Conspiracy

Loughner's Thoughts "often confused other conspiracy theorists" at UFO Website

|

The Daily Caller's Will Rahn reports that alleged Tucson spree-murderer Jared Lee Loughner regularly participated in discussions at the UFO conspiracy website AboveTopSecret.com.

His postings, they said, revealed "someone who clearly has many questions for which answers have been elusive if not outright impossible to obtain. And despite the best efforts by many of our members, it seemed there were no answers to be found here for which he was satisfied."

Loughner's posts cover many of the same subjects he discussed on his YouTube page: religion, "grammar control" by the government, indecipherable theories about the calendar date and starting his own monetary currency. His thoughts often confused other conspiracy theorists, some of whom replied to Loughner's posts. The result was a series of bizarre back-and-forth discussions.

"What would you call your UFO? My UFO name is Boom Ba," Loughner wrote in one post.

"What is wrong or right with the current date? How is the current date right or wrong? Why is or isn't this the date? When is or isn't the date ending or beginning? Today is July 7th 2010. Why is the year infinite in the date," he wrote in another.

…After a long conversation about currency, one commenter wondered if Loughner was schizophrenic.
"Seek help before you hurt yourself or others or start taking your medications again, please," wrote the commenter.

There's probably still a lot to learn about Loughner. And there may be a lot that we never really understand. But once again we're seeing evidence indicating that Loughner was a disturbed individual preoccupied by incomprehensible ideas and strange fixations rather than someone who was influenced by anything resembling mainstream political discourse.

NEXT: Hating the "Sinner"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reset!

  2. Loughner was an incomprehensible troll that contributed nothing of value to an outline community?

    So he was their Tony?

    1. His whacked out incoherence is closer to Shrike, though
      his condescension is almost up to MNG standards.
      His lamed assed ‘tardness is similar to Tony,
      and his discordant, unrefined anger is very Max like.

      There is a little Loughner in all of our trolls!

      1. If you keep MNG and John apart things are quite calm.

        1. He still manages to come up with stupid shit like:

          One should think this would give libertarian fundamentalist some pause. Things are not as simplisticly absolutist as they seem.

          this from just this morning, and does so on such on a regular basis to deserve to put in the troll camp with the rest of them.

          1. One should think this would give libertarian fundamentalist some pause. Things are not as simplisticly absolutist as they seem.

            Was that MNG or John?

            1. Definitely MNG. John can be wrong headed and stubborn at times, but he is too smart to come up with something like that.

              It comes from this thread

              https://reason.com/blog/2011/01…..one-star-s

              The context makes it even worse.

              1. MNG did actually apologize this morning for something. I give him props for that.

                1. Hey more condescension in action by everyone (but me)’s favorite maroon:

                  I think SIV unintentionally asked a thought provoking question on an earlier thread when he advocated lynching the guy on the spot (did I mention the thought provoking part was unintentional?)

                  Someday that shtick will get old for the rest of you as well.

                2. he’s done it before. I believe he posted as Crow-Eating Dumbass for awhile as an act of contrition.

              2. Definitely MNG. John can be wrong headed and stubborn at times, but he is too smart to come up with something like that.

                If John was talking about the size of the US military it could very well be plausible…or about wikilinks.

          2. But libertarian fundamentalists should pause to think about how things are not simplistically absolute. I say that not as a troll, but as a life-long libertarian.

            1. Okay, Mike, give an example.

              1. Just one example of the messiness of the real world off the top of my head. There are many of these messy situations in the real world.

                According to the non-aggression principle American settlers were wrong in taking land from the American natives. Since it was wrong, what if anything should be done to make restitution?

                1. When you find a two hundred year old injun let me know, and I’ll help you figure that one out. However, I don’t see how a indigenous population that inhabited 2% of a landmass claim ownership over the entirety of that landmass, specifically, the ninety eight percent of which they did not cultivate.

                  1. You gave an answer. Now show your work how that is THE correct libertarian answer. How did you derive your answer from the non-aggression principle or whatever principles you follow? You can restrict your answer to just concern 2% that was inhabited and stolen.

                    1. Well, I’ll admit that When you find a two hundred year old injun let me know, and I’ll help you figure that one out is only half an answer. You would also need to find a two hundred year old settler that wronged that injun in the first place. If he is taken to court and founded guilty of theft than he will need to provide restitution for the property claim. If you can’t find both of these individuals then you are left with a free floating collective guilt too ambiguous to be meaningfully tried. How was the quality of life of the injun’s progeny effected? Compared to what? The stone age habitat that he lived in? Or, the trashy Rez trailer park with modern conveniences of air conditioning, refrigeration, gas heating, television, and etc. versus that of the settler’s off spring in their trashy trailer park one town over with the modern conveniences of air conditioning, refrigeration, gas heating, television, and etc?

                      Or, why should we generally give any more of a fuck than we do to the injustices committed by the Normans to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes?

                      See, Mike, ambiguity is not just a one way street.

              2. (Anarchists, this one doesn’t apply to you). The night watchman state is built on a claim to positive rights — that is, the right to have other people pay to defend you against crime.

                In the same way that there is a difference between saying that you have a right to feed yourself, and saying you have a right to have the government provide you with food raised and paid for by others (farmers and taxpayers, respectively), there is a difference between saying you have a right to defend yourself, and saying you have a right to have the government provide for your defense realized and paid for by others (police/soldiers and taxpayers, respectively).

                So, why are certain positive rights valued over others? It can’t be a question of life or death, otherwise food certainly counts.

            2. MNG is not describing a condition that exist (narrow minded libertarian fundies), but making an attempt at false equivalence to bolster Krugman’s argument that was weak on its face.

              It’s just a better worded version of the school yard taunt, ‘oh yeah, well so are you.’ Why you would give it any validity is beyond me.

              1. Sorry, I apparently missed the entire context of his remark.

            3. But libertarian fundamentalists should pause to think about how things are not simplistically absolute.

              I would say that libertarianism is just about the only political philosophy built on the assumption that things are not simplistically absolute.

              Simplistic absolutes are the stuff of statists and authoritarians and other top-down types. Complexity and ambiguity are the hallmarks of bottom-up voluntarism.

              1. It is possible to be a dogmatic libertarian, and I would not find it pejorative to be called one. However, the Soros concept of market fundie or libertarian fundie is based upon the archaic idea of market failure. Such a condition doesn’t exist, as Mises shows in Human Action. When you have sentient beings and a condition of scarcity, you have a market. How the actors decide to play it out in terms of profit and prosperity is a separate matter.

              2. I think I want to invent a political philosophy that says what the world is is the optimal outcome of the world.

                Voting would be easy….just vote for the guy who you think will win.

        2. “”If you keep MNG and John apart things are quite calm.””

          They fake their hatred of each other to keep us ignorant of their love affair. When it’s quite, it’s because they are doing it. 😉

          1. Now those DC to Baltimore commutes finally make sense.

    2. Tony is comprehensible, he’s just a dipshit. He sounds more like COMMANDER or someone like that.

    3. He also fears aliens. He’s their lonewacko.

    4. It’s possible that most “trolls” are simply mentally ill people.

      1. I have been frequenting my local craigslist’s Rant & Rave section.

        I have to say our trolls by comparison are boringly, both feet on the ground, stoic symbols of sanity.

        I wonder if Tucson’s Rant & Rave has been checked?

        http://tucson.craigslist.org/rnr/

      2. Most of our “trolls” represent mainstream progtard thought. Trolling is an intentional attention-seeking act. They are simply expressing an opinion that they (probably) sincerely hold, even if it is asinine.

        If they get combative, it’s understandable, given that they are an intellectually embattled minority here.

        I suppose you could argue that making idiot statist remarks in a libertarian forum is like showing red to a bull, and is in fact trolling, but it doesn’t change the fact that if they posted in a proggie forum, no one would even notice them.

        1. ‘progtard’, I like it!

  3. I didn’t realize how bonkers he was. I kinda assumed he just had some really nutty beliefs. After reading that whole currency thread, I couldn’t tell you one thing he was trying to get across. Just total gibberish.

    1. Makes you wonder how he managed to fill out the purchase forms for the Glock.

    2. I agree, Loughner comes across as a dumbass in those post and his question to the congresslady than he does as a crazy person. Mix dumbass with and a side order of attention whoring narcissism and maybe that gets you to crazy.

      1. I don’t think that constitutes agreement at all. Fluffy was saying that he thought was more like the discovery channel guy — a lethal combination of extreme politics and mental illness.

        Whereas he was actually just a straight up bag of crazy with fragments of politics swept up in the storm along with a lot of linguistic debris. Trying to find his ideology is just looking for patterns in white noise.

        I mean, “stupid” is not what comes to mind when I read his statements. “Textbook schizophrenic” seems more appropriate.

        1. Where’s Fluffy? You see Fluffy here?

          I did fuck up by leaving out the ‘don’t’.

          1. Saw an “F”, got confused. I guess. Who knows.

        2. Between his deteroriation in high school, his self-medication, and his further deterioration after he stopped using drugs and alcohol my arm-chair diagnosis, based on my taking a psycho 101 course over a decade ago, is schizophrenic.

          1. Often it is not easy to distinguish between stupid that comes from mental limitations that people with low IQ’s are born with and stupid resulting from mental deterioration. Just reading snippets of his post, he sounds like a fuckhead who couldn’t put an argument together. Or someone who was only focused on forming questions for the purpose of seeming brilliant without any interest in trying to answer those questions.

            1. Often it is not easy. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious. The guy talking on those posts is clearly experiencing some kind of psychosis.

              1. I agree with you more the more that I read them. In snippets though I find him indistinguishable to every day rabble.

              2. Yeah, he’s far too consistent to just be stupid. It’s pretty obvious that the things he’s writing make sense in his head. And I get a feeling he was extremely frustrated he couldn’t make anyone else understand what he was trying to get across.

                1. Also, his obsession with “if this, then that” style of arguments shows a clearly unhinged person, not a stupid person.

                2. Totally. He really thinks he’s figured it all out and he’s determined to let everyone in on the secret. You don’t draw diagrams to illustrate your point unless you really want people to see what you mean.

        3. Most schizophrenic people are not violent. There is a difference between having schizophrenia and being actively psychotic. A schizophrenic person may become psychotic, but a diagnosis of schizophrenia by itself does not automatically qualify a person for a concurrent diagnosis of psychosis.

  4. “What is wrong or right with the current date? How is the current date right or wrong? Why is or isn’t this the date? When is or isn’t the date ending or beginning?”

    If I had to tie that to a politician, it’d be Boxer.

    1. Huh? That makes about as much sense as Loughner does.

    2. Or to the congressman that was concerned with Okinawa tipping over.

    3. If I had to tie that to a politician, it’d be Boxer.

      That’s “Senator” Boxer!

  5. You have to admit that “Boom Ba” is a pretty good UFO name.

    1. Also:

      There’s a new bird on my right shoulder. The beak is two feet and lime green. The rarest bird on earth, there’s no feathers, but small grey scales all over the body. It’s with one large red eye with a light blue iris. The bird feet are the same as a woodpecker. This new bird and there’s only one, the gender is not female or male. The wings of this bird are beautiful; 3 feet wide with the shape of a bald eagle that you could die for. If you can see this bird then you will understand. You think this bird is able to chat about a government?

      This sounds like a pretty awesome bird.

      But clearly the problem here is the tenor of our political discourse.

    2. And together with Boom Ba Da Boom they make a fantastic little folk duo at the coffee shop.

  6. a disturbed individual preoccupied by incomprehensible ideas and strange fixations

    Um, has anyone heard from Max lately?

    1. Yeah, he’s around:

      https://reason.com/blog/2011/01…..nt_2081091

      P Brooks|1.11.11 @ 12:20PM|#

      Giffords’ answer, whatever it was, didn’t satisfy Loughner.

      She probably just thought the Master would whack her with a stick for trying to “solve” a koan.
      reply to this
      Max|1.11.11 @ 12:39PM|#

      You have raised assholeness to cosmic levels.
      reply to this
      sr7|1.11.11 @ 1:12PM|#

      Where as you just keep rolling around in the mud oblivious to higher form and function.

  7. His thoughts often confused other conspiracy theorists

    Man, when you’ve lost the other consiracy theorists….

  8. When the first reports came out that Loughner was known to the police for making multiple deaths threats, I had two thoughts. 1) How did this guy buy a gun? 2) I wonder who is parents are.

    It appears that everyone that had contact with him knew he was off balance and potentially dangerous.

    By the way, when I lived in Phoenix in the 80’s Az was ranked 52nd in the nation in terms of public assistance to the mentally ill (behind the other 49 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico).

    1. Shoulnd’t that be 51st?

      1. 49 states plus DC plus Puerto Rico means there were 51 entities in front of Az.

    2. Phoenix subsidizes the mentally ill by providing them with ample stretches of desert in which to park their trailers. Phoenix also supplies a population of people who will make them seem normal by comparison.

      1. . . . . in a van down by the river.

        1. No. The van is in the river bed. There is no river.

          1. Depends upon where they divert the river to water the lawns of the suburbs.

    3. People realized he was off-balance. Potentially dangerous is something that’s harder to recognize before something violent actually happens. It’s really easy to see it afterwards.

      1. One of his professors said that he checked to see if loughner had a gun every time he had to turn his back to the class to write on the board.

        Perhaps that’s an embellishment, but there have been numerous comments from people that were scared of Loughner.

  9. It doesn’t make sense until you understand that “Boom Ba” is Palin’s pet name for her cooch.

    1. It’s all coming together now…

      1. oddly similar to Roomba…

  10. so he was a nut. why are we giving this nut the attention he craved?

  11. I would pay money to see this trainwreck in one of his Pima Community College classes…

    1. Dude, you can go to any community college in the country to see this shit! And, thankfully to our leaders, you can have other people pay for it.

    2. You would pay money to derive entertainment from the antics of a person with untreated mental illness who was so sick that he would eventually go on to murder several other people?

      Have you no decency, sir?

  12. This doesn’t erase the fact that Loughner lived in the same country as Sarah Palin. You cannot ignore the correlation! I’m going on a rampage to stop the violence.

  13. …After a long conversation about currency, one commenter wondered if Loughner was schizophrenic.
    “Seek help before you hurt yourself or others or start taking your medications again, please,” wrote the commenter.

    Note to self: when the UFO enthusiasts start to call you crazy it is time to seek help.

  14. That was one very funny thread. Is it against the to threaten someone with death?

  15. insert law some where

    1. Yes. Communicating a verbal threat is actionable. If you feel the compulsion to threaten someone, just remember to substitute words like you would if you lived in DC and wanted to rant about the doings of the ‘Canadians’ that live there. Instead of saying ‘I want to beat you until you die!’, you say something fun, like, ‘I want to tickle you until you shit your pants!’

  16. I had the feeling there would be no progtard trolls in this thread so I’ve kept an eye on it, and purposely wrote above a few post that would raise their dander. Why are they inclined to avoid this one?

    Check out the title:
    Loughner’s Thoughts “often confused other conspiracy theorists” at UFO Website

    The establishmentarian progtard’s all too sensitive sense of propriety and status wont allow them to entertain a post with UFO’s in the title.

    More UFO entitled posts please, dear editors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.