It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remember the Aurora Batman shooter James Holmes- you'll want to read this- MK ultra

page: 2
66
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Well, that's terrifying.




posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Boadicea

Conspiracy theories thrive on non-falsifiability.


Well, yeah, because if they could be conclusively disproven they wouldn't be conspiracy theories[/].


Presumably, the brainwashing was done by specific people...


If true, then yes, one or more persons had to do it.


... in a specific place...


Probably, initially at least, but not necessarily.


... using specific equipment.


What equipment? Drugs?


The sessions were presumably recorded...


Why do you think that? It's certainly plausible, even likely, but not something I would necessarily presume.


...and the technicians would have filed requisitions for equipment and made progress reports.


What technicians? What equipment? Filed requisitions with who? It seems to me that a project like this would be kept strictly confidential, with the absolute fewest people aware of it. Video and audio recorders are readily available for personal use, with no need for any technicians.


Go after the paper/audio/video trail and if you find something, people might take the theory seriously.


Yes, but who would both be capable of doing so and be interested in doing so? I can't do it. You can't do it. The prosecutors would have the capability, with search warrants and subpoena powers, but would they want to? Would they have to? The defense would presumably want to, but would they be able to?



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

Whistleblower testimony in front of a grand jury. Assuming of course said whistleblower doesn't recant just before committing suicide....with a shotgun to the head.....twice.


And naturally those bullets would be to the back of the head...



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

If you were dedicated, you would find a way. Everyone has a price, they say.
edit on 18-4-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

If you were dedicated, you would find a way. Everyone has a price, they say.


Of course, such evidence wouldn't be admissible in court. Add in secret court orders, gag orders, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, and on and on... and the obvious conclusion is that truth is easily (though not rightfully) hidden... guilt is subjective... and justice is expendable.
edit on 18-4-2015 by Boadicea because: Formatting



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Excuses.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daughter2
Let me guess are you a shrink or a wanna be shrink? I'll try to answer your questions.


Neither.
I have an interest in psychology, and I work in marketing.
But, most importantly, I have a rational mind.


originally posted by: Daughter2
1. First, purpose....Many people think it was for gun control laws. I personally think it was to enact laws to detain people based on pre-crimes - you know for their own good. Being able to lock someone up based on strange actions is a very powerful weapon. The Soviet Union did this for years.


Except none of this has actually happened.
If it's to take your guns, why has that not happened?
If you then claim that they would want to "persuade" people to do it voluntarily, why does the NRA say this hasn't happened, and why has the government not done the sane and rational thing and simply started a campaign to persuade people through media that gun ownership is not a good thing?
Do you really think they would murder people rather than just ask people to perhaps not buy guns so much?

And how does this have anything to do with imprisoning people for "pre-crimes", and how the hell does a country stay operational if you're arresting millions of people for things they actually haven't done?

Either way, whether it's arresting without a crime, or taking your guns away, NEITHER HAS HAPPENED.



originally posted by: Daughter2
2. As for there being no evidence to support his claim - not true. There were extensive threads on ATS about this even before he made this claim. Look at what he was studying and do some research into his therapist.


Prove it, offer the "evidence".
And no, a thread is not evidence, a YouTube video is not evidence, a bloggers paranoid delusion is not evidence.
Please provide actual evidence and I will follow it.


originally posted by: Daughter2
3. Your "the fact that paranoid delusional manifestations could include all manner of beliefs like this", doesn't hold much weight. If you make an accusation like this you will be labeled paranoid without any investigation. So yes, there will be a correlation but it's due to the automatic label.


Psychiatric institutions are full of people who believe they're Jesus, God or Satan, people who believe the government is trying to control them with radio waves, people who believe that the TV sends them messages, that they can hear other people's thoughts...

Welcome to the very fundamental core of Paranoid Delusions and Schizophrenia.

Yes, we're supposed to believe this guy, someone who we know has had psychiatric problems in the past, was actually controlled to do this?

The wight of evidence is considerably against you and your nonsense theories. We know he had psychological problems before, and we know that one of those manifestations is extreme paranoid delusions. So which is more likely, that he was actually controlled and made to murder so many people, by people unknown who seem to have absolutely no motive, or that he was exhibiting familiar and common delusions and acted on them?

It seems pretty clear to all those who don't think their own government is out to get them.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Boadicea

Excuses.


Excuses for what?

I could take that any number of directions. There are lots of excuses being made for lots of bad behavior.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Why do you think that? It's certainly plausible, even likely, but not something I would necessarily presume.



Well, you presume a whole lot of things in the support of this conspiracy. You presume that his own admitted psychological problems had nothing at all to do with it. You presume that he didn't do this alone when all evidence seems to suggest he did. You presume that the government has some sinister plan when there is no evidence to support that.

Why is fine for you to presume all kinds of wild and fanciful things, but then also okay for you to claim that it would be presumptuous to suspect that something like this would not be easy to hide?
edit on 18-4-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Colorado banned 30 round magazines after the shooting. Two state senators were recalled because of it.

link

There you go.
edit on 18-4-2015 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I thought he was the Joker, not Batman.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

That "ban" doesn't apply to high-cap magazines purchased before the legislation was put in to effect, nor does it apply to people who enter Colorado from another state with those mags.

The ban is also subject to a lawsuit filed by over 70 separate entities, including 40-odd sheriff's offices contending the law is both unconstitutional and unenforceable. Furthermore, there is no burden of proof on the owner to prove ownership prior to the ban, but rather a prosecutor has to prove the lack of.

Was a law passed after the shooting? Yes. I think the state law simply mirrored an existing law already in place in Denver but I'm not sure. Either way, it's far from done and dusted.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   


Corroborative evidence of its likelyhood.

Not really corroborative, but interesting no less.
edit on 20154America/Chicago04am4amSat, 18 Apr 2015 11:21:35 -05000415 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

He/she asked for one, so I gave one.

I was in no way giving credence to the conspiracy, just pointing out the fact that that law probably wouldn't have been passed if it weren't for the aurora shooting.
edit on 18-4-2015 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

I think the motive could have been his fathers role in exposing the LIBOR Scandal.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

I think you should check that study again. Unless by "many" resisting you mean virtually none. Even after the actor went into full on dead mode. I could be wrong, but I remember less than 3 resisting total out of 3 separate tests. I'll look it up, the name of the study used to be in my vocabulary.

edit. I'm wrong. On average about 65% delivered a fatal shock. Some were willing to pay back the money, to end the experiment. None however objected to the experiment itself, nor sought help for the man, nor left the room without permission. I think I was remembering data on the less then fatal shocks leading up to the max charge.

It is interesting to note however, that almost all polling prior to the experiment, suggested that most people believed, on average, 1.2% would deliver the fatal shock.

MILGRAM EXPERIMENT. There are many sources. He wrote a book on it in 74. The take away was not that many resisted.
End edit.



Further, we are not talking about programming someone to quit smoking or change a habit. The goal for this kind of washing would be to induce so much trauma to dissociate, and break from reality. It wouldn't take years. Probably they have it down to a science of minutes and hours. Maybe a day for the toughest, non psychopath.

Then you just need to train the newly created person within the person. Like a puppy. This would be more like the programming you are talking about. That part is easy. You already have the stick, and the carrot could be just about anything other than the stick.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's not so hard as you think.

There are as many methods as there are personalities, although straight pain is probably the most universally effective and easiest on resources.


edit on 18-4-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

Well, you presume a whole lot of things in the support of this conspiracy.


Actually, no. I don't know what the truth is and presume nothing either in support of nor in opposition to this conspiracy theory. In order to form an opinion, I need far more facts, hence my questions, not presumptions. None of which you chose to answer. Rather, you chose to make assumptions about me. While that tells me much about your position, it says nothing about me.


You presume that his own admitted psychological problems had nothing at all to do with it.


I did not even mention his psychological problems, much less suggest nor presume that it had nothing at all to do with the crime committed. However, many people have psychological problems and do not commit mass murder in a public theater, so psychological problems may be a factor, but it is not an open and shut case of cause and effect. I also know that NLP, hypnosis, psychoactive drugs, etc., are in fact used in mental health therapy, and that these can all be abused... especially in one already suffering with mental health issues.


You presume that he didn't do this alone...


Again, I mentioned nothing of the sort, and therefore presumed nothing.


... when all evidence seems to suggest he did.


Not true. There were in fact witnesses who claimed otherwise. Witness testimony is evidence. There was also blood evidence which indicated more than one perp.


You presume that the government has some sinister plan...


I presumed nothing of the sort, and said nothing of the sort; but since you went there, I suppose if one considers refusal to follow all leads and gather all evidence a sinister plan, then yes. It could also just be laziness, arrogance, political aspirations, blackmail, bribery, etc., which is not sinister, just self-serving. You can characterize it as you wish.


...when there is no evidence to support that.


Hahaha!!! We have plenty of evidence of bad bahavior in government -- at every level -- and every reason not to trust government... and government officials! That's just the plain truth.


Why is fine for you to presume all kinds of wild and fanciful thing...


Really? Asking questions is not presuming... wild and fanciful accusations towards me presented as fact is presumptuous.


...but then also okay for you to claim that it would be presumptuous to suspect that something like this would not be easy to hide?


What a tortured sentence! Suspecting something is not presumptuous. Suspecting something includes doubt... i.e., not knowing one way or another and making no claim to know. Presumptions, on the other hand, do exactly that -- claim to know one way or another. And what is "this" that I'm so presumptuous to suspect that someone (who exactly?) is hiding? Hiding his mental illness? Hiding evidence? Hiding accomplices?
edit on 18-4-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
One of the clear indications of the mind-controlled perpetrator is the complete lack of any traditional motive for the killer's acts. And that's something that is always missing from all these suspicious mass shooting incidents committed by young people, dating all the way back to the University of Texas tower sniper from way back in 1966.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: freedom7

I think he was influenced, not by official military or governmental channels, but by someone in the system.

Too much about this case doesn't add up.
Someone had to have pushed him over the edge.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Boadicea
Why do you think that? It's certainly plausible, even likely, but not something I would necessarily presume.



Well, you presume a whole lot of things in the support of this conspiracy. You presume that his own admitted psychological problems had nothing at all to do with it. You presume that he didn't do this alone when all evidence seems to suggest he did. You presume that the government has some sinister plan when there is no evidence to support that.

Why is fine for you to presume all kinds of wild and fanciful things, but then also okay for you to claim that it would be presumptuous to suspect that something like this would not be easy to hide?


When I was in the Army myself I worked in the records department, and one of the things I did that first began me questioning everything was when I read the inpatient psychiatric summary of someone who was admitted for paranoid delusions..who USED TO BE A SPY IN KOREA. Now think about this for a minute. How can someone who has had the experiences like that be called 'paranoid'? I would call it a 'trauma reaction', but whatever label works..

I just wouldn't call it irrational is all.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join