The conspiracy of the Tuscon conspiracy theorists

Well sniffing through the news sites I came across this interesting bit.Huffington post Now as some members already know Loughner was a member of this site before the events in Tuscon. Now we get this

On fringe sites around the web, a new conspiracy theory is being cultivated: the Jan. 8 shootings in Tucson, Arizona that took the lives of six and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), never actually took place.

Not much new except that the article goes on to mention that some believers are conducting their own investigation.

The Times reports: "They tried to get into my home," said the victim, who asked that he not be identified because it might attract more such visitors. "They wanted to know if I had any pictures. They said they didn't believe the event took place." The victim said that when he pressed the visitors for identification, one of them presented a business card that listed the Texas conspiracy site, which describes the shooting as an exercise conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. Other people connected to the case, including hospital personnel, victims' relatives and possible trial witnesses, have received similar visits or seen their images on the Web site, officials said.

Are we seeing some fellow theorist taking things to far or are we seeing the begining of the margilization of conspiracy theorists?

No way in hell it didn't happen. A family member was a paramedic on the scene.

reply to post by hangedman13


I would say this nothing more then the normal conspirecy theorists making the rest of the community look bad.. About like when we had all these right wingers show up talkingi about Obamas birthcirtificate, freedom and blah when in reality they are all about religon and putting people in prison.... Yet here its still SUPER COOL!

Sad.

reply to post by ShogunAssassins


AHEM I am in the conservative party and those generalizations are a tad uncalled for. Anyway now you know how I feel about 9/11 truthers Seriously though I agree it could be some bad apples, yet I have seen more references to conspiracy theorist and our "kook" beliefs lately then I ever have. I wonder if our site was being referenced to as well.

a government group out to discredit conspiracy groups and sites.
they have to find ways to shut us all up.

well there hasn't been any video footage shown except for animation reenactments, there are lots of other questions surrounding the shooting like how he could fire off more rounds than he had in his clip, how did he make so many head shots, what about the rifle found on the scene.

My question is: who performed the triage on Judge John McCarthy Roll and others that were not brought to the hospital.

Then there's the two mugshots that look like one was photoshopped of the other, which that one looks strangely like it was photoshopped of Glenn Beck. Then you have the court drawings looking like two different people.

The entire thing is a psy-op so there it is hard to tell what happened. The real conspiracy theorists are the ones that just assume he's guilty because the government said so.

reply to post by filosophia


The statements you have made are part of the reason I think that the shooting is being scrutinized by some. Especially when the supposed warning signs were ignored. So of course the official story is not being totally believed, some details just don't fit. I am afraid it is a ploy to make anyone who questions the "official" story a nut in need of observation.

Well I have been checking out ATS for a while and I signed up just to post on this topic. Thank you for posting something about this article. I read this article when it was published and I believe there is definitely something suspicious about the entire shooting. I think the weirdest thing about the article is that they have taken what was easily the most ridiculous theory found on ATS(a theory which some people discussed but almost no one believed). The claims that 'most of the people involved were actors is completely ridiculous(with the exception of Suzie Heilman, who I don't trust one bit- the fake crying interview, the screams for christina in her sleep, etc). Obviously people were killed due to a shooting.
But if this is a conspiracy of some kind I do believe that it is being played mostly after the fact through the media. Obviously there is this possible swipe at conspiracy theorists, but there's other, more compelling evidence. Did anyone read the story published April 24th about a paparazzi bounty around the Houston area for a picture of Giffords? Just three days later the story drops that she was photographed boarding the plane to see her husband's launch. In the picture of course you cannot make out anything, other than that a person is at the top of the jet's steps walking into the cabin.
I use this example because it is a prime example of misleading journalism. First off (obviously), there's no proving that the blob in the picture is Giffords. In the excessively lovey article about her reunion with her husband upon his return a month later, it is noted that Giffords can barely walk, as the right side of her body is difficult to move due to being shot in the left side of her brain. So then, how are we supposed to believe that she walked up a flight of stairs to board the jet? In the picture there is another who seems to be 'pushing' the supposed Giffords up the stairs. You'll have to observe it yourself. Why not just use a wheelchair..?
But my main point about this is that the media is using some very underhanded techniques to very deliberately paint a picture for the general public. The 'walking picture' was not taken by a paparazzi(as far as I know- cited as "courtesy KRTK") article there is no mention of the paparazzi bounty issued just three days before. So to the casual news reader the stories match up either way- 1. They want a picture of Giffords. 2. Here is a picture of Giffords. A subtle common point of both articles is that there exists a picture of Giffords post-shooting(besides all the obscured face and hand-holding shots). The articles were published three days apart. Just seems a bit underhanded in some way.
I won't even get into the disgustingly written article about the couple's reunion, which has them kissing and holding hands and really portrays it as everything short of a second honeymoon, right after, of course, Mark Kelly shot into space for a month or so, leaving his wife to recover on her own. Do read it. One person even commented "too much info let them have their peace", and that's alot coming from a yahoo drone hah. Again, it seems to be written with a very specific motive. This is just my opinion, of course. I am in college studying english and creative writing. I know that doesn't automatically make me super-qualified but I think these articles are worth investigating from a writers', editors', journalists' perspective.
For me, the shooting is a conspiracy as very least at a state level. There is a strong conservative base here in AZ that clearly hasn't been in line with Washington on a few different issues. I hope I didn't bring the topic too far off track! My main point was that the media has been painting a very deliberate picture post-shooting, why, I am unsure.