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.

 

FBI won't release Jared Lee Loughner video. Therefore, coverup

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by filosophia
 


No because its concealed until the trial. the people who did see it weren't supposed to


So you are admitting that the people who talked about the video should not have? And you do know this was all over the msm, right? Do you think any legal punishment will come of this? I don't.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 



Why does Filo, an ATS member have a right to see the video.. Please explain.


why do you care about me wanting to see the video? And it's filosophia, not Filo.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


so to exclaim what you think will or wont affect the jury is 100% irresponsible!



Whoa, hold on a second, I thought you said so long as I'm not the jury I can say whatever I want about the case? Are you backtracking now? How is it irresponsible? I'm not on the jury.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


No, no legal punishment will come of it.. NO evidence should have been released... Nobody here is saying it is ok.. It happened. If I had my way, the MSM would be able to report the incident.. And that's all! No evidence or statements should be released until AFTER the trial is over .. or until the evidence is admitted as evidence in court.

The video should not be released until after the trial. period!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I think that in the polarised nation called America this will be a potentially hot case. Lot at the bile and invective it has raised in ATS over the last week or so! I think every care will be given to ensure all bases have been covered. Somewill will make political capital over this shooting.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


Lets answer the simple questions, and move on from there.


You first, why do you care about my interest in the video? I thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment and allowing my thread to keep being refreshed but why are you going through the trouble of allowing me to do that? If you want this thread to go away maybe you should stop commenting on it, common sense.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


You can say what ever you want.. I never said you couldn't.. I think you lack basic comprehension skills..

I simply said, you, an ATS member with no connection to this case .. or any case for that matter, spouting off what you think is going to affect the jury is irresponsible.. That's all, nothing more, nothing less!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


NO evidence should have been released... Nobody here is saying it is ok.. It happened.


okay, and I agree with you, but just a quick question, who is then more irresponsible, me, an anonymous poster on ATS as you say wasting my time typing on the keyboards, I think your exact words were "pathetic" or the mainstream media which disseminates the evidence to millions of people? Given that, why are you wasting your time with me when you should be directing your anger at the msm for releasing the evidence?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


What am i admitting to?

They weren't supposed to see it but they had the right to talk about it. The jurors cant talk about it. someone who saw it can. As i asked before. Are you jealous that you cannot see this video?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


spouting off what you think is going to affect the jury is irresponsible.. That's all, nothing more, nothing less!


How is it irresponsible? Isn't it my freedom of speech? Aren't I following the ATS rules by engaging in civil debate over an alternative topic? (I wish I could say your posts were all civil, but unfortunately you called me a few names such as dolt, special, and truly ignorant).



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by filosophia
 


Are you jealous that you cannot see this video?


Jealous, no. Intrigued? Yes. It could potentially prove that they are lying.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


whoa whoa.... I think in a strange way, I feel that I can make you open your mind and look at this logically. I have ZERO clue as to what led me to believe either you or I even had this ability... But, none the less, your title is absurd... Your demands are ridiculous, and lastly, your comparisons are misinformed and reek of temper tantrum..

What are you going to do, when the video is released showing Gifford getting it point blank in the skull, and the Judge defending the ground bound intended target, accidentally getting shot?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


then its settled.

Based on current law, Filo (or anyone not working on the case.) cannot see the video.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ignorant as defined is not calling you names - simply pointing out lack of knowledge.

"Special" - could be taken several ways... You are definitely not special on ATS.. you are not one of a kind.. there are several of your sort on this site.

Dolt.. by that I mean dull.. Your stance is such common place on ATS - everything is not a conspiracy.. period!

Lack of something proves nothing!!!

I am not a big fan of law enforcement, but am very very happy they do not handle things the way you do.


edit on 1/20/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 



What are you going to do, when the video is released showing Gifford getting it point blank in the skull, and the Judge defending the ground bound intended target, accidentally getting shot?


Of course you are speculating on this based on what you were told. You can not say that you actually saw this happen, only speculation which is "irresponsible" (just kidding, but wanted to throw your own words back at you)

Here let me speak to you using your own language: why do you care if I want to see the video. You are throwing a temper tantrum over this, there is no use using logic on you, hey everyone, no greatness around here, nothing to see here, just some irresponsible ATS filo person trying to make irresponsible speculations. Did you hear that everyone? Nothing to see here, just a troll making stuff up irresponsibly.

There, now do you know what I am going through on my side of the keyboard?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 




"Special" - could be taken several ways... You are definitely not special on ATS.. you are not one of a kind.. there are several of your sort on this site.




yeah, one way is "mentally handicapped" which I take offense to. Plus you contradicted yourself by calling me special in one post and then not special in other, so make up your mind.
edit on 20-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


You didn't answer my question.. What is your plan of attack, when the video backs up the information we have been told? Call the video a doctored POS?

I am basing my opinion on relayed facts.. What are you basing your opinions on again?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The Zionist congress(man) wasn't shot. Its a fraud. The target was the Catholic judge. The other deaths are ancillary to the cause of Zionism in America. She will MIRACULOUSLY "recover" in a very short time. I repeat - GIFFORDS WAS NEVER SHOT!!!!!!!!!
edit on 20-1-2011 by Vitruvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


See Filo... others like you do exist.. Uninformed ignorant people, that are willing to say things without any facts to back up their statements..

There has never been a shortage of people with an over active imagination!

Where is your proof? The Judge was shot protecting someone.. Gifford was Shot point blank in the head!!!

I posted links to a man that was shot in the head.. It traveled behind his eye to his nasal cavity.. He sneezed the bullet out.. TONS of people survive head shots! period!

Does anyone use logic any more? This is becoming some sort of disease, to find a conspiracy in everything!
edit on 1/20/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


You didn't answer my question.. What is your plan of attack,


since you insulted my thread title I'm sure you read it, but let me repeat, the thread is titled "FBI won't release JLL video. Therefore, coverup."

And I admitted that yes, legally, they could say they must keep it under lock and key in order to not taint the jury (even though eye witness testimony was leaked, and it was a private security camera). However, even with the "law" in place, (which they ignore when it pleases them), this is a cover up. Perhaps a legal cover up, but a cover up nonetheless. Then I point out how important it is for them to prove that Gifford was the real target (which if they really wanted to prove that they'd release the video). That was the main point of the thread, but then it just became a sort of endless dialogue of "it's the law" "yes but they are breaking the law by releasing evidence" back and forth. As for your question, the title of this thread was not "What I plan to do once I see the video," and secondly, why should I answer your question when you are being completely rude to me and not answering my own question (why you care so much about my desire to see the video).

But, I'm a nice guy so I'll answer your question even though you probably won't answer my question.
What will I do once I see the video? Well if it shows that Gifford was not the real target, I'll say it was a lie to suggest that. If the video shows that Roll did not defend another man's life, then I'd say they lied about that as well, which does not dismiss my opinion of him as a good guy, I still think he is a good guy, especially if he was the real target. So, the video would prove they are lying. But, if the video is exactly as they say, which I doubt, then I'll probably move on to the other oddities of this case (like the FBI finding a note that said "I planned ahead"). So, I answered your question, now will you please answer mine?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join