Who knows? But IF the words Sandy Hook and Aurora are noticeably seen in Batman Dark Knight Rises...........which many claim that they are and point to the exact moment, well that's awfully perplexing.
I've heard nothing about this. Who are the "many" who claim this? Where? As for the movie, it exists both on film and in script form. "Sandy Hook" and "Aurora" are either in it or they aren't. If they are, I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more notice than your mention here on this forum.
__________________ It takes a lot of time to be a genius, you have to sit around so much doing nothing. – Gertrude Stein
Sandy Hook is indeed in TBKR. 1:58:45 of the Blu-ray. Sandy Hook (one of many) is a NJ peninsula that exists just south of NYC, close to Staten Island.
The Aurora Corporate Complex appears in Skyfall, I haven't rewatched to get the exact time. It is a shot of the Shanghai skyline at night as it exists now. The Aurora building was finished in 2003. The Skyline trailer with this shot ran before TDKR at least some of the time, I'm not sure if trailers change.
So, "brazen" Illuminati boasting of unfolding societal manipulation and subjugation? Or mere coincidence that the paranoid seek out and offer as "proof"?
As a kicker, recall that the super-villain in TDKR was Bane.
It is coincidence upon coincidence when "Sandy Hook" is shown not only as Sandy Hook but with the big bold words "Strike Zone."
How common is the word Aurora to make it just another coincidence? I had to look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means.
These may indeed be coincidences. Pretty chilling ones to me.
The point, to some, is that Bane is eerily similar to Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's former/current/whatever business interest. Whether that would be an indictment or an endorsement is up for debate.
And yes, it says "Strike Zone 1." Again, if indeed a message, what is it? I guess Aurora was not strike zone 1, as Sandy Hook would appear to be the second wave in this connected puzzle. Or they are unrelated, Aurora being regular old, unsanctioned evil, and Sandy Hook is the "real" start. Or it's intentionally misleading, although that seems a strange way to be cleverly brazen. Or, a production designer picked Sandy Hook off a real map of NYC and its closest surroundings as they created Gotham in a loose image of the existing NYC. Or, whatever else the imagination can conjur up.
I don't know, quantitatively, how common the word "aurora" is, although I tend to think of it as not uncommon. There was a car with that name, celestial bodies of course, multiple US cities (Iowa, Illinois, others), Google reveals multiple companies with that name, and evidently it's even a popular name for American babies:
The point, to some, is that Bane is eerily similar to Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's former/current/whatever business interest. Whether that would be an indictment or an endorsement is up for debate.
Thanks. Somehow I didn't associate Mitt Romney with Aurora and Sandy Hook.
__________________ It takes a lot of time to be a genius, you have to sit around so much doing nothing. – Gertrude Stein
Thanks. Somehow I didn't associate Mitt Romney with Aurora and Sandy Hook.
Neither do I. And as far as I know they are separate "theories", just threw it out there to illustrate that the movie-as-message (and TDKR specifically) is fertile ground for this endeavor.
I also don't associate the other stuff. But I am intrigued by conspiracy and I like movies. I don't doubt, as Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory (!!) discovered, that some of these ideas aren't simply paranoia.. But most likely are.
Why does no one ever pick apart indie movies for conspiracies? Just mega-blockbusters that everyone has seen. I know if I were in the NWO, I'd be putting stuff in movies that gross like $10 million domestically and were made by the Duplass brothers. And I'd make it totally obvious, just to mess with people.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
There's really no sense in arguing with people who claim that everything, no matter how witnessed or documented, is misinformation created by the govt/media conspiracy.
People witnessed suspicious explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11. There are dozens of videos of them giving interviews speaking about massive blasts that are totally inconsistent with the official story. They simply don't fit. Some of these interviews were given by firemen who've seen a fire or two. People at the bottom of the World Trade Center on 9/11 spoke about explosions blowing them upward from basement/subway levels.
If you don't believe me, take the time to watch the string of interviews in the following video, starting at 20:30 and lasting until 28:30 or so:
A common justification (if you can even call it that) most of the lunatic conspiracy theorists use is: "do you trust the government?? No? Exactly--then they must be lying."
Usually, they say this when asked for evidence to substantiate their claims and try and flip the burden of proof around. Which is lazy and intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Just because your parents lied to you about Santa Claus for the first 10 or so years of your life doesn't mean they're lying to you when they say that taking out a car loan at 38% interest is a bad idea.
While I've no doubt the government either openly lies or misleads to the public on various things--unless they do it 100%, every single time on every single topic, then this line of logic is a complete non-starter. Anchorman said it best:
A common justification (if you can even call it that) most of the lunatic conspiracy theorists use is: "do you trust the government?? No? Exactly--then they must be lying."
Usually, they say this when asked for evidence to substantiate their claims and try and flip the burden of proof around. Which is lazy and intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Just because your parents lied to you about Santa Claus for the first 10 or so years of your life doesn't mean they're lying to you when they say that taking out a car loan at 38% interest is a bad idea.
While I've no doubt the government either openly lies or misleads to the public on various things--unless they do it 100%, every single time on every single topic, then this line of logic is a complete non-starter.
OK, so you admit the government sometimes lies. Well, I admit the government sometimes tells the truth.
My question to you is, how can you tell the difference? If the government conducts an investigation and declares that "x happened" and provides a frame of evidence that seems to confirm that x happened, how can you determine whether or not they are telling the truth and releasing all of the evidence?
Here are things we know about the U.S. government:
- We know the government lies.
- We know the government is vulnerable to corruption.
- We know the government tries to cover stuff up so it can control the narrative.
- We know the government is scandalous.
- We know the government has planned false flag operations.
- We know the government has the capability to carry out false flag operations, otherwise they wouldn't bother to plan them.
- We know the government does have the ability to sometimes maintain secrecy, even for a period of decades.
- We know the government has legal methods for concealing the truth, via executive and state secrets privileges.
- We know the media often carries the water for government, and peddles their war and economic propaganda.
So, with these things in mind, how can you tell the difference between government truth and government lies?
I have no idea what people have gotten into that fall for this "Bane"/"Bain" horsesqueeze, unless it has just turned into a way to troll conspiracists. Bane, as he is portrayed in the film, has multiple scenes that, but for his breathing mask, could have been primetime speaking slots at the DNC convention. He is basically the head of Occupy Gotham. That, much more than any shooting, probably explains why the press sort of ignored the film itself or spoke of it being "confusing" or somehow off key.
Do you know at one time in the movie the word "Aurora" appears? The next question would be at what time the shooting started.
If the shooting started immediately or very soon after, the word "coincidence" becomes very strained.
It isn't in TDKR, at least not that I can see. It's in the latest James Bond movie Skyfall. Sorry, I don't know the time. It also appeared in the Skyfall super trailer that was purportedly shown before TDKR. 40 second mark, it's the building with the red neon lettering:
It was a midnight showing. So a few trailers would take 10-15 minutes, then the movie starts. So if this was the trigger, it appears to have been of the delayed variety.
I have no idea what people have gotten into that fall for this "Bane"/"Bain" horsesqueeze, unless it has just turned into a way to troll conspiracists. Bane, as he is portrayed in the film, has multiple scenes that, but for his breathing mask, could have been primetime speaking slots at the DNC convention. He is basically the head of Occupy Gotham. That, much more than any shooting, probably explains why the press sort of ignored the film itself or spoke of it being "confusing" or somehow off key.
I've seen people write this and withheld judgement, but I watched the movie recently and he mostly just mentioned vague things about "the people" and "liberating" them, somehow. I didnt see any real ideology on display by Bane or the movie in general, just catch phrases and a non-sensical vaguely anarchistic scheme to blow things up. Maybe that's what you saw with OWS, but I think there was something a bit deeper intellectually, even if you opposed it.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Now, if Taft Union was in the movie too I may go full conspiracist ....
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
I have no idea what people have gotten into that fall for this "Bane"/"Bain" horsesqueeze, unless it has just turned into a way to troll conspiracists. Bane, as he is portrayed in the film, has multiple scenes that, but for his breathing mask, could have been primetime speaking slots at the DNC convention. He is basically the head of Occupy Gotham. That, much more than any shooting, probably explains why the press sort of ignored the film itself or spoke of it being "confusing" or somehow off key.
Huh? Ignored or spoke of it being off key? It's 87% favorable from almost 300 critics on Rottentomatoes:
Mountain Dew and Nokia partnered to show about a million ads for it, even showing up on
Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s car. And it was a trailer for practically every non-comedy at theaters for a year. It was inescapable. Luckily I like the trilogy, but if I hadn't I would've wanted to destroy my television in the months leading up to it. It certainly wasn't ignored, and most of the media attention was either their own marketing or favorable reviews.
Fair enough--there will always be some carry-over between the roles of university professor and private blogger...but I think you can recognize that the guy did it in a non-academic forum for a reason.
Well, clearly he has more control over the content. He probably knew it would be controversial and did not want to have to take it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorev12
Not to you or I personally--but don't you think it's damaging to the victims of this tragedy and their families?
Too many people in our society get offended on behalf of other people. Whenever I've had difficult situations to deal with in my life, the last thing on my mind is what some blogger posts who's 2,000 miles away from the situation. I can't imagine anybody involved in this tragedy is even remotely interested in the idea that someone suggested something fishy may have happened on that day that constitutes some sort of conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorev12
Don't we as a society have a duty to give an accurate accounting of events for future generations? And that clouding the truth with fantastical and completely unproven allegations could potentially be damaging to history later on?
There's a difference between challenging ideas with more accurate information and being offended by something. I support a rational debate of challenging ideas; if his ideas are ludicrous, they should be easily defeated. When these exchanges occur, it reinforces the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorev12
I posted a hypothetical on here earlier--and one that, as a mod, would be partly your decision to adjudicate by the rules of the site: say a person comes on here asking for prayers for their mother who was in a car accident. Another poster wanders into the thread asking the OP about the mother's sexual history--telling the OP not to "believe the crash report--it was written by a police officer and the government ALWAYS lies. This is probably done by an ex-lover of hers." What would you do: let the guy continue to ask question after question about the mother's sexual history--or delete the posts and/or ban the "questioning" poster?
I'm not a mod on this board, but I would say the difference here is that posters are not allowed to attack one another, and this would very clearly come off as an attack. I would have a completely different opinion of this faculty if he was actually reaching out to the Sandy Hook victims and asking them if their child/relative/friend had many instances of poor behavior before the event occurred. I think the analogy is a bit of a stretch.
You mean there was not another shooter on the grassy knoll??
Linear Mode
