Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

This is the latest masterpiece documentary on Sandy Hoax. A lot of fascinating points I had not come across before are made in it.

Thanks for the videos Universal Mind. Very eye-opening information. It's funny how some people refuse to entertain ideas that contradict their world view, even in the presence of solid evidence.

Originally Posted by VinceField

Thanks for the videos Universal Mind. Very eye-opening information. It's funny how some people refuse to entertain ideas that contradict their world view, even in the presence of solid evidence.

I'm glad you see what is so bizarre about Sandy Hook. I was hoping to help at least a few people get the picture. Yeah, it is mind-blowing how so many people don't see what is severely warped about the scenario. The hoax idea seems so insane on the surface that it's really hard for a lot of people to see past the surface.

For a while, I was just about the only person here arguing against the 9/11 inside job theory, but a lot of people were arguing for it. Lately, I have been just about the only person arguing that Sandy Hook was a hoax while a lot of people have been arguing that it was not one. I was not a conspiracy theorist about anything until I studied Sandy Hook. It gave me a whole new way of looking at things. From there, I studied Operation Northwoods, Project Artichoke, Operation Mockingbird, Gulf of Tonkin, and fake CNN broadcasts. Now I am skeptical of every news story I come across.

Originally Posted by VinceField

Thanks for the videos Universal Mind. Very eye-opening information. It's funny how some people refuse to entertain ideas that contradict their world view, even in the presence of solid evidence.

That is because there is no evidence at all to support this crazy stuff. Some people use the term 'evidence' very loosely. If someone 'thinks' someone 'might' be acting strangely, that isn't evidence. That is speculation. People who believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is full of wild speculation but no evidence. Evidence would be something like, the bodies of the dead children, the bullet holes in the building, the weapons found at the scene, and all that.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is because there is no evidence at all to support this crazy stuff. Some people use the term 'evidence' very loosely. If someone 'thinks' someone 'might' be acting strangely, that isn't evidence. That is speculation. People who believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is full of wild speculation but no evidence. Evidence would be something like, the bodies of the dead children, the bullet holes in the building, the weapons found at the scene, and all that.

You forget that in the conspiracy theory mindset, even lack of evidence is taken just as equally as real evidence. They do anything to fit the wrong-shaped puzzle piece into the hole.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is because there is no evidence at all to support this crazy stuff. Some people use the term 'evidence' very loosely. If someone 'thinks' someone 'might' be acting strangely, that isn't evidence.

If someone is obviously acting, it is evidence. If EVERYONE is obviously acting, it is very strong evidence.

Originally Posted by Alric

Evidence would be something like, the bodies of the dead children

Hey, we agree on something. The bodies of dead children would be evidence. That is very true, but the public has never had access to seeing pictures of any of them, and the funerals were closed casket. The official narrative says that even parents were not allowed to see the bodies.

Originally Posted by Alric

the bullet holes in the building

What building? It got torn down.

Originally Posted by Alric

the weapons found at the scene

Which the mainstream media said were something but then changed their story when "police and federal officials" told them the guns were just hand guns before mainstream media changed their story yet again to also throw an AR-15 into the mix? Interestingly, the AR-15 turned into the only weapon used in the last phase of story evolution.

Originally Posted by Alric

and all that.

Such as?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Are you still fighting this battle, Alric? It's a lost cause, man. There's no convincing people that they have a loose horse when all the want to find are zebras.

A lot of weak comments have shown up in this thread in recent days, but I will use yours as an example to illustrate the general trend. Saying stuff like what you said is worthless. I have made a great deal of points in this thread. If you think you can counter any of them, go for it. If you can't, get off the field. So far, it looks like you can't.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If someone is obviously acting, it is evidence. If EVERYONE is obviously acting, it is very strong evidence.

No it isn't. First of all it is only your opinion someone is acting, you have used no objective means to determine if they were or not. All you say is you think it is strange. Secondly, it still wouldn't be evidence. Police can not arrest you and you can't be convicted of a crime based off "You acted weirdly", because that isn't evidence. At most people acting strangely would be a 'clue' that might help you understand a situation better, it isn't evidence of anything though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hey, we agree on something. The bodies of dead children would be evidence. That is very true, but the public has never had access to seeing pictures of any of them, and the funerals were closed casket. The official narrative says that even parents were not allowed to see the bodies.

If you are so convinced they are lying get a camera and dig up their caskets and video tape what you find. If there was nothing in them, it would have proven it a hoax and would be a national hero. This isn't something I can do for you, if I dug them up and found their bodies and showed you the video you would say it was just staged and I made up the entire thing. Is if you personally witness it, then go do it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What building? It got torn down.

There was photos of it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Which the mainstream media said were something but then changed their story when "police and federal officials" told them the guns were just hand guns before mainstream media changed their story yet again to also throw an AR-15 into the mix? Interestingly, the AR-15 turned into the only weapon used in the last phase of story evolution.

Yeah, hence the reason wild speculation is bad. You should learn their lesson. Some in the media jumped ahead of them self and reported stuff before confirming the facts with the police and got it wrong. You can hardly blame them since you are doing the same thing, jumping to conclusions based off speculation rather than actually looking at what is presented as evidence.

Originally Posted by Alric

No it isn't. First of all it is only your opinion someone is acting, you have used no objective means to determine if they were or not. All you say is you think it is strange. Secondly, it still wouldn't be evidence. Police can not arrest you and you can't be convicted of a crime based off "You acted weirdly", because that isn't evidence. At most people acting strangely would be a 'clue' that might help you understand a situation better, it isn't evidence of anything though.

Not true.

1. I am into film, have acted in films, have written films, and have taken acting classes. I know what acting looks like. If you don't, it doesn't mean that I don't.
2. I was a case manager at a mental health center. I know what goes on when a large group of people is grieving. Tears come out of eyes, though not everybody's. Anger is expressed by at least some when a death results from any kind of injustice. Inanimate objects are rarely blamed for intended killing. Those crisis actors blamed nothing but the gun, except one of them said Nancy Lanza did a less than perfect job as a mother when asked about her, and none of them expressed anger.
3. Many of the family members of the supposed victims are people with acting histories and can be seen in theatrical presentations on YouTube. I have posted many of those videos.

My favorite crisis actor involved is this lady.

Originally Posted by Alric

If you are so convinced they are lying get a camera and dig up their caskets and video tape what you find. If there was nothing in them, it would have proven it a hoax and would be a national hero. This isn't something I can do for you, if I dug them up and found their bodies and showed you the video you would say it was just staged and I made up the entire thing. Is if you personally witness it, then go do it.

I don't think I would be able to pull off digging up those caskets, and I wouldn't even consider trying. I would be arrested within minutes. Even if I dug them up and saw that there were no bodies in them, I would be accused of doing something with the bodies or the official story would be that there were bodies in them. If I video taped such a thing and showed the world that there were no bodies in the caskets, the masses would just rationalize why there were no bodies in them or else just say things to the effect of, "Oh my God, how dare you say these things when children were killed!! You are so heartless, you creepy grave digger!!!" I have seen how much denial most people go into when this issue is brought up. You and BLUELINE have shown an extreme amount of it, for example.

Originally Posted by Alric

There was photos of it.

How do you know what they were photos of or when they were taken? Major news footage showed cops running into a nearby school. Remember that this is a hoax. The actual school was blocked off immediately and soon torn down. How fishy is that?

Originally Posted by Alric

Yeah, hence the reason wild speculation is bad. You should learn their lesson. Some in the media jumped ahead of them self and reported stuff before confirming the facts with the police and got it wrong. You can hardly blame them since you are doing the same thing, jumping to conclusions based off speculation rather than actually looking at what is presented as evidence.

NBC News said that state and federal officials told them only hand guns were found at the scene... in a CORRECTION piece! That is called lying, on somebody's part.

Newtown shooter's guns: What we know - CNN.com



Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold

9/11 was a conspiracy of incompetence.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... I was just about the only person here arguing against the 9/11 inside job theory...

Hey, 9/11 WAS an inside job. It has been proven using remote viewing....

Originally Posted by SearcherTMR

Hey, 9/11 WAS an inside job. It has been proven using remote viewing....

Hmm, I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by SearcherTMR

Hey, 9/11 WAS an inside job. It has been proven using remote viewing....

LOL

^^ That's ok. Everyone has his point of view. But I practice RV and I am convinced that these RV sessions are genuine and so are the data...

Are you still fighting this battle, Alric? It's a lost cause, man. There's no convincing people that they have a loose horse when all the want to find are zebras.

The mere fact that hoaxers are literally demanding pictures of dead children and questioning why they had closed-casket funerals shows the comical depravity of their thought processes.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The mere fact that hoaxers are literally demanding pictures of dead children and questioning why they had closed-casket funerals shows the comical depravity of their thought processes.

Nah, you don't get it, sheeple:



The entire Sandy Hook Hoax (like most government-based conspiracies) requires the the government be so evil, intelligent, and cunning while simultaneously being so incompetent they missed details that people with access to videos could spot. When you really think about that, it kinda explains the reason the conspiracy theorist rally so hard on their various platforms; they need to feel like they are not only smarter than the government, but smarter than most people they interact with.

And before you do, UM, I know the Government has been caught committing acts of war, covertly concealed, but those are VASTLY different in the sense that they aren't in place to fool people for life, but to get an immediate action (Gulf of Tonkin, for example, was all about the Vietnam War) and usually not even involving every one in office. If the real goal was just to get weapons banned (which still hasn't happened, btw), then why not just brainwash or whatever magic the government evidently possesses a lone psychopath to go shoot up a real school in a very public way with the perfect parameters for getting gun regulation?

Because that's silly. Sometimes, really bad stuff happens without anyone being able to stop it.

I just ran into another piece of evidence. This guy at 7:00 in this video is Nick Phelps. He is the supposed father of two kids who went to Sandy Hook but were not killed.



Check IMDB to see that Nick Phelps played on Season 1 Episode 18 of the Michael J. Fox sitcom Spin City. The name of the episode is "Snowbound."

"Spin City" Snowbound (TV Episode 1997) - IMDb

Now see him on the show with your own eyes. Keep in mind that this was a popular ABC sitcom with one of the biggest actors in the world playing the lead role.



Oh, by the way, this is his wife, Laura Phelps. She too is interviewed in the video at the top of this post.

You seem to not be listening to what I am saying. Actors are real people, who have real lives. Finding a few actors among all the parents who had children at the entire school, isn't that uncommon. I mean there is 456 children at that school, so it is possible there is upwards to 1000 parents who might be there, plus family of staff working there and stuff like that. A few actors isn't anything. That wasn't your claim though, your claim is that most or almost all of them have acting backgrounds, a claim which is utter and total bullshit. A claim that you only reached by counting pretty everything as acting even if it has nothing to do with acting. If you stop distorting reality and look at the number of people who actually qualify as an actor, then you see nothing unusual. I am willing concede a handful of parents might actually be actors, but what is a handful out of 1000?

Also, I address the concern you had about them not being 'angry enough' before. I proposed the idea that the reason some were upset at guns, is because the shooter died and so they can't do anything to or about him, so they redirected their anger towards something that they could change, which would be gun laws. Which is kind of like how James Brady got shot, and became anti gun and supported the Brady bill. You seem to think that is impossible and that everyone would go down cursing the shooter with every fiber of their being, despite it being a totally useless thing to do. Which I don't think really reflects the reality of how people act. Sure you will be upset if someone you knows is murdered but if the murderer is shot dead then justice has been served, there is nothing else to do about it. The idea that most people moved on with their life and tried other methods to accept their loss without railing against a dead child is entirely reasonable and not all as suspicious as you seem to think.

As for the crying, I don't know what to say. You are just flat on wrong. There are a ton of pictures of people crying, including pictures you posted yourself. You seem totally incapable of recognizing when another human is crying.

Oh, I'm wrong about the crying in live interviews? Then post us a video of it, Alric. What have you been waiting for?

How many Sandy Hook parents were interviewed by mainstream television media? How many of them are actors? So many it's jaw dropping. Even just the pool of parents who supposedly lost children has a lot of actors in it. Many others are stage musicians, which I have argued have to be able to act. Have you ever seen a band suck at stage presence? It really puts a dent in the show. Stage musicians are actors. That is why no famous concert musician has ever done a bad acting job in a movie. There is not a single example of it.

As I have said, even when the murderer is dead, people are still severely pissed off at him. There are Jews who would tell you today that they wish they could bring Adolf Hitler back to life so they can torture him. People in a real situation like the one portrayed concerning Sandy Hook would be pissed at the school for not having good enough security, pissed at the killer's parents for not doing enough to teach him morals, pissed at the makers of the violent video games the killer was playing all the time, pissed at the war on drugs for creating a climate of violence that has majorly rubbed off on America's kids, pissed at movies and television shows and controversial music for glamorizing violence, pissed at pharmaceutical companies, pissed at the mental health system, pissed at bullies who taunted the killer, pissed at girls for being snobby toward the killer, etc. There has been ZERO of that!! There has been no anger whatsoever, and there has been no blame on anything but the gun. What we are talking about is obviously an act.

Now, what is your answer to my wrestling question? I highlighted it in red for you. Do I need to post it yet again?

So let's get this straight.

- You would have known in 1987 that professional wrestling was fake because a lot of people were saying it was and it was discussed a bit in the mainstream media.

- The fact that so many of the parents involved in the Sandy Hook saga are actors is insignificant because you know an actor.

- Some people don't cry tears while grieving, therefore nothing is odd about a large group of grieving people who don't cry tears.

Wow. That is very naive of you. Consider this.

- A lot of people are saying Sandy Hook was a hoax. Check YouTube or the very long list of documentaries on the hoax. Check Google for the very long list of web pages on it. The Sandy Hook hoax has been mentioned by the mainstream media. Hearing the mainstream media mention the idea that wrestling was fake would not be full proof that it was fake. It would just be a raising of the idea, so I am going to ask my question again. How would you KNOW that professional wrestling was fake in 1987?

- The fact that you know an actor does not change the fact that a very small percentage of the population has acted on stage, film, or prime time network television in adulthood. The percentage is a great deal smaller than the percentage of Sandy Hook parents who have done it.

- Although some people don't cry tears while grieving, a very large faction of the population does. Now, what about expressing anger?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So let's get this straight.

- You would have known in 1987 that professional wrestling was fake because a lot of people were saying it was and it was discussed a bit in the mainstream media.

[...]

- A lot of people are saying Sandy Hook was a hoax. Check YouTube or the very long list of documentaries on the hoax. Check Google for the very long list of web pages on it. The Sandy Hook hoax has been mentioned by the mainstream media. Hearing the mainstream media mention the idea that wrestling was fake would not be full proof that it was fake. It would just be a raising of the idea, so I am going to ask my question again. How would you KNOW that professional wrestling was fake in 1987?

What? The video I posted was from 1984, and they had kids there, interviewed in the video, saying it was fake and they clearly saw the wrestlers not hitting each other. John Stossel even declared this as a fact. This wasn't even controversial. You aren't special. I remember having the same argument when I was a kid in the 90s.

And 11 million people have watched one of the most popular hoax films, with 50% positive votes. Giving you the benefit of rounding, let's say 7 million people saw that one and thought favorably of it. We currently have 318 million, but let's subtract to 250 million to account for people without Internet, that's less than one percent of the US supporting this nonsense. That isn't a lot of people.

I really have no idea what your point is here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

- The fact that so many of the parents involved in the Sandy Hook saga are actors is insignificant because you know an actor.

[...]

- The fact that you know an actor does not change the fact that a very small percentage of the population has acted on stage, film, or prime time network television in adulthood. The percentage is a great deal smaller than the percentage of Sandy Hook parents who have done it.

It does when your lynch pin is "A lot of these people are actors!" First, the one guy who was on Spin City was an extra. I can get an extra job this week and be in a ton of movies and TV shows. That does mean I am a life long actor who will commit to a hoax. A hoax most people believe.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

- Some people don't cry tears while grieving, therefore nothing is odd about a large group of grieving people who don't cry tears.

[...]

- Although some people don't cry tears while grieving, a very large faction of the population does. Now, what about expressing anger?

Every person is different. Every single person will grieve in some way, and the way is totally accessible. I'm sorry but this isn't even a point. It has been disproven by professionals with credentials better than people watching YouTube.

Originally Posted by Alric

We been over this so many times. I have already posted several examples of people crying. You, yourself have posted videos of people crying! Scroll back through the thread and look at them. In every single instance it has been shown a person was crying, you stated they weren't really crying even though it was obvious they were. You are really starting to annoy me, because you keep telling me to post examples of people crying and every time I do you just say they are not crying. You are utterly incapable to recognizing when a person is crying or not. There is no point in posting new examples, because you are incapable of recognizing crying on video, or you are just lying.

You are engaging in Category 5 dishonesty. You have posted ZERO videos of any supposed Sandy Hook victim's family member crying tears in a live interview. That is the challenge, and you have not met it. The challenge still stands. I bet you don't meet it in your next post either. No such interview footage exists!

Originally Posted by Alric

Also you are just wrong about musicians. Musicians are not actors. You are full of shit. Your claim isn't even logical even in your own wrapped reality. Even if you assume all musicians are capable actors , why would you hire a musician for an acting job instead of an actor? Also you claim all musicians are great actors, but then you claim all the people are obviously bad actors? So which is it? Even if you were right, you would be wrong because your claim is that they all suck at acting and you can easily see through them. So shouldn't you be arguing that musicians are hacks and can't act at all, and because they were cheap and hired musicians instead of real actors they got sub par acting from them? That is still stupid but at least it is logically consistent.

I said that all famous STAGE musicians are good actors. All average STAGE musicians are average actors or better. Compared to a high level acting job, an average acting job is bad. I can spot such acting jobs. A lot of people can.

Name one famous stage musician who has done a bad acting job in a movie. Just one.

Originally Posted by Alric

The premise of your argument goes like this. 1. There are a lot of musicians. 2. Musicians are all good actors. 3. The sandy hook parents suck at acting. Then your conclusion is, It is clearly a hoax and the musicians were hired as actors. That is an illogical line of thought. Based off your own arguments, if musicians are such good actors it wouldn't be so easy to see through them.

False. See my last paragraph. Stop being dishonest.

My reasoning on the acting, which is one area among many involved in my knowledge that Sandy Hook was a hoax, is that stage musicians and actors are actors, many of the Sandy Hook parents who have been interviewed are actors, and I can tell that the actors were acting in their interviews. Thus, the Sandy Hook saga was an act, like professional wrestling.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for wrestling being fake, it isn't faked but choreographed. The way you know it is choreographed is because they beat each other up the entire match and no one ever gets hurt aside from the occasional accident here and there. Also it is obvious because often one person will stand around while letting the other set up their special moves and stuff, moves that are often not at all realistic. None of the videos you have posted are the equivalent of a professional athlete hitting someone in the head with a metal chair, and then that person getting up and walking away 20 seconds later. In wrestling that happens. If some 350 pound guy made of pure muscles hits you in the head with a chair, you are not getting up after. In fact, there is a good chance such a blow could kill you. So obviously it is fake.

Professional wrestling is a fake sport. It does not involve real competition. It's an act, just like Sandy Hook. You talked about how wrestlers would really act in certain situations, and I talked about how family members would really act in certain situations. However, my evidence goes a whole lot deeper than that. Also, can you tell that the wrestlers are acting when they talk?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

What? The video I posted was from 1984, and they had kids there, interviewed in the video, saying it was fake and they clearly saw the wrestlers not hitting each other. John Stossel even declared this as a fact. This wasn't even controversial. You aren't special. I remember having the same argument when I was a kid in the 90s.

Oh, so some kids said they thought the wrestling looked fake and a journalist said wrestling is fake, and that proves it? Well, I have posted witnesses saying that Sandy Hook looked fake. I have posted dozens of journalists' documentaries on the fakeness of Sandy Hook. Are you sold yet?

Can you tell with your own observations that professional wrestling is fake?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

And 11 million people have watched one of the most popular hoax films, with 50% positive votes. Giving you the benefit of rounding, let's say 7 million people saw that one and thought favorably of it. We currently have 318 million, but let's subtract to 250 million to account for people without Internet, that's less than one percent of the US supporting this nonsense. That isn't a lot of people.

The opinions of other people seem to have everything to do with what you believe. Have you ever considered thinking for yourself? Also, not everybody who thinks Sandy Hoax was a hoax has +1'ed every YouTube documentary on it. I know people who have said they haven't watched any of the documentaries but could tell by watching the interviews on television that the actors were full of shit. People have watched documentaries with me and said Sandy Hoax was clearly a staged act but did not +1 the documentaries. Some of them don't even have YouTube accounts.

More importantly, popular opinion is not the measure of truth. Most rednecks in the 80's thought professional wrestling was real. If you had lived in a redneck community, would you have thought professional wrestling was real?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

I really have no idea what your point is here.

Uh, that my arguments that Sandy Hook was fake parallel the major arguments that professional wrestling is fake. Did you honestly not get that?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

It does when your lynch pin is "A lot of these people are actors!" First, the one guy who was on Spin City was an extra. I can get an extra job this week and be in a ton of movies and TV shows. That does mean I am a life long actor who will commit to a hoax. A hoax most people believe.

Nick Phelps, one of the many actors who played a Sandy Hoax parent, was not a mere extra on Spin City, a prime time ABC sitcom starring Michael J. Fox. He played a character who had a conversation with the main character. Do you think you could have landed that job?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Every person is different. Every single person will grieve in some way, and the way is totally accessible. I'm sorry but this isn't even a point. It has been disproven by professionals with credentials better than people watching YouTube.

Yes, not everybody grieves the same way! I keep saying that. Thank you for supporting my point. People grieve in different ways. So why can none of you find me a video of a live interview with a tear coming out of an eye? Why can none of you find me a video with a Sandy Hook alleged victim's family member expressing anger? Why can none of you find me a video of somebody blaming something other than the gun? Where is this diversity you official story gulpers keep bringing up?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, so some kids said they thought the wrestling looked fake and a journalist said wrestling is fake, and that proves it? Well, I have posted witnesses saying that Sandy Hook looked fake. I have posted dozens of journalists' documentaries on the fakeness of Sandy Hook. Are you sold yet?

Can you tell with your own observations that professional wrestling is fake?

On the first point: you are literally twisting the post just because it disproves one of your points to support another point. You proclaim "I knew prowrestling was fake in 1987!!!" I respond, "well, duh, most people knew that including people who paid to see events. See? A child of about 7 to 10 said he could see them not punching each other." And you you use that logical to extend to the Sandy Hook hoax. Notice, no one of any valid credentials has ever testified under oath that Sandy Hook was faked. Notice, no one has brought a lawsuit of any sort that Sandy Hook was faked. It's just Internet users with no credentials whatsoever other than what they purport through anecdotal evidence of video clips.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The opinions of other people seem to have everything to do with what you believe. Have you ever considered thinking for yourself? Also, not everybody who thinks Sandy Hoax was a hoax has +1'ed every YouTube documentary on it. I know people who have said they haven't watched any of the documentaries but could tell by watching the interviews on television that the actors were full of shit. People have watched documentaries with me and said Sandy Hoax was clearly a staged act but did not +1 the documentaries. Some of them don't even have YouTube accounts.

More importantly, popular opinion is not the measure of truth. Most rednecks in the 80's thought professional wrestling was real. If you had lived in a redneck community, would you have thought professional wrestling was real?

Ahh, the conspiracy theorist paradox "Think for yourself!" you yell at me after I assert my opinion. This is a logical fallacy because there's no end. If I am thinking for myself, then I cannot use ANY corroborating evidence that opposes your viewpoint, which has been declared de facto correct in this conversation, somehow. If I, through my own investigation, agree with the official story at all, then I am "trusting mainstream media blindly." It's a silly and stupid argument that I am not engaging in. The rest of your paragraph is the definition of conjecture. I am going by the actual numbers. The numbers are barely a sliver of the population. Anything else is hearsay, and you are just pulling it out of your ass.

I lived in south Louisiana, not far from where Swamp People was filmed. They have shows dedicated to how redneck people down there were. No, I didn't believe prowrestling was real, and I asked my dad, who was a fan since the 50's with my grandmother, and neither of them thought it was real.

Do you want to know why?

LOGIC. You cannot drop someone on their head or face or even back without doing serious damage. You cannot bare handed slap a person, repeatedly, without causing significant bruising. You cannot contort a person into positions, that though they look a bit easy to get out of if they were really fighting, that they have to give up or pass out, only for them to hop up after.

This part may shock you... these people also understand that movies are fiction. See, entertainment is, simply put, divided into fiction and non-fiction. A lot of the time, the fiction tries to show itself as non-fiction, but it isn't. This is how people in sitcoms can just not go to work but have multimillion dollar lifestyles. I make this point because you seem incapable of shaking the notion that prowrestling was a widely accepted "not fake" thing, when it was jokingly considered a fix since it started. That doesn't really stop the die hard fans, who will play along with the deception because it's fun. This argument is another null. It means nothing related to a conspiracy involving faking the deaths of a bunch of kids.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Nick Phelps, one of the many actors who played a Sandy Hoax parent, was not a mere extra on Spin City, a prime time ABC sitcom starring Michael J. Fox. He played a character who had a conversation with the main character. Do you think you could have landed that job?

This is laughably amazing to me. If anyone still is reading this, here is the clip you are referring:



He has 3 lines. Alson, you mention it is a primetime show on ABC, which is true. Except this is the first season and it was in 1997. That really devalues his role as an actor. He has no other television acting credits, and he did a profoundly poor job here. But, in the world of conspiracy, that was just him preparing for Sandy Hook by being a terrible actor almost 20 years before the role of his (literal) lifetime would happen. To answer your question, yeah, I could get this role because it is a role of talking extra. Have you ever seen Criminal Minds? They have so many people that have more lines than this guy did every week from non-established actors. It's the role they just have to fill.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, not everybody grieves the same way! I keep saying that. Thank you for supporting my point. People grieve in different ways. So why can none of you find me a video of a live interview with a tear coming out of an eye? Why can none of you find me a video with a Sandy Hook alleged victim's family member expressing anger? Why can none of you find me a video of somebody blaming something other than the gun? Where is this diversity you official story gulpers keep bringing up?

"Official story gulpers" is literally the most telling comment in this entire place. So disconnected from reality...

Anyway, here's a video Sandy Hookers like to use as proof that this guy was acting:



SAW HIM LAUGHING? OMFG! I RECANT.

Nah, every funeral I have been to where someone may age or slightly younger or older that has died has had the parents joking with friends and family. I remember when my best friend's brother died, and we were cracking jokes with his mom, some about the dead son, then we'd go see the body and she'd breakdown and be unable to stand.

At my own aunt's funeral, I made jokes, that were really inappropriate but made a lot of people laugh.

The point is we have no context for why he was smiling and laughing. Maybe he was have a good conversation. He's allowed to do that. Then, he started talking about his however old daughter and it was like a dagger to the chest.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

On the first point: you are literally twisting the post just because it disproves one of your points to support another point. You proclaim "I knew prowrestling was fake in 1987!!!" I respond, "well, duh, most people knew that including people who paid to see events. See? A child of about 7 to 10 said he could see them not punching each other." And you you use that logical to extend to the Sandy Hook hoax. Notice, no one of any valid credentials has ever testified under oath that Sandy Hook was faked. Notice, no one has brought a lawsuit of any sort that Sandy Hook was faked. It's just Internet users with no credentials whatsoever other than what they purport through anecdotal evidence of video clips.

What does "most people" have to do with anything? I asked why YOU would have believed professional wrestling was fake in 1987.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Ahh, the conspiracy theorist paradox "Think for yourself!" you yell at me after I assert my opinion. This is a logical fallacy because there's no end. If I am thinking for myself, then I cannot use ANY corroborating evidence that opposes your viewpoint, which has been declared de facto correct in this conversation, somehow. If I, through my own investigation, agree with the official story at all, then I am "trusting mainstream media blindly." It's a silly and stupid argument that I am not engaging in. The rest of your paragraph is the definition of conjecture. I am going by the actual numbers. The numbers are barely a sliver of the population. Anything else is hearsay, and you are just pulling it out of your ass.

I didn't say you had to blindly trust the mainstream media to believe Sandy Hook was real. I just said that you are doing it. You have nothing convincing to say. You just stick to the official story because it's the official story and because most other people believe it.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

I lived in south Louisiana, not far from where Swamp People was filmed. They have shows dedicated to how redneck people down there were. No, I didn't believe prowrestling was real, and I asked my dad, who was a fan since the 50's with my grandmother, and neither of them thought it was real.

Do you want to know why?

LOGIC. You cannot drop someone on their head or face or even back without doing serious damage. You cannot bare handed slap a person, repeatedly, without causing significant bruising. You cannot contort a person into positions, that though they look a bit easy to get out of if they were really fighting, that they have to give up or pass out, only for them to hop up after.

This part may shock you... these people also understand that movies are fiction. See, entertainment is, simply put, divided into fiction and non-fiction. A lot of the time, the fiction tries to show itself as non-fiction, but it isn't. This is how people in sitcoms can just not go to work but have multimillion dollar lifestyles. I make this point because you seem incapable of shaking the notion that prowrestling was a widely accepted "not fake" thing, when it was jokingly considered a fix since it started. That doesn't really stop the die hard fans, who will play along with the deception because it's fun. This argument is another null. It means nothing related to a conspiracy involving faking the deaths of a bunch of kids.

There we go! You can tell by watching professional wrestling that it is fake, and you know that events in the stories defy reality and common sense. You can tell that movies are fake the same way. Now snap out of your mainstream media and popular opinion hypnosis and notice how absurd Sandy Hook is for the same kinds of reasons.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

He has 3 lines. Alson, you mention it is a primetime show on ABC, which is true. Except this is the first season and it was in 1997. That really devalues his role as an actor. He has no other television acting credits, and he did a profoundly poor job here. But, in the world of conspiracy, that was just him preparing for Sandy Hook by being a terrible actor almost 20 years before the role of his (literal) lifetime would happen. To answer your question, yeah, I could get this role because it is a role of talking extra. Have you ever seen Criminal Minds? They have so many people that have more lines than this guy did every week from non-established actors. It's the role they just have to fill.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a speaking role on a prime time network sitcom? Nick Phelps is an actor.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

"Official story gulpers" is literally the most telling comment in this entire place. So disconnected from reality...

You gulped the official story. It was way too easy for the hoaxers to fool you.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

SAW HIM LAUGHING? OMFG! I RECANT.

Uh, yeah. He is very plainly laughing as he walks up to the microphone.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Nah, every funeral I have been to where someone may age or slightly younger or older that has died has had the parents joking with friends and family. I remember when my best friend's brother died, and we were cracking jokes with his mom, some about the dead son, then we'd go see the body and she'd breakdown and be unable to stand.

At my own aunt's funeral, I made jokes, that were really inappropriate but made a lot of people laugh.

The point is we have no context for why he was smiling and laughing. Maybe he was have a good conversation. He's allowed to do that. Then, he started talking about his however old daughter and it was like a dagger to the chest.

He was walking to the microphone to give a speech about his supposed daughter who supposedly was killed in a massacre the previous day. The previous day!!







Pause this at 7:16.