The James Holmes Conspiracy (2012 Full Documentary)

Did Holmes have powder residue on his hands? Has anybody heard? Maybe that is why they are so adamant that he, and he alone was the shooter. But, I haven't heard a definitive answer regarding powder residue.

Yes...I think that phone call is key. Surely, the investigators have his cell phone and are looking into who made that call, if indeed it was Holmes in the theater.

If Holmes was under some kind of hynotic suggestion, perhaps the caller used trigger words that triggered his action to go to the door and open it.

I went into this thinking that the video was going to rely on unreliable witness recollections, but I'm nearly a hour in, and am surprised I haven't turned this off yet.
It's very interesting and scary stuff.

Thank you for an interesting thread OP, sadly I can't watch the vid on my phone so that will have to wait until I can get online with my netbook.

I must admit, I'm kind of on the fence with this one. Admittedly, something's rotten in the state of Kislev (or Ohio) as the OS doesn't add up, there is something about this story that doesn't sit right. That pic someone posted of his "friends" ex-"boyfriend", for a start, looks more like the suspect than the comparison shots we've seen in the past (though, playing devil's advocate here, I can see similarities between the dark haired, broader nosed James and the wirey flame haired man with the thin nose).

I guess I have a couple of points to bring up that I haven't seen discussed thus far...

First is that there seems to be no mention of the "phone call", well for the past 5 years every mobile phone (cell phone for the yanks) have been equipped with something called "Fake Call" basically, you set a timer and when you activate Fake Call, your phone rings after the time is up (you can even record some responses so the person you want to trick into thinking you're getting a call thinks there's someone on the other end). So perhaps the perpetrator didn't get a call from anyone and it was just a diversion to get up and open the door? Then of course we get into the fact that Cinema fire doors are alarmed etc....

My next point is more just something I've wondered since day 1, something I actually thought a few of us on here might have been thinking but nobody seems to have vocalised yet (or whatever the typing version of vocalisation is). Maybe, just maybe James Holmes was just a screwed up individual who had seen the movie 'Rampage' and thought "I wanna do that!". As soon as I heard about this, Rampage popped into my head (probably only because I saw it for the first time about a fortnight before.

Of course, there is one other thought I have on this case, though it stems from early talk that James Holmes was trying to become a self styled Joker type supervillain. Maybe all his rumoured craziness (if true) is an attempt to become institutionalised so he can break free from his own personal Arkham and become like his hero. That's more of a brain fart than anything else though.

At the end of the day I don't know where I would place my chips when it comes to all this. I don't have a clue if James Holmes is Guilty, Innocent, Crazy or Sane. I just know, like 9/11 I don't believe the OS....

Originally posted by Maroboduus
I sincerely apologize to everybody for allowing myself to derail this thread so long with a petty argument. I am truly sorry.
So let's get this back on track:

If Holmes acted alone, and was the one who was in the theater that propped open the door before returning to open fire as police say(although multiple witnesses say that the person who propped the door open was not the same person as the shooter), how come not a SINGLE witness can place him inside of that theater?

Not one witness has said they saw him inside. So in a full theater, nobody notices a guy with bright red dyed hair sitting in the front row?
Numerous witnesses saw somebody in the front row stand up to prop open the emergency exit. The police claim it was Holmes who did this.
So all of these people saw him do it, and yet none of them recognize him? None of them notice his hair? The people sitting behind him didn't see him? The people sitting beside him didn't see him?
Remember, the theater, by all accounts, was damn near full. SOMEBODY had to be sitting in close proximity to him. So how is it nobody saw him?
How is it that everybody saw somebody stand up to prop open the door, and not one of those people can identify Holmes with his ridiculously bright red hair as that person????

edit on 25-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)

Well, maybe was he wearing a hat when he was in the theater, like the one we can see on the "really red heh" photograph on his match.com profile. So nobody saw someone with red hair, only someone with a hat, which is not that uncommon at all.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
And how about this:
According to every single witness who saw somebody prop open the door, that person did so immediately after receiving a call on their cell phone. Who made that phone call? What was its significance? If Holmes acted alone, then why would he wait until he received a phone call in order to initiate his plan? Are we supposed to believe that phone call was just a coincidence?
"Oh hey, my buddy is calling. I better answer it. Oh, that reminds me, i was planning on shooting all of these people! Guess i may as well go change into my body armor while i talk on the phone!"
And the police have said NOTHING to explain that phone call.

So a theater full of people see somebody stand up during the movie to prop open the door, and not one of them can ID that person as Holmes (despite the fact that Holmes had absurdly bright red hair). They all say he received a phone call before he opened the door (which would seem to imply it was some sort of signal to prop open the door at that time), and yet we are supposed to believe that there was only one person involved. The police have made no effort whatsoever to explain who made that call or why.

At the very least, that phone call would open the possibility that there was somebody else involved who made that call. At the very least, it seems like something worth looking into.
But, nope: they immediately said he acted alone without even taking enough time to investigate. No eplanation for that phone call. No explanation for the gas mask being so far away when police initially claimed he was wearing it when they arrived, no explanation as to why none of the witnesses who saw somebody prop open the door can ID that person as Holmes, no explanation as to why so many witnesses say there were multiple shooters, no explanation as to why they said they ID'ed him immediately due to his body armor/gas mask/rifle when all of that stuff was not only lying on the ground but was spread over a wide area (despite the fact that Holmes supposedly exited the theater and then basically just waited by his car until police arrived), no explanation as to why there is so security footage, no valid reason for the evidence to be sealed, etc etc etc....nothing.

edit on 25-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)

Concerning the phone call, he could have faked the fact he was receiving one and pretended to answer. Phones can ring, vibrate, or be on mute, and nobody talked about hearing a ring, just seeing Holmes (or someone else) answering his phone. He could have done this all by himself, no other person needed to fake an answer to a phone call and use this to go open a door. What is missing from the witness' testimonies is if the man they saw doing all of this went back to his seat or just left the theater. Some say he opened the door and waived at someone (which can be faked too, you just wave in the void, adressing nobody at all, just in order to make people believe you are waving to someone), but what did he do after ? That's a big blur in the testimonies, maybe a little too convenient, isn't it ?

Yeah, the first thing I thought too when I heard of this shooting was that it wouldn't be long before the media put the blame on Rampage, this pretty violent (and good, I must say) movie by Uwe Boll. But no, it wasn't even mentioned one time by the media. It really surprised my a lot, as they usually don't waste time to accuse movies/music/video games of influencing people (the most stupid argument I ever heard... but that's another story).

reply to post by Ook33


Good points, good possibilities. But you know what would be nice? If the police made even the slightest effort to explain this stuff like we are trying to do. Novel idea, i know....

I have a feeling none of this stuff will ever be explained. Most recent thing I read is that James Holmes told a class mate he was going to kill people and he threatened people. we'll hear things like that so people will keep thinking he was planning this and just went crazy. If the case really doesn't go to court for a year by then there will be a good enough story to explain away some things asked here. evidence or what was really investigated will be kept secret.

The media isn't asking any of these questions, their main question is how did someone go from being smart, shy and with no history of violence to a crazy man that thinks he is the joker.

Notice the documentary that this thread is about has been flagged on youtube "The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or inappropriate. Viewer discretion is advised." It's weird how people get so upset about people questioning things, it's become almost as sensitive as discussing religion. Since people are happy and it eases the pain to put all the blame on one person, the cops figure their job is done, why bother to look for other suspects.

Click here for more information.

n/m

www.nytimes.com... this article says James Holmes told a stranger he took '___', rest just goes on to say he was a loner and exchanged txts with a classmate... a little conflicting from what some people said before that he had drinking buddies.

I truly believe that if there is an absence of love, you get evil, so evil is not created but is a direct result of the absence of love, and that all evil acts are without love and are absent from the proper morals and ethics that we have created, and to form a perfect body of work we must try and manipulate energy waves.

what are the odds that a customer at the viewing was RECORDING THIS MOVIE with his dvr?

pretty good, arent they? it being the premier....

time will tell.

There is video of this shooting.

link

AURORA, Colo. — Family members of some of the 12 people shot to death during a midnight movie showing in Colorado plan to go public Tuesday about some behind-the-scenes events they say need to be discussed.

Today at some point. I wonder what that is?

reply to post by Taggart

Very interested to hear what they have to say. Assuming it won't even be mentioned on my news, so please keep me posted if possible.

reply to post by Maroboduus


they will be asking for donations.

reply to post by xerrnoip


I read this article the other day and it is interesting, especially this part.

www.nytimes.com...

Sometime in the spring, he stopped smiling and no longer made jokes during class presentations, his behavior shifting, though the meaning of the changes remained unclear. Packages began arriving at his apartment and at the school, containing thousands of rounds of ammunition bought online, the police say.