James Holmes was Studying Temporal Illusions, or the Ability to "Change the Past"... or was he?

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by dontreally

 

my theory is that every nation state exists to some degree within every other nation state.

so Syria, while it is an actual place that can be shown to exist on a map, as a concept, Syria, and every other nation, also exists in an abstract way within the United States.

perhaps Assad's Syria has determined that the only way it can survive what has befallen it is to conduct convert operations within the United States, in much the same way Gaddafi did when trying to save himself last year and also Saddam Hussein and bin Laden before that.

that gun control in the US was the reason for this makes no sense. Even if they could achieve such a goal as gun control in this land, it would still require a Constitutional amendment, which is certainly not forthcoming.

I would say much more in the same way the Soviet Union did it and how it does exist here. CIA/KGB all operating on the same playing field, with the same rules, the same goals, sometimes sharing the same information, just taking orders from different masters but also dependent on the others existence. It's been that way for decades.

Had a social studies teacher in HS back in 1977 that told me the SU would not be able to take us from afar and we had nothing to fear of their military prowess, but eventually we'd let them in the front door, to serve some purpose, which is what eventually happened.

Smack dab in the middle of Aurora is the Dept of Defense.

It is is listed as a private company.

Buckley Air Base and a TSA Mfg Co.

reply to post by darkbake


Ok, what is this 'timeline' thing you keep talking about?

If Obama was elected, I tend to think that some power somewhere enabled his election to office. Another weird, often ignored or unnoticed quirk of barak obama, is his name; His first and last name roughly mean in Hebrew: Blessed (barak) Leader (Bama in Hebrew refers to the place where a leader stands when he orates), and his middle, Hussein, very appositely (and grammatically) is Arabic for 'handsome' - so isn't THAT worthy of analysis? Is a president with the name 'blessed handsome leader' not weird? Especially considering allegations that that isn't his real name to begin with. Also, the "elite" of society, many of them are involved in occultism, mysticism and spirituality that generally isn't accessible to the wider public.

But, despite these strange 'coincidences' it makes no sense to harp about it.

Obama was elected, how it happened, whether it was generated, or occurred via some "time shift" is too irrational a subject to overemphasize.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

so what you are saying is that the US government would do something like this but the Syrian or Iranian government would not.

I have two issues with your logic. First, In AMERICA, it's more probable that an American intelligence agency is at work. In Iran - themselves a major sponsor of international terrorism (the recent Hezbollah hit on Israel tourists in Bulgaria, is an example of M/E intelligence agencies in other countries) it would e an Iranian agency (usually against political opponents) and likewise in Syria. So that's an axiom I think you should take more seriously; intelligence agencies generally (of course, not always) operate within their own countries.

Secondly, wheres the incentive? Why would Syria do this? Compared to the American incentive - to force controversial legislation against ownership of guns - any explanation you can muster in favor of Syrian involvement fails miserably.

and the reason for this is because the US government doesn't want the 270,000,000 privately owned firearms held by Americans to grow any larger. seems like too little too late if you ask me.

Rome wasn't built in a day. In order to CHANGE the political climate and thus the culture, you need to enact legislation. If legislation were passed denying Americans the right to own certain firearms, like AK's, M16's, Assault rifles, that right there would be a major blow on the ability of Americans to oppose the government - since that after all is the logic behind the 2nd amendment.

but, i suspect Syria used Holmes to launch a failed attack upon the United States for reason's known only to Assad and that sounds unreasonable?

Given the other possibilities 1) he was just sick, and acted alone with no government involvement or 2) he was used by an American intelligence agency .. yes, it is EXTREMELY unreasonable to tendentiously press this point.

It's nothing personal. I just don't think you have any reasonable argument in favor when there are two other - far more probable - explanations available.

I have issues with the gun control argument. Domestic weapons are akin to knives and spears vs military might. If they need us to not have weapons, it's for a different reason other than some false idea that those weapons could impede what ever it is they would wish to achieve.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

so what you are saying is that the US government would do something like this but the Syrian or Iranian government would not.

I have two issues with your logic. First, In AMERICA, it's more probable that an American intelligence agency is at work. In Iran - themselves a major sponsor of international terrorism (the recent Hezbollah hit on Israel tourists in Bulgaria, is an example of M/E intelligence agencies in other countries) it would e an Iranian agency (usually against political opponents) and likewise in Syria. So that's an axiom I think you should take more seriously; intelligence agencies generally (of course, not always) operate within their own countries.

Secondly, wheres the incentive? Why would Syria do this? Compared to the American incentive - to force controversial legislation against ownership of guns - any explanation you can muster in favor of Syrian involvement fails miserably.

and the reason for this is because the US government doesn't want the 270,000,000 privately owned firearms held by Americans to grow any larger. seems like too little too late if you ask me.

Rome wasn't built in a day. In order to CHANGE the political climate and thus the culture, you need to enact legislation. If legislation were passed denying Americans the right to own certain firearms, like AK's, M16's, Assault rifles, that right there would be a major blow on the ability of Americans to oppose the government - since that after all is the logic behind the 2nd amendment.

but, i suspect Syria used Holmes to launch a failed attack upon the United States for reason's known only to Assad and that sounds unreasonable?

Given the other possibilities 1) he was just sick, and acted alone with no government involvement or 2) he was used by an American intelligence agency .. yes, it is EXTREMELY unreasonable to tendentiously press this point.

It's nothing personal. I just don't think you have any reasonable argument in favor when there are two other - far more probable - explanations available.

I still disagree. I don't see it as plausible that the American people need weapons to stand against their government. The American government is in control of Americans; and the Holmes attack was directed against both the people and their government.

the attack is obviously in service to foreign interests, not American.

Assad's Syria would do this because it he wants to remain in power. He's been reduced to attacking his own cities and his capital. America is in no such dire straits as he is.

I cannot begin to explain how far off you are with the idea that America attacked itself last week...it defies all that's obvious in the world.

no offense, but you seem to be lacking a great deal of understanding with regards to the American system.

reply to post by dontreally


Well the question (at least the way I am able to see it) is basically whether or not Obama was chosen by the people normally in power over the years, or if he belongs to a newer faction that wasn't expected to gain prominence. This could affect the future the prominent faction had planned.

These timeline thing I mention isn't really as complex as it sounds, basically just think of a plan to go on vacation to Hawaii this winter, that's your timeline that you chose, but then something changes it. The multiverse is built to store all the possible futures, so there is going to be another timeline where you did make your trip. It doesn't sound that important, but it is what allows us to have free will, the fact that we don't have to be stuck in a deterministic world. Okay, well it does get kind of complicated, actually. Sorry about that.

Anyway, this whole thread has become highly speculative, imo, but we are getting some good discussion out of it. (That multiverse thing wasn't speculative, though).

reply to post by Bilk22

I have issues with the gun control argument. Domestic weapons are akin to knives and spears vs military might. If they need us to not have weapons, it's for a different reason other than some false idea that those weapons could impede what ever it is they would wish to achieve

Sniper rifles, m16s, assault rifles are NOT in no way shape or form "akin to knives and spears". If that is how you are going to argue, theres no point in talking with you.

reply to post by michaelbrux

I still disagree. I don't see it as plausible that the American people need weapons to stand against their government.

And how exactly do you come to that reasoning? What is the logic for the 2nd amendment? Read "the federalist papers" by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay to discover that reasoning. A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT went into the writing of the US constitution, and since historically, since man has ever formed governments, governments have been deemed "a necessary evil"; to offset this evil, to protect the rights of the people against the encroachments of government, the 2nd amendment was established.

Now, would a government be as willing to pursue totalitarian measures against an armed public as they would be against an unarmed public? If you think this doesn't matter, you have a screw, or two loose. An unarmed public is at the mercy of the armed government, while an armed public forces the government to think twice; no sane regime will jeopardize their stability by instigating a civil war; but if the public is disarmed, how can they fight back?? However you slice it, it is better to be armed than unarmed; and the government, if it has any socialist ambitions (which they very probably do) MUST first and foremost disarm its public.

The American government is in control of Americans; and the Holmes attack was directed against both the people and their government.

That is what we call a non sequitur. No, it doesn't follow, at all. The attack was not on 'the government' , first of all, and even if it were, an attack on the government could still serve the interests of the government.

the attack is obviously in service to foreign interests, not American.

Oh, yes, obviously. And Syria too. Not Iran - who is the main support of the Assad regime (assad is alawi, a shi'ite sect) but Syria. And you've done such a splendid job defending the logic as well.

no offense, but you seem to be lacking a great deal of understanding with regards to the American system.

I prefer not to show off my credentials, but I'm a graduate of political studies and philosophy at the University of Toronto. I know far more than you are willing to credit me for.


A lot of the people who post here, in my experience, are fairly rational; but every once in awhile I encounter people who think like you; who probably have never read Plato, Aristotle, or any work of political-moral philosophy from Descartes to today; who have their heads up in the clouds pondering issues that are simply illogical when analyzed by a properly developed mind. You're reading portfolio is all conspiratorial; and because of this, you tend ignore and blank out anything that doesn't agree with this 3rd world logic of plane shifts, time warps, etc.

I am not unequivocally opposed to conspiracies, but they have to be placed in context if you seek to live a rational existence.

reply to post by darkbake

or if he belongs to a newer faction that wasn't expected to gain prominence.

Do you say this as someone knowledgeable of factions that already exist, or do you assume that he is apart of a new faction because he 'popped out of nowhere'? Firstly, Obama is a socialist, because 1) he's an alinskyite (Saul Alinsky was a chicago based social theorist/activist with socialist/communist sympathies) and so is Zbignew Brezenski, Hillary Clinton (another alinskyite) and so many others involved in his administration. Therefore, what confusion could possibily exist as to which faction he belongs to? He's a member of the 'new school', george soros funded post-modernists who have plans for society modeled on ideas in platos republic (in embryonic form); and 2ndly, look at his policies; his push for universal healthcare, his desire (though very surreptitiously concealed) to disarm the public, his youth groups etc.....It's all socialism.

These timeline thing I mention isn't really as complex as it sounds, basically just think of a plan to go on vacation to Hawaii this winter, that's your timeline that you chose, but then something changes it. The multiverse is built to store all the possible futures, so there is going to be another timeline where you did make your trip. It doesn't sound that important, but it is what allows us to have free will, the fact that we don't have to be stuck in a deterministic world. Okay, well it does get kind of complicated, actually. Sorry about that.

Well, you speak of it in such unphilosophical terms, that I was a little bemused at what it was you were talking about.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Bilk22

 

I have issues with the gun control argument. Domestic weapons are akin to knives and spears vs military might. If they need us to not have weapons, it's for a different reason other than some false idea that those weapons could impede what ever it is they would wish to achieve

Sniper rifles, m16s, assault rifles are NOT in no way shape or form "akin to knives and spears". If that is how you are going to argue, theres no point in talking with you.

And just how effective are they against heavy metal armor? Come on man, they're not effective against a sophisticated arsenal of weapons that can be employed if so desired. They're merely a nuisance and a diversion from an eventuality effectuated by a superior power. Not having personal weapons is something they require for reasons other than believing they can't be overcome via brute force.

nevermind

reply to post by dontreally


Thanks, that clears things up a bit. I remember that now, about Alinsky and everything. I say that as someone who is not knowledgeable on the secret factions, but has looked at them in the past. He did come out of nowhere, though, and I had thought Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the election - do you think this is not the case?

By the way, I kind of throw the word "timelines" around a lot, I do a lot of thinking about them, and it comes up a lot in discussions with my peers. I wouldn't really call this sort of thing "third-world," in fact I graduated with a physics degree as well as psychology degree, and I think that we are headed towards a scientific model that supports multiple universes. That's what the evidence supports.

Michael may not be as educated as you, or he may be, but I like hearing his perspective on matters. Anyway, I like to encourage speculation and free thinking as well as critical thinking and evidence-based arguments in my threads, I think both are important.

Someone once told me that the smarter you are, the more you realize how much you don't know. I think that is good advice. I think it is good that you have a lot of real knowledge to offer ATS, we definitely need that, but if you get too caught up in what you already know, you won't be able to expand your knowledge - I do agree this thread has gotten a bit speculative so I wouldn't recommend taking everything at face-value either, but that's what makes it interesting - I'm reading over our posts now, they are fairly informative.

reply to post by michaelbrux


Like the "Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle? I never finished that book

Since several comments have taken a political turn, I just wanted to mention this.

Wired thought it was important enough to mention this in their article about "Aurora’s Arsenal, Explained: Feds Can’t Track Stockpiled Guns".

"By contrast, when convicted would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi emailed a contact in Pakistan who was under U.S. surveillance for ties to terrorism, an FBI agent near Zazi knew within hours. That agent’s home? Aurora, Colorado."

www.wired.com...

reply to post by michaelbrux


Michael.....

You are one of the very few who stated this attack could be an attack on the American people and it's Govt. I keep going over and over that question afew days ago and it's hard to not rule it out, especially when it was made VERY clear in the early days it was alledged Holmes was Presbyterian.

And I keep going back to this article:

www.israelnationalnews.com...

I'm not making any allegations or finger pointing but how many homes of international terrorists have had their home offices and hotel rooms wired up and minutes or hours later.....BOOOOOM!

I am absolutely certain Holmes did NOT wire his own apartment up! Thats way too specialized and Holmes had no experience in explosives and probably none with guns.


I might be wrong.......

It would be interesting to see any photographs of Holmes apartment while it was wired up and how intricate it was. What type of explosives was used blah blah. Any finger prints on those explosives?

It's highly likely some kind of international network was involved, and no, Holmes would'nt had been aflliated with, he was an innocent target.

I'd be questioning alot of those kids at his University and get some of them profiled. I'd be looking for Middle Eastern students or those who have affliations with particular Middle Eastern countries.

This might shed some light on Holmes and his family:


www.infowars.com...

I do not think this had anything to do with hallucinogens. I just wanted to offer up my opinion regarding this topic, as someone mentioned that he could have been using them in his research. Hallucinogenic substances, after taking effect on the human body, basically ensure that a person is not capable of completing organized tasks. He couldn't have driven to the theater, and done whatever else he had to have been lucid to do, if he was on some type of hallucinogenic compound. At least I cannot think of any substance that would have allowed cognitive lucidity yet still altered perception to such a high degree as to separate his mind and body to carry out such an act. It could have been drug-related, but I don't think it was any type of mainstream hallucinogen. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though, as it is possible I do not have pertinent information about this specific topic.

reply to post by dontreally

lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch...

Geneva, 18 September 2008. After a spectacular start on 10 September, the LHC enjoyed a mixed first week of commissioning with beam. To get beams around the ring in both directions on the first day exceeded all expectations, and the success continued through the night, with several hundred orbits being achieved.

This was feared by many to have troubling effects.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


I think you are right, Jiggy. James was definitely organized. I think hallucinogens would make it very hard to pull this kind of thing off, unless he was keeping his "hallucinogen time" and "mission time" separate. Hallucinogens mimic schizophrenia a bit, and I was just reading an article about how schizophrenic patients have trouble being organized like James was.

On a side note - wow for being a thread that was originally about a conspiracy that wasn't, this has been on the top of the lists for a while. I guess I better throw something interesting out there again.





James Holmes vs Breivik Trial Videos

I posted this on another thread, and people were not understanding how I could possibly see a difference in the demeanor between the two people... hopefully people here are a little more observant lol. But look how out of it James Holmes is compared to Breivik (the Norway shooter) it is like night and day.

There could be a generational thing, like my generation (Holmes') is totally bored to death in courtrooms because of our low attention spans. I know this from being on jury duty. But there could easily be an explanation involving drugs or mental instability, as well.

Sorry, no videos of Holmes are able to embed at the moment...