Aurora Colorado "Dark Knight Rises" Theater Shooting 20-7-2012

[Maat]

The woman Pony Anderson, NREMT-P simulation Coordinator, Center for Simulation in this video " Mass Casualty Exercise at Community College of Aurora in Colorado"
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHGLdtR2WU watch 02.07-02.11 into the clip, she looks very similar to vicsim Line Nersnaes from the Oslo attack.

No she doesn't.


Line Nersnæs:

From video @ http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/de-ga-ter ... -1.8102918

[RetroStereo]

Greg Zanis of Illinois delivered 12 crosses to the site of the Aurora, Colo., movie theater on Sunday, July 22, 2012, where a gunman opened fire two days before.

Im here in New Mexico , we have been getting pounded with this stomach turning fakery. i can say this , those crosses as of yesterday, have been showing up as symbolism in a LOT of stories , which aren't related in any way. Don't know why , but it is blatant

[resolution]

Resolution posted a photo above of crosses delivered to the 'site' of the 'non' event.
Just wondering if there is a mundane explanation for the fact that the tree in the background has no leaves in the middle of summer?

(Sorry, at work, no time to re-embed photo etc)

It's a sick tree? Are the crosses in this image just a layer on top of a background?

[brianv]

Huh? Batman and bank fraud?

Since Rudy is here as a garbage link spammer could a MOD please break the URLS, if he's being allowed to stay!



Yes the crosses image is fake!

[I, Gestalta]

A would-be "Joker Massacre" has hereby been "thwarted" by the F.B.I. in tandem with a supervisor at a subcontractor to Pitney Bowes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitney_Bowes

Pictures of the "perp" and his "arsenal". I've done an ELA on the "perp" image, and it seems clean. The rainbowing seems to be perfectly acceptable and expected from pretty much any Photoshop image. Would anybody else care to run a more thorough analysis?

http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/07/cops- ... -maryland/

I really cannot wrap my mind around his supposed quotes, though: He was quoted as telling his employer, "I am a joker, I'm going to load my guns and blow everybody up," police said.

Yes, I'm going blow people up with GUNS.

http://gma.yahoo.com/joker-massacre-foi ... ories.html

Who writes this bollocks? A robot? A 90-year-old woman without an ounce of thought given to how disconnected her fabricated crock of a quote is from reality? I've found absolutely NOTHING about this person on the internet outside of a result on peoplesearch. Also, in the articles I've read thus far, I've seen nothing about age. The peoplesearch result lists a Neil E. Prescott, 28, in MD.

Lastly, yes, we're apparently calling them "Joker Massacres" now. It has a certain ring to it, no? How many more "copycats" are we going to see? You take the high, I'll take the low: I'm going with, say, 2.

[resolution]

Is this really a fair comparison?

[simonshack]

Is this really a fair comparison?

It's a quite fair comparison - which strongly suggests that face-morphing softwares were used to create the "James Holmes" entity.

[resolution]

Is this really a fair comparison?

It's a quite fair comparison - which strongly suggests that face-morphing softwares were used to create the "James Holmes" entity.

The one on the right is purportedly from a handout provided by the media toy the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office - "accused movie theater shooter James Holmes poses for a booking photo on an unspecified date in Centennial, Colorado." A high resolution image is purportedly able for purchase.


http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news- ... /149141617

[resolution]

Found a source.


http://www.apimages.com/OneUp.aspx?st=d ... type=Photo

It's courtesy the University of Colorado, photographer unknown.



AURORA, CO - JULY 22: Family members listen as the names of the 12 victims of the mass shooting at Century 16 movie theater are read aloud during a prayer vigil at the Aurora Municipal Center July 22, 2012 in Aurora, Colorado. Suspect James Holmes, allegedly went on a shooting spree and killed 12 people and injured 59 during an early morning screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises.' (Photo by Aaron Ontiveroz-Pool/Denver Post via Getty Images)

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news- ... /149100494

There aren't many images that are unconvincing overall, but I didn't feel right about this one.

[I, Gestalta]

Ok, folks:

I would like to suggest that we now start a debate as to just why these psyops are getting stupider and stupider.

I suppose I will chime in with one of my own musings on another forum, which was last night. It was in response to someone jokingly asking me if I were a shill in the midst of a segue into a fakery discussion.

note: I would like to apologize for the explicitness of some of my language, as the site on which I'd originally pecked out this thought process is more light-hearted, for the most part. I felt it would be best that I not make any edits to language, but if it is requested of me, I will have no problem in doing so. Going forward, I will make a conscious effort to reign in my intermittent anger or, at the very least, channel it in a less seemingly immature fashion.

There was recently a question posed to Simon Shack over at cluesforum as to why these psyops have become so increasingly drab, sloppy and easily debunk-able over the last several years. I have engaged myself in many introspective ruminations as to a variety of plausible motives, and I have arrived at a series of conclusions determined by information vs. lack of information, how I would personally run a mass hegelian dialectic on a population and how I would create paradigms within those viewpoints to control the conclusions people could plausibly reach, etc etc.

I think it's fairly reasonable to conclude that these psyops are becoming so silly to comfort those "in the know" about media fakery, lulling them into the complacency of understanding the mechanics of how they work, with the ultimate goal of keeping us behind in regards to any new tactics they may have developed (hypermodernized subliminal messaging, for instance). The greatest research debunking the entire 9/11 fraud was conducted/published 6-7 years afterward, and even now, there are many who are still unaware of the obviousness of the fakery being perpetrated unto them---I'd venture to guess that about 95% of the world has no idea that 9/11 is a proven non-event. So, yeah, we're way fucking behind. It's a tactic common in most texts on games theory and even Art of War. Within the context of something I know very well, I'll use poker as an example:

One very simple way to make a lot of money playing against the regulars at any given poker session is to learn to exploit what the opposition knows about you. So, whether or not you're training them to think something, or they have gleaned a "weakness" of yours by their own deductive capacity, it makes no matter in the end, because that knowledge can be exploited and, furthermore, boiled down to coin-flips which true grinders do not wish to be forced into gambling on.

Let's say I've been coming to your home game for a while, and I've been destroying the game consistently for months. Let's take into account the fact that I have lost hands here and there---usually because I was advertising by playing horrible hands on purpose, to convince people to call/raise me in certain 50/50 spots and such, due to my projected horrible table image (I do this all the time)---but, ultimately, I still walk away a winner. Let's say that, one night, I have a losing session due to all of my bluffs being called, or all of my great hands being folded against. Well, fuck, my position-based betting patterns and my knowledge of other players' play-styles has been turned against me. In this situation, here is what I do to continue to stay ahead of whatever game I'm in:

Once I have taken the time to consider the factors which play into my sudden losses coupled with my memory of the opposition's memory of me, my new game plan should obviously be to play into what they expect of me.

Let's say I've developed a habit of re-raising from the hijack (two seats to the right of the button) every time player A opens a pot, and that every time I do this, player B folds his button due to the fact that cold-calling is probably the biggest fucking mathematical leak in any player's hand history in regards to being on the button; and that I've been taking the pot away from player A every time due to having position on him and due to the fact that he is obviously too timid to carry on in a hand without having hit the flop. If someone, say, player B picks up on this, he no longer has to think about his cold call% (intellectual credibility, in a sense), and can begin to demonstrate to the rest of the table just how little respect and weight my bets should actually carry by re-bullying me.

The successful solution is to, obviously, only make this move as a means to goad player B into defending his button when I have a premium hand. The trick, however, is to allow for a large enough space between opportunities for me to make this move, and doing it once in every 2 or 3 chances in order for it to resonate with player B, who is anxious to take advantage of his new insight into my play. When player B plays back at me the first couple of times, I will have no choice but to fold unless I have hit a hand---sometimes I will double barrel, sometimes even triple barrel---because if I'm raising with a hand that I cannot call with, and then I get raised, I'm obviously busted and have no choice but to fold, regardless of his hand. By allowing him to become comfortable in "exploiting" my "mistakes", I now have a new means of controlling his behavior and his reactions, to an extent, and have thus re-obtained the upper hand in that I can maintain that game which he has familiarized himself with (turning it into my back-burner game), whilst playing a far more devious and undetectable game above/underneath.

He will always be several steps behind me, because he is permitting me to dictate the pace based on his reactions to my initial exploitation of the table.

We are still reacting to fakery being conducted against the U.S. and the entire world over 20 years ago.

This makes me want to join the C.I.A. simply for the purposes of entertaining my games-oriented brain. I happen to think that I would be quite the master of devising bullshit news for public consumption; and I would certainly do a better job of it than the fucking Madrid bombings or The Dark Knight Rises "massacre".

If there are any typographical errors, I will fix them tomorrow. It's alcohol time.

[hoi.polloi]

Oh yeah, it's like Mamet's House of Games. Interesting thought wave you got there.

My question is: how do they develop the "type" for their simmads? Their fake baddies? Is it a demographic that they stuff into a sim-personality? Are they riffing off a real-life activist in order to subliminally make people uncomfortable when (s)he enters a room? (Discredit by mass hypnosis?)

Or is it just the cousin of the sim designer and they're laughing about it all the way to the bank?

My sense is that there must be some kind of military strategy in the types of cartoons they transmit - and where the Mr. potatohead pieces are coming from ... and my guess is that they infiltrate and try to subvert anarchist movements in the USA or elsewhere by making mass media villains look like them.

[I, Gestalta]

What a fascinating series of thoughts and lines of inquiry.

My question is: how do they develop the "type" for their simmads? Their fake baddies?
Is it a demographic that they stuff into a sim-personality?
Are they riffing off a real-life activist in order to subliminally make people uncomfortable
when (s)he enters a room? (Discredit by mass hypnosis?)

On a multitude of occasions throughout the course of any self-respecting intellectual's life, there comes
a need to re-asses one's own ideology, values and general worldview. In these instances, it is a common
practice to make attempts to observe oneself as objectively as possible to ascertain that all available manners of
thoroughness are in employ, then moving forward accordingly. One of the questions I think a lot of intellectuals are all but forced
to ask themselves is: "Can everybody really be this stupid/shallow/generic?"; and, after having entertained both the naive and the cynical
ends of that spectrum---a.) C'mon, there's no way people are that stupid, and here's why, or b.) Sigh. People really are
that stupid. C'est la vie---they often emerge from the ocean of possibilities with a murky combination of befuddlement and disillusionment. Perhaps the pessimism
and the hopeful-ness engendered by such thinking is but another layer of mankind's dualistic nature, but that is another conversation in its entirety; although, equally murky.

In regard to THIS conversation, however, I feel as though having an understanding as to the nuanced nature of humanity is tantamount to reaching any
sort of conclusive, intellectually-sound resolution in terms of the oft-archetypically-oriented nature of the events and characters our media/government/military are attempting to sell to us.

To that effect, no matter what you conclude about the depth of intelligence of most humans, it is certainly obvious that, in almost every single one of these psyops,
there is an undeniably present element of the lowest common denominator.

So, to answer your question, I would opine that there is perhaps a think-tank in place to qualify the texture of any given populace's intellectual and emotional susceptibilities.
After having cast any sort of blanketing idea onto the bed of a culture's/country's/world's tendencies toward thought, it can then be broken down into discernible yet broad categories based on the nature
of the reactions to the initial offering.

Thus far---and, correct me if I am wrong---most of these experiments have been rather "sweeping", and have yet to become so specific as to target, say, vegan astrophysicists.

If I were to ask the question you asked, it would be re-stated as: Why are all of these people so repulsively surface-level these days when the depths of human psychology are so incredibly vast? Don't the F.B.I., C.I.A., N.S.A., D.O.J., D.H.S. and various police departments have professional psychologists on-hand to develop "profiles" on any manner suspects at a mere glance?
It's almost as if they're...*gasps*....typecasting!

Let's say I wanted to affect change in a particular people's understanding of religious history toward one direction or the other. Certainly, I am going to focus my
attention on airing television programs, instigating debates, proposing laws and faking news stories centered on the most basic possible questions their culture is throwing around regarding the subject at hand.
Roughly 38% of my assets of influence will be aimed toward one end of the spectrum, 38% to the converse, 6% toward those who are capable of seeing beyond false dichotomies (those damned, wretched "intellectuals" who
only need to be spoken to from someone of academic prestige to be satiated and, as such, will be pleased by the "scientific research" and "scientific studies" funded by companies and circles
which cannot be traced back to me), 9% toward demonizing anyone who attempts to travel outside of my paradigm (which ends up being more than an "expressed" 9% of my assets due to
the inflagrant nature of it, and the fact that my other assets will be covering the machinations of this asset) and, finally, 9% toward damage control and data-gathering.

Now, I'm certainly not breaking any ground with what I am saying, but I think these types of perspectives (the viewpoints of a strategist of any kind) offer, if nothing else, a necessary touch of reinforcement and/or reasonable doubt regarding the many interpretations of what seems to be the current function of our media.

note: I will correct any errors within this post tomorrow.

note: Has anyone looked into "The Supervisor" who reported the "Neil Edwin Prescott" character's phone call?

[bostonterrierowner]

I would like to add something in regards to PsyOps being increasingly stupid and easy to debunk and that 95% of population is completely clueless of being mind-fucked that hard : )

First , these psyops are not getting more and more stupid , its just us finally being aware of fakery who have such an impression . Look at 9/11 , its a pathetic piece of "work" .

Secondly , 95% of population not being versus 5% of being aware of media fakery . I would risk a statement that with 5% of people knowing they are watching shitty horror movies scripted by some mentally bent perps and sold to us as "news" we would be in a state of revolution right now . I think the proportions are 99,999999% / 0,00000001 % . There are for sure great numbers of folks suspecting thay are being manipulated but still they think that MSM is doctoring the news , manipulaing the events but they are not aware of the fact that media are creating them . These are 2 completely different states of mentality and awareness .

Regular contributors to Septemberclues have a completely different mental model of perceiving reality . We are on the "other side" completely aware of MSM bullshit reality what makes us alienated , being labeled as freaks even among the closest relatives and partners . Its a long way to 5% , the perps cannot allow it to happen , their structure of lies and deceit would be cracking like crazy in its foundation long before reaching this level of public realization of "PsyOp reality" around them .

p.s.

My gym's co-member is a Polish MSM anchor . I have been thinking for a long time about approaching her and starting the conversation about media fakery . Is she aware of the true character of a content of her "work" or is she just a useful idiot ?

[Pug]

Hey guys,

Some incredibly thought-provoking, interesting posts today.

A couple of side-notes from me:

Coming from a film making background, as well as a freelance showbiz contributor for various newspaper and magazines and the web, I've been fortunate / unfortunate (pending on states of mind) to be included in some unusual conversations when being amongst some reporters - paper press and television news.

One conversation centered around three British news anchors / presenters / reporters. Very popular and in the mainstream. Two female, one male as having dual roles. A public TV face and a 'behind the scenes government face'. I remember chirping in and asking 'what does that mean?' - with the always drunk minor TV news presenter answering: "Spies, dear boy. We all do our bit at some stage. BBC, ITN, MI5 and MI6"

This was several years back now, but the news people being discussed were:

Daisy McAndrew (nee Sampson) - who has revealed in interviews; “I didn’t see the point of having a tea-making badge when I wanted to be a spy” – Daisy McAndrew, chief political correspondent of ITN, explaining why she was thrown out of the Brownies after two weeks - (source - http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/cheap-ta ... ath=2.1792 - Hexham Courant 2005

Katie Derham - who went to Cambridge with previously mentioned 'always drunk minor TV news presenter' - studied Economics at Cambridge and wrote this in an article: "..And let's face it, I talk far too much to cut it with MI5."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... scars.html - Telegraph 2004 article - also mentions this beauty: "Addressed to me, there was a charming card wishing me luck for the first London Tonight show the following day, "From your fans at GCHQ".

Andrew Marr - BBC reporter - was mentioned many a time as being an MI5 recruit, alongside one Harry Potter author 'JK Rowling' - who was rumoured to be a 'remote viewer'.

I hadn't heard of JK Rowling then, but now of course - I can certainly see similarities between the world of espionage and the Harry Potter universe.

I also recall, after 9/11, Screenwriting colleagues of mine, known for penning action movies, were asked to the White House to form a collective whose purpose was to develop concepts and ideas which could be deemed of a terrorist nature. What? Seeing as these groups of people pen destruction in the movies for a career, similar to those in 'terrorist attacks', I do believe a select few were asked to come up with possible terrorist scenarios.

Unsure what came of that group. Will have to look into that a little more.

Cheers,
Pug

[mayor]

Oh yeah, it's like Mamet's House of Games. Interesting thought wave you got there.

My question is: how do they develop the "type" for their simmads? Their fake baddies? Is it a demographic that they stuff into a sim-personality? Are they riffing off a real-life activist in order to subliminally make people uncomfortable when (s)he enters a room? (Discredit by mass hypnosis?)

Or is it just the cousin of the sim designer and they're laughing about it all the way to the bank?

My sense is that there must be some kind of military strategy in the types of cartoons they transmit - and where the Mr. potatohead pieces are coming from ... and my guess is that they infiltrate and try to subvert anarchist movements in the USA or elsewhere by making mass media villains look like them.

This is only an idle, unsophisticated observation that comes from x number of years living in the US, but generally speaking, America, and especially regions like the south/west, tends to favor a solipsistic approach to the 'Other'--persons or groups not like them. The strong immigration policies in Arizona, the Jim Crow laws that exist today but disguised as gentrification and so on. So, as an observer, it's rather uncanny seeing, here in this small Colorado town,the number of interracial couples or otherwise chumminess between black and white, grieving and hurting--together. Then, considering the multicultural theme of London's opening ceremony and the very purpose of the Games itself--it strikes me as all coming together to affect a type of agenda. But, to what aim?