A look inside the mind of erad3 (most-likely Jared Loughner)

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Echtelion

Are we screwed as ATS members, now that ATS moderators might hand over any data they have on our posting history? Perhaps, perhaps not...

Uh... anyone can see anyone's posting history here. It's a public forum, and it's the reason people post. If there's something you don't want to be seen or read, don't post it here. That would just be silly.

I don't think this is the real issue. The problem here is that ATS has clearly taken a step forward and publicly linked erad3 and Jared Loughner with this thread. Previously ATS has always taken a step back and refused to comment on any of its members and who they might or might not be.

Would ATS really have done this without checking the IP address of erad3? Is it only because ATS checked the IP address of erad3 that they could link it to Jared Loughners location and decided they could go ahead with a thread like this. I believe this must be the case because it would be too much of a risk to link erad3 and Jared Loughner to find out this was not the case.

Why didn't some of the senior staff members take responsibilty for this? Why hid behind an information account?
I suppose nobody has to answer any awkward questions if its done with an inforamtion account. Convenient.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Weed doesn't dilate your pupils. It may cause your eyes to be bloodshot and tired looking, but not dilated or glassy like his. I thought the same thing though, that his eyes were dilated and glassy, that most likely means he took '___', or has been up a few days on meth. Cannabis does not cause people to react violently, the other two can though. The perma-grin on his face kinda smacks of tripping on '___'...

edit on 11-1-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

That's always possible. Though, some people have naturally gigantic pupils. and a freakish grin is easy to make for the camera.

-rrr

reply to post by JohnySeagull


"We" didn't link anything together. There were about a thousand hits on Google linking Loughner to the erad3 account well before this thread was created. Our members did the linking.

At that point, there wasn't much of a way to contain the story even if we wanted to and sitting silent would've raised even more concerns. You'll note the title of this thread is "most-likely".

I know you have an issue with this, and that's fine. The site did what we felt was most appropriate given the circumstances, which was to be as transparent as possible. You're free to disagree. Personally, I agree 100% with the way it was handled.

Jeez you almost sound just like him

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by JohnySeagull

 

"We" didn't link anything together. There were about a thousand hits on Google linking Loughner to the erad3 account well before this thread was created. Our members did the linking.

At that point, there wasn't much of a way to contain the story even if we wanted to and sitting silent would've raised even more concerns. You'll note the title of this thread is "most-likely".

I know you have an issue with this, and that's fine. The site did what we felt was most appropriate given the circumstances, which was to be as transparent as possible. You're free to disagree. Personally, I agree 100% with the way it was handled.

The site owner puts it at 99%, bit more specific than "most-likely" eh?

www.washingtonpost.com...

The Web site Abovetopsecret.com is a place where odd ideas are welcome: Its discussion threads ask questions about UFO sightings, evidence of God, and "How do you kill an alien zombie?"

But it became an unwelcome place for a new user, who joined the site in early 2009 and called himself "Erad3." Now - based on the language in his postings, and information about where he logged on - the site's operators believe Erad3 was accused Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner, 22.

"I'd go with 99 percent," said Bill Irvine, chief executive of the site's parent company, when asked how certain he was that Erad3 and Loughner were the same person.

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by MMPI2

 

Proven wrong? You said he was a democrat, and said I was wrong when I said he was a registered independent. I proved that he was in fact a registered independent, on paper, and you still say I'm wrong, and that he's a democrat, and cite a classmate, and political leanings of his family as your proof? Okay. So, ones political leanings automatically align with that of people in their families? I wasn't aware of that. And again, he could have been left leaning on some issues, as we all are, that doesn't mean he leans one way or the other in general. Also, I was under the impression he didn't talk much to his classmates, he either blurted out random angry stuff, or was dead quiet, which was why they were all scared of him.

Sorry, pal. Kindly, you need to go do some more reading - and thinking.

If I write on a piece of paper that I am Santa Claus and can magically float down chimneys, does that make it true?

Actions will always speak louder than words...especially words written in most likely a perfunctory manner on a standardized government form. Loughner acted, thought and spoke like a democrat according to a woman who knew him. His family is a democrat family. He corresponded on paper and in person somewhat frequently with a democratic representative and saved the return correspondence from her office.

These actions speak much louder than him scribbling a few meaningless words on a piece of paper.

What do you have to say about his actions with regards to gun control?

-rrr

Well, to speculate, a hard-core "progressive" with the same mental and emotional pathologies as this Loughner chump would possibly believe that he/she could make him/herself a "sacrificial lamb" in order to punctuate the need for banishing access to weapons for self-defense and thus eroding one of our most cherished civil rights as outlined in the second amendment.

The progressive mindset has been that you have to "tear down" existing cultural and political and social structures through either accidental or engineered crises (or "thorough any means necessary") in order to build the progressive utopia from the ground up.

I could see a progressive lunatic like Loughner POSSIBLY offering himself as that sacrificial lamb...doing horrible things to other people in order to provide an impetus for social and legislative change.

However, I'm thinking that Loughner was too disorganized to have actually engineered this sort of thing on his own for purely political ends. His paranoia and illogical cognitive processes would have precluded it.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
The site owner puts it at 99%, bit more specific than "most-likely" eh?

Yes it is. Or was that rhetorical?

It is really easy to sit on your chair and be disappointed. It's hard to make snap decisions in a situation like this. I just don't see it as selling out. Also, I believe it was a member not a mod that put it together. I will tell you this, It is not fun having the media interested in you. It must feel even worse knowing it's possible that agencies may want to talk to you. So, until you have been there...go easy, nobody is selling anyone out.



reply to post by JohnySeagull

yeah this seagull guy definitely uses his wording what was it Carolls Paradox

reply to post by EarthwormJim


Yeah!!! Weird posts indeed. Jeez. I hope someone hunderstood what he was talking about so they can explain to me what the hell that was...dang!!! Hey...Jared Lee Laughner. is this a coincidance

John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln
Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK
Mark David Chapman shot Lennon
James Earl Ray shot MLK Jr.

All three names again...huh?! Has anybody made that connection yet? Or am I just reaching here..

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
The site owner puts it at 99%, bit more specific than "most-likely" eh?

Yes it is. Or was that rhetorical?

Yes, and no!

Just a suggestion, maybe the staff should edit the OP to include a snippet and link from that WP news item... For even more "clarity"

The article's been linked in this thread at least twice already. if someone needs to find it. they will. or you could submit a Suggestion if you'd like.
back.

reply to post by 27jd

On the dilated pupils, you're right. The last time I saw a lot of that was in residence at university where '___' was definitely making the rounds, along with other drugs. People in that milieu have that look sometimes, whatever the cause might be. I'd be willing to bet that Loughren was on some drug when his mug shot was taken.

reply to post by yeahright


Well along with this thread it is being reported that ATS is 99% convinced that erad3 and Loughner are the same person.

"I'd go with 99 percent," said Bill Irvine, chief executive of the site's parent company, when asked how certain he was that Erad3 and Loughner were the same person.
- www.washingtonpost.com...


I appreciate that you admit now that ATS will no longer stay silent and that you are prepared to go public and to the press with members information.

I see also that erad3 did not post for a couple of months. Maybe he registered again under a different name? Maybe we see if we could find another user who fits Loughner's profile and appeared after erad3 was banned? That would be interesting.

(Love your location BTW. 'under the radar' . Same can't be said for erad3. that person is definitely not under the radar anymore. erad3 is up high on a pedestal with all lights shining on them. but I suppose they did ask for it.)

Fuhreak.

i dont follow anything you said

Originally posted by yeahright
The article's been linked in this thread at least twice already. if someone needs to find it. they will. or you could submit a Suggestion if you'd like.

back.

I just did! right here in this thread, or are you suggesting extra redundancy in case it gets missed here?



I guess the point is that to some "most likely" can seem vague, while 99% certainty is very clear.

Maybe just a little change in the title will do.

back, back.

Johnny Seagull why do you refer to erad / loughner as they??If I worked for the FBI I would be suspicious of you

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


"" I think the media is hunting a scapegoat
and has ATS in it's sights ""




Quite wrong

the Fox people & others are pointing out the absurd accusations by the leftist bum holes that are
tossing blame on Sarah Palin, et al...on the right.

i've hardly heard a word about 'American Rennaissaince' a supposed skin-head & kick out
the illegal aliens place on the web that the natural-burned-killer was immediately active on ...

it seems the only mention i've come across about this 'edad (cubed) 3' radical thinker
is all ~and only~ here among the members, each trying to outdo one another with wishful thinking
fantasies of protecting the forum...

this type of thinking is not too distant than 'nationalism' or 'excessive 'patriotism' to a fault


what i've run across ---- other than cross slinging of rhetorical mud is this idea (as follows)

www.mnn.com...

MNN.COM›
Insanity, rhetoric and violence: No easy answers
Violent rhetoric can make people more comfortable with actual violence, researchers say, but whether it can drive someone to violence is harder to determine.
By LiveScienceTue, Jan 11 2011 at 10:40 AM EST Comments


RHETORIC TO BLAME?: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona speaks at a news conference at Washington, D.C., in April 2010. Giffords was shot at a rally in Arizona. (Photo: ZUMA Press)
In the aftermath of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others at a Tucson supermarket, one overarching question has emerged: Is violent political rhetoric to blame?

ShareMany have argued that warlike words contributed to the actions of Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year-old man who allegedly killed six people and wounded 14 others, including Giffords (D-Ariz.), on Jan. 8. Loughner's behavior and online postings suggest that he may have a mental illness, although he has not been officially diagnosed.


Can violent political rhetoric push a mentally unstable person over the edge? The answer isn't as simple as yes or no, psychologists say. Violent rhetoric can make people more comfortable with the idea of violence, according to some research, but it's almost impossible to pin down the larger causes of one specific incident, researchers say

[...]

too bad the other thread got closed or else i would have gone to a non-proprietary thread

reply to post by The_Zomar


" I often make hateful remarks at the US. Military (because they are murdering criminals) here on ATS but I would never hurt anybody. Thats the reason I hate the US. Military; because they are terribly violent and love to murder innocents"

Wow. You hate the US military? Who do you think protects your freedom to spout things such as this?

US soldiers enjoy killing inocent people? Do they? My dad was in the US navy and he did not enjoy shedding the blood of innocents. I know many other soldiers that do not like to kill civilians as you say. Your comment is idiotic. I guess you tend to paint with a very broad brush.