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

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


You completely missed the point I was making. By a mile.

I think they SHOULD have integrity, but the media is a business. Integrity and profitability aren't exactly synonyms; certainly you don't disagree with that?

So... If the only reason a business has to behave is "integrity" it probably won't behave.

If you want the news media to have more integrity, find a way to give your support (I.e. Money) to the businesses (i.e. news orgs) you think are behaving properly.

What you don't get is that the news media is just slightly less money driven than Wal-Mart. It typically has shareholders, quarterly statements, and lots and lots of debts to service, every month.

I'm not anti-integrity; I'm pro-reality.

The REALITY is that we the consumer drive what products succeed and fail; the media we have exists because it's popular, the unpopular media fails. It's a business.

reply to post by Jason88


Thanks so much for the link. Does it sit on the taskbar? like the OP, I too have found inconsistencies with Google cache and want a simple click program to record them. I think we have to record things more and more.

Photos From Inside John Holmes San Diego Bedroom

americankabuki.blogspot.com...

A source requesting anonymity wrote:

"... I was able to quickly snap off with my iPhone yesterday. There's quite a bit to look at, but I would recommend paying extra close attention to the series of 3 David Sherman & Dan Cragg series novels he has grouped together, called "Starfist." Flashfire, Backshot and Pointblank are the titles. A simple amazon search for the books and Wikipedia search for David Sherman sheds some interesting light on the selection of reading material James was into...hardly that of a cold blooded killer. "

....

"Something else I found interesting is that when we spoke to Robert over the phone he said he was hiding out essentially, and could be ducking out to a new location at moment's notice, so there would be no way for us to send him an original contract to sign. It's obvious he doesn't want anyone to know where he is, which is understandable considering the situation. However, the extremes and lengths to which he is going to, to move from location to location seems a little bit excessive for a man who wants to avoid 'only' media attention...seems to me he is hiding out from a much bigger power, with a much mightier will. I will leave this to you for your take on the whole situation."

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

You completely missed the point I was making. By a mile.

I think they SHOULD have integrity, but the media is a business. Integrity and profitability aren't exactly synonyms; certainly you don't disagree with that?

So... If the only reason a business has to behave is "integrity" it probably won't behave.

If you want the news media to have more integrity, find a way to give your support (I.e. Money) to the businesses (i.e. news orgs) you think are behaving properly.

What you don't get is that the news media is just slightly less money driven than Wal-Mart. It typically has shareholders, quarterly statements, and lots and lots of debts to service, every month.

I'm not anti-integrity; I'm pro-reality.

The REALITY is that we the consumer drive what products succeed and fail; the media we have exists because it's popular, the unpopular media fails. It's a business.

edit on 26-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I cannot possibly argue or disagree with your incredible logic. A few posts back you were saying that the MSM does quiet edits in order to maintain their integrity and stay competitive with one another. Now you're saying integrity doesn't matter at all in the industry..

So they erase information in order to maintain integrity... but integrity doesn't matter because it isn't profitable. So tell me again why they erase information?

I don't get it.. You're right.

Also, I think you play me for a fool if you don't think I know that any business is money driven. You're also wrong in saying that the media is "slightly less" money driven than Wal-Mart.. It's just as money driven.. It's a business.. They don't sell tangibles.. They sell news and agendas.

Originally posted by crazyguy2012
reply to post by salainen

 

He had no criminal record so it would not be difficult for him to purchase the guns or ammo. I have not seen anything regarding exactly how he purchased these weapons but I am sure there will be evidence he bought them alone. When purchasing a firearm you have to fill out a lot of forms. They take a copy of your license and they take a thumbprint. I believe all the news agencies have reported that he bought the firearms locally.

Now the burden switches. To prove otherwise you would need to show me the gun store owners who state he came in with someone else or it was another person who purchased these. or that the thumbprints did not match.

Yes, that is my opinion. I was just saying to be fair that I have not personally seen any records yet, I think we'll see them after the court case is finalised, but thats still potentially years away. I'm certain he did it, but I rely on the information given my credible sources, I haven't examined the evidence.

I believe James Holmes was framed. First, look at the picture of him before the trial. Then look at him during the trial. He looks exactly the same.There have also been reports of him having amnesia and not remembering the whole thing.

(Source: goo.gl... )

Also, he sent a notebook to his psychiatrist filled with information on how he was going to kill everyone. What happened to it? It sat in the office for a week before the shooting.

(Source: goo.gl... )

I don't know if anyone posted this on here before, but I just thought I'd add in my opinion. To me, it's clearly set up by someone. Why? So the government can put security in theaters and control us more like they did in airports after 9/11.

Originally posted by martianboy

Photos From Inside John Holmes San Diego Bedroom

americankabuki.blogspot.com...

A source requesting anonymity wrote:

"... I was able to quickly snap off with my iPhone yesterday. There's quite a bit to look at, but I would recommend paying extra close attention to the series of 3 David Sherman & Dan Cragg series novels he has grouped together, called "Starfist." Flashfire, Backshot and Pointblank are the titles. A simple amazon search for the books and Wikipedia search for David Sherman sheds some interesting light on the selection of reading material James was into...hardly that of a cold blooded killer. "

....

"Something else I found interesting is that when we spoke to Robert over the phone he said he was hiding out essentially, and could be ducking out to a new location at moment's notice, so there would be no way for us to send him an original contract to sign. It's obvious he doesn't want anyone to know where he is, which is understandable considering the situation. However, the extremes and lengths to which he is going to, to move from location to location seems a little bit excessive for a man who wants to avoid 'only' media attention...seems to me he is hiding out from a much bigger power, with a much mightier will. I will leave this to you for your take on the whole situation."

For what is worth that could even be my room..

It says on the comments that his dad made the algorithm that helped discover Libor scandal and its testifying ?
Is it also true he is adopted and had connections with darpa research?

www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org...

MEDIA
Written by Lawrence J. Haas

Two centuries ago, philosopher Edmund Burke labeled the media “the
fourth estate,” one that jockeyed for influence with the clergy, the nobility,
and the commoners of France after the revolution. The term took root in
America, nourishing an image of media power that you would be wise to
take seriously.
The media are here to stay, and they will be a big part of your professional
life. You can’t wish them away. Nor should you try to work around
them, for that’s a strategy doomed to failure. They are too powerful, with too
many ways to shape public opinion to your detriment. As Mark Twain said,
“Never pick a fight with someone who buys his ink by the barrel.”
Instead, you need to: (1) understand who they are and what they require,
and (2) hire the right people and create the right process for interacting
with them.

Understanding the Media

With the information revolution of recent years, media come in greater
variety than ever. They are newspaper, magazine, and wire reporters, columnists,
and editorial writers; TV and radio anchors and producers; and online
reporters and bloggers. They reach different audiences, they need different
kinds of information, and they face different deadlines.
Your relationship with them will be adversarial—inherently so. They will
want to know everything that’s happening in your agency, especially the very
things you may want to keep out of the public sphere, and they will want
to know it before their competitors do. They will look for negative stories,
which will more likely get them on page one or on air in a news broadcast.
Stiffing them will not work. That will just anger reporters, who will then
go out of their way to portray you negatively. They can always find someone
to say something bad about you, whether a congressional aide, a lobbyist, or
even a jealous colleague from within the administration.
Instead, you should accept the media as a given and work with them as
effectively as possible.

Working with the Media

Hire the right communications director. You can’t be the day-to-day
“go to” person for the media; you’ll be too busy running your agency. You
need a communications director who will be your spokesperson. You need
someone whom you trust, someone with whom you can work closely to
ensure that he or she is disseminating your message. Hire a professional,
someone who has done similar work in the past or someone from the media
who wants to make a career change—that is, someone who understands
how the media work, what they need, how they develop stories, and so on.
If possible, find someone who understands the substance of your agency’s
work. A communications director who can explain your agency’s work will
garner greater respect from the media and will let you concentrate on your
own job.
Empower your communications director. Your communications director
needs to know as much as possible about what’s happening in your
agency. Only then can he or she make the right judgment, in consultation
with you, about how to accurately portray the agency’s business. Allow
that person to attend as many of your meetings as possible. Let him or her
speak “on the record”—that is, with that person’s name and title identified
publicly—sending a strong signal to the media that you trust your communications
director to speak on your behalf.
Empower yourself and your top senior staff. Your communications
director can’t do it all. You will want to, or have to, speak with the media
from time to time. If you have a large agency with many issues, you may
need other senior members of your team to do the same. You should rely on
the communications director, however, to coordinate all such conversations
or e-mail exchanges, ensuring that one person is tracking all media interactions.
Coordinate your communications activities. Neither you nor your
communications director will work in a vacuum. Your agency probably sits
within a larger department, but even if you run a stand-alone agency, you
are part of a new administration. The administration will want to coordinate
the timing of news-making announcements by departments and agencies.
You and your communications director should keep your counterparts—in
the department and, if appropriate, in the White House—apprised of major
communications activities that you want to undertake, such as a press conference
to launch a new initiative. When it comes to intra-administration
coordination, the rule is: no surprises.
Protect the career staff. You should not expect career staff to speak
with the media (except at the direction of, and supervision by, your communications
director). They are civil servants; they were hired for their jobs
before you arrived and many will still be there after you depart. Although
they manage federal programs at your direction, they were not hired to promote
the political agenda for any particular administration, including yours.
You should not ask them to do so. Instead, you should make clear that when
career staff receive calls or e-mails from the media, they should send them
to the communications director.
When opportunity knocks, don’t be shy. When important issues arise,
your communications director may suggest, or the media may demand, that
you speak to reporters (one on one or in group settings such as press conferences).
You should be prepared to do so and you should work with your
communications director to decide what other top staff should speak as well.
Also, you should consider mechanisms of regular communication with key
media, such as weekly roundtable discussions, through which you can educate
reporters about your work and draw attention to your most important
initiatives.
When problems arise, don’t be shifty. “Trust is the coin of the realm.”
Your credibility takes time to establish but a mere moment to destroy. From
time to time, things will go wrong. You will make a mistake or one of your
staff will break the law or a watchdog group will write critically about one
of your programs. In speaking with the media, you will be tempted to shade
the truth or hide some information. Don’t. Instead, explain what went wrong
and what you’re doing to prevent it from happening again. Otherwise, the
media will likely learn later that you were less than forthright, and they will
never trust you again.
Know the rules. The media operate under rules that define how they use
information. Unless otherwise noted, you must assume that when you speak
to the media, you are “on the record,” meaning they can identify you and
use everything you say. You may, however, want to speak “on background,”
which generally means they must hide your identity (for example, “an administration
official”); on “deep background,” which generally means they can
use your information but not attribute it to anyone at all; or “off the record,”
which generally means they can’t use the information at all. But because
these terms are ambiguous, you should pin down the ground rules with the
media before you start any conversation with them.
Set your message. The best people and the best process can only go so
far, however. You need to decide: What do you want to tell the media, and
what should your communications director say on your behalf? What are
your highest priorities? Your most important initiatives? Only you can answer
these questions. It’s your agency—and your message.


Lawrence J. Haas, a public affairs consultant and writer in Washington, D.C.,
was a senior communications official in the Clinton White House and, before
that, a correspondent with the National Journal and other publications.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

You completely missed the point I was making. By a mile.

I think they SHOULD have integrity, but the media is a business. Integrity and profitability aren't exactly synonyms; certainly you don't disagree with that?

So... If the only reason a business has to behave is "integrity" it probably won't behave.

If you want the news media to have more integrity, find a way to give your support (I.e. Money) to the businesses (i.e. news orgs) you think are behaving properly.

What you don't get is that the news media is just slightly less money driven than Wal-Mart. It typically has shareholders, quarterly statements, and lots and lots of debts to service, every month.

I'm not anti-integrity; I'm pro-reality.

The REALITY is that we the consumer drive what products succeed and fail; the media we have exists because it's popular, the unpopular media fails. It's a business.

edit on 26-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I cannot possibly argue or disagree with your incredible logic. A few posts back you were saying that the MSM does quiet edits in order to maintain their integrity and stay competitive with one another. Now you're saying integrity doesn't matter at all in the industry..

So they erase information in order to maintain integrity... but integrity doesn't matter because it isn't profitable. So tell me again why they erase information?

I don't get it.. You're right.

Also, I think you play me for a fool if you don't think I know that any business is money driven. You're also wrong in saying that the media is "slightly less" money driven than Wal-Mart.. It's just as money driven.. It's a business.. They don't sell tangibles.. They sell news and agendas.

The don't do quiet edits to maintain integrity, but to maintain the preception of integrity. Big difference.

Say a McDonalds location accidentally gives a dozen people food poisoning at lunch one day. Now they SHOULD let people know, as that would be the right thing to do, but in order to look like a safe place to eat, they pretend no one got sick.

Same with the quiets edits. The ONLY benefit they get from showing they've made mistakes, is that they've done the right thing. Most people see corrections and think "that means the news org made a mistake" not "look at the integrity of this news org, they admitted their mistake".

The reason its slightly less money-/profit- driven is because a lot of journalists and editors BELIEVE they're working for the public good. Not a majority, but enough to make it less untrustworthy than Wal-Mart.

Mistake admitting is typically seen as bad policy in the corporate world, but it's still down in the news world. Just not nearly as often as it should be.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


As soon as I saw it on the tv I knew it was made by the elites, trust your intuition it connects to your higher self.

reply to post by aboutface


No problem, glad to help. Jing actually is like a floating sun, you can place on any side of your computer window and click it when you need a screen grab of any size, including video. I use it for work and had to test a few different programs but being free this was by far the best and most reliable.

reply to post by frenzy4444


It goes beyond the Elites but everyone is so damn absorbed on questions they will never get answers to so they should go further afield and look for signs - which so happens to be all there.

ok guys im done, i guess i know 1 person got the message.


i leave you with this not to be funny but to have you here the words and hope they ring true!

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by NOMOREMOLOCH2012

reply to post by NOMOREMOLOCH2012


I got your message, I see what you've uncovered and it's damn interesting. It's further down the conspiracy trail than I typically go, but you've documented the material for a better detective than I to show the world. Good stuff.

OP - Sorry to have gone off topic, this member did sprinkle some interesting clues in your thread.

reply to post by Jason88


I don't mind at all, at least he was doing good research. Everything he provided was sourced. I haven't had a chance to read through it all yet but I was paying attention. This is a thread about integrity and facts. It's about being investigative and finding the truth yourself.. We can't rely on the media.

So in actuality.. It is a pretty nice addition. I don't mind at all.

I agree with the OP, after careful consideration of the circumstances. Let me qualify the following remarks by stating that I have a journalism degree from a Southern university and was a newspaper reporter, mostly at small community papers, for more than 10 years before changing professions. With that in mind:

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that James Holmes did not have two roommates. He lived alone. A reporter(s) searched public records or talked to an apartment manager (or something along those lines) and got the impression that Holmes did have roommates. And so the reporter(s) put that out there as fact in an online article. The reporter(s) was wrong. So … what should the reporter do now?

It is general good journalism practice that if you edit an online article, you note somewhere (at the top or bottom of the article) that a change has been made. Furthermore, it’s common practice to note what changes were made. In this case, a line at the end of the story should have been inserted reading something to the effect of: This story has been edited to show that James Holmes lived alone. An earlier version indicated he lived with two roommates. Or something like that.

As others on this thread have correctly noted, it's not uncommon for false information to be reported in the immediate wake of a big news story. Corrections happen all the time. Why not just make a correction? Why delete any trace of that information being reported?

I agree with the OP: if these references are being deleted, as it appears is the case, then why? If other information was proven false but not deleted from the article, then why is the report of Homes having two roommates being deleted when nothing else is?

The important question: What was James Holmes researching???

I have done some research into the James Holmes story and here is what I have found:

If James is a nutcase or not I don’t know and it is not the thing that is interesting. What actually is interesting is the research he was involved in.

The most important thing to note is that there is an official gagorder from the court judge put on the university prevents anything to be said about James research. So simply and obviously James Holmes research is secret for some reason.

Now, I think we can safely assume that the US military is interested in how the brain works. We can also assume that their conclusions would not immediately be published for anyone to read. So we can safely assume the US military have secret neuroscience projects.

So already it seems pretty obvious that James Holmes, whos neurological research has been classified could be classified because of its importance to the military. Actually there is no other explanation. It is as simple as that.


Robert Holmes, James father:

So we have already concluded that James research probably is of military interest. His father might or might not have something to do with this. From Roberts Holmes LinkedIn we learn that he works at FICO, a shady but very powerful company and he is a leading software researcher there. FICO is said to oversee over half of the worlds creditcard transactions but it also serves big banks like JP Morgan and institutions. Apparently Robert has also worked with identity fraud detection, maybe for the government or maybe for some private interest.

Robert came to FICO when his prior company HNC was bought by FICO in 2002. HNC was specialized in neural networks and AI research.

The founder of HNC, Robert Hecht-Nielsen, claims to have found the mechanism of thought and he claims he can reproduce it in computers. Have a look at this very interesting talk of his:

www.youtube.com...

HNC has worked with the military to develop “smart cameras” built on neural network technology that themselves can notice if something strange is going on and set the alarm:

www.vision-systems.com... given-by-robert-hecht-neilson.html

So we can conclude that James interest in neurology very well could be something he got from the father. The father has had every opportunity to be involved in shady business with government and others, not saying he has.

Still the most important question is: What kind of shady research was James Holmes involved in?

Please spread this or start a new thread regarding this. I cannot sionce i dont have 20 posts. : )

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

There are so many Indians how would one know they are Islamic? A majority of Indians are Hindi so therefore you can't tell the difference between an Indian or Pakistani Muslim in western style clothing.

Perhaps, they meant American-Indian? I don't live in Colorado, but I have lived in the western US most of my life and am more familiar with people of "Western Indian" descent as opposed to Eastern Indian.