25 Questions No One Has Asked About Aurora Shooting

Answering them reveals there was no lone gunman

A careful in-depth review by an author who specializes in crimes of the NWO and Intelligence Community, to include MC, by H. Michael Sweeney, Copyright © 2012 all rights reserved. No reproduction permissions will be granted for the first 90 days. Links only, please.

This in-depth article will reveal dozens of startling new investigative issues for the first time, anywhere. The detail required to make concise arguments on a long list of critical elements forces it to be offered in installments. You may wish to subscribe to be sure you do not miss one along the way. Doing so, you will discover:

• Three motives for making James Holmes a Patsy with Fascism as benefactor, and a possible motive for targeting Century Theaters
• Easy link access to the key-most videos and images for each critical point of evidence presented in a logical, easy to follow order.
• Reasoning there were at least three additional helpers involved in a professional black operation backed up by even more supporting players
• Introduction of an actual political REASON for targeting The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR), a reason which supports one of the proposed motives for choosing James Holmes as Patsy
• 25 key questions missed by almost everyone, the answer to any one of which could easily provide reasonable doubt that it was a lone gunman event, or that James even pulled a trigger
• A walk-through narrative portraying an alternate scenario which fits all  conflicting facts into a workable reality.

 James Holmes was a patsy Part One 

James Holmes was a patsy

Introduction: my credentials and methods

H. Michael Sweeney

The reader, if to have confidence in my commentary, should know my credentials. I write this as an author of seven books (proparanoidpress.com) generally upon topics which relate directly in any analysis of the matters in Aurora. That includes the topic of Political Control Technology (PCT — mind control), which mainstream media and government still refuses to acknowledge as a real and valid topic. This they do despite the blatantly available facts which abound, even to include evidence uncovered by Congressional Investigation. My full bio is available here.

But before we get into the meat of these matters, I want you to please stop and see this one video which is by far the most emotional and heart tugging (in a good way) of witness accounts: Jamie Rohre, telling how he and his family were under fire, and the frantic events and steps taken while worrying about his infants and their Mother from whom he had become separated. They were apparently not married, but the interview reveals that once reunited in the hospital, he immediately proposed, and she accepted. WORTH A WATCH. Good can overcome tragedy when you let it.

James Holmes was a patsy

Motives and Political Hay vs. Justice

I would hope my feeble efforts would raise serious questions for not just citizens, but also in the minds of officials; questions which a moral person should rightly feel in clear need of answering if justice is to be served. Questions which might lead any legal defense team working for James to a useful defense proving him innocent. Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that is the goal of either the Court or the Police in this matter, and suspect any defense will be guaranteed to be marginal, at best. As common in all prior mass shooting events, assassination plots, and terrorist events, political hay is more important than a statue of a blindfolded lady, or her set of scales.

Motive 1: The most popular motive talked about the Web is the most obvious; the ‘trade your rights for security’ myth, a key step in order to allow a tighter Police State grip on the people. The hay in mass shootings and assassination plots is gun control, which is the key-most step on the way toward a Police State, and the only way it could long survive or even come to power in America. The proof of these remarks is perhaps easiest to illustrate by the ‘coincidence’ that in every shooting or terror event, Congress just happens to have in hand legislation ready for quick approval (but not reading or due debate) which provides a good deal of such hay for their New World Order horses.

In Aurora, it would be found in three forms, the first of which was, rather than a new law, a need to discuss the United Nations Treaty on Small Arms. Constitutionalists and gun owners fear the Treaty would force the 2^nd Amendment to be repealed and guns to be confiscated, the approval of which was scheduled to be determined in a matter of mere days after the shooting. Fortunately, the effort failed and the treaty was not signed, but that does not end the matter; the U.N. has simply rescheduled for reconsideration to give them time to attempt to make the treaty more appealing (the US was not the only country to refuse it), and a new a sales pitch (more mass shootings, perhaps, such as the Temple shooting in Wisconsin?). I have already screamed my warning thoughts on the gun-grab topic in a series of posts cited at the end of this post. For the best overview of the treaty with both sides of view, visit the Judge Ben C. Green Law Library.

Motive 2: Less commonly discussed, but also logical; the Web is flush with stories stating James’ Father is a whistle blower set to testify in a Federal matter which would, if found damaging, be a potential motive for using as Patsy, his son. His father developed software used to monitor banking transactions for fraud, and it is said that his program detected and can prove where the trillion dollar losses really went — as criminal profits. Imagine trading a finding of mental incapacitation instead of a death sentence in exchange for favorable testimony. As result, his Father is said to have been scheduled to appear as a witness in a Federal Court as a whistleblower. At this point I would be remiss if not admitting the factual value as a motive is based on early speculation, as there has been no useful verification of any such court appearance. It would take considerable study of his Father’s situation to find facts before I accept it as factual, but it is sufficient a red flag as to deserve such study. Read about that, here.

Even more interesting, as a related mater, is that TDKR plot line is rather a strong parallel to the financial crimes under consideration. It may be EXACTLY THE REASON why James, and why TDKR. There is an excellent review of the film with that view in mind, here, with some useful background info on the software in question. Later, we will see there is also a potential reason why Century Theaters.

Motive 3: Also a matter to be determined more concretely, the third potential motive remains quite consistent with my findings in case after case when working with targeted individuals. I’m talking about victims of PCT, which is what I fear James Holmes is based on the wealth of clues in the greater picture. Such persons are always targeted for a reason. Almost always, that reason is FEAR of what the individual knows about some covert and illegal or immoral government Agency’s doings.

James Holmes, like so many of my clients, worked in projects associated with such an Agency; in his case, DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Project Agency. The work, in fact, specifically dealt with matters relating to Political Control Technology, though that is certainly not how they choose to describe it publicly. Learn more about his work, here.

What I find particularly interesting is that, in Jame’s case, the location where this work was undertaken was only two main intersections away from the shooting, essentially on the same Street. Just as interesting, is that he lived just ten minutes by foot away from work, only a couple of blocks from the theater, also just off of that same street, again. We will find some significance in that, later.

Being a PCT victim or even a threat to the entire PCT program would not in and of itself be a motive to set up an elaborate ploy to have them put away for life. There would be simpler solutions. However, if considered such a threat, it would make them a more logical candidate for Patsy among other candidates for a project which was slated regardless of if it was to be James, or not. Better to kill two birds with one stone than two stones.

With these motives and curiosities in mind, let’s tear into the conflicts inherent within the official story:

 James Holmes was a patsy

What we told and can see raises serious questions

“Conspiracy theories” happen when there are obvious questions ignored by officials in government and media (Elephants in the room), where presented facts do not jive one with another. This is always the first hallmark of a cover up in a major story. I should make clear to the reader: there is NEVER a cover up UNLESS there is a CONSPIRACY. A cover up REQUIRES it, in fact, or it becomes impossible to arrange — especially when the “the only person of interest” is behind bars and cannot so arrange. Now, because media has not asked ANY of the questions herein, we must assume such a cover up has begun. Failure to question is a tell-tale hallmark which soon enough results in charges of ‘conspiracy theorists’ when challenged.

So let’s take a look at some of the questions I find most troubling, and address them. I’m not talking about external matters such as reports that FBI pulled a terror warning regarding theater attacks being a possibility. I’m talking about shooting details, doing so because I’m anxious to be called conspiracy theorist one more time, because I love pointing out that’s just a labeling game to avoid discussing issues. So, after I ask all the questions, I’ll present the ONLY plausible scenario which answers all the questions without contradictions, a replay of the crime as a false flag event involving multiple participants.

QUESTION 1: Why did a Judge, within mere hours of the shooting, order all records sealed in this matter as ‘contrary to public interests?’ What facts had been uncovered that early in the investigation which prompted such a concern? It would not be until well into the next day that facts even started to usefully unfold for such an important consideration. I’d like to know who moved for such a ruling, and the reasoning behind their request (stated reasons do not always equate to actual motive). Could it have been a call from Washington D.C., which sparked it?

QUESTION 2: Why was there a training exercise based on the same exact scenario underway at the same time, less than ten minutes away? The Denver Post reports such an exercise indeed took place at the Parker Medical Institute. A common theme in ‘terrorist’ events thought to be a false flag operation, is the holding of a training exercise for exactly the same type event at the same general place and time. This was certainly the case for Sept. 11 and the Subway/Bus bombing in London, for instance, and I seem to recall it being so with the Saran gas attacks in Japan.

QUESTION 3: Why did media first talk about the “lone shooter” effecting his crime by “kicking in the EXIT door?” Like all patsy shooting events, the initial stories given to and relayed by media without question create the all-important ‘first and lasting impression’ in the minds of the public. It would be impossible for anyone to kick in a fire door designed to open outward. In like manner, with the confusion clearly in place, no one could know with confidence at the outset that there was only one shooter, even if true.

No witness could rightly so claim. No Cop would be so foolish as to make such a statement. I would hope no reporter would invent it. But several early news accounts, including one aired on FOX Radio (play the second audio file on the linked page) a single witness identified (in print) only as ‘Pam,’ said exactly that.  Why, unless a ‘planted’ statement for Wag-the-Dog* media manipulation? The first known airing was actually from NBC affiliate, Channel 9, on the scene. From their unthinking quote of ‘Pam’, news people everywhere simply repeated the line, just as mindlessly, and as if fact. Isn’t that a great way to get an initial mental image out into the public?

Was Aurora shooting a DOD or CIA operation?

James Holmes * An expression whereby news is manipulated by Men in Black to make people think things are much different than they really are,

James Holmes    popularized and hilariously illustrated in the Book and film of the same name starring Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, 

QUESTION 4: Why did ABC News deliberately take James’ Mother’s quote out of context to indicate ‘they had the right person’ in arresting James? She has officially protested through legal counsel that that statement was in confirmation to HER identity upon first contact by phone. Again, media twists words and thereby assures ‘first and lasting impressions,’ a known Wag-the-Dog tactic.

QUESTION 5: Who lobbed gas canisters into the Lobby? At 3:29AM, as part of an interview with Police Chief Dan Oates after capture of James Holmes at the rear of the theater complex, a Channel 9 report  reveals a lone gunman entered the lobby and discharged a gas canister and THEN went on the shooting spree. As we will soon see, there are other reasons to believe someone was in the Lobby doing just that. In fact, multiple someones. Did the man in the Lobby have orange hair? No one is telling, no one is asking. Why?

We might reasonably assume the above report an error, an assumption. But in a Web radio interview with witness Tim McGrath who was in theater 8 adjacent to the theater 9 where the shooting took place, we learn that while the shooting took place, there were FLASHES seen with the loud pops described as coming from behind, which would be the lobby/hallway area. It would, after all, be impossible to see any visual signs of activity in the adjacent theater where the shooting took place. So there really was additional activity in the lobby area such as flash bang smoke grenades, as confirmed by the other reports. Moreover, the Police dispatch audio tape appears to reference the front door (Lobby entrance) as being ‘blown out,’ at about 3:50 into the audio.

These events could in no way be undertaken by James Holmes, as he would need to take the time to exit the lobby after throwing canisters and make his way all the way around the building to the back, change clothes, arm himself, and then enter via the EXIT… in time for them to go off in the Lobby and be seen and heard while he is shooting. It makes no sense. How is this possible without at least one accomplice?

QUESTION 6: Who opened the EXIT in theater 9 for James? We now have multiple witnesses who saw someone within the theater open the EXIT door something like 20 minutes before it was used by the shooter. Without stating it in so many words, it is clear Police think it Holmes who opened the door, and then exited the theater through the Lobby to go around to the back where he prepared himself and then used that door.

But there is an oddity, here, because the man opening the door is not described by any witness as having blazing orange hair.  Why not? It was not seen on the shooter, either, because of his head covering. Why wear the hair if not intending to show it? We will come back to this question. But we also have to ask, by what logic or reasoning would James not simply take the EXIT directly to his car and then return? Why return into the theater/lobby area, at all, unless it be a different person with yet another assignment to be fulfilled who did so?

QUESTION 7: How did the shooter gain entrance to REAR EXIT of the building at the time of the shooting? We know how he gained entrance to the theater through the EXIT door but that doorway led only to a short hallway serving theater 10 and 9 together, to yet another secure fire door opening to the lot where James’ car was parked. How did that door get opened for James? No one on the Web has addressed this question before me, and I think I know the answer.

Was Aurora shooting a DOD or CIA operation?

The next installment asks these questions:

 

James Holmes • Who warned people not to use the EXIT doors advising the shooter was outside, and why?

James Holmes • Why did the shooter waste bullets shooting at a blank wall causing bullets to enter theater 10?

James Holmes • Who wore the second gas mask and used the second rifle found at the scene?

James Holmes • Why did the shooter not shoot the most logical victim?

James Holmes • Why did that victim describe the first weapon used was a Rifle, when another says shotgun – who was indeed shot by a shotgun?

James Holmes • And more…

 

PLEASE: Comment (page bottom, or contact me), Rate (at page top), Share/Tweet this article. Visit my Reader Forum to promote your own cause or URL. 

Related articles

• Mind-Controlled Mass Shootings Don’t Change My Mind (proparanoid.wordpress.com)
• Lion Dance (a screenplay): How China Invades the U.S. via the Canamex Highway (proparanoid.wordpress.com)
• Six Dumb Arguments We’re Hearing About the Aurora Shooting [America’s Screaming Conscience] (gawker.com)

Informed Citizen of the Web… or Just Another Web Walleroo?

 

Try this short and fun test to see how dumbed down you might be…

Who knows? You might even be (gasp!) a Sheeple!

by H. Michael Sweeney

Copyright © 2012, all rights reserved,  Permission to duplicate in unaltered entirety with links in tact hereby given but please advise with URL via Comment or contact to proparanoid at century link net.

Definitions:

A Walleroo is a kind of kangaroo.

Abandoned Walleroo cared for
by Japanese Zookeeper (click)

A Web Walleroo is someone who hops around a lot on the Internet but doesn’t do much besides leave an occasional footprint of their passing through the digital landscape. They hop in and hop out with the briefest of glimpses and seldom stick around to actually absorb messages intended for them. Even when they do, they tend to do nothing useful with the information, being quick to gather visual fluff and short ‘textual or video sound bites,’ but sloth to consider actual substance and knowledge that might challenge their dumbed down state of mind. Got to hop on to the next visual bite!

Why the test? Because I note that while I may post advice to 6,000 ‘friends’ in groups of alleged mutual interests on important topics, less than 5% tend to take note and check out the material offered, and of those (say 300), less than 2% will bother to like, share, repost, rate (page top), or retweet. So I was wondering… is my writing style that bad (mostly get 5 stars when they do rate it) or do I just have nothing useful to say… or am I simply friends to a lot of Web Walleroos.

You can help me answer that by taking the test (or simply tell me you think my messages are just no good). I can deal with rejection very well, thank you.  I think…

You know who you are:
TELL EVERYONE ELSE!

So take the test: Don’t worry if a given answer seems low or high, as they are used in calculations in unexpected ways. Everyone has some level of interest in ‘fluff’ matters of personal interest and some level of interest in more serious matters. This test attempts to quantify and measure one’s degree of interest in these two areas, and thereby to indicate their standing as either (Web citizen) Netizen or Walleroo.

You also needn’t worry if the answer seems unflattering to your sensibilities, because you can easily change your score by simply becoming more involved with the things that truly matter in life. Remember Aesop’s fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper.

Moreover, like all such tests derived by people too smart for their own britches (that would be me), it is not ‘scientific,’ and assumes much not in true evidence. It may therefore not truly reflect your actual status any more than a Political Poll really reflects who is actually going to win an election.

Straws. We are all grasping for straws. But that’s what makes it fun, isn’t it? To see if we can actually catch a straw and find it the right one? Give it a go…

Test questions (pencil and pad in hand), First section:

If you don’t regularly watch TV at all, skip this section (good for you).

How many times a week to you watch a network news show> Jot the number down, and again  a ways to the right of it to make a second column with the same number.

How many times a week to you watch a talking head news/political commentary show? Jot it down, then multiply by 2 and jot that down in the second column.

How many times a week to you watch a reality TV shows? Jot it, then multiply your answer by 3 in the next column.

How many times a week to you watch a celebrity gossip/entertainment/talent show? Jot and multiply by 4.

How many times a week to you watch a sitcom or late night host show? Jot and multiply by 5. Underline these answers and add the columns up and write down the answers.

Now, think hard about the years just prior to Sept. 11 attacks and look at the total number of times for all shows. Ask yourself if you think as you look at each category if you likely watched notably more television then, than today, about the same (+ or – 10%), or notably less?

If less, double the second column total and jot it down just beneath it. If the same, do nothing, we will use the number directly. If less, divide the multiplied number in half and jot that down (approximate whole number is fine).

This is your ‘TV Media Impact‘ Score, which reflects how much of a chance your opinions, attitudes, and ACTIONS are altered by television.

New section: draw a line

How many Web Social Networks do you belong to or blogs, groups or causes do you regularly visit on line?  Jot it down

Beneath this, jot down the total number of times you log into or visit them each week in total. You may wish to use margin space to jot down each one and add them up if you can’t do it in your head.

Multiply the two numbers and jot it down in the second column.

What is a typical number of times you like, share, comment, or rate someone else’s post or blog in a week – ONLY those posts which are NOT about personal matters but are actually about causes and topical matters of a more serious nature externally impacting your life, the country, or the World. Jot it down in the second column.

What is the typical number of times you like, share, comment, or rate where the topics are  more of personal interests of less serious nature than the above. Put it in the second column and underline for a subtraction.

Subtract the second from the first. If less than zero, use zero.

This is your “Social Media Impact score.”

New Section: draw a line

Now subtract Social Media from TV Media and jot it down as a single, middle column. If less than zero, use a minus sign and keep going. You can probably do the rest of it in your head from here on.

subtract one for each real-world (e.g., Greenpeace, Republican Party, Garden Club, Exercise Club membership) or Web cause to which you belong and made a cash contribution or pay a membership fee, or have to go somewhere to participate.

Subtract one more for each such group to which you have attended at least three meetings in a year, and subtract five more for each instance which required overnight travel.

Subtract five for each attendance at a protest rally or public forum/debate, and five more for overnight travel, and 10 more if you participated as speaker or open dialog with a speaker, and 10 more again if you had an unpleasant confrontation with Police or other participants as result (stern words or worse).

Subtract 25 for each Web site or blog page, Cause, or Group you personally created and manage on the Web which has to do with the serious type of matters.

Circle this last result, which your final score for determining your status: Netizen vs. Web Walleroo. Lower is better as you may by now have guessed…

Scoring Section

Book by Chesa Boudin, Kenyon Farrow,           and Dan Berger, Nation Books (click)

0-5 You are a concerned and aware citizen.

The closer to zero, the more active and informed you are compared to others on the Web, and the more potent you are as activist both on the Web and in real life (they amplify your power in one with the other). you’ve probably Read at least one book each by Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Adios Huxley, and Hunter S. Thompson. You’ve read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and something by Thomas Jefferson SINCE school days, know at least two Constitutional Amendments for which you can correctly identify their number and purpose, and you know what Posse Comitatus refers to.

Now, if a negative number, you are a subversive radical

Yes, just like me, and as result you are probably being watched by one or more government agencies! Better read my book, The Professional Paranoid: How to Fight Back When Investigated, Surveilled, Stalked or Targeted by Any Individual, Group, or Agency. You tend to be a Truther and think the FED, Congress, the IRS, the UN, the Bilderbergers, the National Debt, and Terrorism are just forms of phony baloney. You have pet conspiracies you follow and probably believe in UFOs and mind control. GOOD FOR YOU! Right on all counts!

The larger the negative number, the more lists you are on with government, and the more likely you are to end up targeted by a Drone for surveillance, liable to actions sanctioned under the NDAA, have a FEMA Camp bed with your name on it, or likely to enjoy targeting with Political Control Technology (e.g., voices in your head, microwave assaults, street theater and gang stalking, etc.) You should use FOIA with all of the initialed Agencies of government to see how many files there are opened on you and what they are willing to tell you is in them. The more redactions you see, the more of a terrorist you are considered to be, and the more sophisticated resources they are throwing at you in order to keep tabs on you. In other words, THEY FEAR YOU! You are being a PATRIOT who questions government!

5-10 You are wishy washy on controversial matters, not terribly concerned that all the bad things out there can have too much impact on your life, but probably enjoy watching it all unfold, a form of entertainment. You join groups but  don’t participate and probably don’t contribute. You sometimes shrug your shoulders and may catch yourself saying any of the following. ‘That may be true, but we can’t do anything about it.’ ‘As long as it isn’t me, I’m not sticking my nose where it don’t belong.’ ‘They probably know what’s best.’ ‘If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn’t matter.’ When you do choose to participate, it may be a contrarian remark or criticism, an attempt to change the subject.

10-25. You are a Walleroo! You should become more proactive in your beliefs, and perhaps should be taking a very close look at just what you do believe, and why. Challenge your beliefs to pass hard tests as proposed by those who believe contrary, and the truth may just set you free. This can alter (adjust) your priorities to be more in line with your true needs, which you’ve likely been hiding from yourself. You may even be that Ostrich with its head in the sand as the Lion approaches, hoping that if you can’t see the evil, it will not see you — like the Ravenous Blugblatter Beast of Traal, which is described in the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Universe this way…

The Ravenous Blugblatter Beast of Traal; 

A rather large creature that likes to eat things. 

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head. 

My note: That’s not how it works, folks. The ravenous beast which is in the Earth and roareth about seeking whosoever he may devour looks first for those who pretend not to know he is there, or even refuses to admit he exists in the first place. The Ostrich among us is is easiest to take and has no opportunity to protest.

More than 25? You are not only a Walleroo, but a Sheeple! You are probably perfectly content to buy whatever media and government hands you as Gospel, and tend not to care too much about scandals where they are caught lying to you, stealing your tax money, having sex with under age moist cigars, and the like. You are an adamant consumer of products and likely a staunch Republican or Democrat who accepts party line as the only line because that’s what your parents did.

As long as you can continue to enjoy your small World of pleasures you have defined for yourself (like the Grasshopper  who preferred to play his fiddle than worry about things to come), you remain content. You have a towel wrapped around your head at all times, and will not even know what hit you when evil finds you. Now, hop off happily to the next bit of fluff, if I haven’t already lost you somewhere around the definitions – because if you are still reading this, I doubt we are talking about you, at all!

******

If you enjoyed this in any way, shape or form, I KNOW you will enjoy my companion post on calculating how much money the Federal Reserve has cost you personally. Its a bit more complex, but far more interesting and shocking in results.

Related articles

• Dissent Without Permission: Will Protest Permits & Free Speech Zones Halt Or Hasten Rebellion? (corporategreedchronicles.com)
• Political Parties are Like Entertainment for the Compliant Sheeple (libertarianreview.us)