Aurora theater shooting: Bizarre court filing blames massacre on police chief, Illuminati

 @shadowluigi  @TheSpleen  @michael.roberts  @Scarifying All Great points shadowluigi, the average person, and I do stress "average", won't be able to process that there might be more to this story than meets the eye. The facts are that there is much more to this story than meets the eye. The psyop implications are everywhere. Don't let common sheep get you down. You are on the right track.

 @shadowluigi  @Scarifying You are a nut and should be ashamed of yourself. If you look up the illuminati order and read about it then you will have a clearer picture. The grand master is Paolo Bortel

 @shadowluigi The person arrested and the school photos of bozo the clown don't even match-up.  We could form a class-action civil lawsuit and present our research to a jury. Just something to think about. All evidence points to a police staged event.

 @shadowluigi  Will the real bozo the clown please stand up: http://tinyurl.com/8ju2avl

 @shadowluigi  I don't know if you saw the first live video feeds but they all contradict the official police story. Add to that Arapahoe being the most corrupt county in the USA and this was an obvious police staged event. My research leads me to believe it was planned out of Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Read the history of that base and it will make sense. I do think bozo the clown is guilty but he had help. Bozo the clown only shot into the air.

This was another attack against white people. The real shooters were black. Whites have been targeted in Aurora for many years. The theater is in a mostly black area with immigrants shipped in by the federal government. 70 white people were shot. No black was touched. Black people on the live video say the gunmen refused to shoot at any black person. Only whites were targeted.

Let's not forget that CU was hosting a "training" exercise that same day and time with the exact scenario. http://tinyurl.com/cm79pwm

 @BackOffImStarving  @shadowluigi   

Funny how you didn't respond to one point I made. Shows how much you know about this case.

I didn't "invent" the witness testimony that identified someone other than Holmes. The witnesses said it, and I don't think that they were "inventing" anything. They were there. You were not.

I didn't "invent" the second gas mask. It can be seen clearly in the visual imagery surrounding the event. Would you like a link?

I didn't "invent" the mysterious death of Jenny Gallagher. It happened -- even though it is being unbelievably underreported.

Point out one thing that I've used to support my argument that I "invented". Until you do so, your joke falls flat and you look like a moron. Go learn something about the case before spouting off.

 @Scarifying 

Why say that I've been "fed" by "Loose Changers" when you don't know me and you don't know how I came to my conclusions? This is a perfect example of the danger of assumptions. Though I don't believe the establishment's version of the 9/11 attacks is at all accurate, I couldn't give a flying crap about "Loose Change".

I do my own research - you can verify what I am saying about the eyewitnesses and the second gas mask if you do the same. I feel that, instead, you've chosen to let the mainstream media (owned by five corporations) and the federal government tell you exactly what happened. You viciously insult and ridicule anyone who dares to question their viewpoint, no matter what evidence they bring to the table. Does that sound to you like a rational person or a "good German"? 

Your appeal to "ballistics, DNA, fingerprints" is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, we have not seen any of that evidence because of the gag order. Why assume what it says, or that anything presented by the police is honest? Do you know the track record of law enforcement (federal and local) in forcing confessions, planting evidence, and coercing witnesses? 

You call people "tinfoil hat wearing lunatics" for analyzing the "evidence" with a critical eye. Apparently anyone who attempts to conduct their own investigation and comes back with  different results than the establishment is some kind of loon. How convenient is that for those in power? 

But whatever - forget whether or not the evidence has been manipulated. You haven't seen it - no one outside of the court has. So why bring it up to defend your position?

Why call all of the evidence "mindless drivel" without even addressing most of it? How do you think that comes off? 

Your dismissal of the eyewitness testimony falls flat on its face. You state: "Eyewitness testimony is one of the least relied upon types of evidence, precisely because it's little tough to empirically measure the events unfolding around you when bullets are flying past your head."

However, when Corbin Dates saw a man with a goatee take a call, leave his seat, and prop open the emergency door before appearing to "wave" to someone, he did not have bullets flying past his head. This was an observation made before the shooting and, thus, before the "fog of war" could have its effect. How, then, do you explain the fact that the details he recalls don't fit at all with the official version and its redheaded villain? If this wasn't a show trial, this would be very damaging to the prosecution's case.

The eyewitness who saw two gas canisters thrown from opposite sides of the room also did not have "bullets flying past his head" because the assailant(s) opened fire after throwing the canisters. For this reason, this memory was the one he was most able to recall. He specifically stated that because of the gas canisters being thrown from opposite sides, he felt there was more than one attacker. The police dispatch tapes and the early news reports support this conclusion. 

When did I say that Gallagher's death is "all the proof" a critical thinker needs? And when did I say that most drownings aren't "to death" to prove my point? Good satire pokes fun at what someone has actually said. When you put words in their mouth, it's just called a strawman argument. 

I don't understand how anyone could view Gallagher's death as non-suspicious. She was a national hero who met with Obama after the shootings, and yet her unnatural, untimely death so soon after went completely unreported until awhile after it had happened? Why did hardly any American media outlets pick up the story? Why were there three or four different reports as to where she died? Who was the "friend" she was swimming with and why haven't they been identified? Why did Gallagher go swimming in the lake if she was a poor swimmer, as we're told? Wasn't the "friend" keeping an eye on her? 

So many questions and so few answers. I didn't really get any answers from you, that's for sure. Just baseless sarcasm and emotionally-charged ridicule. How is my information about Gallagher's death "hearsay" when it has been reported by mainstream media outlets? Do you know what "hearsay" means? Or were you referring to the other evidence? If so, I'll have to inform you that first-hand eyewitness testimony and visual evidence aren't considered "hearsay" anywhere. Perhaps you should look up these words before using them to ridicule people.

You sarcastically conclude that "no court in the land" could deny my version of events. The fact is, no critical thinker can accept the version of events that has been fed to us, whether or not they buy into "conspiracy theories". Nothing about this story makes sense. 

Your dismissal of all of this evidence as "mindless drivel" shows that you are not a critical thinker, or are at least not using your critical thinking skills. Rather, you simply want to dump on "conspiracy theories". It's the trendy thing to do, after all. Who sets the trends, I wonder? 

You spouting a bunch of mindless drivel fed to you by the Loose Changers isn't "evidence". Evidence is empirical, gathered under controlled circumstances and usually provable through repeated experimentation....like ballistics, DNA, fingerprints....you know, all those things that tinfoil hat wearing lunatics usually debunk as falsified and planted? Eyewitness testimony is one of the least relied upon types of evidence, precisely because it's little tough to empirically measure the events unfolding around you when bullets are flying past your head. But, hey, a nurse who happened to be involved in the shooting just "drowned to death"! What more proof does a "critically thinking" person need? Am I right? After all, most drownings aren't "to death", so there must be a widespread conspiracy to "drown to death" any eyewitnesses to the tragedy! That's excepting the people who "fall off a high place and are ambushed by gravity to death", are "shot, stuffed in an oildrum and set on fire to death" and "get in their car and start it only to have it explode them to death". Thanks for proving me wrong with your incontrovertible evidence, fed to you second hand as hearsay. What court in the land could stand before such a bulwark of truth and still deny your version of events? I better watch my back, the government is out there and I might get blown up by thermite in a highrise and controlled implosioned to death if I cross them!

 @TheSpleen  @michael.roberts  @Scarifying Morons like you unthinkingly assign that label to anyone who thinks critically about these events. It just makes you look stupid.

Again, explain to me why eyewitnesses saw gas canisters thrown from opposite sides of the room if there was only one assassin. 

Explain to me why Corbin Dates described the man who propped open the emergency door as being someone who had a goatee -- certainly not Holmes. 

Explain to me why the police dispatch tapes contain mention of other suspects.

Explain to me why a second gas mask was found one hundred meters from the scene of Holmes' arrest. Who did that belong to?

Unless you can provide a solid answer to questions like these, no one is going to take your argument that conspiracy theorists are "clinically paranoid" very seriously. It's easy to talk out of your ass. Let's see you back it up with some evidence.

By the way, have you heard about Jenny Gallagher, the nurse who "saw everything" in the aftermath of the Aurora shootings? Have you heard about how she mysteriously drowned to death quite recently? There were three or four wildly contradictory reports about where she died, and it was virtually unreported in the United States, despite the fact that she was hailed as a hero of the event. 

While you and your ilk laugh at conspiracy theorists, witnesses are dying. As far as I'm concerned, the willfully ignorant have blood on their hands. The blood of the victims, the blood of the dead witnesses, and, in the future, the blood of an innocent man. 

 @shadowluigi  @michael.roberts  @Scarifying Your post is an excellent example of clinical paranoia. You need to seek help immediately.