Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

Thank you for explaining all that Alric. That in conjunction with the video UM just posted goes a long way toward explaining most of the questions raised by the conspiracy theory videos.

Alric, calm down. Take a few deep breaths. I have said repeatedly that I am not convinced that there is a conspiracy. I am just asking questions about stuff that seems extremely bizarre. Don't respond to my posts if you are not going to read them in their entirety.

Originally Posted by Alric

For example, the one that pisses me off is the clip of nbc that says there was 4 hand guns, and people use that to say it was a conspiracy. It was just horrible reporting on NBC's part because no one ever said there was 4 hand guns, they basically just pulled that report out of their ass and went with it. All the official reports by the police and everything has always said there was two hand guns found on the body, that were not used to kill anyone else(he might of killed him self with the pistol I forget), he used the assault rifle for all the kills and it was found on his body, and there was a shotgun that was never used found in the trunk of the car. That was the official police report and all evidence supports that, anyone who says differently is lying or is wrong, including any media sources.

Oh, I am so sorry I think it is extremely bizarre that major news companies are giving false news reports about one of the biggest news stories in the world. My bad. At least they got the official police report worked out before reporting it.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for the 'bad acting', it appears to be bad acting because they are not actors, they are real people who are not used to being in front of cameras. They are also experiencing a great deal of stress and grief which can cause people to act exactly like you see. It is all normal. People who that that humans all react in the same way to all events don't really have much experience in human behavior, if you knew anything about the subject you would know people's mood changes often, and people can react in many ways in any given situation.

It appears to be bad, and it appears to be acting. That is why it appears to be bad acting. Bad + acting = bad acting. I have many times more experience working in the area of human behavior than you, and I have seen a great deal of tears. Can you show me ONE single tear in any of the videos I have posted? Just one? From majoring in psychology, working at a mental health center, and teaching at several schools and subbing at a zillion, I know human behavior. I am also 41 years old. I know how people act in these situations. The people in the video are off the charts. Excuse me for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by Alric

The emilie parker thing is also pretty silly. Her sister wears her old dress and suddenly everyone thinks it is her. What is more likely, they fake the entire thing and then picked the wrong child for the photo op, or that her sister was just wearing a hand me down? Keep in mind that the photos people use are like two years a part, so in the obama photo everyone is two years older than they are in the other.

Oh, really? The other pictures were two years old? Do you have evidence of that? Please explain why one of the sisters didn't look like she had aged at all. Also explain why Emilie's supposed sister looked exactly like Emilie, even with her hair parted the same way. They had no recent pictures of Emilie? She looks identical to her sister's later self in all of them? I guess I don't know anything about human behavior if I think it is looney land nut toons that Emilie's replica and others in the family were looking so happy with the president in a picture right after Emilie was killed.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for the websites. The person creates a website for whatever reason they don't like it, so they reuse it for something else and the creation date remains the original. Nothing odd or strange about that at all. They could make a new page, maybe many did but a few didn't. Only thing that is strange is that you think 100% of all people will do the same thing and no person would ever reuse a website.

No, I think it's bizarre that they reuse it because they had JUST created it. That meant they had things to change, including the name of the page, which has to be approved by Facebook and usually takes more than a day. It's much easier to just start a new page.

The last video I posted is covered with all kinds of outrageous issues. For example, a woman out there is trying to get answers concerning why her daughter had her picture on a website dedicated to the children who were supposedly killed in Newtown. The picture came with a false name. It's a long video, so there is lots of other stuff. I challenge you to look at the last thing covered in the video. It shows people walking into and out of the fire station in something resembling a circle, like they are in an M.C. Escher painting. Gene Rosen, the actor who had six kids show up in two different crazy ways at his house, is one of the people. Look at the last video I posted, starting at 1:50:09, and tell me what on Earth the people are doing. Will you do that? It is very mysterious. Since this is a new page, here is the video again.

I am not upset at all, though I do think NBC people who reported that are scumbags. They said they confirmed it from an official source which is clearly a lie. Why are they lying to people's face? Because it increases their ratings is why. It would seem unlikely, except they get caught lying all the time. Why do people still believe in climate gate even though it was proven to be a total lie and the climate scientists never did anything wrong? Because the media flat out lied and told everyone the scientists faked data, when they didn't. Why do they tell me a presidential candidate won a primary when at the bottom of the screen it says someone else won? Because they lie through their teeth.

The major news networks can be pretty incompetent at times, it is the reason why most of their ratings are going down the toilet. Before you base anything off anything they say, you need to double check the sources. They all copy each other too so if one group is incorrect they all report fake stuff since they copy it.

Here is the picture of the two girls, the one on the left is the one you claim is Emile with Obama, and the one on the right an up to date picture of Emile. Do they look identical to you?

closeup.jpgcloseup3.jpg

To me they sure do not look like the same person. As for the crying, it is kind of funny you say there is no crying at all when the picture at the start of the video(the one it shows before you press play when looking it up), shows the woman crying. It claims there is no tears but you can hardly tell from a video without it being a super close up, especially with their faces all red, which suggests they were clearly crying.

As for the websites again, of course they just created it. If they created the website 6 months ago, they likely wouldn't even remember they had it, or would have forgotten about it. If the page was only a day or two old then they were still in the process of actively working on it and setting it up, which is the time a person is most likely to change their mind and do something else.

Originally Posted by Alric

I am not upset at all, though I do think NBC people who reported that are scumbags. They said they confirmed it from an official source which is clearly a lie. Why are they lying to people's face? Because it increases their ratings is why. It would seem unlikely, except they get caught lying all the time. Why do people still believe in climate gate even though it was proven to be a total lie and the climate scientists never did anything wrong? Because the media flat out lied and told everyone the scientists faked data, when they didn't. Why do they tell me a presidential candidate won a primary when at the bottom of the screen it says someone else won? Because they lie through their teeth.

Maybe so, but it seems like it would be pretty risky to just flat out lie. Dan Rather lost his job over it, and he was a news legend.

Originally Posted by Alric

Here is the picture of the two girls, the one on the left is the one you claim is Emile with Obama, and the one on the right an up to date picture of Emile. Do they look identical to you?

Yes, they do. Emilie's sisters were noticeably younger, and the girl in the mysterious picture who is unquestionably Emilie's sister doesn't look much older than she does in the full family picture. Her hair is just a little longer. If that is not Emilie in the mysterious picture, then her sister developed really fast, grew her hair to Emilie's hair length, parted her hair the same way, and wore her outfit. What did Emilie look like right before the shooting? Why couldn't they find any very recent pictures of her? Did she and her younger sister look identical when she died?

Click to enlarge:

parker-family-pic.jpgparker obama.jpg

There were only three daughters. Emilie was the oldest. How did the girl who later looked just like Emilie and wore her outfit look so much younger in the full family picture? You can't find pictures of Emilie where she looked any older than she did in that family picture. But it was so old that the sister looks much younger? That doesn't seem to add up.

Originally Posted by Alric

To me they sure do not look like the same person. As for the crying, it is kind of funny you say there is no crying at all when the picture at the start of the video(the one it shows before you press play when looking it up), shows the woman crying. It claims there is no tears but you can hardly tell from a video without it being a super close up, especially with their faces all red, which suggests they were clearly crying.

She is making crying sounds and gestures. I said that there are no tears. This is what tears look like:



You can obviously see tears in a video.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for the websites again, of course they just created it. If they created the website 6 months ago, they likely wouldn't even remember they had it, or would have forgotten about it. If the page was only a day or two old then they were still in the process of actively working on it and setting it up, which is the time a person is most likely to change their mind and do something else.

People remember that they have Facebook pages. If a person has a six month old one he doesn't use any more and wants a Facebook page for something new, it will dawn on him that he has one. It would be odd if a two day old Facebook cause got called off. Like I said, getting a new Facebook page is extremely simple.

You didn't answer my question about what people are doing at the fire station in the video I posted earlier. It is mysterious. Start at 1:50:09 and watch the odd behavior. It appears that people are just walking in a circle in and out of the fire station. What do you suggest? I have yet to come across anybody attempting to give an explanation. Please be the first I have seen.

I already told you that photo is from two years ago. It is used by the conspiracy people because it is the photo they look the most alike in, so it is the best for conspiracy theories, but it isn't the only photo available. Both girls look older, because they are two years older. I already posted a picture of Emile that was recent, and in that photo compared to the obama one they are clearly not the same person.

Take a look at the two pictures I posted at my last post, look at them. They look related but it is clearly not the same person in both pictures.

Also that crying video is silly. They are trying to film the tears and it is a super close up of the face to show it. In the other videos they are not trying to catch tears on film, they are just filming the people, and their faces are red as if they were crying, which is clear signs that they were crying even if you can't clearly see tears.

As for the firehouse they are not doing what the person is claiming they are doing. They are not walking in circles. The video is put on repeat and is played backwards and forwards to give the impression they are walking in the circle when they are not. Notice how in the entire video there isn't even two seconds of video showing the top of the building, So like five people go to the right to get to the cars on that side and they repeat it dozens of times to make it look like everyone is going that way when they are not. Most are probably going to the left.

I worry for the mental and emotional health of anyone who would think sandy hook was a hoax...just wow.

^^ Haha! Yeah that's it - guilt and shame everybody back into line if they dare to ask questions outside of the box of conformity and mass media.

Originally Posted by Alric

Originally Posted by Alric

I already told you that photo is from two years ago. It is used by the conspiracy people because it is the photo they look the most alike in, so it is the best for conspiracy theories, but it isn't the only photo available. Both girls look older, because they are two years older. I already posted a picture of Emile that was recent, and in that photo compared to the obama one they are clearly not the same person.

That was recent? She doesn't look any older in it. Her sister wearing a pink dress in the Obama picture doesn't look any older.

Originally Posted by Alric

Take a look at the two pictures I posted at my last post, look at them. They look related but it is clearly not the same person in both pictures.

They look like the same person to me.

Also that crying video is silly. They are trying to film the tears and it is a super close up of the face to show it. In the other videos they are not trying to catch tears on film, they are just filming the people, and their faces are red as if they were crying, which is clear signs that they were crying even if you can't clearly see tears.

It's what tears look like. You can see tears on video. The people in the interviews were close up.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for the firehouse they are not doing what the person is claiming they are doing. They are not walking in circles. The video is put on repeat and is played backwards and forwards to give the impression they are walking in the circle when they are not. Notice how in the entire video there isn't even two seconds of video showing the top of the building, So like five people go to the right to get to the cars on that side and they repeat it dozens of times to make it look like everyone is going that way when they are not. Most are probably going to the left.

They are obviously walking out a door and around the building and into another door instead of just walking through the building.

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

I worry for the mental and emotional health of anyone who would think sandy hook was a hoax...just wow.

Could you elaborate on that? "Just wow," is a non-argument.

This is what people look like when they are truly upset and crying.

The entire idea that you think there is a proper and improper way to cry is pretty ridiculous. Saying someone isn't really upset because they are crying 'improperly' or that there isn't enough tears is absurd. No rational person could watch those videos and say that, unless they were specifically looking to poke holes in it, in which case they see what they want to see and not reality. None of the people are acting strangely at all, that is all normal human behavior.

And no you are wrong, the people are not walking the way to claim they are in the video of the firehouse.

I am telling you how people cry. I said nothing about a proper way. I am telling you how it happens. Your denial is absurd.

You are also in denial about the way the people are walking at the fire station. Look harder.

If you actually watch the video you will see they are not going in circles at all. There is like 30 people leaving the door at the bottom and 5 at the top, and those 5 are not even the same people that came out of the door. But even they were, what happened to the other 25 people? They all went in different directions. They just repeat the 2 second clip over and over so it looks like a circle pattern but it isn't. There are people walking along the side of the building at the same time as people are walking on the other side, they are not the same people though.

Also you are totally wrong about people crying. Not to mention the fact that not everyone goes into depression and cry all day long after some one dies. People can go from happy to sad. You don't seem to understand human emotions at all, despite claiming you have a very good understanding.

Isn't it cute how conspiracy theorists always hide under the guise of "just asking questions?" Asking a question implies a desire for an answer. Yet no answer given is ever good enough. Instead of shifting the goal posts from laterally, they keep moving them back.

Originally Posted by Alric

If you actually watch the video you will see they are not going in circles at all. There is like 30 people leaving the door at the bottom and 5 at the top, and those 5 are not even the same people that came out of the door. But even they were, what happened to the other 25 people? They all went in different directions. They just repeat the 2 second clip over and over so it looks like a circle pattern but it isn't. There are people walking along the side of the building at the same time as people are walking on the other side, they are not the same people though.

I don't think you followed the line. It is a clear line of people going from a door to the side of the building, and it keeps going to the other side of the building and then goes back inside. Where is the line of people walking away from the parking lot or past the building on the other side?

Originally Posted by Alric

Also you are totally wrong about people crying. Not to mention the fact that not everyone goes into depression and cry all day long after some one dies. People can go from happy to sad. You don't seem to understand human emotions at all, despite claiming you have a very good understanding.

I showed you two examples of what tears look like in a video. You can't find any in any of the Sandy Hook videos I have posted. I am referring specifically to the people in the videos who conveyed being upset, particularly the ones who acted like they were crying. If you don't see how odd it is, good luck to you, but your personal insults are worthless.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Isn't it cute how conspiracy theorists always hide under the guise of "just asking questions?" Asking a question implies a desire for an answer. Yet no answer given is ever good enough. Instead of shifting the goal posts from laterally, they keep moving them back.

Isn't it cute how your answers have been inadequate?

I have seen people cry five feet in front of me, and I couldn't see their tears. Tears are generally clear since they are mostly water, which makes them difficult to see, especially on videos. Just because you were able to find some videos where you can make out the tears, doesn't mean you should be able to see all tears in all videos.

The far more clear sign that people are crying is when their face is red and their eyes are puffy and stuff like that, which you can actually see several times in the videos. Just because you can't see the transparent tears doesn't mean none of them ever cried.

As for the line, they are not lines. There is no line of people leaving the door and circling around the entire building then entering again. That doesn't exist. There is a group of people leaving the building at the start but then they go off in their own directions. Some go west, some south, some are going into the building to the north. Some of them go up the side of the building like they are going to the cars, which is exactly what you would expect to happen. There is also some people walking in front of the building, which might not have ever been in the back since you only see them walking in front of the building. And even if they were from the back they don't enter the building, they are just walking in front of it, which means their car could of been parked further away.

The only reason anyone can claim people are going in circle is because they never give a shot of the entire scene all at once, that last longer than a second or two. Otherwise you could follow an individual and see where they came from which would prove they are not walking in a circle.

Here's another video debunking it:

h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m /watch?v=snViuRNT5Jk

Remove the spaces, obviously.

It is weird that 0 tears show up in 45 minutes worth of family interviews. What I posted was only Part 2 of "The Sandy Hook Actors."

The firehouse line shown all at once might have only lasted a short moment. If there is longer footage that debunks the claim by showing it was only a very temporary anomaly, I wish somebody would post it on YouTube. This is the firehouse circle.

Click to enlarge:

firehouse circle.jpg

Where is there any fragment of a line leaving the circle for good? I see a tributary leaving it for a moment and going right back into it, but no total departure.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Was the Bushmaster rifle found in the school? According to the video, only hand guns were found in the school. If the video is wrong about that and there is evidence to confirm it, then that's one hole in the video.

Click the links in my previous response. The video is wrong if it's claiming only handguns were found in the school. Lanza killed himself inside the school and the weapons (a rifle and two handguns) were found near his body.

I have said several times that it is not proof. It is definitely a really weird, eyebrow raising situation. Did you watch the other video I posted? If you will watch even a few minutes of it, especially the teacher's family, you will see something very bizarre.

Keep in mind that I am not convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax. If I were, I would not have titled this thread with a question.

I've seen videos of these "actors" before. Bizarre, sure. I don't think I'd react that way. But I haven't actually lost any children, or given any nationally broadcasted press conferences/interviews shortly afterwards. That is really all you can say for them: their responses are odd. But so are most human responses to traumatic experiences. A jeep crashed into my school bus one day in 7th grade. The driver (of the jeep) jumped out and started laughing hysterically (no, he wasn't drunk, on drugs, or mentally deranged). Bizarre? Absolutely. An indication that he was an actor, paid to crash into a school bus? Very unlikely.

Also, science is not on the side of the hoaxers.

In one example of his work, Bonanno and his colleague Dachner Keltner analyzed facial expressions of people who had lost loved ones recently. The videos bore no hint of any permanent sorrow that needed extirpation. As expected, the videos revealed sadness but also anger and happiness. Time and again, a grief-stricken person's expression would change from dejection to laughter and back. ... The same oscillation between sadness and mirth repeated itself in study after study.

I wonder why the other cause/identity lasted only two days on Facebook. I wonder how the parent found out there was an available page and got ownership of it instead of just starting from scratch. Creating a Facebook page from scratch can be done in a matter of minutes. I wouldn't know how to find a Facebook page where the owner is saying, "Hey, take this page. We don't need it... after two days." More strangeness.

Sandy Hook Hoax: Were Websites And Facebook Groups Published Before The Massacre? -- I'm thinking Occam's Razor has you beat here.

A Facebook dedication page was set up for a dead student while the school was still in lockdown? People hear that a school has been taken over by at least one gunman, and people in the town react by immediately hitting Facebook and doing dedications to children who had reportedly just been murdered, and one of them hadn't even really been murdered? Do you see anything off the wall about that? It is very difficult for me to see that happening in real life. I would be glued to the television or the radio to find out what is going to happen next at my town's elementary school during such a crisis. It wouldn't be Facebook dedication time. I don't come within a million miles of relating to that madness.

Off the wall? Not at all. Did you frequent Twitter or FB immediately (minutes) after the Boston Marathon bombing? Pray for Boston pages were popping up left and right, #BostonStrong (or some similar hashtag) were trending. People don't waste time in empathizing with tragedies on the internet. Besides, the kind of people causing a frenzy on the internet about these tragedies are the kind of people that get their news off the internet. All of my news about Boston came from Twitter. Sure, I had CNN on my TV in the background, but a police scanner and Twitter were all I needed.

What you need to realize is that with events like these, ANY information is immediately posted. Literally, any factoid gets published to Twitter and Facebook whether it's actually a fact, or just a rumor, or something marginally related to the actual event. People soak that shit up. With Boston, for at least 5 minutes, everybody thought the younger suspect was actually the missing Brown University student (his body eventually turned up in a river or something). So no, nothing off the wall for me.

Then the reporter is lying, she had a very detailed false memory of a conversation she just had, she talked to a school nurse who told a whopper about a tragedy that just happened at the elementary school where she works, or some freak claimed to be the school nurse but wasn't. Is there a fifth alternative?

Would you make the same claims for somebody like John King? He was allegedly running off a very good source, but ended up being completely wrong. Bad reporting happens all the time.

It was being widely reported (erroneously, first by LEO's I think) that Lanza was the son of a kindergarten teacher, but that was cleared up shortly after. It is entirely likely that the reporter went off of that false information. Again, Occam's Razor has you beat.

I live about twenty minutes from the Jackson city limits, but the city line is so close that the name of the metro area where I live is Jackson. It doesn't seem far at all. I could bike into the city in no time.

At any rate, my point is that saying a training course being held "right by" the school on the day of the shooting when in fact they were occurring 20 miles away is an unnecessary exaggeration.

That's 1 every 10 days, and you live in Boston, where a terrorist attack just occurred, not Newton, Connecticut.

No, I don't live in Boston. And all three courses are offered in a single week on simultaneous days.

I did more research on that. There were three sisters. Emilie was the oldest, and she was the alleged victim. The girl standing right in front of Obama in the picture looks identical to Emilie and is wearing her outfit. The other blonde headed girl is Emilie's sister who, I think, is the identical twin of the other surviving sister. Emilie was considerably older than the other two and had much longer hair. The other two girls had hair of the same length.

That, and:

04SamMadObama.jpg

Edit - Was fooling around with picture comparisons. Not sure how to remove the attached thumbnail.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Click the links in my previous response. The video is wrong if it's claiming only handguns were found in the school. Lanza killed himself inside the school and the weapons (a rifle and two handguns) were found near his body.

That is the story now. It was not the original story. Apparently it's what the official police report says.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I've seen videos of these "actors" before. Bizarre, sure. I don't think I'd react that way. But I haven't actually lost any children, or given any nationally broadcasted press conferences/interviews shortly afterwards. That is really all you can say for them: their responses are odd. But so are most human responses to traumatic experiences. A jeep crashed into my school bus one day in 7th grade. The driver (of the jeep) jumped out and started laughing hysterically (no, he wasn't drunk, on drugs, or mentally deranged). Bizarre? Absolutely. An indication that he was an actor, paid to crash into a school bus? Very unlikely.

I don't take any one of the people's behavior and say that obviously that individual wasn't upset, though I question it. I'll say the behavior is strange, but I understand that grief can take people in all kinds of possible directions. I have been to funerals where I balled my eyes out, but I have also been in complete shock and shown no emotion. I have also felt a strange need to be strong for the family and turn into a cheerful socialite. What is really tripping me out about "The Sandy Hook Actors" is that it is 45 minutes of no tears or the typical way of acting severely upset. I looked again and might have seen a tear and slightly watery eyes on one of the Soto girls, but that's it. The rest is WTF. That's not because of any one instance. It's because it involves crazy probability. If somebody wins at Bingo, it's not shocking. If somebody wins at Bingo every round the entire night, that's insane and suspicious. It still doesn't prove cheating, but it's a big red flag.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Sandy Hook Hoax: Were Websites And Facebook Groups Published Before The Massacre? -- I'm thinking Occam's Razor has you beat here.

That can happen apparently, but I have never seen it or heard of it from anybody I know. I have had four Facebook accounts, and I changed my name on one of them. I deleted one a while back and unknowingly had an alias one created for me by a prankster friend two years ago. That's my main account now. I have another one I use just for comedy and another one I use to debate politics without torturing my main account friends with it. I have never had an issue with the dates. It's possible that it happened with the Soto account.

By the way, the Soto family was one of the interviewed families in the video. There are videos and web articles about how the Sotos are connected to the Rockefellers and the Greenbergs and their supposed ring of recurring crisis actors, but that's a whole different issue. I don't put much stock into that one.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Off the wall? Not at all. Did you frequent Twitter or FB immediately (minutes) after the Boston Marathon bombing? Pray for Boston pages were popping up left and right, #BostonStrong (or some similar hashtag) were trending. People don't waste time in empathizing with tragedies on the internet. Besides, the kind of people causing a frenzy on the internet about these tragedies are the kind of people that get their news off the internet. All of my news about Boston came from Twitter. Sure, I had CNN on my TV in the background, but a police scanner and Twitter were all I needed.

Were people closely connected to the Boston victims creating pages about dead ones while there was an issue about whether they were still alive?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Would you make the same claims for somebody like John King? He was allegedly running off a very good source, but ended up being completely wrong. Bad reporting happens all the time.

It was being widely reported (erroneously, first by LEO's I think) that Lanza was the son of a kindergarten teacher, but that was cleared up shortly after. It is entirely likely that the reporter went off of that false information. Again, Occam's Razor has you beat.

What went wrong with John King's source? I am talking about a reporter who said she talked to the school nurse herself. What might have gone wrong there? It wasn't a situation where something went wrong with a grape vine of news people. Either the school nurse or the reporter was lying or delusional. Do you see any way around that?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

At any rate, my point is that saying a training course being held "right by" the school on the day of the shooting when in fact they were occurring 20 miles away is an unnecessary exaggeration.

That's very close, close enough to be suburbs of the same city.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, I don't live in Boston. And all three courses are offered in a single week on simultaneous days.

You said you live just north of Boston. That sounds like Boston metro area. What did you mean by "just north?"

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

That, and:

04SamMadObama.jpg

Edit - Was fooling around with picture comparisons. Not sure how to remove the attached thumbnail.

That might explain it. It's the best I have seen. The 2012 Madeline and 2010 Emilie look alike to me, and I don't understand why the other sister didn't seem older in the Obama picture, but I'm not that good with faces. If it is Madeline in the Obama picture, the identical hair and outfit (except for a red design on the shirt), when they look so much alike any way, really makes things eerie. But it's possible that it's Madeline in the Obama picture.


I should mention that I never dreamed I would be arguing for the possibility of a government conspiracy on this site while outnumbered. If the 2006 - 2008 bunch knew about this, they would be in shock.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is the story now. It was not the original story. Apparently it's what the official police report says.

You have to expect the story to change a few times as the events unfold. Which is more likely, that the story changed because of cover-ups, or because of the media's ongoing competition to report any bit of news before anyone else, which inevitably leads to a drop in the quality/truth of the information? The former requires a lot of extra assumptions.

I don't take any one of the people's behavior and say that obviously that individual wasn't upset, though I question it. I'll say the behavior is strange, but I understand that grief can take people in all kinds of possible directions. I have been to funerals where I balled my eyes out, but I have also been in complete shock and shown no emotion. I have also felt a strange need to be strong for the family and turn into a cheerful socialite. What is really tripping me out about "The Sandy Hook Actors" is that it is 45 minutes of no tears or the typical way of acting severely upset. I looked again and might have seen a tear and slightly watery eyes on one of the Soto girls, but that's it. The rest is WTF. That's not because of any one instance. It's because it involves crazy probability. If somebody wins at Bingo, it's not shocking. If somebody wins at Bingo every round the entire night, that's insane and suspicious. It still doesn't prove cheating, but it's a big red flag.

Look over that paper I linked. Humans don't always turn into fully melancholic robots when suffering a loss. Reactions to grief vary from person to person. I really have nothing else to say.

Were people closely connected to the Boston victims creating pages about dead ones while there was an issue about whether they were still alive?

I think the difference between the Boston Marathon and Sandy Hook is this: should something go wrong at Sandy Hook, which is an enclosed building, relatives of students and faculty would have a clear concern since they know for a fact that their family members work there and are likely inside the building with the shooter. The marathon, on the other hand, took place outside albeit along a specified route.

I'd wager it's easier to escape the scene of an outdoor bombing and inform your family that you're alive and well than it is to escape a building where a murderer is running around and do the same. People hid in closets and under desks at Sandy Hook. People ran down the street in Boston. Who do you think had the ability to contact their family?

You might ask what my point is. Well, if your family members are stuck in closets or under desks in a building with a gunman on the loose, do you think concrete information is going to come easily?

What went wrong with John King's source? I am talking about a reporter who said she talked to the school nurse herself. What might have gone wrong there? It wasn't a situation where something went wrong with a grape vine of news people. Either the school nurse or the reporter was lying or delusional. Do you see any way around that?

I don't know how his source fucked up, but he most certainly did. King reported that a suspect had been identified and arrested well before the FBI released decent pictures. And it was before Tamerlan and Dzhokhar decided to go buckwild in Watertown.

The issue with the reporter is that no matter what she said, nobody else is supporting it. Adam Lanza's mother had nothing to do with Sandy Hook. If you watch the full version of Andrea McCarren's report, she also says the teacher shot in a classroom was the shooter's mother. She wasn't. See how the whole bad reporting thing works?

The whole back and forth conversation between the anchor and the reporter operates under the assumption that Lanza's mother was a kindergarten teacher. She wasn't - the report took place the day of the shooting, before specific relations between Lanza and the victims were officially established (or debunked). It's entirely plausible (and likely) that Sally Cox also operated under the assumption if/when she talked to that reporter.

That's very close, close enough to be suburbs of the same city.

We'll have to agree to disagree. "Right by" makes it seem like the place was right up the street IMO.

You said you live just north of Boston. That sounds like Boston metro area. What did you mean by "just north?"

No, I said:

A thirty minute travel for me is roughly from my house to just north of Boston with light traffic. I'll have you know that Boston seems like a world away.

That might explain it. It's the best I have seen. The 2012 Madeline and 2010 Emilie look alike to me, and I don't understand why the other sister didn't seem older in the Obama picture, but I'm not that good with faces. If it is Madeline in the Obama picture, the identical hair and outfit (except for a red design on the shirt), when they look so much alike any way, really makes things eerie. But it's possible that it's Madeline in the Obama picture.

Of course they look alike. They were sisters, with only two years separating them.

I should mention that I never dreamed I would be arguing for the possibility of a government conspiracy on this site while outnumbered. If the 2006 - 2008 bunch knew about this, they would be in shock.

Did you hit your head recently?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You have to expect the story to change a few times as the events unfold. Which is more likely, that the story changed because of cover-ups, or because of the media's ongoing competition to report any bit of news before anyone else, which inevitably leads to a drop in the quality/truth of the information? The former requires a lot of extra assumptions.

The media mistake is more likely, but I can't just declare it the explanation. The type of gun used in the situation and the shooter's mother's job were both reported to be told to the news agencies directly by people who would know. Are "a couple of federal officials" credible sources on what kind of gun was used? Do they ordinarily talk out of their asses about things like this?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Look over that paper I linked. Humans don't always turn into fully melancholic robots when suffering a loss. Reactions to grief vary from person to person. I really have nothing else to say.

I know. I have agreed with you on that several times now. You are not addressing my point about the probability of EVERYBODY reacting in non-tearful ways. Do you understand my point on that?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think the difference between the Boston Marathon and Sandy Hook is this: should something go wrong at Sandy Hook, which is an enclosed building, relatives of students and faculty would have a clear concern since they know for a fact that their family members work there and are likely inside the building with the shooter. The marathon, on the other hand, took place outside albeit along a specified route.

I'd wager it's easier to escape the scene of an outdoor bombing and inform your family that you're alive and well than it is to escape a building where a murderer is running around and do the same. People hid in closets and under desks at Sandy Hook. People ran down the street in Boston. Who do you think had the ability to contact their family?

You might ask what my point is. Well, if your family members are stuck in closets or under desks in a building with a gunman on the loose, do you think concrete information is going to come easily?

I think information that the kids are still in the school after a mass shooting just happened would come very easily.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't know how his source fucked up, but he most certainly did. King reported that a suspect had been identified and arrested well before the FBI released decent pictures. And it was before Tamerlan and Dzhokhar decided to go buckwild in Watertown.

The issue with the reporter is that no matter what she said, nobody else is supporting it. Adam Lanza's mother had nothing to do with Sandy Hook. If you watch the full version of Andrea McCarren's report, she also says the teacher shot in a classroom was the shooter's mother. She wasn't. See how the whole bad reporting thing works?

The whole back and forth conversation between the anchor and the reporter operates under the assumption that Lanza's mother was a kindergarten teacher. She wasn't - the report took place the day of the shooting, before specific relations between Lanza and the victims were officially established (or debunked). It's entirely plausible (and likely) that Sally Cox also operated under the assumption if/when she talked to that reporter.

It wasn't a big school. I have taught at much bigger schools, and by the first December, I knew the names of 100% of the people working there. The school nurse knows all of the teachers, or at least what their names are.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Of course they look alike. They were sisters, with only two years separating them.

They could pass for identical twins with the same hair part and same outfit. Rod Serling could present that scenario and get good ratings.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Did you hit your head recently?

This conspiracy theory is much more supported than other ones. Also, the fact that we have a presidential administration that has been caught living in my phone and my computer and sicking the IRS on political dissenters makes me not trust them a whole lot, to put it mildly.

I went to YouTube and searched "grieving parents." The very first video listed was the one below. Guess what... A tear is shed. Compare the way this mother acts to the way ANY family member in any of the three parts of "The Sandy Hook Actors" acts. She even shows anger. There is some strange probability going on around here.

In my opinion there really shouldn't be any problem with a lot of these apparent discrepancies and odd behaviors. Yes, there is some unexplained stuff, but there is unexplained stuff after most incidents of this nature. Does this mean that they are all conspiracies or something they were not? No.

And as for the news reporting false information, after any big news story breaks the news companies are being pushed to get some coverage or content out there, with any information that they have at the time. Remember 9/11, when the news companies and indeed many eyewitnesses were either unsure of what hit the North Tower, or insisted that it was a small plane or a missile that crashed into it.

In panicked situations, people get things wrong and information is mis-recorded, usually nothing sinister about it.
And even if Sandy Hook was a "hoax" or not as it seemed, do you really think that the truth wouldn't definitively come out with solid, hard proof to back it up? If Prism and the fact that the government is collecting personal information got revealed to the public, (not amazingly serious in retrospect) do you think that something as serious as a elementary school shooting cover-up wouldn't get out?

Ok, disregarding all the "Just stop asking questions - conform and believe" types who always jump all over these threads -

By far the single weirdest person involved in all of this is Gene Rosen. Utterly bizarre behavior throughout from him. But then he's a psychologist, and often people who study psychology do it in order to figure out why they're not normal. We can assume he's just a loon and probably acts weird as hell all the time.

That still leaves the strangely unemotional behavior from every person interviewed. If it was only one or two parents who exhibited a total lack of grief we could put that down to the idea that they might be sociopathic or shell-shocked and the reality hasn't sunk in yet. But it's pretty hard to imagine that all the people involved would be unable to feel grief or unable to express it.

Could there be something about the area that's affecting people? Something in the water, as they say? Maybe it isn't only the shooter who has trouble with empathy or accessing emotions. I mean sociopathic or psychopathic acts seem to be occurring with ever greater frequency - what are the reasons for that? Is it possible certain areas are producing emotionally numb people?

Another possibility - Maybe there was something weird about the way they were all interviewed that got them into a strange mood. This is something I've noticed that plagues some low-budget movie productions or commercial shoots and similar things - sometimes when you see really bad acting from everybody involved, it's because the directors or producers have set things up in a way that forces them to act that way. We've all gone through weird dehumanizing experiences of this nature - maybe a job interview or something, where the people in charge have things set up so that by the time you're 'on' you're unable to act normal.

Just a couple of possibilities, of course there are others.