Batman massacre: People killed at Dark Knight premiere

[babomb]

You're not - but we'll be the first ones labeled as conspiracy theorists, kooks, and tinfoil hat wearers all because we don't believe what's spoon-fed to us by the so-called "news" and "media" in this country. Did any of you hear the stupid interview with the one "witness" from the theater shooting? Witness to Second Shooter Right-click and "save as" and take a listen to that bullshit. He spits off statistics like an almanac (not a natural way of speaking for anyone - unless they're reading a script!) and he goes on and on about "casualties" and how he sat "precisely 4 seats from the aisle" (do you remember that kind of detail after you go see a movie? What seat did you sit in the last time you were at the movies? Do you even remember?) and he seems to have an excellent top-to-bottom description of the shooter - even though the movie had started according to him (which means the theater was completely dark). He even said, and I quote, "When my girlfriend arrived on location..." When his girlfriend arrived "on location"? "casualties"?? Spitting out stats? Who the hell talks like this? When was the last time any of you were talking to someone and said, "when is your friend expected to arrive on location?" But yeah, we're the crazy ones for thinking there's more to the story than there is. As if we don't have reason to believe we're being lied to since our media, government and police forces have shown over and over again that they aren't to be trusted. It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories" - it has everything to do with listening carefully and deconstructing what you're hearing and seeing. I know exactly who that witness is in the audio. Not personally, but he spoke in that CNN documentary "Madness at Midnight". Only he wasn't so positive about all the facts and figures he threw out. In the CNN program he says the guy who got the phone call was sitting "maybe 2 seats from the end on the 1st row". He's also the witness that says that the guy who got the phone call went through the rear emergency exit, propped it open with his foot and began motioning to someone. He didn't say anything about the guy having red hair until the CNN host specifically asked that, then he said "I think he did have red hair". My thoughts on why this witness now spits out all these terms and figures in this way is that he's been "debriefed" so many times by agents and law enforcement, and been interviewed so much by the media, that it's now like a speech that's been committed to memory. They don't just take a statement in incidents like this. They take the witness' statement and read it back to them multiple times using technical terms used by law enforcement, then ask again, repeat it back to them again, and again and again. So they basically take a raw witness account of the events and mold it into something that sounds like an official PR statement, then feed it back into the witness' mind, and make them repeat it until it's exactly how they want it to be when the witness repeats it to other parties. By the time they're done with these witnesses they won't have a raw recollection of the actual experience. They'll remember it the way that law enforcement agents have recreated it in their minds eye. This witness also said that when the gunman entered through that door that he "swung in through the door, like he was trying to act like a super villain". I have no idea what "swung in" means. But according to the official story Holmes was covered head to toe with body armor, a tactical vest loaded to the gills with 30 round mags for the AR which depending on the specific vest could mean 12-15 additional magazines, the AR was "hanging around his neck" which most likely is referring to a 1 point tactical sling. He also had a Remington 870 12ga with a bandoleer sling(presumably filled with 12ga shells). So we're talking about 60-80lbs of additional gear distributed across his body, but concentrated mostly on his upper body. People who were in the court room during his 2 court appearances describe him as frail and a man of small stature. Yet, he's able to swing in like a comic villain, dance around the theater with all that gear in the dark with tear gas blocking his vision, he's wearing a gas mask, has no training in the use of the gear or weapons, but he's able to achieve a 66% accuracy rating? If that IS actually how it happened, that's fucking incredible! That's on par with an Army Ranger or US Marine from an MEU. Then, he outfits his entire apartment with IED's that agents on the scene have been quoted as saying "something of the complexity and efficiency not normally seen outside of a war zone". He does all this with this amazing accuracy and skill, but has no plan of escape or "grand finale". His plan after all is completed is to go out back and hang around by his car? Something is wrong with this picture! I have no proof of anything, and I can't make any positive claims as to what it is, but something is seriously wrong with this picture!

[Neil]

^^ Surely there's questions being asked how he got in through a fire escape that shouldn't allow people in?

[wayzim]

^^ Surely there's questions being asked how he got in through a fire escape that shouldn't allow people in? The immediate supposition to this (following the shooting ) was that the man exiting to make a phone call was Holmes himself who stopped the door from closing all the way - his car parked close by so he could put on his gear. I'd heard nothing that said these were exits with alarms - folks seem to assume this. The amusing thing about this whole discussion is how we seem to Pick and Chose what testimony to believe and who to dismiss off hand? We also assume we can apply sane logic and motives ( ours, not his ) to an unsettled mind. If his only goal was chaos ( i.e. The Joker statement? ) who's to say that means Escape or even Suicide at the hands of the cop. And honestly, if he thought the explosive experts might accidently set off his booby trap while trying to disarm it, why not tell them? A last Hurrah, maybe? And now the current question, is the university responsible if they knew that this former student was disturbed but he quit before they decided to intervene? This doesn't need an extra person and invisible terrorist cell to be very bizarre indeed. Way Zim

[babomb]

^^ Surely there's questions being asked how he got in through a fire escape that shouldn't allow people in? The idea is that he went into the theater as if he were just going to the movie. Once inside he went out through the emergency exit and kept his foot inside the door while he suited up and prepared for the attack. Then he swung in like a comic villain and executed the attack. -- -------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ---------- The amusing thing about this whole discussion is how we seem to Pick and Chose what testimony to believe and who to dismiss off hand? We also assume we can apply sane logic and motives ( ours, not his ) to an unsettled mind. If his only goal was chaos ( i.e. The Joker statement? ) who's to say that means Escape or even Suicide at the hands of the cop. W're examining the testimony available. Nobody is saying that witness testimony is false or otherwise invalid. And it's odd that the entire attack is so well planned out and methodical up until the point where he goes out to his car as if to await his capture. And that he makes that profile on adult friend finder where his status is "Will you visit me in prison?". As if his whole plan was to be be caught and go to prison. That doesn't fit with the methodical nature of the rest of the incident. He never even tries to flee, or attempts to resist although it seems like he planned to resist all along. What was the body armor for if not to resist or give him a chance to get away? The theater was a gun free zone, and he had to have known that. So what would the body armor be for? A costume? Not likely. To write it all off as him simply being insane and therefore his motivations can't be known is way too convenient. And honestly, if he thought the explosive experts might accidently set off his booby trap while trying to disarm it, why not tell them? A last Hurrah, maybe? That's very possible. But the keyword there being "maybe". You'd think though that as he's acquiring the knowledge to build those explosives that he would've been made aware of the way that explosives are disarmed and planned for that. The news footage of them inside his apartment disarming the explosives seems almost as if it were just for show. It's a very brief clip, showing the FBI agents on a boom arm breaking the window. Then it's just a couple guys walking back and forth by the window, and suddenly a small bang like someone threw an m80. Again, it seems very convenient.

[shootemindehead]

This isn't directed at you, I'm also just thinking out loud: After listening to this "witness" interview... Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bunkum most of the time though, Lou. Studies have shown that people tend to spend more time "filling in the gaps" of didn't happen, than remembering what actually happened. Also, people will go with concensus generally. I remember reading about a study carried out in a uni in the States, that gathered a number of people together for some seemingly banal event. Suddenly masked men burst in the room and took several of the teachers hostage, bound them and then took them away, leaving one guy guarding the terrified people in the room. After a time, the other masked men and the teachers came back in the room and everything was revealed. The people were then interviewed about what they had just witnessed and every one of them got major details wrong. Not only that, but everyone actually made up details, including justifications on why the teachers were kidnapped in the first place! Then when the people were interviewed together, major parts of their stories changed to go with the flow of the other witnesses. By the end of the experiment, the generally agreed "eyewitness" story bared no resemblance to what actually happened in the room.

[Neil]

The immediate supposition to this (following the shooting ) was that the man exiting to make a phone call was Holmes himself Ah! The simplest explanation is often the right one!

[babomb]

Ah! The simplest explanation is often the right one! That's not really ever been the subject of doubt. What I wonder is could he have suited up in ballistic leggings, and all the other items he used in the attack with his foot jammed in the door? When you look at the photos of the scene, his car is 100 or so feet away from the door. And the witness account of him motioning to someone outside? Are we disregarding that according to shootem's latest post? He wasn't exiting to make a phone call either. He received a phone call and exited through the emergency exit.

[Neil]

That's not really ever been the subject of doubt. What I wonder is could he have suited up in ballistic leggings, and all the other items he used in the attack with his foot jammed in the door? When you look at the photos of the scene, his car is 100 or so feet away from the door. And the witness account of him motioning to someone outside? Are we disregarding that according to shootem's latest post? He wasn't exiting to make a phone call either. He received a phone call and exited through the emergency exit. Surely something other than a foot could have been used to prop the door open for his return. Even just a pen would have achieved that!?

[babomb]

Surely something other than a foot could have been used to prop the door open for his return. Even just a pen would have achieved that!? And this is the point. That there is no information surfacing beside witness testimony. And if we can disregard witness testimony stating that the alleged shooter was motioning to someone outside, then we can pretty much disregard all witness testimony. So then it's safe to say that we don't know anything about what happened that night except that 12 died and 58 were injured. We don't know how, we don't know why, we don't know who. So then why is it more acceptable to assume the official story is correct than it is to question it?

[shootemindehead]

Clearly, that's not the case though. We know who, because Holmes is in custody and caught at the scene. We know the method, because they were siezed on site too. All that's unclear is the exact way he did it and why.

[babomb]

Clearly, that's not the case though. We know who, because Holmes is in custody and caught at the scene. We know the method, because they were siezed on site too. All that's unclear is the exact way he did it and why. Well, to be fair, we know that Holmes is in custody and charged with the crime. And we know that there were firearms found on scene, and we know there are allegations that the firearms belonged to Holmes. Whether that's truly the case, technically, remains to be seen. Don't interpret that to mean that I think Holmes is innocent. If the evidence that's being claimed is legitimate, then it's pretty damning. But we don't know this for sure yet. It appears to be the case, but looks can be deceiving. If we're dismissing witness testimony on the basis you provided in an earlier post, then what we think we know about the situation is all speculation. There's no basis to dismiss witness claims that Holmes was motioning to someone outside the exit door, while at the same time accepting all the other witness claims without question.

[shootemindehead]

Ah, but I didn't say that one should dismiss ALL eyewitness testimony, but it should be checked and cross-referenced thoroughly. Plus, the ace in the hole, in this case is Holmes himself. When the perp is caught at the scene after giving up with his weaponry intact, it's pretty clear that the "who" and "what-with" points are covered fairly well. It's a matter of time before the rest falls into place, as Holmes is in custody.

[babomb]

If any more details come out. Holmes isn't talking, in fact he's claiming amnesia for the event. So it's probably just on to the next one:Gunman kills 7, wounds 3 in Wisconsin shooting I also came across this compilation of details that offers some new information I wasn't aware of. Anyone actually interested in knowing the truth rather than just blaming guns should read it. By that i don't mean that everything in the related .doc is truth, I mean if you're interested in the larger picture than what the mainstream media thinks you should know/think, then this offers some things not talked about. Even those of you who have nothing but the utmost faith in the fact that nothing is off about this and the blame lies in the availability of inanimate objects(however it is you come to that conclusion with what little information is trickling out?) should give it a read. Maybe even give it a go as to why it's all bullshit, as you would inevitably say, even though you know nothing more than anyone else. http://www.facebook.com/TruthAboutJa...09732582376567 -- -------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ---------- Ah, but I didn't say that one should dismiss ALL eyewitness testimony, but it should be checked and cross-referenced thoroughly. Plus, the ace in the hole, in this case is Holmes himself. When the perp is caught at the scene after giving up with his weaponry intact, it's pretty clear that the "who" and "what-with" points are covered fairly well. It's a matter of time before the rest falls into place, as Holmes is in custody. I don't know where you get your faith in such a corrupt system? Especially when it's not even the one you live in? But ignorance is bliss I guess. It's also odd how you are against the private ownership of firearms, but your name here on the board is "shootemindehead" and your avatar is of a man pointing a gun at someone. It's starting to seem as if firearms are just things you see on TV or in videogames, and have absolutely no place in your real life. Which would explain alot...

[shootemindehead]

I would have little faith in any of your nations systems. In fact, I have little faith in your nation to be perfectly honest. While I like America and Americans in general, I believe your nation is one of the most corrupt and rapacious on the planet, governed by impersonal corporate interests and built on lies and blood from the very beginning. I also believe your entire political system needs to be gutted, torn down and rebuilt, because it has sunk into the quagmire of elitism, cronyism and oligarchy that excludes the majority of the people. Where once, America may have been on the right track, it has long since ceased to be shining beacon of "democracy" of which it so proudly beats its chest in proclamation. I would dare say that it has never been a democracy in the truest sense of the word and, by and large, uses the very word as a smokescreen. Make no mistake; I have no "ignorance" where America is concerned. In addition, I have never said that I was "...against private ownership of firearms". So, you are reading something that simply isn't there. I would be in favour of stronger restrictions on firearms, absolutely and I would restrict certain types too, but I've never said that people shouldn't be allowed own guns and this is indicative of people who favour your "side" of the argument. You see any calls for stronger control as a call for banning, when it's simply not the case. Finally, my name on here comes from a George Romero film and my avatar is from the same series. It hasn't and shouldn't have any baring on my opinion on firearms.

[babomb]

I would have little faith in any of your nations systems. In fact, I have little faith in your nation to be perfectly honest. While I like America and Americans in general, I believe your nation is one of the most corrupt and rapacious on the planet, governed by impersonal corporate interests and built on lies and blood from the very beginning. I also believe your entire political system needs to be gutted, torn down and rebuilt, because it has sunk into the quagmire of elitism, cronyism and oligarchy that excludes the majority of the people. Where once, America may have been on the right track, it has long since ceased to be shining beacon of "democracy" of which it so proudly beats its chest in proclamation. I would dare say that it has never been a democracy in the truest sense of the word and, by and large, uses the very word as a smokescreen. Well, we definitely see eye to eye in that regard! I think the majority of Americans would also agree. So maybe you just don't understand the depth to which your statements ring true. Because that's the basis of my extreme distrust of this nations leaders. The mainstream media is owned by these same elitists. And the thing they fear the most is an uprising of the people. So they'll go to any length to make that difficult. That's why they basically blacked out all coverage of the Occupy movement except stories of bad behavior on the part of the protesters, and extreme measures taken by police. As part of their fear campaign. They effectively influenced the support for the movement by creating indifference to it in the minds of the masses, and scared people who might have become a part of it with threats of police brutality. This is happening again right now in relation to the police brutality in California. And they know they can't contain it indefinitely. They control the information here. The only thing they don't have absolute control over is the internet. So to compensate for that lack of control they wage a disinformation campaign. To discredit people and ideas. Which is why they simply can not be allowed to institute an assault weapons ban or any other ban on firearms. Because that's the last line of defense that we the people have against them. A ban on them will only effect the average person. The corporate thug armies such as Blackwater will not be effected by the ban. The elites have alot to gain by disarming the people. And it's not that we think that restrictions on firearms mean all out banning of private ownership. It's that we understand the way they work. Things like that come in small steps. When you give them an inch they inevitably take a mile. They don't take away all your rights at once. They chip away at them little by little. And it's always in the form of good intention. So while it seems that by saying citizens don't need assault weapons you're making a logical distinction on the safety of that citizenry, you're also ignoring the bigger picture. It seems as if Americans who oppose any firearms restrictions are seen as backwater hicks with no teeth and no education. This is another distinction shaped by the mainstream media. Several people in this thread alone have made the "y'all aint takin our guns" analogy, which is not an accurate portrayal of the reality of the situation. Some of you guys think it is, because that's the picture that's been painted for you by the media, and since you aren't here to see the reality of it that idea runs unopposed.