Aurora theater shooting court documents blows inside job conspiracy wide open

Mar 2008
Broadcast Depth
Friday's report by the online version of Denver's Westword Magazine details shocking claims made by, what appears to be, a new victim in a case that has throttled a community still in mourning over the tragic events. According to the court documents an individual, whose name has been officially redacted from the documents, came forward to file a “Motion to Intervene” for the right to be reasonably heard under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (a)(4), for the purposes of presenting newly discovered evidence to the court.

Corroborating much of a recent Conspiracy Examiner story maintaining the situation as potentially being another horrific (rogue government faction) conspiracy and possible false-flag event, the newly discovered evidence, thrown out of court by Judge William Sylvester days later, details stunning accusations against billionaire Philip Anschutz, Police Chief Dan Oates, Arapaho County Dist. Atty. Carol Chambers and, according to the alleged victim, the Illuminati as being potential co-conspirators in the crime.

The stunning accusations, dated August 27, reveal a startling story by the claimant as having been visited at home by police chief Dan Oates and Dist. Atty. Carol Chambers where they forced the unnamed individual to testify as a fake victim of the shootings, under the threat of being arrested for prostitution and escort services and charity fraud, for the purposes of garnering an easy conviction against alleged shooter James Holmes. But not before being shot by the police chief in “non-life-threatening areas” of the body, according to the motion, to appear as having been shot by James Holmes himself. The motion also claims that it is likely some of the victims in the theater were merely paid actors working on behalf of the conspirators and wants multiple individuals involved in the situation to take polygraph tests to prove their innocence.
I bolded that contradictory part for a reason. I know you apologists and assorted ostriches will get to that part and stop, ready to chastize me for being a conspiracy ree-tard.

Let's skip all that and save this thread about 30 pages. The article continues:

Claiming that their conscience will not let fraudulent testimony contribute to an improper conviction of James Holmes, the new mystery victim asked that the judge submit the case to the FBI and the US Congress for further investigation into the alleged conspiracy. The judge, however, instead of taking a closer look, decided to strike down the motion as fraudulent, claiming the motion as likely forged by an individual or individuals unassociated with the events. The judge also suggested the situation be investigated by the Arapahoe County Sheriff's office and those responsible for the motion be taken into custody by the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services and “referred to the appropriate mental health agency.”

But it may in fact be the judge that needs the mental attention as all the evidence collected in the case thus far seems to point toward mostly agreeing with the individual who filed the claim, despite the media and the court's attempts to suppress any evidence that doesn't support the official story. Multiple and corroborating eyewitness testimony stated what appeared to be multiple individuals involved in the shooting, including supporting official dispatch audio. Individuals interviewed by local media immediately after the event also claimed to have seen teargas canisters being deployed in the theater simultaneously from two different directions, in addition to side-by-side images of James Holmes prior to the shootings and the orange haired individual taken into custody as the alleged lone gunmen after the event looks startlingly like two different individuals. There also seems to have been two different gas masks found at the scene, in addition to other damning evidence that doesn't jive with the official version of the events.
Aurora theater shooting court documents blows inside job conspiracy wide open - Denver Conspiracy |
  • Like
Reactions: nonsqtr
Mar 2008
Broadcast Depth
This judge is acting too skeezy to NOT be in someone's pocket.

Notice the nod to the Raub case by mentioning in the docket that the people filing the motion should be found and remanded to mental health professionals.

Get ready for it, America. You don't like what the State is doing? Then you need to be sent to the psych ward to be reprogrammed.
Mar 2008
Broadcast Depth
Interesting research that didn't come from my desk:

Chris Ramos's account of the events is the one that has been used the most. You'll notice that in every video he basically goes over the same points using the same words and gestures, seems very scripted. The media was also pushing the story of this couple forcing tears in front of the cameras.
Ok. I've taken some acting training, and this Chris Ramos guy is acting. And doing it badly. I'm just going to go over some of the huge tells that this guy uses. If you like this feel free to steal it and use it.

1) You see him "prepare". He distinctly inhales, says the word "well" and then exhales. This is an incredibly common occurrence to see a "Monologuing actor" do, especially if he's bad at it. He's basically over preparing himself physically for the job, instead of doing what most of us do and just start talking. It's common to see people stutter, sputter or have a very poor take off at the beginning, but this guy is bracing to speak for a lengthy period of time.

2) He continuously mentions the movie as if it's an integral part to the story about a man shooting at him. This is what's tipping me off that it's scripted. Script writers care about details. People don't.

3) His arm movements. This actor has a bad case of "I don't know what to do with my arms-itis". Look at him swing them, or use them to try and panto-mime explosions or things as if we won't understand his clearly written words.

4) "Bam Bam Like Fireworks." If this isn't scripted then this kid always talks like someone who is reading off of a cue card. The phrase "Like Fireworks" is one that someone will add as an afterthought, or grasp at, or have some kind of internal struggle in order to find. He says it as if it's an empirical fact and it's obvious that he at the very least this was pre-written by someone.

5) "Sitting right next to you." George Stropoloploploplooplosoasdfjalfkghjus says "Sitting right next to you" and the kid doesn't respond. Not responding is an incredibly common occurrence when someone is doing a monologue. He doesn't attempt to listen to George, he doesn't attempt to respond with even a "yeah". He's either been instructed to not respond, or he's "in the zone". Given the horrific performance art I'm seeing here there's no way "The Zone" that he's reliving is a legitimate fire fight. He does this a few times.

6) "Like-itus." When actors lose their script, as this guy obvious does as he stumbles through his scripted retelling of the action, they'll default to a word to buy them time and propel them forward. "Fuckin'" is a classic, and "Like" is as common as it gets. The number one word the layman will use if they're in a position where they're uncertain is "Um". You can watch any amount of lectures or speeches to see this unfold. The word "Like" is a bad habit for a monologuing actor to have, and he's defaulted to it because "At least it isn't Um." It's probably also a side-effect of the extremely small amount of time he was given to memorize the script.

7) "For the record there was only one shooter." So, right after retelling the story of how he witnessed a man being shot to death right beside him, and how he had to grab his sister and throw her to the floor and protect her as they were in the middle of a sudden war zone, he takes a moment to ensure everyone that there was only one shooter.

If I hadn't been suspicious of this guy before, this would do it 100%. It comes out of nowhere, it's fueled by nothing, he has no motivation to say it, other then some kind of external motivating factor. In the end he's saying that to correlate his story with others and nothing more. It's stilted, weird, and he says it with such confidence and bravado, right after the retelling of what has probably been the most harrowing experience of his life, that I just don't believe him.

It's bad acting.

7) "Christopher you really had presence of mind to tell what's going on there." This isn't presence of mind. This is a script. Let's really go over the events that Christopher told us, and attempt to poke a hole in it instantly.

Chris's story is this.

-We were watching Batman. -The front door opens. -Something flies out from the door and explodes. -He hears two loud bang bang. -The guy beside him dies in a hail of gunfire. -He grabs his sister and hits the deck.

At what point is he supposed to find out that there was only one shooter, to the point where he is so confident that there was only one shooter that he is willing to declare it as fact on national television. Was it after the explosion? Or was it after the guy died beside him? How about after he buried his face in the floor?

The fact that George doesn't pursue the obvious line of questioning, which is "How do you know there was only one gunman?" Tells us that George is reading from a script too. His statement of "Gee-willikers Chris, way to keep your cool." is not journalism, but stage-craft.

Side note: Sometimes I imagine FOX news anchors are aware that their country is now taken over by corporations and they're aware that they are the most egregious offenders, but they also understand that if they speak up, they'll lose their jobs and be discarded like millions of others. So when they're going through these kinds of scripted events, they'll really do everything they can to sarcastically point out flaws in the narrative. "Wow! You noticed a small, but crucial, detail while under fire, a position you've never been in before in your life? Good work!" Ugh.

8) "I'm sorry can you say that one more time?" THERE HE IS! When there's a technical difficulty and he can't hear George's question, he distinctly breaks from the character and the script and asks the question as himself. It's painfully obvious to see. Up until now he's been strong, stoic, and calm, while talking about witnessing horrific murder and being under fire himself, but in the fact of a minor technical difficulty he stares into the camera, uncertain what to do for longer then the delay would take, cracks, smiles, speaks softly and timidly as if he is embarrassed to need to ask George to ask the question again. His arm movements stop, his head shaking mannerisms stop, he just becomes a regular guy for just a moment.

9) And then you can hear him prepare to monologue again. He draws in a sharp breath, delays it, and then goes on. Notice how he says his first "Um" here. He's doing that because of an unexpected occurrence and, as a human, he doesn't know how to react. Again, the most common expression uttered during moments of uncertainty is "Um".

10) Cover the "one gun man story". He looked back while crawling. Ok. Y'know what. I'll even buy it. I'll buy into this idea that while under fire, and being trampled by other people, you were able to look back, see a gunman, identify that there was only one gun man, and continue panicking.

11) "Sixty or Seventy Rounds." I'm sorry. Coming out of this kid's mouth, this sounds like shit. There is no way this phrase comes out of a latino student's mouth. Shots. Bullets. He Fired... anything but "Rounds". This kid doesn't own a gun. The word "rounds" gets used by military and police personnel, and hunters. This kid is supposed to be none of those things.

It's also eery that he managed to get right on the money with this. It's just really fucking oddly specific.

12) "I can't express to the viewers what the scene was like." Yes, we know. It's because you're a shitty actor doing a bad job of it. After shit like this people have fucking breakdowns. Near death experiences are harrowing, gut wrenching experiences that elate emotion to beyond human ability to control it.

You seem cool though.


My fucking little sister pulls this routine off better. And of course he does it after what is supposed to be his moment of "I can't express to you..." So, up until now he's been super chill. Cool as a cucumber. Even laughing and smiling at points. But now that he's talking about his inability to express the events, here's the fucking waterworks. This actually insults my intelligence that they would put this on television and expect anyone to buy it.

14) "I honestly thought I was gonna die." Just read it like you're crazy. Common actor mistake. Common actor maneuver. Common common common. I've seen it again and again. When you're confronted with expressing something insane, act insane. He grins like a maniac, laughs, says the line, and then moves on. Common common common.

15) This kid gives a performance after this. And it's actually really good for a second. The crying, as well as stating the death moment, propelled him into the space that he always needed to be in, which is that of a human being. Before he was just a dumb fuck reading lines, and just for a moment he managed to dissolve the lines and allow the words to just come out of him as if they were true. The mark of a strong powerful actor is that they can do this all the time. This kid got there, and if he keeps working at it he'll be able to maintain it even during moments that are mundane.

Right now he's a rookie actor he knows when it needs to be on, and he doesn't get that it always needs to be on.

16) The second he takes the pause, he ruins it. He goes right back to his old mannerism, arm swinging, head shaking, the whole gambit. He caught it for just a moment, and then let it go.

Overall this is a shitty actor, reading from a script, to another shitty actor, reading from a script. Nothing about this is real. It is totally manufactured. It is obvious, overt, and plain for even the layman. If a trained actor was to watch this and conclude anything except that it's a bad acting job, I would lose faith in that actor.
Mar 2008
Broadcast Depth
This thread belongs in the Conspiracy section.
Nope. You can't bury this one. It's not a conspiracy that this happened. It's being reported as fact in a paper of record.

Who are you people that have this compulsive need to shuffle everything off to the conspiracy forum black hole in liu of engaging in discussion first?
Mar 2008
Broadcast Depth
More interesting points made:

At no point did we ever get any CCD footage out of the theater. None for the emergency exit, none from inside the screening room, none from the lobby, none from the parking lot, we got NADA. None from a cell phone cam, absolutely NOTHING. Furthermore, the theater was a very nice modern theater which would have had those things in working order, and what about the mall itself? No footage from the mall either? Think about that. Why not?

On top of that, we got no pictures after the fact from the inside of the theater. NONE, NADA. No bullet holes, no gas canisters, no shell casings, no blood on the floor, NOTHING. Why not?

On the outside of the theater, in the back, there was blood on the sidewalk. But there is one problem with it. First and foremost, the spatters were CLEAN. NO FOOTSTEPS in them. People with some exposure to forensics who have posted on my forum have said that at crime scenes the blood ALWAYS has footprints in it, because it is impossible to stay away from it. Purportedly the blood on the ground was from someone carrying the little girl. In that case, whoever was carrying her would have stepped in the blood while carrying her, leaving bloody footprints and there were NONE. Furthermore, the blood spatters lead TOWARD the emergency exit, not away from it.

The only way these two things could coincide is if a setup team laid the blood scene out and screwed up doing it. This scene could have happened as photographed only if the blood was in a container at the end of a handle, keeping whoever was dumping it on the sidewalk far enough away to not get it on themselves or walk in it. Stupid as they were, they started in the parking lot and worked their way toward the door, rather than starting at the door and working their way out into the parking lot. It's obvious in the following two photos.

Who wants to bet that 2 years from now, we get 5 stills of CCD footage from the media showing almost nothing at all?

But if YOU shot someone in a theater, the CCD tape would be running in syndication before you were even processed.
Last edited:
Mar 2008
Broadcast Depth
Fuck your censorship, valid points are being made:

Another thing that should be easy for most people to grasp that it was only a drill is the fact that the police tapes show that the police were discussing where to put the victim's families and press for photos, WHILE THE SHOOTING WAS IN PROGRESS. At that point they would be clueless as to who the victims families even were, or how to get ahold of them, let alone GET THEM TO THE THEATER AT MIDNIGHT. In fact, why would the families even go to the theater? would the hospital be a better place for that? or do families let Bobby bleed out before getting into the ambulance just for a photo op? This simple statement in the police tapes proves it was all a pre planned setup, with the families and press already on scene before it even started. If you have been bamboozled into believing people died in that theater, you really need to look at the evidence and switch on your B.S. detector.
Recent Similar Discussions Forum Date
Political Discussions
Recent Similar Discussions
Theater of the Absurd