Aurora theater shooting court documents blows inside job conspiracy wide open

Philip Anschutz owns Examiner.com.

www.poynter.org...

blogs.westword.com...

reply to post by CinnamonHearts


... I ... I am speechless. Maybe we have stumbled upon something?

Isn't he supposedly all sorts of "TPTB"?

reply to post by thesungod


Yes. He's a very powerful man.

www.forbes.com...

www.scpr.org...


Let's not forget The Anschutz Medical Campus.

www.ucdenver.edu...

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by thesungod

 

Yes. He's a very powerful man.

www.forbes.com...

www.scpr.org...


Let's not forget The Anschutz Medical Campus.

www.ucdenver.edu...

edit on 9-9-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)

He's donated to part of the school James Holmes was attending?

Wow... And several other parts of the school.

The school James Holmes went is named after the man...

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by Bilk22
I'm curious, what does the advancement in technology have to do with anything?

how can anyone plan a global domination in the 1770's, that will occur some time several hundred years later when they don't know about phones, the internet, computers, cars, airplanes, etc? In the 1770's....

Point taken. I agree with you. 300 year old plan... phhh!
Makes the claimant look like a blooming idiot!!!

But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater...
Buckle your seatbelts-- if you think she's crazy, well the ride just gets wilder...

From comments on the Examiner story:

FYI: Examiner.com is a division of Clarity Media Group, with the primary investor being billionaire businessman Philip Anschutz.

Philip Anschutz is named in the document as one of the people accused of helping plan the shooting. So ask yourself-- why does one of "his" reporters publish this defaming story, with a link to the document naming his "boss"? Does he want to be fired? Or is he instructed to write this story in a manner that will discredit the claimant, like throwing out polarizing words like "Illuminati"? In light of the accused's ties to the news source, this reeks of deception.

ETA: CinnamonHearts beat me to the punch! I'll just add a question while I'm here... James Holmes's dad and his perported testimony before Congress-- was this Philip Anschutz to be implicated perhaps?

Originally posted by new_here

Philip Anschutz is named in the document as one of the people accused of helping plan the shooting. So ask yourself-- why does one of "his" reporters publish this defaming story, with a link to the document naming his "boss"? Does he want to be fired? Or is he instructed to write this story in a manner that will discredit the claimant, like throwing out polarizing words like "Illuminati"? In light of the accused's ties to the news source, this reeks of deception.

ETA: CinnamonHearts beat me to the punch! I'll just add a question while I'm here... James Holmes's dad and his perported testimony before Congress-- was this Philip Anschutz to be implicated perhaps?

I am literally speechless... And I will be the first to admit that rarely happens. I think we found something here folks.

reply to post by new_here


correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the examiner one of those media outlets where anyone can sign up and become a "reporter?"

Originally posted by Crakeur
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the examiner one of those media outlets where anyone can sign up and become a "reporter?"

That is correct, the only qualification to be a "reporter" is:

Examiners must be 18 years of age or older and U.S. or Canadian residents. Each Examiner is required to sign an independent contributor agreement prior to activation.

www.examiner.com...

reply to post by Crakeur
reply to post by spoor


The reporter on the this particular story is Jeffery Phelps. Seems pretty legit to me. What do ya'll think?

Info on JP
Info on JP 2
Info on JP 3
JP's Linkedin

Spokeo also shows a bunch of JP's in the Denver and Aurora area...
Search for JP on Spokeo

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by PatriotGames2

 

I never said conspiracies don't exist. They exist everywhere. A conspiracy, defined, is an agreement between two, or more, people to commit a crime, overthrow a government or deceive/defraud in the future.

It happens regularly.

I'm saying the illuminati, if they are still around today, are an inept lot that shouldn't be feared because, after 200 plus years, they suck at attaining their goals.

Unless of course we have the wrong idea of their goals, and they may not even be their own masters.

Maybe sacrifice is involved or a game for the extremely wealthy who are bored.

reply to post by thesungod


He might be legit, but the question is what was the motivation behind that article? Someone above made a good point. Why would an employee of the examiner be writing an article like this in which his own boss is being accused of playing a role in this case? I think the people in charge are spinning their wheels and are in panic mode. They didn't expect this many people to be questioning what's really going on.

I don't understand this Jonathan Lee Riches guy who I believe is the person who filed the motion. If he's really trying to help James, he's not doing a very good job of it. He's coming across as a nutcase, and by doing so, leads the general public to believe that anyone questioning this case is probably as nuts as he is. So is that his "role"? Is he just another player in all of this?

reply to post by Crakeur

It's quite easy to uphold a centuries long tradition.
Its what we do and have been doing for centuries.

It's not practical to suggest a grand scheme was all mapped out in precise detail, it could be modified and adapted, the same way every other centuries old traditions are managing to carry on.

It takes time to do this and only seems like a big time frame to us.


As for this case, I don't see this is proof of a conspiracy or illuminati related, however there's some things that didn't add up during the apprehension of Holmes, etc.

This conspiracy theory makes absolutely no sense. Gun laws have only been destroyed over the past decades. No one is coming to take your guns, it is a fantasy. The gun corps have a stronghold lobby over your politicians.

Originally posted by vkey08
I'm just wondering why the op only posted one of the documents, and not the Judges Order on the matter where he clearly believes that it is a nonsense pleading and wants the county's Sheriff and Mental Health services to intervene.

Because posting the judges order too wouldn't earn them as many stars and flags.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by thesungod

 

if they are in different forums, they both stay.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Hmmm...
Seems confusing to a simple person like me.

reply to post by InfamousRebel


Read the WHOLE thread before commenting. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GUN CONTROL...

Til you of course.

reply to post by sputniksteve


This has already been addressed. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

***

Am I the only one who finds it frigtening the judge dismissed all of this without even looking into it?

***

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Bilk22

 

you aren't actually saying that believing that 250 or so years ago, a group of guys hatched a plan to take over the world based on the technology and intelligence of that time, not knowing that, in the future we'd have air travel, cars, wireless communications, the internet, computers, etc is the same as believing in a system of ethics and a god? And you are saying that the men who hatched this plot in the late 1700's were going to rely on the grandchildren of their grandchildren's grand children to follow this plot without knowing anything about the future, technology etc?


Personally, I find both hard to believe and I think that, if they formulated a plan back in the late 1700's and have not, yet, managed to pull it off, they're not worth fearing. The Mets and the Cubs are more likely to win back to back world series. twice.

Seems like a funny way to think of it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Advance knowledge of technological progress would not be necessary to create the outlines of a long term plot-- the outline aspect of which (I would imagine) would mostly be dealing with social manipulation and financial manipulation.

It is sometimes possible to make a very specific goal, without yet knowing the means one will use to achieve each specific end.

reply to post by iwilliam


Nope, I find it frightening and rather against par for the standard law course.

But I guess this is just lost on some people, that don't bother to read and figure things out for themselves.

C'est la vie.

Originally posted by Crakeur
That will be difficult, no?

you didn't watch the documentary