Software recreates 3d Aurora crime scene

Now i am not saying there was 2 shooters.

But if there had been, wouldn't be possible to recreate the scene using one shooter that is moving to explain the different trajectories of projectiles that 2 shooters could have done?

I am no expert. What do you guys think ?

I sort of agree with "the professor"....

Originally posted by DCLXVI
I am no expert. What do you guys think ?

edit on 28-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)

I think they will end up using their own beliefs as evidence.

He states in the video that this is created using the evidence they have. They have one lone gunman in this scenario, and they will build the narrative on that, refusing other aspects of witness statements that suggest there was more than one gunman, thereby reinforcing their own incorrect assumptions of the case.

After everything I have seen in relation to this case, the witness statements, and plausibility, I do not believe he was acting alone. There is simply too much to suggest that there was a second person there shooting.

In numerous other cases there is no doubt about the fact that there were one or two people involved. In Columbine they believed there was only one shooter for a while before they started listening to witness reports and finally had to concede that there was more than one.

I think it's VERY unlikely that a person plans and executes an attack like this all on their own.

From my perspective, lone gunmen who just pick up a gun one day and start shooting are genuine individual loners who are mentally disturbed and snap. When you have this much planning and forethought, you almost ALWAYS have more than one person involved - as the witness statements seem to back up too.

I no longer believe that he was working alone. I don't think there was any false flag - I need evidence for that to believe it. But there IS evidence that there was a second shooter, and I think this method of displaying what supposedly happened is only going to limit the scope of this investigation and convince people that there was only one gunman.

They are lying to themselves, and they will be lying to the court when they show this scenario and weave their plan of what happened together.

Well, after visually showing only one criminal shooting, not the guy taking the call/ opening the door or two lots of gas cans being thrown from different directions, the professor states that this software is not needed because it is an 'open and shut case' and 'the chances of a jury finding him not guilty is very slim' he then goes on to say in the last nano-second as he trips over his words when he realises he has just publicly declared him guilty with no trial, that 'he is innocent until proven guilty'.
Yeah right, like he really thinks that after his intro and now that he has said it, that the visuals show it and that no one is even trying to find if there were others involved it seems, now the general public and jury will have that seed sewn so impartiality and open mindedness to what really went down is flushed down the toilet.
The professor even got the software guy to agree (at least he seemed a bit reluctant to presume guilt) that it was a case of 'guilty with sharp mind and planning' or 'guilty with drugged up incoherence'.

What a sham!

This is pretty sick to put it in a nice way.

The over publicity almost glorifying the event and people just eat it up!!
luuuuuv
Death, violence, and sex sales. Simple as that.. There is no way this gets into court, defense attorney's

will tear this apart if tried to be used as evidence.. This is about as accurate as a broken bow and arrow.

Does this answer our questions>? No, just get that tube count up, watch it 5! 10!x'$
OP this is no way reflects on you personally. Just these numb nuts are sick *recreate* my ass

I think a gag order was put in place before much of any hard data could be leaked for outsiders to generate something like this from. I wish that hadn't happened, but it did. So...after watching through the video here, I wonder if we haven't about reached the point where media has exhausted everything intelligent and productive to say and report and moved into the realms of pure speculation to fill space and kill time on the news cycle.

I do think it will be again impossible to get a fair trial.
Because everyone has already decided long ago, based off a mere 'report', that said individual is guilty "without a doubt".

Without knowing any actual hard facts, and simply taking the media reports as valid truth without questioning, the minds of many are already settled. They are even ready to condemn and ridicule the very act of questioning such a decision, it is so certain they assume.

I must state that the only real truth here is that the truth remains elusive and highly uncertain. The fog of war exists and obscures things heavily, people so readily forget.

If anyone needs a fresh reminder, the same media 'sources' reported the absolute certainty of Saddam Hussein's guilt for possessing and developing nuclear weapons (after Gulf War I). Their journalistic standards aren't quite up to par now are they?

Originally posted by sirnukeem
This is pretty sick to put it in a nice way.

The over publicity almost glorifying the event and people just eat it up!!
uv
Death, violence, and sex sales. Simple as that.. There is no way this gets into court, defense attorney's

will tear this apart if tried to be used as evidence.. This is about as accurate as a broken bow and arrow.

Does this answer our questions>? No, just get that tube count up, watch it 5! 10!x'$
OP this is no way reflects on you personally. Just these numb nuts are sick *recreate* my ass

edit on 28-7-2012 by sirnukeem because: (no reason given)

Exactly what i was thinking. Thank you

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I do think it will be again impossible to get a fair trial.
Because everyone has already decided long ago, based off a mere 'report', that said individual is guilty "without a doubt".

Hell no, not with nancy grace, jane vaquez and the entire COURT/TRU tv..

It's bull crap.. When they mark everyone as guilty before

there's even a trial it muddies up the true clear cut cases, which are rare far/inbetween at this level

reply to post by DCLXVI


The "professor" is making a whole lot of assumptions based on information I KNOW for a fact he does NOT have access to, he is installing the "open -shut" stereo-type to this case to possibly influence people from ever acknowledging anything otherwise.

His assumptions on how this case is going to go is unwarranted, arrogant, and really reckless as he may just have a nice shoe to suck on compliments of Casey Anthony. If that particular case showed us anything its that there is no such thing as "open-shut" case.

It baffles me that he can get away with making such claims being as ignorant as he is to the details that are not available to him or anyone other than those directly involved...