#1 James Holmes Thread (Mass Shooting at "Dark Knight Rises" Premier in Aurora, Colorado, 7-20-12)

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

The media has come out and said he was adopted, not sure about the source of their information, and it's always possible that they could have gotten that wrong, but it seems strange that they would have mentioned it otherwise.

As far as the Holmes family being Mayflower descendants, I think this is just the media exploiting information they have gleaned re: Robert Holmes family.

Many people don't understand that adoption doen't make someone family, more like a family pet.

I'm just bothered by the retardation on this forum. For every head I cut off, ten more even crazier ones grow back in its place.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I'm just bothered by the retardation on this forum. For every head I cut off, ten more even crazier ones grow back in its place.

People are stupid....look at how many believe in Christianity.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

That is not reasoning. That is the opposite of reasoning. Do you understand that facts are not the same thing as opinions?



Common sense is too often just someone's opinion - ie, he looks like his dad.

It has been asserted he is adopted. Nothing you say answers that question.

IS HE ADOPTED?

Once that is established, then...

...what are his biological parents' ethnic backgrounds?

Wow, it really is clear to me that thinking is a foreign language to most people.

Without facts, all we can go on are opinions. Who first said he was adopted? What's their source? Exactly. Someone said someone said someone said.

A father of one of the dead victims told The Post that cops revealed to him that Holmes was adopted

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...#ixzz222XkVR8p

That came out five days ago. I'm pretty sure that cops don't go running around revealing sensitive information like that to random people, and if they had, Holmes' solicitor might have had something to say about it.

So seeing as there is no reliable source to question or check up on, all we can do is go on opinions and common sense.

[Alex Linder]

My point is, these fucking dummies are so dumb, they don't even see the material that MIGHT SUPPORT their side. In fact, Akins, the one they hate, was the one who brought it up! And they were too fucking retarded even to grasp the implication. What irony.

Retards: your only chance left to prove TO THE SANE (among which you do not number) that HOLMES IS A JEW is to cross your fingers that he was ADOPTED and that his BIOLOGICAL PARENTS were JEWS.

I highly doubt that, since jews have few children, and they are wanted, and if not, they would probably go to other jews, but THERE'S YOUR CHANCE, RETARDS!

Jump on it with both feet!

And of course, he could be some mix of something else.

But, odds are he's probably still what he appears to be, an ordinary white guy of British descent. If he's not, then I'll admit I'm wrong. Maybe he's German or Slavic, but he appears British to me. But then again, unlike y'all, I recognize my opinion for what it is - MERELY A GUESS based on appearance and contextual knowledge.

Jesus P. Christ on a pogo stick.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

James Holmes adopted and other news


“…his mother revealed she feared he had been disturbed for years and was concerned about his social isolation.

Arlene Holmes, who lives in San Diego, California and was only made aware of the shootings when a reporter called her for a comment, is said to have urged her son to seek counseling.

According to reports, the neuroscience graduate was adopted and Mrs Holmes, 58, and husband Robert, 61, a software developer, raised him as one of their own.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz21fbGwmBL

“Neighbors and people close to the family said Arlene Holmes had confided to friends that she was very concerned about her son’s social isolation and had sought counseling for him years earlier. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...W_story_1.html

The report is apparently from a copper telling a bereaved relative who then apparently told the Post. That is evidence?

Which relative?
Which copper?
Why hasn't his solicitor screamed about his rights to privacy or data protection or whatever you call it over there?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Bev

Without facts, all we can go on are opinions. Who first said he was adopted? What's their source? Exactly. Someone said someone said someone said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...#ixzz222XkVR8p

That came out five days ago. I'm pretty sure that cops don't go running around revealing sensitive information like that to random people, and if they had, Holmes' solicitor might have had something to say about it.

"Random people" - the guy it was revealed to is the parent of a victim. That is the opposite of a random person. Second, there's no reason for any of these parties to lie because it doesn't matter. It would only matter to those trying to prove Holmes is not what he appears, which is yours and the others' side.

So seeing as there is no reliable source to question or check up on, all we can do is go on opinions and common sense.

Your common sense is your opinion, it is the opposite of common sense in too many cases. You accept 9/11 at face value, per Donnie's sig, and you doubt this? Is that your idea of common sense?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Bev

The report is apparently from a copper telling a bereaved relative who then apparently told the Post. That is evidence?

Which relative?
Which copper?
Why hasn't his solicitor screamed about his rights to privacy or data protection or whatever you call it over there?

So this report that he is adopted has been published in at least 3-4 regular news sources. But you KNOW that it's not true.

No, they're making up that he's adopted. Because it obviously serves their agenda to...what?

The fucking rationality on this thread is like water in the desert.

[OTPTT]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Remember how you asked me whether the guy running the grounds of the cemetery in which Channon Christian was buried was lying to you/us over the phone about the cemetery's location (as we drove around trying to find it)? That was the precise moment I knew you were crazy.

Not sure that's an accurate characterization of that particular interaction, but my reasoning was based on the fact that it's possible they didn't want people visiting her grave at that particular time. Additionally, the general question was asked only after we had some difficultly locating that particular cemetery in question and wasn't asked out of the blue. Remember it taking us at least an hour to find it?

This was just after the first rally and before the second one. There was much sensitivity abounding in regard to "racist" outsiders causing problems for the locals in Knoxville. This coupled with our failure to locate the cemetery within a reasonable amount of time led to my query. Nothing else including being "crazy," another term without medical or legal meaning, was the motivation for said question.

Why take something out of context and then use the misrepresentation to attack me? I don't understand.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

"Random people" - the guy it was revealed to is the parent of a victim. That is the opposite of a random person. Second, there's no reason for any of these parties to lie because it doesn't matter.

There's a reason for the reporter to lie.

It would only matter to those trying to prove Holmes is not what he appears, which is yours and the others' side.

How is it my side? I've said several times that I have an open mind but that I suspect the three questions/discrepancies I have will be straightened out as more information becomes available and were probably made in the confusion of the moment.

The first time the conspiracy came up I asked for a motive. Nobody could manage anything other than some vague waffle about gun control. I pointed out that with all due respect and sympathy, this caper was not devastating enough, not big enough to make America hand over their guns so I wasn't buying that as a motive.

I then set out to try and prove it was a conspiracy and couldn't, with the exception of the three minor queries I have which, as I said, could quite well have been born from the confusion of the moment.

Post 543 when the conspiracy first arose:

Originally Posted by Me

I'm not buying any of that. The mother comment makes sense and that's about it. Information gets distorted in the heat of the moment and this can probably explain a lot of the apparent contradictions. It's a well known fact that you can ask ten people to watch an incident and then describe it and you will get ten different accounts.

When something like this pops up, I always look for the most important part - the motive. What's the motive? Who gains? Nobody gains from this.

Your common sense is your opinion, it is the opposite of common sense in too many cases. You accept 9/11 at face value, per Donnie's sig, and you doubt this? Is that your idea of common sense?

Donnie is the one accepting the official story on 9/11. He has the sig (which is made from a couple of tags I put in the who did 911 poll) to take the mickey out of me because I don't accept it.

[Darius Appleby]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...217119&page=63

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by OTPTT

Not sure that's an accurate characterization of that particular interaction, but my reasoning was based on the fact that it's possible they didn't want people visiting her grave at that particular time. Additionally, the general question was asked only after we had some difficultly locating that particular cemetery in question and wasn't asked out of the blue. Remember it taking us at least an hour to find it?

No, it took YOU that long to find it, because you were not capable of conveying to me the guy's directions. That's why I said, just go home, I'll find it. And I found it in ten minutes. You were driving me bonkers with your craziness. You called the guy like three times, and you could not successfully transfer whatever he said to me or onto the map. And the reason for this is, due to your maniacal suspiciousness, you didn't really want to believe what he was saying in the first place, so didn't really get it down accurately.

This was just after the first rally and before the second one. There was much sensitivity abounding in regard to "racist" outsiders causing problems for the locals in Knoxville. This coupled with our failure to locate the cemetery within a reasonable amount of time led to my query. Nothing else including being "crazy," another term without medical or legal meaning, was the motivation for said question.

Why take something out of context and then use the misrepresentation to attack me? I don't understand.

You brought up our personal interaction at Knoxville, so I'm just adding one more to explain my view of you. You say, "my reasoning was based on the fact that it's possible they didn't want people visiting her grave at that particular time." See, that isn't reasoning, that's maniacal paranoid suspiciousness. It is irrational. No one thinks like that. You seriously think someone is going to lie about where a publicly known cemetery is over the phone? When he knows we know 1) the name of the cemetery, and 2) we can get a map that shows its location, meaning that 3) he's going to have to deal with us face to face if he's lying.

This is the thing, Tony. People who are crazy don't know they're crazy. They think they're sane. It is crazy to think the serious professional wearing a tie and clothes on a hot day is going to get on the phone and LIE to somebody about where his cemetery is located. No reasonable person in rational contact with the world would think that way.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Bev

There's a reason for the reporter to lie.

What reason is that? And which reporter, since this story has apparently been in Daily Mail, Washington Post, NY Post, MSNBC? Are all these reporters and repeaters conspiring to lie that this guy was adopted? Why?

How is it my side? I've said several times that I have an open mind but that I suspect the three questions/discrepancies I have will be straightened out as more information becomes available and were probably made in the confusion of the moment.

The irrationality comes in when there's no obvious motive for coverup on the part of anybody involved - media, cops, shooter, parents. Questions can be raised about anything. If there's no reason to raise them, it is better not to. It's harder to see the real conspiracies, like the WTC demolitions, when every single prominent public event is treated like one by the retards on this forum and on Facebook.

Donnie is the one accepting the official story on 9/11. He has the sig (which is made from a couple of tags I put in the who did 911 poll) to take the mickey out of me because I don't accept it.

Well, I'm glad to hear that at least.

Let me just say, I don't think paranoids and delusional obsessives should be encouraged. I think they should be laughed at. Not a single person has put foward any credible reason for believing this event wasn't exactly what it appears to be, some guy going off for private mental reasons. That being the case, the right thing to do is just leave it alone. I mean, I don't stop people from talking about it here, I just get disgusted by the stupidity and maniacal suspiciousness.

[OTPTT]

Anyone who's ever had a newspaper article written about them knows reporters lie or fail to get the facts straight. They are either liars or incompetent. Having had at least two hit pieces written about me in two separate newspapers by JEWISH JOURNALISTS I picked liars as the appropriate descriptor.

One of the articles appeared on the front page of the Sunday paper in a city with a population of 5.5 million with the glaringly Jewish writer's name. At the time I was unaware of the Jewish connection and the significance of the writer being Jewish.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by OTPTT

Anyone who's ever had a newspaper article written about them knows reporters lie or fail to get the facts straight. They are either liars or incompetent. Having had at least two hit pieces written about me in two separate newspapers by JEWISH JOURNALISTS I picked liars as the appropriate descriptor.

Yes, they are incompetent liars. But they don't lie for no reason, they lie to push an agenda. If there's no agenda at stake, what are they going to lie about?

No one benefits from what Holmes did. Yeah the fags like Bloomberg can try to sell it, but they do that every time. That is separate and apart form this event. Bloomberg didn't set it up. And no one outside of NYC cares what he thinks anyway. Just the usual partisan yapping that follows every national event. No one is to blame for Aurora but the shooter himself. There's no greater lesson in it.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by OTPTT

Anyone who's ever had a newspaper article written about them knows reporters lie or fail to get the facts straight. They are either liars or incompetent. Having had at least two hit pieces written about me in two separate newspapers by JEWISH JOURNALISTS I picked liars as the appropriate descriptor.

One of the articles appeared on the front page of the Sunday paper in a city with a population of 5.5 million with the glaringly Jewish writer's name.

You seem to be willing to believe British tabloid articles that are published about me.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bev

Donnie is the one accepting the official story on 9/11.

If you mean I don't believe the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks, guilty as charged. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it just ain't there. My opinion, of course.

He has the sig (which is made from a couple of tags I put in the who did 911 poll) to take the mickey out of me because I don't accept it.

Well, since the recent departure of Kennewickman for all points tard, I can once again go sans sig.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

What reason is that? And which reporter, since this story has apparently been in Daily Mail, Washington Post, NY Post, MSNBC? Are all these reporters and repeaters conspiring to lie that this guy was adopted? Why?

News sells.

Why did they all repeat that he was a Tea Partier then a Democrat then a middle of the roader? Clearly all three can't be correct. Someone said it and then everyone else ran with it to keep the audience.

I doubt they're conspiring to lie but I think it's highly likely that one either got it from somewhere or just invented it and then the rest repeated it, as they did everything else. The DM for example always states that "the So and So Post" reported so they obviously pick it up from somewhere else. Regurgitated hearsay. The one I linked to was the one claiming to have it from a relative and the first one (going by dates and times) to have reported it. (that I've found.)

Here's where the DM said he was adopted.

According to reports, the neuroscience graduate was adopted and Mrs Holmes, 58, and husband Robert, 61, a software developer, raised him as one of their own

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ic-father.html

From the same story: "according to Fox News", "she told an ABC reporter", "the claim in the Washington Post", "told the New York Daily News", "told UT San Diego", "law enforcement source told Fox" and on and on. Everything they print is stuff they have picked up from elsewhere and repackaged.

I've tried to find mentions on MSNBC and Washington Post of them saying he was adopted using the site:www trick but can't find them. I suspect they'll be using similar wording.

He may well have been adopted. But all we have to go by in the way of "proof" is an anonymous hearsay report from the same sources that also said he was of three different political persuasions. And even if he was, it still doesn't make him jewish for one of the reasons I gave earlier.

The irrationality comes in when there's no obvious motive for coverup on the part of anybody involved - media, cops, shooter, parents. Questions can be raised about anything. If there's no reason to raise them, it is better not to. It's harder to see the real conspiracies, like the WTC demolitions, when every single prominent public event is treated like one by the retards on this forum and on Facebook.

Right from the start I asked for a motive. I asked who benefits. Nobody could answer.

Point taken about not raising questions.

Well, I'm glad to hear that at least.

Let me just say, I don't think paranoids and delusional obsessives should be encouraged. I think they should be laughed at. Not a single person has put foward any credible reason for believing this event wasn't exactly what it appears to be, some guy going off for private mental reasons. That being the case, the right thing to do is just leave it alone. I mean, I don't stop people from talking about it here, I just get disgusted by the stupidity and maniacal suspiciousness.

Which is similar to what I said at the beginning - a nutcase with a hatred for the world, or words to that effect.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

If you mean I don't believe the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks, guilty as charged. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it just ain't there. My opinion, of course.

If you want to believe that a plane full of people, pilots and staff happily sat there and said "crack on then, mate" to a boxcutter wielding Arab who was intent on killing them all, the BBC announcing the fall of the second tower whilst we could see it in the background as large as life and everything in between, you are entitled to your opinion and I hope you're very happy together.

Well, since the recent departure of Kennewickman for all points tard, I can once again go sans sig.

Then I shall consider reclaiming it and using it as my own!

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bev

If you want to believe that a plane full of people, pilots and staff happily sat there and said "crack on then, mate" to a boxcutter wielding Arab who was intent on killing them all, the BBC announcing the fall of the second tower whilst we could see it in the background as large as life and everything in between, you are entitled to your opinion and I hope you're very happy together.

Just check the transcripts of the calls made from the hijacked jets, Bev. Not that this is the thread to re-hash it.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

Just check the transcripts of the calls made from the hijacked jets, Bev. Not that this is the thread to re-hash it.

I'll respond on the old thread, rather than further jack this one.