Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

1. Having acted in a film and taking classes in acting doesn't make you an expert on acting.
2. Being a case manager doesn't make you an expert on mental health. What degrees do you have in sociological or psychology that makes you a professional in human behavior?
3. Just like how you overblown your own credentials you make the same claims about other people. A person is in a youtube video, they were in a band in high school, those things don't make you a professional actor. In fact, you even made the claim that anyone who plays a musical instrument is automatically qualified as an actor, which doesn't even make sense. For someone to be considered a professional actor, would require them to make their primary living off jobs that require acting. Part time jobs, hobbies, stuff you did years ago but no longer into, singing which is a totally different area, stand up comedy, or whatever other side things, none of that matters. You are not a professional actor unless you make a living acting. We been over this before, that you basically define 'acting' in such a broad definition(anyone who does anything in front of other people) that it includes nearly everyone.

If there was a youtube video of me giving a public speech for a communications class I took once during college, you would probably say I am a professional actor.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

So now they have police watching the graveyards 24/7 in order to keep the conspiracy going? If you film the graveyard so we know it is the real graveyard someone is buried in and then film digging up a casket, I would totally accept it as valid evidence. So would most people. It would be extreme solid evidence. However, I would suggest not doing it because you will find the dead corpse of a child in there, and it would be a very disturbing thing to see. However, if you really believe this stuff, why wouldn't you try to prove it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

It wasn't torn down right after. There was a huge delay. If you are going to use that argument that it was taken some where else, then what is the point of having any evidence? No matter what video or photos are shown to you, you can always just say they were faked. Could have video of the shooter killing the children all on tape and you will just say it was faked. Everything is fake. How can a person refute that if you believe it?

There is photos of what looks to be the school that people who lived in the area saw and agreed was the school and the police said was of the school and all the news stations said was of the school.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Yeah, it is NBC's fault. They either lied or didn't check their facts and were mistaken. The police report was consistent over the entire time and never changed. It isn't the first or last time NBC has been wrong about something, there is a reason people do not watch as much news on tv as they used to. Hardly makes that a conspiracy by the government though.

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.

I haven't demanded pictures. I have just said that there aren't any. Please excuse me for questioning government claims, "anarchist," but it is bizarre that the funerals were closed casket and Lynn McDonnell said that parents were not allowed to see their children's bodies. That is virtually unheard of. I know that information will do nothing to snap you out of your delusional denial routine, but those are bizarre circumstances.

What is your evidence that a massacre took place? Do you blindly trust what a few cops and a government medical examiner say these days, "anarchist?" Are you still an "anarchist?"

Originally Posted by Tiresias

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.

What are you talking about? The hoax worked. People like you are so hopelessly in denial about the obvious that the flaws don't matter. They fooled you. Mission accomplished, if that was the full mission. However, I think they might actually want a certain faction of the population to know it was a hoax. The goal might have been to raise gun sales so that the country would be better armed. It might have been to raise awareness of the potential for future government manipulations and/or the threat the Second Amendment is under at this point. It might have had something to do with tightening school security as a counter terrorism measure. School security has gotten much stricter as a result of Sandy Hook. There are many possibilities.

Do you honestly believe that nobody really believes a hoax took place? Do you seriously think it's all about emotional needs and zero about what people really think? I assure you that I am as convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax as I am that professional wrestling is fake. You people sound like wrestling fans who think the stuff is real. "Uh, how can you be sure the wrestlers are acting? You just want to sound smart." I swear you official story believers who debate me on this come across just like that to me.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

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.

Not just war. There are declassified documents about U.S. government deceptions concerning media manipulation, brainwashing, STD testing, and other things.

I am not sure what the purpose of Sandy Hook was. I thought for a while that it was about gun control, but now I think it might be deeper than that, as I explained. There have been legal changes against gun rights that have resulted from Sandy Hook, but gun sales have also gone way up. It's a mystery. The one thing I do know is that Sandy Hook was a hoax. It is clear as air to me.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12...dy-hook/197211

Originally Posted by Alric

1. Having acted in a film and taking classes in acting doesn't make you an expert on acting.
2. Being a case manager doesn't make you an expert on mental health. What degrees do you have in sociological or psychology that makes you a professional in human behavior?
3. Just like how you overblown your own credentials you make the same claims about other people. A person is in a youtube video, they were in a band in high school, those things don't make you a professional actor. In fact, you even made the claim that anyone who plays a musical instrument is automatically qualified as an actor, which doesn't even make sense. For someone to be considered a professional actor, would require them to make their primary living off jobs that require acting. Part time jobs, hobbies, stuff you did years ago but no longer into, singing which is a totally different area, stand up comedy, or whatever other side things, none of that matters. You are not a professional actor unless you make a living acting. We been over this before, that you basically define 'acting' in such a broad definition(anyone who does anything in front of other people) that it includes nearly everyone.

If there was a youtube video of me giving a public speech for a communications class I took once during college, you would probably say I am a professional actor.

1. Having acted in multiple films and taken acting classes makes me an actor. I understand acting, and I can spot a bad acting job.
2. Being a mental health center case manager involved counseling, including grief counseling. I have a degree in psychology. What I said about tears, anger, and blame is factual. When a large group of people who are supposedly grieving over mass murder shed zero tears, act like their supposedly murdered family members are running for student council, and blame nothing but a fucking inanimate object for the murders, an act is taking place.
3. You are undermining what I have posted. I posted videos of people acting on stage and in videos in adulthood. The acts were not high school plays. Did you watch the Francine Wheeler video of her doing musical acting for the Dream Jam Band? That is not some high school phase project. She also did voice work for a porn cartoon.

How do you know that professional wrestling is fake, aside from the fact that the industry now admits it? They didn't admit it in the 70's and 80's. Would they have fooled you then? If not, how would you have known?

Originally Posted by Alric

So now they have police watching the graveyards 24/7 in order to keep the conspiracy going? If you film the graveyard so we know it is the real graveyard someone is buried in and then film digging up a casket, I would totally accept it as valid evidence. So would most people. It would be extreme solid evidence. However, I would suggest not doing it because you will find the dead corpse of a child in there, and it would be a very disturbing thing to see. However, if you really believe this stuff, why wouldn't you try to prove it?

With all of the internet talk about how the kids weren't really killed, of course they have at least a night watchman watching the cemetery. I'm not risking jail and professional suicide just to throw another chunk of obviousness at people who are relentlessly in denial any way. If I did, I am certain that you would make up some kind of excuse. The masses feel emotions over Sandy Hook that prevent them from doing critical thinking. Time will change that, but the hoax is only a little more than two years old. In 40 years, the masses are going to know that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

Originally Posted by Alric

It wasn't torn down right after. There was a huge delay. If you are going to use that argument that it was taken some where else, then what is the point of having any evidence? No matter what video or photos are shown to you, you can always just say they were faked. Could have video of the shooter killing the children all on tape and you will just say it was faked. Everything is fake. How can a person refute that if you believe it?

There is photos of what looks to be the school that people who lived in the area saw and agreed was the school and the police said was of the school and all the news stations said was of the school.

The school was torn down less than a year later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/ny...hook.html?_r=0

The house Adam Lanza supposedly lived in is scheduled to be torn down.

Sandy Hook killer's home to be demolished, Newtown votes - CNN.com

This video shows police running into a nearby school.

Originally Posted by Alric

Yeah, it is NBC's fault. They either lied or didn't check their facts and were mistaken. The police report was consistent over the entire time and never changed. It isn't the first or last time NBC has been wrong about something, there is a reason people do not watch as much news on tv as they used to. Hardly makes that a conspiracy by the government though.

Maybe they "didn't check" the fact that they didn't really talk to state and federal officials? Seriously?

Multiple news stations kept changing their stories. They don't tend to lie when they are certain people will see blatant contradictions in their reporting.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

1. Having acted in multiple films and taken acting classes makes me an actor. I understand acting, and I can spot a bad acting job.

It makes you an amateur actor and conveys nothing in relation to your ability to see acting in others. Your opinion is that you think you are an expert on acting, and my opinion is I think you are totally clueless. Both are just opinions though, not evidence.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

2. Being a mental health center case manager involved counseling, including grief counseling. I have a degree in psychology. What I said about tears, anger, and blame is factual. When a large group of people who are supposedly grieving over mass murder shed zero tears, act like their supposedly murdered family members are running for student council, and blame nothing but a fucking inanimate object for the murders, an act is taking place.

When I asked you before if you would expect any difference in how someone acts based on whether or not the murderer was alive or dead, you said it wasn't a factor what so ever. Which makes me think you are full of shit. If you truly believe that who the murderer is, is totally irrelevant to how a person reacts to a family member being murdered, it makes me think you really have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously have an extremely simplistic view on the subject.

You would claim the simplistic view is because everyone is the same and everyone acts alike in all situations and so are easy to predict, but anyone living in reality knows that is bullshit. People have massive different reactions to similar events, and the fact that you can't even comprehend how that might be possible, makes me think you are really not an expert at all, like you claim to be.

Also you seem to be totally incapable of telling if a person is crying or not. You showed videos in the past where people were very clearly, visibly crying and you claim they weren't.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

3. You are undermining what I have posted. I posted videos of people acting on stage and in videos in adulthood. The acts were not high school plays. Did you watch the Francine Wheeler video of her doing musical acting for the Dream Jam Band? That is not some high school phase project. She also did voice work for a porn cartoon.

Like I said, she wasn't acting. That is singing. Singing is not acting. That is exactly my point. If a few people were actors, that isn't unusual at all. Your claim is that nearly everyone is an actor however, and you reach that conclusion by stretching the definition of the word acting so that it includes pretty much everything. You are insane, you know that? How can you watch the video of her singing about tying her shoes and claim that proves she is a professional crisis actor? They are nothing even remotely similar. They are not even in the same ballpark.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

With all of the internet talk about how the kids weren't really killed, of course they have at least a night watchman watching the cemetery. I'm not risking jail and professional suicide just to throw another chunk of obviousness at people who are relentlessly in denial any way. If I did, I am certain that you would make up some kind of excuse. The masses feel emotions over Sandy Hook that prevent them from doing critical thinking. Time will change that, but the hoax is only a little more than two years old. In 40 years, the masses are going to know that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

You are the one who isn't thinking critically. None of the stuff you are saying makes any sense at all. It is all wild speculation based off goofy stuff. NBC makes a mistake due to bad reporting, one of the parents sang a silly children's song about tying shoes, obvious video glitches from video being copying multiple times across different video formats, you can't see tears on someone who is making sobbing sounds with their face red and shoulder shaking because the video isn't zoomed in on their eyes close enough, a parent reminiscing about their dead child, a man not used to being on tv being grilled in an interview for an hour straight makes an odd remark or two, none of these things show a conspiracy. None of them even hint towards a conspiracy. Your 'evidence' is total and utter garbage. What is even more insane, is that you say all these stupid things I listed are clear and blatant evidence of a conspiracy and people are in denial if they don't see it.

No, they don't see it, because it isn't evidence. It isn't even remotely close to evidence. It doesn't even look like evidence. It is garbage. Then you say you wouldn't get video of the empty casket because people wont believe it. Why so scared of real evidence? Why all this bullshit evidence? Let me guess, because it isn't true. The events really did happy and the hoax is all in your mind.

I mean, scroll back up and look at that video you posted of the girl singing about tying shoes. Your claim is that video some how shows that she is a paid professional crisis actor, hired by the government to pretend to be a grieving parent during a massive secret government cover up. The claim is absurd. It is a joke. No one would take that claim seriously. No one would believe that claim. That isn't evidence, of anything. Even if she was an actor, why would you post that? That video actually makes your claim look more silly than if you had no video at all and we thought you were just making it up.

Since Alric and Blueline are responding to their points, I'll only respond to mine. They are doing a fine job of addressing you. I am trying to tamper my tone, but you really come off as a raging ass to everyone. Like your comments towards Blueline being an anarchist was so condescending, that I don't understand how people even listen to you with any sense of seriousness. The point of a conversation or debate should be to pass along information in as coherently and respectful a manner as possible. When you start ad hominem attacks, you lost. Period.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What are you talking about? The hoax worked. People like you are so hopelessly in denial about the obvious that the flaws don't matter. They fooled you. Mission accomplished, if that was the full mission. However, I think they might actually want a certain faction of the population to know it was a hoax. The goal might have been to raise gun sales so that the country would be better armed. It might have been to raise awareness of the potential for future government manipulations and/or the threat the Second Amendment is under at this point. It might have had something to do with tightening school security as a counter terrorism measure. School security has gotten much stricter as a result of Sandy Hook. There are many possibilities.

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is best summed up in this message. "I don't know why they staged something, but they did, and I figured it out... Maybe they wanted people to know!" No. That's idiotic and so utterly illogical it's laughable. Literally everything you suggested is so silly and stupid because it could be done ANY other way.

• Raise Gun Sales: By all accounts, all this did was start a run on Assault Weapons that has already started to slow down. Not to mention the NRA has seen a $100 million boom in donations. So, if anyone benefited from Sandy Hook, it was actually the gun ADVOCATES. Considering the shooter's mother was associated with the NRA, it is a bit of a stretch to believe they'd allow that to happen with this plan in motion. In fact, Adam Lanza and his mother have certificates from the NRA Thinking as the NRA who wants to scare people into buying guns because the government is going to ban them, why would you want to stage a mass shooting at a school where the person blamed is a kid who is alleged to murder his mother, both of whom are associated with the group who benefits the most?
• Second Amendment/Government Manipulations - Same as last point. If the goal was to make such a public display that people would cradle their weapons like infants, then it didn't work in the long run. Assault weapons boomed for a bit and are back to "normal" levels. And again, the people who benefited the most are the people who would have perpetrated the act.

The problem is Sandy Hook really hasn't changed that much. If it was a conspiracy to fool the American public, and it would have fooled the majority of Americans, then it worked to the point where people moved on. The Boston Bombing happened a few months later, and people weren't even talking about Sandy Hook. That event, perpetrated by two young brothers with homemade explosives, did more to damage public safety than Sandy Hook ever did.

Again, it all comes back to reasoning and logic: in order for your hoax argument to be real, we would have to suppose a group so intelligent and thorough that they fooled most Americans. They would have to have actors who sign contracts for life, and have made sure that the kids named weren't even possible to be seen by anyone outside of the circle of the conspiracy. Oh, but they had to be so sloppy, that people could debunk it with Youtube and pausing news videos.

Do you understand how impossible that is?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you honestly believe that nobody really believes a hoax took place? Do you seriously think it's all about emotional needs and zero about what people really think? I assure you that I am as convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax as I am that professional wrestling is fake. You people sound like wrestling fans who think the stuff is real. "Uh, how can you be sure the wrestlers are acting? You just want to sound smart." I swear you official story believers who debate me on this come across just like that to me.

Because you aren't grounded in reason or logic. You have the pre-supposed notion that Sandy Hook was faked. Nothing will ever change that because, to you, absence of evidence is evidence. To you, you are already in the know. It's funny though: Sandy Hook hoaxers are a SMALL group of people. According to Salon, the combined number of videos was 25 million views. That's not a lot at all when you consider there are 400 million Americans, but let's say 200 million use the Internet daily. That means only 1 in 8 may have seen the video, and that doesn't account for multiple viewers, people like me who watched it and didn't buy it, etc. The video they cite as having the most - 10 million views in 11 days in January 2013 - is only at 11 million in February 2015. That isn't even a blip.

Do me a favor, read this article with the cap that Sandy Hook happened as the government reported. Turn off the inner monologue. When you get to the end, feel free to debate it, but it basically has done the research and answered all the claims with evidence.

The pro-wrestling analogy isn't even sound. The pro-wrestling industry doesn't even pretend it is real. They don't open announce it is staged, but they don't pretend what happens on TV is real life. You can see people acting out of character all over the place, including on their own TV shows. What you are doing is like saying "Football is completely staged and everyone is acting." The NFL prides itself as being legitimate competition, it makes a lot of money off of its legitimacy, and would completely come unhinged it if was revealed a farce.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Since Alric and Blueline are responding to their points, I'll only respond to mine. They are doing a fine job of addressing you. I am trying to tamper my tone, but you really come off as a raging ass to everyone. Like your comments towards Blueline being an anarchist was so condescending, that I don't understand how people even listen to you with any sense of seriousness. The point of a conversation or debate should be to pass along information in as coherently and respectful a manner as possible. When you start ad hominem attacks, you lost. Period.

Being snugly wrapped up in a fantasy tends to elicit douchebaggery whenever somebody challenges it, as evidenced by his weird attempt to dig up an entirely irrelevant topic from another discussion (anarchism).

Originally Posted by Alric

It makes you an amateur actor and conveys nothing in relation to your ability to see acting in others. Your opinion is that you think you are an expert on acting, and my opinion is I think you are totally clueless. Both are just opinions though, not evidence.

There is a difference between you and me here. I know me. I didn't even claim to be an expert. I just said that I know a bad acting job when I see one.

Originally Posted by Alric

When I asked you before if you would expect any difference in how someone acts based on whether or not the murderer was alive or dead, you said it wasn't a factor what so ever. Which makes me think you are full of shit. If you truly believe that who the murderer is, is totally irrelevant to how a person reacts to a family member being murdered, it makes me think you really have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously have an extremely simplistic view on the subject.

You would claim the simplistic view is because everyone is the same and everyone acts alike in all situations and so are easy to predict, but anyone living in reality knows that is bullshit. People have massive different reactions to similar events, and the fact that you can't even comprehend how that might be possible, makes me think you are really not an expert at all, like you claim to be.

Also you seem to be totally incapable of telling if a person is crying or not. You showed videos in the past where people were very clearly, visibly crying and you claim they weren't.

I didn't say it would make no difference. I said that death of the murderer would not make their anger go away. Get off it about everybody acting the same in all situations. You official story gulpers keep using it. If not everybody acts the same, why has everybody acted the same? What you are saying supports my point. If you have found a live interview with a tear coming out of an eye, post it. That challenge still stands. You haven't met it yet. My challenge to you to find an interview in which a family member expresses anger still stands. My challenge to you to find an interview in which something other than the gun is blamed still stands. Many people were interviewed, even within 48 hours of the fake massacre.

Originally Posted by Alric

Like I said, she wasn't acting. That is singing. Singing is not acting. That is exactly my point. If a few people were actors, that isn't unusual at all. Your claim is that nearly everyone is an actor however, and you reach that conclusion by stretching the definition of the word acting so that it includes pretty much everything. You are insane, you know that? How can you watch the video of her singing about tying her shoes and claim that proves she is a professional crisis actor? They are nothing even remotely similar. They are not even in the same ballpark.

She was both singing and acting, like people do in musicals. Why do I need to explain this to you? I told you that she also did voice over work in a porno cartoon. Do you want to claim that voice over work is not acting either? You seem to have close to zero knowledge about acting. No wonder you are so easy to fool.

When these actors sing, are they not acting? Seriously, do you claim that there are long periods of no acting in this?



I have posted videos of Francine Wheeler acting. This is her husband, David Wheeler:

Originally Posted by Alric

You are the one who isn't thinking critically. None of the stuff you are saying makes any sense at all. It is all wild speculation based off goofy stuff. NBC makes a mistake due to bad reporting, one of the parents sang a silly children's song about tying shoes, obvious video glitches from video being copying multiple times across different video formats, you can't see tears on someone who is making sobbing sounds with their face red and shoulder shaking because the video isn't zoomed in on their eyes close enough, a parent reminiscing about their dead child, a man not used to being on tv being grilled in an interview for an hour straight makes an odd remark or two, none of these things show a conspiracy. None of them even hint towards a conspiracy. Your 'evidence' is total and utter garbage. What is even more insane, is that you say all these stupid things I listed are clear and blatant evidence of a conspiracy and people are in denial if they don't see it.

No, they don't see it, because it isn't evidence. It isn't even remotely close to evidence. It doesn't even look like evidence. It is garbage. Then you say you wouldn't get video of the empty casket because people wont believe it. Why so scared of real evidence? Why all this bullshit evidence? Let me guess, because it isn't true. The events really did happy and the hoax is all in your mind.

I mean, scroll back up and look at that video you posted of the girl singing about tying shoes. Your claim is that video some how shows that she is a paid professional crisis actor, hired by the government to pretend to be a grieving parent during a massive secret government cover up. The claim is absurd. It is a joke. No one would take that claim seriously. No one would believe that claim. That isn't evidence, of anything. Even if she was an actor, why would you post that? That video actually makes your claim look more silly than if you had no video at all and we thought you were just making it up.

You are either in Category 5 denial about what is obvious or just flat out lying. There are no tears coming out of eyes in live interviews, there is no anger, there is no blame toward anything but the gun, witnesses made astoundingly absurd comments, and lots of the supposed family members are in fact actors. This is ridiculous.

If you were around in 1985, which maybe you were, how would you have known that professional wrestling was fake?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Since Alric and Blueline are responding to their points, I'll only respond to mine. They are doing a fine job of addressing you. I am trying to tamper my tone, but you really come off as a raging ass to everyone. Like your comments towards Blueline being an anarchist was so condescending, that I don't understand how people even listen to you with any sense of seriousness. The point of a conversation or debate should be to pass along information in as coherently and respectful a manner as possible. When you start ad hominem attacks, you lost. Period.

Did you overlook BLUELINE's insults toward me? Be honest. I was responding to them. Also, do you see anything strange about somebody claiming to be an anarchist yet trusting a story just because people in the government told it? Be honest about that too.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is best summed up in this message. "I don't know why they staged something, but they did, and I figured it out... Maybe they wanted people to know!" No. That's idiotic and so utterly illogical it's laughable. Literally everything you suggested is so silly and stupid because it could be done ANY other way.

When you are driving and you see people driving the other direction, do you know where all of them are going? If not, do you still conclude that they are driving?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

• Raise Gun Sales: By all accounts, all this did was start a run on Assault Weapons that has already started to slow down. Not to mention the NRA has seen a $100 million boom in donations. So, if anyone benefited from Sandy Hook, it was actually the gun ADVOCATES. Considering the shooter's mother was associated with the NRA, it is a bit of a stretch to believe they'd allow that to happen with this plan in motion. In fact, Adam Lanza and his mother have certificates from the NRA Thinking as the NRA who wants to scare people into buying guns because the government is going to ban them, why would you want to stage a mass shooting at a school where the person blamed is a kid who is alleged to murder his mother, both of whom are associated with the group who benefits the most?
• Second Amendment/Government Manipulations - Same as last point. If the goal was to make such a public display that people would cradle their weapons like infants, then it didn't work in the long run. Assault weapons boomed for a bit and are back to "normal" levels. And again, the people who benefited the most are the people who would have perpetrated the act.

Yes, the goal might have been in the name of gun advocacy. I said that earlier. Are you sure that you are reading my posts before you argue with them?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

The problem is Sandy Hook really hasn't changed that much. If it was a conspiracy to fool the American public, and it would have fooled the majority of Americans, then it worked to the point where people moved on. The Boston Bombing happened a few months later, and people weren't even talking about Sandy Hook. That event, perpetrated by two young brothers with homemade explosives, did more to damage public safety than Sandy Hook ever did.

You just posted something saying that Sandy Hook benefited gun advocates. Did you suddenly change your mind? It also changed a lot of policies.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12...dy-hook/197211

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Again, it all comes back to reasoning and logic: in order for your hoax argument to be real, we would have to suppose a group so intelligent and thorough that they fooled most Americans. They would have to have actors who sign contracts for life, and have made sure that the kids named weren't even possible to be seen by anyone outside of the circle of the conspiracy. Oh, but they had to be so sloppy, that people could debunk it with Youtube and pausing news videos.

Do you understand how impossible that is?

No, it's light years from impossible. The masses were fooled. The sloppiness, or perhaps deliberate leaving of clues for some to notice and accept, did not prevent the fooling of the masses. That is why I also consider the possibility that Sandy Hook was a social experiment.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Because you aren't grounded in reason or logic. You have the pre-supposed notion that Sandy Hook was faked. Nothing will ever change that because, to you, absence of evidence is evidence. To you, you are already in the know. It's funny though: Sandy Hook hoaxers are a SMALL group of people. According to Salon, the combined number of videos was 25 million views. That's not a lot at all when you consider there are 400 million Americans, but let's say 200 million use the Internet daily. That means only 1 in 8 may have seen the video, and that doesn't account for multiple viewers, people like me who watched it and didn't buy it, etc. The video they cite as having the most - 10 million views in 11 days in January 2013 - is only at 11 million in February 2015. That isn't even a blip.

Like I said, the masses were fooled. So, if there was a hoax that was meant to fool the masses, it didn't fail. Right?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

The pro-wrestling analogy isn't even sound. The pro-wrestling industry doesn't even pretend it is real. They don't open announce it is staged, but they don't pretend what happens on TV is real life. You can see people acting out of character all over the place, including on their own TV shows. What you are doing is like saying "Football is completely staged and everyone is acting." The NFL prides itself as being legitimate competition, it makes a lot of money off of its legitimacy, and would completely come unhinged it if was revealed a farce.

Now I know you're not reading my posts carefully, or at least not being honest about what I have said. In the 70's and 80's, the professional wrestling industry tried to make the fake sport look real. Did you catch it that time? In 1985, how would you have known that professional wrestling was fake? When I was in school back then, I would argue with other kids about that issue. Some of them got really pissed off at me for saying that pro wrestling was fake. My arguments with them were a whole lot like the arguments I am having with you three now. The debates are so much alike.

So, how would you have known in 1985 that professional wrestling was fake?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Being snugly wrapped up in a fantasy tends to elicit douchebaggery whenever somebody challenges it, as evidenced by his weird attempt to dig up an entirely irrelevant topic from another discussion (anarchism).

That's cute. Do you have any actual debate points to make? The points I addressed to you still stand because you haven't countered them.

If you are an anarchist, why do you believe something just because people in the government claim it? Seriously, why do you?

I am going to post this separately so you three can't so easily dodge. These are clips from 1987. They are not long, and you can watch a few seconds of them to get the point. You really don't even have to play them to know what they are. I challenge you to explain how you would have known in 1987 that these people were acting. The industry did not admit that professional wrestling was fake back then, so how would you have known? I knew. I argued with kids a bunch of times about it, and they sounded like you do now. How did I know?

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?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am going to post this separately so you three can't so easily dodge. These are clips from 1987. They are not long, and you can watch a few seconds of them to get the point. You really don't even have to play them to know what they are. I challenge you to explain how you would have known in 1987 that these people were acting. The industry did not admit that professional wrestling was fake back then, so how would you have known? I knew. I argued with kids a bunch of times about it, and they sounded like you do now. How did I know?

Because you aren't unique, and A LOT of people were publicly questioning that professional wrestling was stage:



Here's the same expose, which tongue-in-cheek mocks the idea that wrestling is wrestling... in 1984. You didn't magically come up with it on your own.

At 2:48, John Stossel flat out says "This isn't wrestling."



This was on 20/20 in 1984. That means by the time you would have been thinking it, it was part of the public conversation whether you remember it or not. I'm sorry, Universal Mind, you aren't special.

Also, building off the strange argument that people aren't grieving so "ACTORS." Read this: The Neuroscience of True Grit - Scientific American They have more credentials than you do.

When I lost people, often when we were young, I wouldn't react with constant tears. I'd shift moods for months to years. My best friend who lost his brother still hasn't recovered, and his parents either. A friend who lost her son has gone through every single mood imaginable, and she wasn't even being interviewed.

Again, your argument is that these people are actors covering up a faked mass murder. Actors YOU FOUND ONLINE. Do you not think ANYONE reporting body would check into this? Nick Phelps is barely an actor. He was on Spin City (and if he has a single line, he is in SAG), some show in 1996, and an independent film. I have a friend who has done more plays where he was paid and seen by large crowds, I guess if ANYTHING happens to him for the rest of his life, he's a hired actor now.

This is making wide reaches just to prove your point, when in reality, a lot of these people were in one or two roles, and are younger parents who still think they can succeed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Click to enlarge:

globalist 33.jpg

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

There really is nothing outrageous about the official story. Quick: Did you see the bodies from Columbine? Did you see pictures or video of parents crying? What about Virginia Tech? What about Aurora Cineplex? What about the mass shooting in Australia they left them with the strictest gun control in the world?

You haven't seen any of these things.

This is where conspiracy theorists will lose people. As someone who has logic facilities and sound reasoning abilities, I cannot start looking for a conspiracy when there is no answer to why. The official story barely has a why, which makes it very uncomfortable to accept as fact. Not unrealistic; uncomfortable. A teenager or whatever had an event that caused him to lose all control of his restraint facilities, and her murdered his mother then a bunch of children in a school. That's a crazy world to live in, and that is the world we live. A world where shit just happens.

In your world, there are massive conspiracies to, and I am quoting, "I am not sure what the purpose of Sandy Hook was." This is defines any scientific inquiry. You are LOOKING for a conspiracy. You have yet to entertain my notion that there wasn't anyone beyond Adam Lanza acting alone. Take off your world against you glasses for a second and look at it from that perspective.

Also, you said the conspiracy was "possibly intentionally bad so some people would see that." Do you have ANY idea how egotistical that sounds on top of how utterly insane that is? If Sandy Hook is proven to be a hoax, they have broken a myriad of federal laws that would likely imprison them for several lifetimes. It's like saying 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, but they left clues for the smarter ones. If the US Government was revealed to be behind 9/11, other countries would go to war with us without hesitating.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

About as easy as auditioning: Extras Casting | Jobs for Movies, Television, & More | Backstage

All extras need to do is look a certain part. If they have a speaking role, they will have to audition, but for the love of science, this is Spin City in the first season; it's not Shindler's List.

Some of the shootings you named might have been hoaxes, but the only one you named that stands out as WTF other than Sandy Hook is Auroroa. That raises weird issues too, but nothing like Sandy hook does. I am not completely convinced that any of them were real, but all of them very well might have been, except Sandy Hook. It was a hoax, obviously.

The fact that I don't know what the purpose of Sandy Hook was doesn't prove that I am wanting there to be a conspiracy any more than your not knowing where cars driving the other direction are going proves that you want cars to go the other way. I already explained that to you. Pick up there, or at least quit hitting the reset button.

There are loopholes in the law that would allow a shooting hoax, such as the legality of false media reporting. A 9/11 inside job would have been extremely illegal, but I haven't been arguing that it happened. I am one of very few people who has ever said on this website that 9/11 was not an inside job. It was me vs. many on that issue here too. I wonder where all of the conspiracy theorists on that issue went.

Did you pause that video at 7:16?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Some of the shootings you named might have been hoaxes, but the only one you named that stands out as WTF other than Sandy Hook is Auroroa. That raises weird issues too, but nothing like Sandy hook does. I am not completely convinced that any of them were real, but all of them very well might have been, except Sandy Hook. It was a hoax, obviously.

Holy shit! Your world view is so completely insane... So, let's clarify.

Columbine -
Virgina Tech -
Aurora -
Santa Barbara Rampage -
Norway Island Shooter -

Which of these were real?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The fact that I don't know what the purpose of Sandy Hook was doesn't prove that I am wanting there to be a conspiracy any more than your not knowing where cars driving the other direction are going proves that you want cars to go the other way. I already explained that to you. Pick up there, or at least quit hitting the reset button.

Except it does. You are looking for smoke where there is no fire. The day of, it was weird as news came out, maybe even the week later, but beyond reasonable doubt, we have a story that most people have accepted for over 2 years. It's part of the fabric of history now. Keeping that in mind, very little has come out of it. Gun sales, sorta, went up, but they went back down since. Gun laws have been in motion for decades, and we have laxer gun laws than any other country in the world. Fear of the government or preparation? Both zero. The NSA leaks are still coming out, and people are as trusting of the government as ever before.

How many people, in your estimate, would be part of this conspiracy?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There are loopholes in the law that would allow a shooting hoax, such as the legality of false media reporting. A 9/11 inside job would have been extremely illegal, but I haven't been arguing that it happened. I am one of very few people who has ever said on this website that 9/11 was not an inside job. It was me vs. many on that issue here too. I wonder where all of the conspiracy theorists on that issue went.

There's a good median ground. 9/11, as the official story said was purported by 19 hijackers (quick Googling, forgive me if that number is wrong). With rudimentary flight training and capability. They were able to commandeer 4 planes, I think, with three striking critical buildings, one being the Pentagon. What's scarier? A government conspiracy or just some random lunatics attacking AND SUCCEEDING at destroying buildings that are still being felt almost 15 years later?

It's the same with the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing. It's far, far, far scarier to realize that one to possibly 3 men with very simple explosives killed a bunch of people than to believe the government orchestrated it. The reasoning is if fewer people with less resources, skills, education, and ability can execute an act of mass violence, then they can keep doing this.

Looking at Sandy Hook with the same goggles (you won't), and you can see how this official story is far scarier and freakier than any other argument. Literally the guy next to you on a bus could open fire.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you pause that video at 7:16?

2015-02-28 10_42_47-Was Sandy Hook a Hoax_.jpg

Yes, I see a person reacting... This is so mind-blowing that you believe ACTORS are portraying grieving parents, but they are so poor at their craft they would laugh on camera. Have you ever been duplicitous? You don't let your guard down the entire time while lying. This all has to assume the media isn't in on it or they would simply edit the footage. So, these actors have fooled journalists, which despite your opinion have credentials and experiences to suss out total whack job liars, and maybe 90% of the population, but you caught it because you can pause a video. That doesn't gel. It's just finding smoke where there's no fire and not taking the totality of a situation.

Also, she is crying. If you cannot see that, then I don't really plan to engage you on any more argument about whether or not people are grieving. As Alric said, you simply are ignoring what tears look like.