. simply had a crush on a movie star and thought killing the president of the United States would impress her? Yeah yeah, that's the ticket. And that's just the way things work in the shadowy world of high powered political circles, and their lone gunman stories. Always the lone gunman and magic bullets and a dozen unconnected and very convenient circumstances leading to success. Sometimes, they really take this coincidence thing to the limits, and actually have a lone gunman kill the president, then follow up by having another lone gunman kill the the first lone gunman ... and even that absurdity isn't too hard to convince the sheep to believe! Astonishingly, it seems to work every time!!! BAAAAAH ......
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Third bolded portion. You're saying to most revealing fact that there is a conspiracy is that no one is looking for an accomplice/accomplices. First, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
This is without a doubt, a most Orwellian twisting of "facts". There may be more reliable forms of evidence such as video when accounting for certain events ... however, when it comes to the identification of criminals and of details pertaining to the commission of crimes, eyewitness accounts remain the most utilized and relied on evidence that exists. More people have been convicted of crimes by eyewitness testimony than any other means, and even video is "notoriously" lacking in it's ability to positively ID a person except in the most fortunate of circumstances when the criminal poses for a close-up. That's why any good criminal investigation interviews ALL witnesses, and follows all leads provided by those witnesses .... particularly when two or three witnesses GIVE THE SAME EXACT ACCOUNT.
You are trying to insinuate that because eyewitnesses are "notoriously" unreliable ... investigators commonly dismiss their testimony as not pertinent, and not worthy of full investigation. That is only true in a cover-up .... in a legitimate investigation, and particularly those of a mass murder and lots of victims, EVERY LEAD is followed ... and most definitely so for those pertaining to possible accomplices. But that has CLEARLY not been the case here. We have THREE eyewitnesses informing reporters of an accomplice, at the same time the police spokesperson is reporting no evidence of others involved. That's a as much of a fraud as what you are trying to promote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Of course, there is NOTHING going on which would prevent good investigative journalists or just interested private investigators from looking into that issue. HOW can information about the possibility of an accomplice be totally controlled by "they"?
Apparently you didn't look at the earlier videos of the eyewitnesses reporting this accomplice, or the news reporter questioning the story? Just to clear that little problem up for you
So, it isn't just my skeptical imagination running wild here .... though I think the reporters here that suspect "a lot of people asking these questions" are overly optimistic about the general intelligence of the public.
Be careful to note that even this skeptical reporter promoted a false fact at the end ... insinuating that the guy inside the theatre who received the phone call was actually Holmes himself ... and that is just not true. The witnesses didn't identify this person as Holmes, nor has anyone been able to ID the shooter, or as ever seeing some guy with strange red hair in that theatre. In fact, it's strange that no one has come forward to say ooooh ... I was standing right next to that creep in line to get a ticket .... or, yeah I saw that guy in the lobby, and remember him because of that weird hair. Nobody has ID'd Holmes as ever entering that theatre, let alone shooting anyone. All such accounts come from the cops and the news media who are either purposely distorting eyewitness testimony or are simply making unsupported assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
The investigators on this case are not the only people who can investigate such issues. A good P.I. could easily find people who were in the theater that night, contact them, ask questions and based on answers find others who were there, etc., etc. And, finally, this case has just begun. You don't know what will come out via discovery because I don't think discovery has begun yet.
First .. the authorities are the only ones capable of investigating and arresting and questioning suspects. And if they have no interest in doing so, it won't be done.
Secondly, you and all of those who share your mindset would automatically reject anything coming from anyone other than the "appropriate authorities" as irrelevant and unreliable. So who do you think you are BS'ing here?
........Be careful to note that even this skeptical reporter promoted a false fact at the end ... insinuating that the guy inside the theatre who received the phone call was actually Holmes himself ... and that is just not true. The witnesses didn't identify this person as Holmes, nor has anyone been able to ID the shooter, or as ever seeing some guy with strange red hair in that theatre. In fact, it's strange that no one has come forward to say ooooh ... I was standing right next to that creep in line to get a ticket .... or, yeah I saw that guy in the lobby, and remember him because of that weird hair. Nobody has ID'd Holmes as ever entering that theatre, let alone shooting anyone. All such accounts come from the cops and the news media who are either purposely distorting eyewitness testimony or are simply making unsupported assumptions.
First .. the authorities are the only ones capable of investigating and arresting and questioning suspects. And if they have no interest in doing so, it won't be done.
Secondly, you and all of those who share your mindset would automatically reject anything coming from anyone other than the "appropriate authorities" as irrelevant and unreliable. So who do you think you are BS'ing here?
..............
1. You don't know if anyone has identified Holmes as the shooter, or not. Everything the police department does in not recorded for the world to see in real time. You don't know if anyone has come forward to say they saw Holmes in the lobby or inside the theater. Most people would tell the police a thing like that but not go running off to the media to repeat it. In other words, just because you didn't hear a report of someone seeing him in the lobby doesn't mean such a report doesn't exist.
2. You're assuming that Holmes would be in the lobby with his flaming red hair in full view when he could have just as easily been wearing a hat to cover up so he'd blend in with the crowd until he was ready to do a 'big reveal' when he was damn good and ready.
3. You have no reason to believe that authorities would have no interested in investigating this crime to its fullest. Those cops live in the community and could have just as easily known people who were there that night.
Don't know about right winger but he is a 24 year old white male, which fits the profile of these types of crimes.
just got back from vacation of 17 days, will be able to look through all these posts.
1st.
Looks like this 24 year old male had $20,000+ worth of firearms, body armor and more. looks to me to be more of a staged event by the feds than a single act only on the male responsible. if anyone thinks that the feds cant do this is just fooling themselves. i also noticed that this happened right about the same time that the UN is voting on the small arms treaty, kind of suspicious to me.
that's what you get when every person can just legally buy guns. 14 people lost their lives because of this today and nothing is going to change I'm so glad guns are illegal over here.
thats your country, dont tell people in other countries how they should run their country.
just got back from vacation of 17 days, will be able to look through all these posts.
1st.
Looks like this 24 year old male had $20,000+ worth of firearms, body armor and more. looks to me to be more of a staged event by the feds than a single act only on the male responsible. if anyone thinks that the feds cant do this is just fooling themselves. i also noticed that this happened right about the same time that the UN is voting on the small arms treaty, kind of suspicious to me.
Money....a promiss to get away denied with a safety net far too perfectly engineered for insanity
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever heard of "circumstantial evidence"? 
I'm so glad guns are illegal over here.
