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.

 

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

page: 9
212
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by HolographicPrincipal
 


I can't agree more with what you say. The point of this post I think was to highlight the information being deliberately removed. No-one is saying the '2 roommates' info was 100% correct or that reporters don't make mistakes. It's the way in which it's been removed.

It seems to me that if an article has shoddy reporting in it, it just gets glossed over and reported as something else in the next article.

Early reports said Holme's mother said police had the right person, this was mis-construed and twisted by the media, prompting the mother's lawyer to make a public statement to clear it up. However the original quote and interpretation is not removed from articles. Edits were made claryfying what the quote meant.

Reports on the ammount of ammo Holmes bought have changed, again the original articles have not been edited, further articles have been written with the correct figures.

Contacting the Denver post to clear up why they have removed that quote is a great idea, I have a feeling we would be met with a wall of silence.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
You can't just "erase" information from a published article. You edit it, add a 'strike-through' to the erroneous information and type in your reasoning for error. Period. You do not just "erase" it.

Honestly this behavior is abhorrent. Do not give me the utter nonsense on "protecting the public". MSNBC does not, and has never, given a # about protecting members of the public.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I have made it a habit of not only taking screenshots and emailing them to myself via several accounts because my pc has gone loopy a bit more often than usual, disabling even an external drive once. I have seen stuff disappear from google too, and I HATE these personalised search results. (I mean, when hubby was looking for silicones, he SWEARS he was looking for industrial applications LOL!!)

One example: I saw an item on INDECT on German tv news (ARD Tagesschau) at 8 am one morning. I think it was last November or so. It was about how INDECT could soon rid society of all crime, and Utopia had arrived thanks to drones monitoring every car thief and and litter lout, and sending the info live to the authorities for them to be arrested withing minutes of the crime being committed. Long live INDECT - the way to happiness for all.

I sat bolt upright and dashed to my pc to find out what INDECT is. It took a while to get all the info I needed. By 9.30 I went to the Tagesschau website to download their report from its archives. It was gone. It had been replaced by an item that had NOT been shown on TV that morning. The whole 8 am recording in the archives was FALSE - I mean, they left the other items intact but deleted the INDECT report and they had just inserted an innocuous news item so it would appear the INDECT item was never there. And you won't find it on google any more.

The Germans are not supposed to know that drones will soon be filming them on the streets and at home through their windows. They don't even know that they have laws in place giving the police snooping powers without a soul being any the wiser. But that's beside the point.

The point is: I know certain politicians have been up to some very interesting stuff. Meetings, trips, speeches etc that are SOO interesting, but you won't find google listing them when you do a search. You try and find out what Herr Karl-Theodor Guttenberg is up to nowadays, for example. Apart from the bland press statement that he is now working as an adviser for Neelie Kroes on internet security, you will find zilch on him unless you are very crafty indeed.

What do you reckon? Should I take a screenshot of this reply just in case? After all, I have mentioned the I - word: INDECT. Will this go missing too??



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


As I said to you on the other thread:

There's no evidence that he had room mates - that I've seen - certainly none in the OP
There is evidence that some media outlet claimed there was evidence, in the public record - we don't have that evidence

The thread title is therefore misleading.

All we know is that some media outlets claimed there was/is some evidence of this in some public record.

What public record?
Is that record correct?

Don't jump ahead of yourself.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
You do realize that the media is grabbing at whatever they can to report because people are so damned hell bent on getting all the information right away? The only people that know what's really going on are the police and investigators. They don't have any duty to fill in anyone outside of the investigation regarding the details unless they choose to.

I remember when the media used to actually get the facts BEFORE they ran with the story, but not anymore.

No, surely not.
Oh my God the desperate need to be the first with the "scoop" causes them to make mistakes. No no no no this can't be true......It must be a conspiracy.

DUH DUH DUH.......How many goddam times do we have to state, and see, and read, total f-ups with info due to human frailities. How many times have I said this on ATS!

The guy is a nutter or spaced out on whatever he has ingested or injected. But no , every one is sane and people don't do that do they! So it must be a conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
You know I've been thinking lately about how suspicious this whole thing is. I mean after the shooting he just goes out to his car, takes off his guns and his body armor and waits for the police? Doesn't flee? Doesn't commit suicide? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

And then there's the profile he had on "Adult Friend Finder" where he was allegedly asking women if they would visit him in prison? The guy didn't have Twitter or FB or Tumblr but he had an AFF account? And he was hinting at going to prison?

Then look at him at his first court appearance. He looks like he was drugged or even hypnotised/mind controlled.

It all seems extremely fishy to me. Something just doesn't seem right.


I agree some things don't seem right.

About that apartment....

Why tell the police to go to his apartment?
How did he set up the trip wires so he could get out without setting it all off, but nobody could go in through the ONE door?
The authorities bashing the windows IN, even the bathroom window IN.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
i have to agree with you about this one, it has been erased from nearly every website, however i was able to find this one:

it says its last update was july 20, 2012

arkansasmatters.com...

the seventh paragraph:


Public records indicate that Holmes lived with two roommates, also from California, in the Aurora, Colo., building where police have found explosives, at 1690 Paris St., Apt. 10.


if you google 'public records indicate holmes lived with two roomates' you will find the link i provided as well as another which i believe is from msnbc that shows this quote in the description, but when you click on the article the bit about his roomates is gone
edit on 25/7/12 by emptyOmind because: added date



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be a matter of checking the actual relevant "public records"that indicate that he did have two roommates?If these records show that he DIDN'T have two roommates,it may be an indication that the MSM is, perhaps, manipulating the story,possibly by starting with something"simple", as a test to see what they can get away with.

It would certainly be worth monitoring the reporting of this story ,to see what else changes in the future,



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolographicPrincipal
1. There used to be something called "journalistic integrity". Whether a news outlet is "legally" bound to cite corrections or not, it is journalistic duty to print retractions.... be it a spelling error or misreporting. Some of you will remember going to the library and finding all sourced information on microfilm!! All that recorded news is like a snapshot in time. If it is now acceptable to go back and edit whatever article for whatever reason at whatever time, then what can we rely on? It completely subverts historical reporting and records.

2. The internet age and fast moving news is no excuse for bad reporting. It is the outlet's responsibility to first, make sure that their information is solid before printing or broadcasting.... Well, we've seen that go down the toilet in the past few years. Second, it is incomprehensible that anyone would allow or defend a news organization to alter already printed articles at their whim.

Do you see what happens then? Where that slippery slope leads? Nearly all of what media has printed/broadcasted, at least about this particular case, is speculation masquerading as fact. And it's darn effective, because I see tons of people parroting what they are hearing and passing it on as fact like some horrifying game of operator. The line between fantasy and reality is already dissolving. Randomly editing news without any sort of record is the straw that will break the camel's back.

This is bad. Very bad. And it makes me feel a little sick, because I know there are the vocal few perceptive enough to pick up on this, but those voices will be drowned out by the masses gossiping about dude's orange hair, how he's the joker, and various other inane or defaming topics. Good lord.

ETA: I honestly cannot believe people are actually defending the news outlets on this one. And this is precisely why our future looks dim.


edit on 7/25/2012 by HolographicPrincipal because: add info


edit on 7/25/2012 by HolographicPrincipal because: spelling


This is exactly my point. Some people are missing the bigger picture. It isn't just about the Aurora shooting. It is about the slippery slope that we are currently residing on. I referenced 1984 for that particular reason. We are in trouble.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 


well since his court case has been sealed, i'm sure his records have been sealed also



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
The two room mates were probably plants from the government. They could have been his handlers preparing him for his "mission".


REALLY???? this is stupid!!



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
People are still not understanding the OP! The question as I understand it is not who or how many roommates there were. What is happening is someone is changing data to make it appear the roommates were never mentioned. The results of google searches have been altered.

To the OP. One possibility is that the roommates struck a deal to help LEA in return for some protection and LEA is delivering. How would you like to be one of the roommates.

P



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
The early reports say the roommates are from California and that the apartment complex is for students and faculty...so perhaps they are gone to California to visit family during the summer holidays?

The OP does raise an interesting point that most mainstream media outlets have completely omitted the report of him having roommates without bothering to explain the reason this has been removed from the articles. The fact that he might have roommates should be a major focus point by the media due to the apartment being rigged so it is very odd that they have decided to completely ignore any mention of the roommates.

I have seen this tactic before though with the Iranian situation. There were various mainstream outlets admitting that Iran had been allowing inspectors into all of its facilities then that portion of the article completely disappeared. I could only find mention of the removed information on cached pages through Google.

Perhaps these outlets realized they were wrong but they usually explain the incorrect statement and correct their mistake, I see this all the time on various topics, it's very common.

The roommate angle should also be a major focus due to the reports that he may have had accomplices. Holmes is not cooperating so naturally one would think that they would want to question these roommates. It's normal for police not to disclose their investigations but the media should be all over this.

This is only the second time that I have ever seen information disappear with no explanation as for why it was removed so it's enough to set off alarms in my opinion.

As much as part of me wants to believe that this was the act of on crazed gunman there are too many facts that just don't add up, and there are plenty of coincidences too. Something is very fishy about this event.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Well, it seems that all is not necessarily lost. Check out Fox News now asking pertinent questions.
Where'd he get the money?
Why did he tip off LE about the booby trapped apt? And wait around?
Where did he learn how to do that?
What about eyewitnesses who are adamant that he didn't act alone? (I think there are clips of 2 of them)

If those of us whose early warning systems will encourage these people to DIG! maybe, just maybe they will.
And they call out the rest of the LSM for jumping on the gun control agenda while letting this stuff slide.

www.fox19.com...

(hat tip to Rennes Templar at Free Republic)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Could it be to protect the identity of the roommates from the media?



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


As I said to you on the other thread:

There's no evidence that he had room mates - that I've seen - certainly none in the OP
There is evidence that some media outlet claimed there was evidence, in the public record - we don't have that evidence



You're missing the point this thread is about one piece of information being erased from articles, not arguing whether the piece of information was factually correct or not. Obviously it would be good to verify the information or not.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kreese
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


I think the questions that this witness needs to answer are:

1.) After the guy went to the exit and took the call, did he come back to his chair and sit back down?

2.) Did he have red hair?
edit on 25-7-2012 by kreese because: (no reason given)


I find it interesting that he says " the movie shut off, it was completely dark, and then he walked in "
edit on 25-7-2012 by kreese because: (no reason given)


I know for a fact that the movie DID NOT shut off. If you listen to the police radio communications from that night, there is a point where the officer is telling someone to turn the movie off in the theater. They didn't get upstairs, according to communication, until they had been there for at least 20 minutes. During that time the movie continued to play.

I'm okay with the discussion of any conspiracy revolving around the shooting but please keep in mind that the biggest reason I created this thread was to expose the media for blatantly manipulating published articles. This is a very dangerous path we are headed down. The media is blurring the lines between fact and fallacy and making it harder for everyone to get the true, full, story. I'm afraid that if they have already accomplished this that it won't be long before history as we know it is actually rewritten.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
S&F for you. This from the very onset smelled funny. IMHO that is. This person is a poster child for smart white man. He bought tons of ammo & stuff online in the months leading up. He purchased the three most popular guns on the market in their respective groups. AR-15, Glock 40 cal, Remington 870 Pump shootgun. He wore body armor, head to toe. Booby trapped that apt for complete destruction. All this per MSM.

We are to beleive he just did all this and went and gave up in the back parking lot of the theatre? Never even fireing a shot at law enforcement? He was set-up to kill, why did he just give up to the police? No stand off, no gun battle? Why did the bobby-traps not go off? If it was that "sophisticated" as stated by MSM. Just alot of questions. Their's no question the loss of life in this senseless act of cowardice.

IMHO, there will be legislation because of all this. Maybe the new scanners on the street or at theatres and places where the public gather, malls, theatres, sporting events, concerts. A reason to use these backscatter street scanners from up to 50 some feet away. To protect us no doubt. Gag order & no cameras in court room? Come on now? My final thought on this this a.m. is. Of all those folks in that theartre, did not even one have a concealed carry and was armed? I find that odd. Seems to me that's why you carry a firearm. For situations as this. I can't speak for any one but myself, so these are my musings on this and are in no way meant to make any one mad. Just questions with no answers, yet.

IMHO, If you were in that theartre and you were armed and you did not act to protect yourself and those around you, why do you carry a firearm ?
edit on 25-7-2012 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2012 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
They are changing the story and most people would be oblivious or just go along with it.


Not that I'm actually challenging your find, but I have a bit of a problem with such claims.

Now we have military or astronauts who go out about UFOs or aliens. We have politicians who go out on some scandals. We have all sort of people who go out on wo many things.

And not one journalist would let it be known that someone is pressing them to publish doctored news?

And where would this one journalist get a platform to be heard from? MSM certainly wouldn't let him have a voice.

Also, what people don't realize is you don't get to have a prominent position in journalism unless you play the game. It's like that in any organization, if you don't play ball how the higher ups want you too, your ass doesn't get promoted. That means looking the other way when you see something questionable, and it means keeping your mouth shut when your stories get squashed or edited. It's one big filtration system to weed out the people who will cause problems and to stack the upper ranks with people completely loyal to the organization.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


How about some of the early reports for the local newspapers that may still have the info you are looking for, short early live video reports.




top topics



 
212
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join