The James Holmes Conspiracy (2012 Full Documentary)

reply to post by ahitler



Even the mole by his right eye matches.
After much study I am convinced this is the same person.
Question is, who?
He looks very different from the James Holmes of every other picture and video I've seen.

I watched the video last night. Mind blowing. I don't see how this could be anything but a set-up. I was particularly interested in how reporters keep asking if there are video cameras in the theater and the question keeps getting side-stepped or completely ignored.

There is a bit where the narrator of the documentary tells you to watch the FBI agent standing behind the police chief giving the press conference. The look on this guy's face when the reporters are shouting "Are there cameras in the theater?" and his reaction to how the police chief handles these questions is very telling.

ETA: I cannot believe there isn't more attention on this thread. Because this video very neatly illustrates why people do not believe the official story.

not to derail the thread but I just came back from my local cinema.
And it got me thinking.
How would he know which screen was showing the movie, Maybe it is different over there but would he know specifically it would be screen 9. (I know he could possibly have asked on purchase fo the ticket)
He would also need to know which door at the back of the cinema was screen 9 to park in the nearest spot to the door.
By some reports he synchronised the shooting with a shooting scene in the movie, again how would he know when (fluke?)

The big one is the guy who got up and opened the door, the guy was seen by numerous people. Yet no mention of a 6ft tall dude, possibly anxious/nervous/under the influence WITH BRIGHT ORANGE HAIR. (did he have his hood up?)

where was the cinema steward (do you have them?) when a guy gets up during a movie and walks out through an emergency exit (could have snuck someone in without a ticket to watch the movie, hell it ended up something a lot worse)

Just a few thoughts for thought.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by ahitler

 

Even the mole by his right eye matches.
After much study I am convinced this is the same person.
Question is, who?
He looks very different from the James Holmes of every other picture and video I've seen.

Yep.
I'm convinced that is the same person too, sir animals. Strange thing is, when searching for that particular picture online... there are no returns at all. This leads me to believe the image was possibly taken as a screencap from a video somewhere.

Some verification of the source would be appropriate, methinks.

Originally posted by Taggart
not to derail the thread but I just came back from my local cinema.
And it got me thinking.
How would he know which screen was showing the movie, Maybe it is different over there but would he know specifically it would be screen 9. (I know he could possibly have asked on purchase fo the ticket)
He would also need to know which door at the back of the cinema was screen 9 to park in the nearest spot to the door.
By some reports he synchronised the shooting with a shooting scene in the movie, again how would he know when (fluke?)

People are saying he might of went out to get the car when he left the exit door or the person who opened the exit door told him what theater # when he called. Only thing I'm thinking here, and I thought it before but reading these details of one of the victims that was there just confirms it, that the parking lot was packed for this sold out premier, and in the blog the guy says that by the time they got there he had to park far away from the theater. These spots behind the theater just weren't taken? I think who ever planned this had to get there early to even get a spot that close to the theater. And him knowing the layout of the theater means he was there before- maybe going through surveillance cameras from the last few months would show if he was there before.

another question that's popped up is were there any security guards around? I know malls here have rent-a-cops going around all the time to look out for anyone that looks suspicious or people that might be trying to rob cars in the lot.

Originally posted by telemetry

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by ahitler

 

Even the mole by his right eye matches.
After much study I am convinced this is the same person.
Question is, who?
He looks very different from the James Holmes of every other picture and video I've seen.

Yep.
I'm convinced that is the same person too, sir animals. Strange thing is, when searching for that particular picture online... there are no returns at all. This leads me to believe the image was possibly taken as a screencap from a video somewhere.

Some verification of the source would be appropriate, methinks.

I don't think this new picture is a screen capture and here is why; the way he is extending his arm out like people do when they take a picture of them self with a cell phone. Which brings up the issue of that thing that cell phones have these days that show the location of the picture taken, I can't remember the name of the feature, but its a feature that can be turned off I know. I don't know how to check it. Though i'm sure many members here do. I wish the OP would come back to this thread, I think this is a fascinating find.

Miss Sile

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by ahitler

 

Even the mole by his right eye matches.
After much study I am convinced this is the same person.
Question is, who?
He looks very different from the James Holmes of every other picture and video I've seen.

edit on 21-8-2012 by Asktheanimals because: picture added

edit on 21-8-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

Green eyes on the left, blue eyes on the right. The mole looks more like a curly hair on Holmes pic, to me. Plus, the poster's pseudonym is ahitler... ahussein, amussolini would have been similar poor choices, and indicates to me that we have certainly a joker (sic) here, who was maybe told that he looked like Holmes, decided to take a picture of himself with a hat (in order to hide his non red hair, for example), and to post it on a website like ATS, where he was sure it would draw attention in a quick manner. Color me unconvinced.

I don't know if anybody saw this before, so I'll put it here, as I just realized it :
on one of Holmes photographs that were present on his adultfriendfinder account, you can clearly see, on the wall behind him, the zombie poster that was in his apartment when the FBI raided it.

The adultfriendfinder photograph ;


The same image cleared a little :


And the zombie poster as seen in Holmes apartment :

Originally posted by Miss Sile

I don't think this new picture is a screen capture and here is why; the way he is extending his arm out like people do when they take a picture of them self with a cell phone. Which brings up the issue of that thing that cell phones have these days that show the location of the picture taken, I can't remember the name of the feature, but its a feature that can be turned off I know. I don't know how to check it. Though i'm sure many members here do. I wish the OP would come back to this thread, I think this is a fascinating find.

Miss Sile

I can agree with picture bearing more resemblance to a self-taken picture rather than a screen capture during a video.

When an image file is created it is made of 2 parts, so to speak, the "header" data and the "body" data. The "body" data contains the necessary bits and bytes to say what colour each pixel in the image is, the "header" data contains things such as the width and height of the image. As well as this, the "header" data can contain "exif" data (Exchangeable image file format - Wikipedia), and this data within the "header" can contain a massive variety of information, quite often the name or model of the digital camera that took the image, or perhaps the software used to create it (such as Photoshop).
Some background information having been established, the "exif" data of some image files taken from a mobile (cell) phone often contain "geolocation" data, in what is known as "geotagging" (Geotagging - Wikipedia).
However if this image gets edited, such as being "touched up" in Photoshop, or even copied into Paint and then re-sized or something, then the "exif" data can be wiped (removed, cleared).

Very long story short: if the image was taken with a mobile (cell) phone, and the phone had geotagging enabled, and the image has not been edited (i.e., it is the original image), then it is likely that one could find the co-ordinates (longitude, latitude) that the image was taken at, and probably the date and time (often to the accuracy of seconds or milliseconds).

If the original of this image is found, or you have other images that you'd like to find the "exif" data of, then I suggest looking at Jeffrey's Exif viewer.

" Accused movie theater gunman James Holmes is spitting at jail officers so frequently that at one point he was made to wear a face guard, sources told ABC News.

Holmes' odd behavior was first seen by the public when he appeared in court Monday looking dazed, alternately bug-eyed and nodding with his eyes closing. "

"Editor's Note: On Tuesday night, ABC News local affiliate station KMGH reported that sources they contacted denied that James Holmes had spit at guards or was made to wear a facemask."

source abcnews.go.com...-KBYjTo

More proof that the MSM is feeding garbage.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the follow mentality that people talk about when talking about alleged conspiracies. Someone talks about thinking the price on the ticket is too low and not one person did what I did...google the theatre.
www.fandango.com... Adult Evening- $6.50

Then someone posts the two pictures and everyone buys it right away. The first thing I noticed was the difference in the bridge of the nose, the mustache area and the chin. Clearly not the same person.

Deny ignorance is the ATS motto and that is what I am doing.

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
I think this thread is an excellent example of the follow mentality that people talk about when talking about alleged conspiracies. Someone talks about thinking the price on the ticket is too low and not one person did what I did...google the theatre.
www.fandango.com... Adult Evening- $6.50

Then someone posts the two pictures and everyone buys it right away. The first thing I noticed was the difference in the bridge of the nose, the mustache area and the chin. Clearly not the same person.

Deny ignorance is the ATS motto and that is what I am doing.

Hmm nope, not everyone bought the two pictures right away, nor the price tag. The thing is, and I will go your way in saying this : when you post something that does not fit the general conspiracy movement, and that does not "offers" a weird, crazy or out of this world explanation of something that would be considered basic in every other circumstances, you won't be noticed, nor starred and flagged (I don't really care about that last bit, but I realized this when posting only facts, like the pictures above coming from the adultfriendfinder profile of Holmes and the zombie poster photograph present in both media pictures and this profile photograph... but I posted it without a crazy theory along with it, and it doesn't seem to have interested anyone. Plus, it could prove Holmes is not a patsy. But hey, you can't fight against the wind ).

Originally posted by Ook33
I don't know if anybody saw this before, so I'll put it here, as I just realized it :
on one of Holmes photographs that were present on his adultfriendfinder account, you can clearly see, on the wall behind him, the zombie poster that was in his apartment when the FBI raided it.

The adultfriendfinder photograph ;

know people were trying to figure out what "really red AOA" meant. someone found a punk band named really red en.wikipedia.org... coincidentally under CIA records. still didn't figure out what AOA means.

Originally posted by xerrnoip

Originally posted by Ook33
I don't know if anybody saw this before, so I'll put it here, as I just realized it :
on one of Holmes photographs that were present on his adultfriendfinder account, you can clearly see, on the wall behind him, the zombie poster that was in his apartment when the FBI raided it.

The adultfriendfinder photograph ;

know people were trying to figure out what "really red AOA" meant. someone found a punk band named really red en.wikipedia.org... coincidentally under CIA records. still didn't figure out what AOA means.

I think the the font is just weird and it reads "heh". As in a little laugh. I'm not completely sure, just my take.

Haven't watched the video yet, but I've been preaching about the holes in the official story since day one. Every time i try to explain them to people, they tell me to put on my tinfoil hat. And yet not a single person has yet to give me a valid explanation for why the police stated that they were able to IMMEDIATELY identify Holmes as the shooter because he was wearing full body armor and a gas mask, when the crime scene photos clearly show the body armor and gas mask lying on the ground. And the gas mask FAR from both the theater exit and Holmes' car, to boot.

There are a few options.
A) There were multiple shooters, one of whom was Holmes. Thus Holmes could have been wearing the armor as police say, AND the armor on the ground is accounted for. But for some reason, no info on other shooters.
B) There was one shooter, but it wasn't Holmes. He is just the fall guy, for some reason.
C) There was one shooter and it was Holmes. He wasn't wearing the armor as police say, yet they were still somehow able to immediately ID him as the shooter. But for some reason, the actual reason is not being made public.
D) There was one shooter and it was Holmes. He was wearing the body armor. But when police arrived, they said "Drop your gun! But walk over to the theater exit and drop it. Now walk back towards your car while dropping all of your body armor. Good. Now walk about 60 yards that way, drop your gas mask, and walk back this way. When you get back here, you are under arrest.

Which if those scenarios seem the least likely???

Even with all of that being said, it's not even touching upon the fact that no surveillance video has been released, despite the fact that there is a camera directly facing that exit. Or the fact that there is blood at the corner near the gas mask that hasn't been accounted for. Or that numerous witnesses saw more than one shooter. Or the fact that police immediately declared that Holmes acted alone, without having nearly enough time to actually mount any sort of investigation. Seems like the sort of thing you would want to investigate.

How about the stick figure confession. First they said a professor contacted them about it. Then they said there was no professor, it was the college. Then they said they kind of just randomly found it. Then the story changed to say that Holmes told them about it.
Now let's think about this. Even if Holmes is guilty, by all accounts he is claiming ignorance of what happened. How much sense would it make for him to repeatedly tell guards that he doesn't remember anything or know why he is in there, and then turn around and tell them about a mailed confession? "I have no idea why i'm in prison. But you should totally go check this place out. I sent them a confession about the crime that i have no memory of committing." Even if the ignorance is an act, that would make zero sense. About as much sense, actually, as booby-trapping your apartment with explosives with the express purpose of killing anybody who enters, and then telling cops "by the way, you probably shouldn't go into my apartment. I booby-trapped it with deadly explosives, and i don't want you guys to get hurt."

I could keep going...
The media claimed he was in jail claiming to be the Joker and spitting on guards, then a guard came out and said he had barely spoken except to ask why he was in prison.
The media claimed his mother told authorities she knew her son had done it, then she came out and said that she had never said such a thing and didn't think he was guilty.
The evidence was IMMEDIATELY sealed. They said releasing it to the public would be "contrary to public interest." If it's truly a case of a lone psycho, how is that contrary to public interest?

But more than anything, it's the fact that police arrived within 90 seconds and IMMEDIATELY arrested Holmes, despite the mass chaos/confusion. How did they ID him so quickly? Because he was standing next to his car wearing full body armor and a gas mask while carrying an AR-15. You know, the body armor laying on the sidewalk, the gas mask far away at the corner of the theater, and the AR-15 laying immediately outside of the exit....
Couldn't possibly make less sense.

"I was particularly interested in how reporters keep asking if there are video cameras in the theater and the question keeps getting side-stepped or completely ignored. "

In the crime scene photos, you can clearly see a security camera on the outside of the theater directly facing that particular theater exit. It certainly would have recorded every single person who entered and exited through the door used by the shooter. And yet, no video has been released. It's absurd.

reply to post by mwood


"To me this video and the thought that there is a conspiracy theory behind it is just crazy....

The part about the cop avoiding questions about whether there‘s camera’s inside…. That could have been just the fact that maybe he hadn’t thought to check for camera’s yet. He seemed to be thinking about it and maybe embarrassed that he hadn’t checked."

You mean the video that STILL hasn't been released, despite the fact that there was a camera directly facing the door used by the shooter(s)? How do you explain that? The video that will NEVER be released, i should say, since all evidence is now sealed by court order.

How do you explain the armor? The police say they ID'ed him immediately because he was carrying a rifle and wearing armor and a gas mask. The crime scene photos clearly show all of that stuff already lying on the ground. And it is extremely spread out, the gas mask being far from where Holmes was standing, so don't say they must have told him to strip and drop it when he was arrested.
How about the fact that they immediately declared that he acted alone? IMMEDIATELY, without any time whatsoever for any sort of investigation? That doesn't strike you as odd? Or the fact that on the police recording, they state (AFTER Holmes was already arrested) that there are 2 suspects heading north on Alameda, one wearing black camo and a gas mask? None of this raises any questions about the incident in your mind?