Holmes had TWO roommates! EVIDENCE that MSM is rewriting the official story before our eyes!!!

page: 38
208
<< 35  36  37    39 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CovertOperator

With the apartment being rigged to blow (obviously) it seems really clear that he or someone wanted police or anyone else to enter the unit in order to shut the music off and thereby blowing the building up. Perhaps to destroy additional evidence or ???



if there was evidence it would of been found. if this was a government op they probably knew how to clean up enough to not leave evidence. although that other apartment that went on fire could of had evidence.

someone else mentioned that he was probably hoping it would be opened and blow up causing all the cops and ambulance to go there first, giving him more time to shoot up the theater and have less cops and ambulance available by the time people in the theater started calling 911.

some thoughts though, he had no plans to come back if the apartment was rigged. so either he was ready to go to jail, get shot down or he had another place to hide out and stay at. not sure how he would of known the apartment didn't blow though, since he stopped shooting after only 90 seconds and went back to sit in his car and later told the police it was rigged, seeming like he knew it didn't blow then. hmm, almost seems like his plan was to get arrested, but who really plans that?
edit on 22-8-2012 by xerrnoip because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2012 by xerrnoip because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
Obviously, you've done your homework. Coverup? I don't know.
Your methods seem sound though, and as this thing goes along, perhaps there were others who had saved those web pages or taken screenshots. Perhaps they are members and your thread will bring them out. Nice work though; I like the way you think...


I know for a fact the original story stated that he had 2 roommates. It was one of the first things (of which there are now an absurd number) that alerted me to the discrepancies in this case (for reasons that i've posted elsewhere).


If you truly think there is no cover-up, or are on the fence, i ask you to please read my posts beginning at the bottom of this page:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: rambling



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maroboduus

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
Obviously, you've done your homework. Coverup? I don't know.
Your methods seem sound though, and as this thing goes along, perhaps there were others who had saved those web pages or taken screenshots. Perhaps they are members and your thread will bring them out. Nice work though; I like the way you think...


I know for a fact the original story stated that he had 2 roommates. It was one of the first things (of which there are now an absurd number) that alerted me to the discrepancies in this case (for reasons that i've posted elsewhere).


If you truly think there is no cover-up, or are on the fence, i ask you to please read my posts beginning at the bottom of this page:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: rambling


There's no doubt one news org reported it, based on some record somewhere, and it spread through the media. But that's NOT proof that he had two room mates, esp considering that he lived in a one bedroom apartment. Not evidence of conspiracy.

I also see you claim that multiple eye witnesses claim there was more than one shooter. How many of those actually claim to have SEEN another shooter? If you've ever been in a situation with a lot of witnesses, like a robbery, people tend to hear what other witnesses say and repeat that. It's very common. Not evidence of conspiracy.

The "police" felt they had no evidence for a second shooter, based on actually being there and talking to the witnesses, talking to JH, etc., etc. That's why they said that. Not evidence of conspiracy.

You claim James behaviour is not rational. Yeah, no kidding. You want him to act rationally, and when he doesn't, you think that's odd. It's not. Not evidence of conspiracy.

You claim the media reported something incorrectly. Until you know WHY (e.g. did a paid informant give them juicy but inaccurate details) you can't judge if that incorrect reporting is meaningful. Not evidence of conspiracy.

You claim the media screwed up the mother thing, Again, unless you know the truth of that it's probably just another example of the media, desperate for a scoop, messing up the story. They're not hugely competent you know, especially with breaking news. Not evidence of conspiracy.

You're main point is that the police were there quickly. So? They ID'd him quickly. So? Where you there? Unless you were it's pretty hard to know what exactly happened. Assuming, which you are, that the speed of their response is EVIDENCE of something untoward is absurd and.... Not evidence of conspiracy.

This is very flimsy stuff.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by xerrnoip
 


Agreed on your points.
My concern is all of the details that are flimsy upon a more direct look at them.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xerrnoip
 


There's PLENTY of people that have planned to be arrested, to make a big stink in court...

But all you people that say, "this whole thing is suspicious because his actions are illogical" seem to think that, going into a cinema, dressed as the joker, and killing a LOT of people, and booby-trapping his house, you seem to think that THOSE actions are logical.

In FACT, it makes a lot of sense that a homicidal maniac WOULD be acting illogically. That the same mental illness that lead him to kill so many would also lead him to make all sorts of other ridiculous mistakes.

He's mentally ill, pretty obviously, expect people with mental illness to not act logical.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

You're main point is that the police were there quickly. So? They ID'd him quickly. So? Where you there? Unless you were it's pretty hard to know what exactly happened. Assuming, which you are, that the speed of their response is EVIDENCE of something untoward is absurd and.... Not evidence of conspiracy.

This is very flimsy stuff.


Either you're practicing very selective reading, or you simply aren't picking up what i'm putting down. That doesn't even resemble what i said. The police being there so quickly is in no way my main point. Hell, it's not even one of my points at all, for that matter. It's meaningless.

The main point is they IMMEDIATELY identified Holmes as the shooter when they arrived, despite all of the chaos.
OK, no big deal. So how did they immediately ID him as the shooter? Well, the police said, we ID'ed him so quickly because he was wearing a gas mask and carrying a rifle and wearing full body armor while he stood beside his car. Makes sense, right?

EXCEPT for the fact that the rifle (or at least a rifle) was on the ground right outside of the exit, the body armor was strewn across the ground, and the gas mask was FAR away at the corner of the theater. FAR past Holmes car. There is also a puddle of blood where that gas mask was found that cannot be accounted for by any of the shooting victims. And all of that stuff was strewn out over a fairly wide area between the exit and the corner of the theater, which discounts the possibility that he simply dropped it all when he was arrested. Unless the police randomly decided to take some laps with Holmes while they made him strip. In fact, according to the police themselves, Holmes was never at the corner of the theater where the gas mask was found. Never came close to it. So how did it get there?

So there are two possibilities: either Holmes was the only shooter, and he wasn't actually wearing all of that stuff like police said. That leaves open the questions of how then did they actually ID him so quickly if not for the reasons they stated, and why did they say that was the reason?
OR, there was more than one shooter and that's why there was a set of armor, a rifle, and a gas mask on the ground when police arrived, in addition to the ones Holmes was wearing. Care to explain that.

How about the security video? I've seen countless cases where the media replays security video of a shooter over and over and over again. In this case there was a camera directly facing the exit. Yet the police have not so much as mentioned it, yet alone released it.
Or how about the fact that they said he acted alone almost immediately after the incident. A few hours at the absolute most. That doesn't even leave time to investigate. How do they know if they didn't investigate everything first? Doesn't it seem like the kind of thing you want to be sure of before closing the case?
How about the police themselves saying, AFTER Holmes was arrested, that "the other 2 suspects are heading north on Alameda," and that one was still wearing his gas mask. And then a few moments later, they say he definitely acted alone. If you already know he acted alone, why are you discussing the "other 2 suspects?"

I could keep listing things all day, but the point is: any one of those discrepancies, on its own, may not be a huge deal. But when you add them all together (and there are honestly a huge amount of them), it certainly begins to seem very odd.

And as for one of your questions: yes, obviously those situations are chaotic and witnesses are notoriously unreliable. But they saw other people BEFORE the shooting began. There was no chaos when someone got up, walked over to the exit, and propped the door open. Numerous witnesses saw this, and not one of them says that person who did so was James Holmes. Not one of them.

Anyways, i'm not necessarily saying it's a government conspiracy. ALL that i'm saying is that the official version of events is almost certainly not what happened and, for some unknown reason, there is something we are not being told. I'm not going to make any assumptions about why that is, or what exactly happened.

Look, i didn't come into this looking for a conspiracy. Trust me on that. But i have been following this case VERY closely from the first moment it broke on the national news. I have devoured everything that has been said about it, both by the media and the police. I have looked at every available crime scene photo, etc. And the simple fact is, the evidence does not match what the police are saying. And that's all i'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: added info for clarity



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maroboduus

The main point is they IMMEDIATELY identified Holmes as the shooter when they arrived, despite all of the chaos.
OK, no big deal. So how did they immediately ID him as the shooter? Well, the police said, we ID'ed him so quickly because he was wearing a gas mask and carrying a rifle and wearing full body armor while he stood beside his car. Makes sense, right?



another thing to consider there- if the cops seen him holding the gun, that would be considered an immediate threat considering what was happening, they most likely would of shot him. I think even seeing him in the armor and mask they wouldn't be sure if he was concealing a weapon and would of shot him. I thought I read they found him in the car though? Not standing outside of it.

Was reading this list of spree killers; en.wikipedia.org...:_Americas and in most cases they commit suicide or are shot down, or they leave the scene and are found later. Couple of the insane killers were in wars. Most of them had a motive or rage- bullied, heartbreak/love, money, lost jobs, drugs. Most had a history of violence. None really fit Holmes past, so I guess this is what makes this case seem unusual.

I know they are claiming he has schizophrenia now, most of the time with schizophrenics they have a specific person/s or group they are paranoid about. Usually if they are the violent type, they go and kill someone they think is threatening or conspiring against them. There's still a motive even if it's only in their heads.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


I really think this is a perfect example of people taking a minimal amount of information and trying to formulate a complete case and conclusion of the events. We have not seen every bit of evidence regarding this case. We have NO idea how everything went down, we only have a limited number of statements, photos, and such.

This is also a shining example of the way news media has deteriorated. It used to be that a story didn't run until the facts had been established, or enough facts to be reasonably certain that said news was indeed factual. Now, they just run with whatever they have and figure as long as they are first, it's fine if whether the reports are right or wrong.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


The scariest thing out of all of that, is that so many people think he's guilty. Based on what? I do not know exactly what happened that night. He may very well be guilty, but obviously, until I see actual proof (not the words of some "anonymous source"), he's innocent. I'm curious to know how those who do believe he's guilty, justify that. I tried to discuss this with my friends, but they bit my head off.

When this story first came out, I initially took it for what it was. When I saw Chief Oates' press conference (which I believe was the same day of the shooting), the one in which he stated something along the lines of, "The weapons the suspect possessed, he possessed legally. The ammunition the suspect possessed, he possessed legally." I started to think something was wrong. I got a really uneasy feeling listening to that man talk. When he mentioned that James bought the 6000 rounds of ammunition over the internet in 60 days. I remember thinking, "Wow. That's fast. How on earth did they learn all of that so quickly?"

It's not a matter of seeing this as a conspiracy. And to be honest, it really annoys me when people write off someone's comments or thoughts just because they're questioning things. I've posted on several news websites, and as soon as you question something, you're labeled a conspiracy theorist. How can anyone feel this case is cut and dry? How can anyone not have questions about what we've seen so far? Or even more importantly, not seen? How can anyone be satisfied believing James is guilty when not a single person has identified him as being in that theatre? Not one. Does it seem logical that not a single person that night saw a guy with flaming orange hair? Nobody interviewed has mentioned the person taking the phone call as wearing a hat and nobody has mentioned that person having orange hair. What is a logical explanation for that? What's a logical explanation for the MSM not asking a single witness about that? Why haven't any of them asked Corbin, Jennifer, etc. if the person they saw in that theatre (taking the phone call) was James/had orange hair?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


The scariest thing out of all of that, is that so many people think he's guilty. Based on what? I do not know exactly what happened that night. He may very well be guilty, but obviously, until I see actual proof (not the words of some "anonymous source"), he's innocent. I'm curious to know how those who do believe he's guilty, justify that. I tried to discuss this with my friends, but they bit my head off.



him saying his apartment was rigged is probably being used as a confession.We don't know what went down that night, but we know the apartment didn't blow up so he must of really have told the cops. Whether he made and set the bombs or not, he was still aware of them. Unless it was just something he could remember through the drugs and mind control. or it was part of the mind control that he would say that so it would lead others to believe he's guilty and that he acted alone, then there wouldn't be a search for another shooter or other involved.

I know everything else still sounds fishy- good point how did they find out so much in a day. they even knew he had those dating profiles up before even searching his computer since they were still working on the rigged apartment then.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by xerrnoip

Originally posted by Maroboduus

The main point is they IMMEDIATELY identified Holmes as the shooter when they arrived, despite all of the chaos.
OK, no big deal. So how did they immediately ID him as the shooter? Well, the police said, we ID'ed him so quickly because he was wearing a gas mask and carrying a rifle and wearing full body armor while he stood beside his car. Makes sense, right?



another thing to consider there- if the cops seen him holding the gun, that would be considered an immediate threat considering what was happening, they most likely would of shot him. I think even seeing him in the armor and mask they wouldn't be sure if he was concealing a weapon and would of shot him. I thought I read they found him in the car though? Not standing outside of it.

Was reading this list of spree killers; en.wikipedia.org...:_Americas and in most cases they commit suicide or are shot down, or they leave the scene and are found later. Couple of the insane killers were in wars. Most of them had a motive or rage- bullied, heartbreak/love, money, lost jobs, drugs. Most had a history of violence. None really fit Holmes past, so I guess this is what makes this case seem unusual.

I know they are claiming he has schizophrenia now, most of the time with schizophrenics they have a specific person/s or group they are paranoid about. Usually if they are the violent type, they go and kill someone they think is threatening or conspiring against them. There's still a motive even if it's only in their heads.


-- Re: holding the gun... you're just guessing... what if he had just put the gun down, which a cop saw as they ran up? What if he shouted "I surrender" and put the gun down... there's so many variations of this in whch it's obvious he did it and which the cops don't shoot him... And at this point, who knows what happened, where they found him, etc., the media doesn't REALLY seem to know...

-- As you note, not all spree killer, mass murderers, kill themselves are or shot... so... this seems to be one of those instances

-- Again, it does no good to generalise, re: schizophrenia... He might've ACTUALLY believed he WAS the Joker (or some variation)... You don't know, we don't know.. it's all a big mystery right now..



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
On the Today show this morning, they had a brief news report that in the months leading up to the shooting, that the University were concerned about James' 'odd behaviour' and ran a background check on him. Apparently he had even made threats that were reported to police. Source

First of all, I thought there was a gag order, so why are we learning about this now? And second, if this was reported to the police wouldn't they have done a check on him and would've found out about the massive weapons he supposedly purchased? I don't know enough about police investigations if that would be the case or not, but it would make reasonable sense to me that would occur.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by xerrnoip
 


The thing is though, we don't even know that James told him his apartment was rigged. According to this article:



Another notable observation, or significant omission, is the lack of any mention that the suspect’s apartment was rigged with explosives. It has been publicly reported that the suspect warned officers early during his custody at the scene. Despite this alleged warning, note that an officer departs the crime scene at 0117, destined for the suspect’s residence (although to a notably different address), likely to watch for other possible suspects returning to that location.


www.canadafreepress.com...

Also, the whole "joker" thing is completely irrelevant in my opinion, and based on something a cop in NEW YORK said. We're supposed to just take his word for it? Please. But, of course, MSM ran with it and the majority of the public just swallowed it right up.




"It clearly looks like a deranged individual. He had his hair painted red, he said he was 'The Joker,' obviously the enemy of Batman," New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Friday at a press conference.


Of course they insinuate that this Kelly guy talked to Oates over the phone. Why would this guy be telling us anything? And why wouldn't Oates confirm or deny it? It's not as if he wasn't telling us other things.




Two federal law enforcement officials confirmed to ABC News the details of The Joker costume.


www.people.com...

So because they tell us that two unnamed federal law enforcement agents confirmed it to ABC, it's gotta be true? And Batman "costume"??? It's so easy to write stories like that with absolutely no confirmation of anything. The unfortunate part, is that's what the public then runs with.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
My name is Jonathan Lee Riches and I have a common vested interest in the James Holmes case. In particular, his property. Attached is a link regarding me petitioning the court for return of his property. We are also on facebook and have a facebook group called " james holmes is innocent " with valuable information and facts regarding james from a collective group of minds proving james is innocent
www.judgesabinoromano.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Witnesses stated that Holmes did not act alone. His room mates perhaps? What bugs me is the fact that security camera footage from the cinema were NOT used as evidence in court. Why? Could they be covering up the fact that Holmes truly did not act alone? But, Witnesses in a very dimly lit room, one that is deliberately designed to stop you from seeing anything other than the screen, taking fire from automatic weaponry, while trying to avoid being spotted, are always going to be providing inconsistent accounts. Certain details are going to be omitted and mistaken. When this story was fresh, witnesses couldn't even establish what kind of gear Holmes was wearing on his face. You can't blame them because it's a terrible environment to be in when trying to kick your brain into gear, but the point is that their accounts aren't going to be flawless.

Most witnesses claimed the shooting took place fifteen minutes into the movie, but some claimed it took place at the start of the movie. What does the "start" actually mean? The opening scene? The point where the plot is still undeveloped? Somewhere between five and twenty minutes in? You can't take these accounts given to the cameras too seriously. Some overly-excited conspiracy theorist could claim that these are actually clear inconsistencies.

His behavior doesn't add up. He was totally out of character. His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of “killing everyone.”

Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn’t add up. Someone else mentioned that his two room mates could've been agents from some sort of Agency preparing him. This is not your run-of-the-mill crime of passion. It was a carefully planned, heavily funded and technically advanced attack. Who might be behind all this? The FBI, of course, which has a long history of setting up and staging similar attacks, then stopping them right before they happen. See four documented stories on these facts:

www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...

As you soak this all in, keep in mind the FBI admitted to setting up terror plots, providing weapons etc.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Kentucky
 


Your post is all over the shop.

His behaviour is totally consistent with someone that's had a sudden mental breakdown, brought on by schizophrenia:




What are the symptoms of schizophrenia?
One of the most disturbing and puzzling characteristics of schizophrenia is the sudden onset of its psychotic symptoms. The following are the most common symptoms of schizophrenia. However, each individual may experience symptoms differently. Symptoms may include:
Distorted perception of reality (i.e., difficulty telling dreams from reality)
Confused thinking (i.e., confusing television with reality)
Detailed and bizarre thoughts and ideas
Suspiciousness and/or paranoia (fearfulness that someone, or something, is going to harm them)
Hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not real such as hearing voices telling them to do something)
Delusions (ideas that seem real but are not based in reality)
Extreme moodiness
Severe anxiety and/or fearfulness
Flat affect (lack of emotional expression when speaking) or inability to manage emotions
Difficulty in performing functions at work and/or school
Exaggerated self-worth and/or unrealistic sense of superiority of one's self
Social withdrawal (severe problems in making and keeping friends )
Disorganized or catatonic behavior (suddenly becoming agitated and confused, or sitting and staring, as if immobilized)
Odd behaviors

medicalcenter.osu.edu...


That's pretty much Holmes to a T.

As for a few witnesses saying there were multiple shooters, well, you pretty much explain that yourself... people in these situations get things wrong, frequently. Other than a few initial witnesses statements there's no other evidence. And even less evidence of him having anything more than a one bedroom apartment, much less a roommate.

You also jump to the same silly conclusion a lot of the conspiracy minded folks on ATS have: his behaviour doesn't make sense - evidence of a conspiracy.

It should be fairly evident that someone that shoots up a cinema isn't rational.

Unless you're saying, "the shooting and the bombs were rational; the getting caught wasn't" - which to me is a pretty insane conclusion.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Kentucky
 


Your post is all over the shop.

His behaviour is totally consistent with someone that's had a sudden mental breakdown, brought on by schizophrenia:




What are the symptoms of schizophrenia?
One of the most disturbing and puzzling characteristics of schizophrenia is the sudden onset of its psychotic symptoms. The following are the most common symptoms of schizophrenia. However, each individual may experience symptoms differently. Symptoms may include:
Distorted perception of reality (i.e., difficulty telling dreams from reality)
Confused thinking (i.e., confusing television with reality)
Detailed and bizarre thoughts and ideas
Suspiciousness and/or paranoia (fearfulness that someone, or something, is going to harm them)
Hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not real such as hearing voices telling them to do something)
Delusions (ideas that seem real but are not based in reality)
Extreme moodiness
Severe anxiety and/or fearfulness
Flat affect (lack of emotional expression when speaking) or inability to manage emotions
Difficulty in performing functions at work and/or school
Exaggerated self-worth and/or unrealistic sense of superiority of one's self
Social withdrawal (severe problems in making and keeping friends )
Disorganized or catatonic behavior (suddenly becoming agitated and confused, or sitting and staring, as if immobilized)
Odd behaviors

medicalcenter.osu.edu...


That's pretty much Holmes to a T.

As for a few witnesses saying there were multiple shooters, well, you pretty much explain that yourself... people in these situations get things wrong, frequently. Other than a few initial witnesses statements there's no other evidence. And even less evidence of him having anything more than a one bedroom apartment, much less a roommate.

You also jump to the same silly conclusion a lot of the conspiracy minded folks on ATS have: his behaviour doesn't make sense - evidence of a conspiracy.

It should be fairly evident that someone that shoots up a cinema isn't rational.

Unless you're saying, "the shooting and the bombs were rational; the getting caught wasn't" - which to me is a pretty insane conclusion.


So his behavior is totally consistent with a mental breakdown brought on by Schizophrenia?

How would you know?

Are you a certified mental health professional who has met James Holmes face to face? Or perhaps you have studied the epistemological aspects of the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual for Mental Disorders, and cross-referenced your expert observations of the person in question with the current definitions of the DSM 4?

Also, how would you know who shot up the movie theatre? I suppose you have witnesses who can positively identify Holmes as the shooter? No? Perhaps you have some security camera footage that will prove Holmes was the man in question through facial analysis? No? Hmm... You definitely have the forensics and ballistics evidence that prove there was a lone gunman and that that individual was Mr. Holmes?

I'll wait..
edit on 31-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
All I am saying is there is DNA evidence, camera footage, or witness testimony that can put James Holmes INSIDE that movie theatre.

In this day and age they know everywhere you've been, what you were doing while there, and what you said - yet there is absolutely no solid evidence that he was inside that movie theatre.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by djr33222

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Kentucky
 


Your post is all over the shop.

His behaviour is totally consistent with someone that's had a sudden mental breakdown, brought on by schizophrenia:




What are the symptoms of schizophrenia?
One of the most disturbing and puzzling characteristics of schizophrenia is the sudden onset of its psychotic symptoms. The following are the most common symptoms of schizophrenia. However, each individual may experience symptoms differently. Symptoms may include:
Distorted perception of reality (i.e., difficulty telling dreams from reality)
Confused thinking (i.e., confusing television with reality)
Detailed and bizarre thoughts and ideas
Suspiciousness and/or paranoia (fearfulness that someone, or something, is going to harm them)
Hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not real such as hearing voices telling them to do something)
Delusions (ideas that seem real but are not based in reality)
Extreme moodiness
Severe anxiety and/or fearfulness
Flat affect (lack of emotional expression when speaking) or inability to manage emotions
Difficulty in performing functions at work and/or school
Exaggerated self-worth and/or unrealistic sense of superiority of one's self
Social withdrawal (severe problems in making and keeping friends )
Disorganized or catatonic behavior (suddenly becoming agitated and confused, or sitting and staring, as if immobilized)
Odd behaviors

medicalcenter.osu.edu...


That's pretty much Holmes to a T.

As for a few witnesses saying there were multiple shooters, well, you pretty much explain that yourself... people in these situations get things wrong, frequently. Other than a few initial witnesses statements there's no other evidence. And even less evidence of him having anything more than a one bedroom apartment, much less a roommate.

You also jump to the same silly conclusion a lot of the conspiracy minded folks on ATS have: his behaviour doesn't make sense - evidence of a conspiracy.

It should be fairly evident that someone that shoots up a cinema isn't rational.

Unless you're saying, "the shooting and the bombs were rational; the getting caught wasn't" - which to me is a pretty insane conclusion.


So his behavior is totally consistent with a mental breakdown brought on by Schizophrenia?

How would you know?

Are you a certified mental health professional who has met James Holmes face to face? Or perhaps you have studied the epistemological aspects of the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual for Mental Disorders, and cross-referenced your expert observations of the person in question with the current definitions of the DSM 4?

Also, how would you know who shot up the movie theatre? I suppose you have witnesses who can positively identify Holmes as the shooter? No? Perhaps you have some security camera footage that will prove Holmes was the man in question through facial analysis? No? Hmm... You definitely have the forensics and ballistics evidence that prove there was a lone gunman and that that individual was Mr. Holmes?

I'll wait..
edit on 31-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)


I would know the same way you would, by hearing what other people are saying. Unless you ACTUALLY know the guy you have not special info.

And again, I say, how do you know he wasn't the guy? What evidence do you have that someone is lying?

The point is that, unless you have actual evidence that someone is lying, then the weight of evidence is CLEARLY that he is the lone shooter.

A few bits of crap reporting and a few confused statements do not a conspiracy make.

Have the same standards for yourself. You don't have ballistics; the cops do and they claim he was the shooter. You haven't been to his apartment; the cops have and say it was boobytrapped.

So, my evidence is the police, the majority of witnesses and the courts.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Be careful, Longlostbrother, you'll soon be called a sheep if you say your evidence is police and witnesses !





new topics

top topics



 
208
<< 35  36  37    39 >>

log in

join