Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

They ask a police officer who wasn't at the scene, and so get a second hand report that is incorrect. The federal official who was relying on an early report instead of an official one so get the wrong information. The nurse heard a rumor and was acting on the belief it was true, or in her mind thought one kid was a different one and got them mixed up.

It is pretty clear how rushing gets an incorrect report. Instead of asking the person investigating the scene, you ask some random person and that person never saw the scene and so report gossip they heard instead of the facts. You need to ask the right people. Of course hearing a third hand account from someone not heavily involved in the investigation is going to be off.

When the people in charge of the investigation gave their actual report however, it was all cleared up. The official report makes perfect sense, and doesn't have any of these mistakes, which is what you would expect. It is the gossip that is off, which is also what you would expect. You can't really call it a conspiracy based off the rumors, you have to go off the official report and the official report has been correct and clear all along.

Originally Posted by cmind

Go back and understand my original point. Conspiracy theorists decry the "corruption" of the government, which implies that a "non-corrupt" government would be totally fine. I'm saying that the primary atrocities committed by government are not due to corruption. Taxation, for example, is not due to corruption as most people would define it. Yet threatening to put someone in a cage for years (or kill them if they resist) if they don't hand over their money is about as evil as evil gets.

Speaking against something is not an inherent implication that things would be fine without it. The conspiracy theories about government concern corruption, but that does not mean conspiracy theorists have no problem with the government other than corruption. There can be multiple things wrong with a government.

Originally Posted by GJames

Let's just hold up a second.

Yes, there are inconsistencies with news reports and eyewitness accounts, and yes, some of the children's families seem to be not as sad as one might expect, but what could anyone gain from this?

I would say that it's a given that children and adults were murdered, but what would drive someone to do that, and then frame Lanza? There is no motive here for anyone but Lanza. He seemed mentally unstable and he was apparently suicidal, so he decided to take some people with him. If say, it was a government job and they framed Lanza, what would've they accomplished?

In most murder cases, they start asking questions about people who would have had a motive to kill the victim. This is why ex-partners or close family are always investigated first. Lanza's motives here look pretty clear, if not horrifically unneeded. If anyone can think of someone else who would gain from this, please explain your theories. And lets not have the "the Government is trying to terrorize the US into submission" argument, unless you have very good reasons for it.

You asked what anyone "could" gain from it. Gun control qualifies as an answer to that.

I didn't say a few families didn't seem as sad as one might expect. I said that many, many supposed family members have been interviewed and zero of them have shown a tear and zero of them have expressed even the slightest trace of anger toward the shooter. Hatred doesn't go away just because the hated person is dead. Ask Holocaust survivors what they think of Hitler. They wish they could bring him back from the dead and torture him. Though none of the Sandy Hook supposed family members have expressed anger... at all, many have given speeches and television appearances in favor of gun control. Not one has said not to let the incident influence gun control or said that we need to arm school employees.

Originally Posted by Alric

They ask a police officer who wasn't at the scene, and so get a second hand report that is incorrect. The federal official who was relying on an early report instead of an official one so get the wrong information. The nurse heard a rumor and was acting on the belief it was true, or in her mind thought one kid was a different one and got them mixed up.

It is pretty clear how rushing gets an incorrect report. Instead of asking the person investigating the scene, you ask some random person and that person never saw the scene and so report gossip they heard instead of the facts. You need to ask the right people. Of course hearing a third hand account from someone not heavily involved in the investigation is going to be off.

When the people in charge of the investigation gave their actual report however, it was all cleared up. The official report makes perfect sense, and doesn't have any of these mistakes, which is what you would expect. It is the gossip that is off, which is also what you would expect. You can't really call it a conspiracy based off the rumors, you have to go off the official report and the official report has been correct and clear all along.

So some dipshit cop or fed who doesn't know what he's talking about is the one they let talk to the media? Nobody supervises to make sure that what he says is correct? A school employee thought the shooter was the son of one of her co-workers, and the other co-workers never corrected her on that? It is as if the conspirators saw their story not working like they though it would, so they had to change it.

The police probably got ambushed by journalist, it happens all the time. They just rush some poor unsuspecting person and hound them with questions and something slips out. Not exactly quality journalism, but that is why it is often incorrect. They probably did corrupt the nurse as well, it just didn't get corrected in front of the camera at that specific time. People usually don't even notice correction that are made by news sources, since they often get buried.

The nurse had plenty of time to tell the news company she made a mistake.

Originally Posted by Alric

They probably did corrupt the nurse as well

Was that a Freudian slip?

She probably did correct it, it just wasn't in the video you saw. It isn't like the conspiracy people posted a collection of all videos, they just used the ones that supported their beliefs and ignored the ones that didn't support it.

What the nurse said was reported at night. There was plenty of time to correct the story by the time that reporter got on the air.

See that right there is what makes it look like you are not interested in the truth, but instead looking to try to prove the theory you have in mind. There are dozens of legitimate reasons why it might not have been corrected before you saw it, yet right away you jump to the conclusion that they should definitely have known but they didn't so they must be up to something suspicious.

Instead of going ad hominem, tell me some of those "dozens of legitimate reasons." It's not like it happened just one time. It happened repeatedly.

1. Since it is a recording you found after the original broadcast the timing could be off. It could of been live, or taped just prior to the broadcast in which case there was no time for them to fix it.

2. The nurse might have been corrected but didn't think to contact the station because it was to much work.

3. The nurse might of been corrected and never saw the broadcast and so forgot about it.

4. She might of corrected it but it was to late to change the story since it had already been broadcasted, or was in the process of being shown.

5. She could of corrected them but the person who she told about it, didn't get the message to the people making the decisions at the station.

6. They could in fact have corrected it later in the broadcast but that wasn't recorded by you, or you missed it.

6. They could of retracted the story another day and you missed it.

7. They could of retracted the story with a message on their website instead of on their news channel.

8. The broadcast could of been an out take that was never shown on live tv.

9. She could of been suffering some kind of post traumatic issue and so was not thinking clearly.

10. She could be a pathological liar.

11. She could just want to get attention and be on national tv.

13. She could need glasses and was mistaken due to poor eye sight.

14. She could have bad memory, and in fact science has shown most people remember things incorrectly and old memories can even be influenced by what other people tell you after the fact.

15. The station faced with conflicting stories could of reported them all.

16. The station could of just not cared because they thought it made good tv.

All of these are possible reasons why she might of been mistaken and why it got aired and none of them involve a secret government conspiracy.

Originally Posted by cmind

It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are the statists. Through their theories, they tacitly presume that a government that did everything openly and democratically would be A-OK. But philosophical libertarians understand (yes, understand) that the most evil things that governments do are out in the open: taxation, war, fiat currency, fiat laws, etc. Presumably, conspiracy theorists would have no problem with any of these things.

Furthermore, they seem to be implying a level of competence that libertarians don't believe the government has. The government is a giant, bumbling collection of idiots, not a secret cabal of master spies. The scary truth that conspiracy theorists can't bear to face: The president really is in charge of the government. People really do just go along with him and his lackeys. It's that simple, and that scary.

This is precisely why conspiracy theories are incompatible with libertarianism. One the one hand, you have a group who thinks central planning doesn't work (libertarians). On the other, you have a group that thinks it does work (conspiracy theorists). The definition of contradiction.

Originally Posted by Alric

1. Since it is a recording you found after the original broadcast the timing could be off. It could of been live, or taped just prior to the broadcast in which case there was no time for them to fix it.

That doesn't get around the fact that the shooting supposedly happened in the morning and the reporter gave the report at night. There was all day to learn that the kindergarten teacher's son didn't do the shooting and plenty of time to get the truth to the news company.

Originally Posted by Alric

2. The nurse might have been corrected but didn't think to contact the station because it was to much work.

Too much work to tell the news company that she incorrectly told them that the son of one of her co-workers was the shooter? Too much work? She had to work with her co-workers and deal with them on a regular basis. She had a job to keep. Making such an important correction was very much in her job and social interests. She would be too incompetent to have gotten through school if that was too much work.

Originally Posted by Alric

3. The nurse might of been corrected and never saw the broadcast and so forgot about it.

Forgot about it? She forgot that she told a reporter that the son of one of her co-workers was the shooter at the mega-event? It slipped her mind?

Originally Posted by Alric

4. She might of corrected it but it was to late to change the story since it had already been broadcasted, or was in the process of being shown.

There was all day to get that extremely relevant information straight.

Originally Posted by Alric

6. They could in fact have corrected it later in the broadcast but that wasn't recorded by you, or you missed it.

6. They could of retracted the story another day and you missed it.

7. They could of retracted the story with a message on their website instead of on their news channel.

None of that gets around that fact that the false story made it to the news after many hours of being able to get the story straight.

Originally Posted by Alric

8. The broadcast could of been an out take that was never shown on live tv.

That doesn't get around what I said about having all day.

Originally Posted by Alric

9. She could of been suffering some kind of post traumatic issue and so was not thinking clearly.

So a reporter who reports tragic stuff as part of her job went full delusional for the news report? How likely is that?

Originally Posted by Alric

10. She could be a pathological liar.

Somebody is. The thing about the nurse and the reporter is that they both had job and reputation at stake. If they lied, they were trusting that they could get away with it. Why would they be trusting that?

Originally Posted by Alric

11. She could just want to get attention and be on national tv.

Which would involve being a flat out liar. See my response to #10. Reporters don't lie unless they think they can get away with it.

Originally Posted by Alric

13. She could need glasses and was mistaken due to poor eye sight.

She listens with her eyes?

Originally Posted by Alric

14. She could have bad memory, and in fact science has shown most people remember things incorrectly and old memories can even be influenced by what other people tell you after the fact.

That wouldn't be bad memory. It would be having a large scale delusion. If I tell you that I talked to Paul McCartney at the grocery store and he told me that he and Ringo are about to join Metallica although it didn't happen, it's not a mere case of bad memory.

Originally Posted by Alric

15. The station faced with conflicting stories could of reported them all.

Seriously? It was a first hand account!

Originally Posted by Alric

16. The station could of just not cared because they thought it made good tv.

The station didn't care about losing credibility with their audience? Like I said, reporters don't lie unless they think they can get away with it. Why would that reporter think she could get away with telling such a whopper?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

This is precisely why conspiracy theories are incompatible with libertarianism. One the one hand, you have a group who thinks central planning doesn't work (libertarians). On the other, you have a group that thinks it does work (conspiracy theorists). The definition of contradiction.

Now counter what I said about that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Government is more corrupt than incompetent, but they are horribly incompetent at doing their jobs while maintaining their corruption. Do you know what I mean? They crave power and control, and in having that, they can't keep the economy stable because extreme government control cannot achieve a stable economy. It harms it majorly. They can't control drugs without having a police state, which we don't quite have yet although many of the chess pieces have been positioned. Etc. It doesn't mean nobody in the government is highly intelligent. Tons of geniuses are in the government. They can pay off some people and pull off a media hoax. It's not rocket science, though that is something our government is majorly bad ass at. It's just a matter of being really corrupt and dishonest.

Politicians tend to use policies that make them incompetent at benefiting society but competent at benefiting themselves.

You are just making excuses. You are also assuming there was a lot of time, and they didn't have anything to do during the day. As if that one report was the only interview the station had that day. Really, do you believe that? You said yourself it was a huge event with a lot of coverage, meaning they were really busy and had little time to check over everything before reporting it. Also you act like that was some major piece of information, and really it is pretty much not important at all, and no one even cares. Do you see anyone complaining about it being incorrect? Nope, just a few conspiracy theory people, no one else cares. Also several times you said they only lie if they can get away with it, and clearly they got away with it, if that was their intention.

At the end of the day, it was a minor story on a major news day. I am not saying any of those are the reasons, they are just examples. There are tons of ways it can get lost in the shuffle and mistakes can find their way on air.

Sandy Hook full view, in a case with a lot of casualty, no ambulance is seen. Either they knew there was little casualty or they determined in advance no witness should be allowed living in this case.



http://contrailscience.com/skitch/sk...218-105845.jpg

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you admit that government conspiracies have existed. Well, when they did and, in some cases, after they did, some people believed in their existence while the masses didn't. The people who had those beliefs then were conspiracy theorists, and they were correct. Right?

No, you have to understand the context in which I am using the terms conspiracy theorist and conspiracy theory.

My argument isn't that conspiracies do not happen, which I've made crystal clear, nor is my argument that anybody who thinks an organization is doing something wrong and talks about it is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

When a government or corporation pulls off something scandalous, the people who expose it are often referred to whistleblowers. You know of some examples - Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg, even Brian Deer, who exposed Andrew Wakefield's motivation for writing his paper on the supposed relation between the MMR vaccine and autism. These people often show, with reasonable certainty, that the accused party has done or is doing something particularly egregious. Not only do they tend to have solid evidence to support their claims of wrongdoing, but the likelihood of the organization succeeding in their plan is reasonable as well.

Contrast this with the dime-a-dozen hypotheses that we come into contact with every day, which evidence put forth in support is usually dubious to the highest degree, never mind the logistics involved in 1) pulling it off, and 2) keeping it quiet. I find Michael Shermer's Conspiracy Theory Detector to be a solid resource for differentiating between real scandals and the stuff posted on Infowars, Natural News, or Prisonplanet. Note that I'm not saying you're drawing inspiration from those sites, but rather that the sites provide examples for poor-quality research and reasoning.

A good tool to gauge the validity of a claim of conspiracy is to determine how many people need to be involved to successfully pull off the plan as well as to keep it secret. If the number is high, either it's not going to be a secret for long, or the chances of the claim being true are slim to none.

Perhaps so, but there are many issues that have not been resolved. I have beaten those dead horses a lot in this thread. Everything you have said when you addressed those issues directly has been to the effect of, "Well, this possible scenario I thought of might have been the case. This other thing might possibly have happend." You need to take a few steps back from it and think about the big picture that has been formed. It is outrageously far fetched. Far fetched is not the same as impossible, but it's fucking crazy. Would you at least acknowledge that? I don't think the hoax claim has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do think it has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. That means it has a greater than 50% chance of being true. And I am absolutely baffled by people who won't admit that there is something at least a little weird about the official story/

Shermer says it best: "The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events." This has been my argument in arguing against both Sandy Hook being faked in some way, or Jaco's CNN broadcast being faked. I think I understand the nature of reporting and news broadcasting in the midst of hectic, ongoing events enough to know that a plurality of the information coming out the day of the event is either going to be false or incomplete. I also understand that it would be an enormous undertaking to get news reporters to deliberately report false information to cover up the truth. You could say that the reporters don't know they're being fed false information. Sure, they could be, but often that possibility is just another assumption in a pile of preexisting assumptions in a conspiracy theory. I tend to err on the side of Occam's Razor.

You tell me to step back and take a look at the big picture, which, as you say, is outrageously far-fetched. Again, Shermer says it best in two ways: 1) "The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events." And 2) "The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality." You know of the saying "the whole is the sum of its parts." If the big picture allegedly screams "FAR-FETCHED," then you'll have to excuse me if I want to examine the parts that make it far-fetched. I shouldn't be faulted if I examine the specifics and find that they're likely innocuous rather than sinister.

I think you have been coming here long enough to know that I don't think the government has been behind every tragic event. Skepticism is great, but yours goes only in one direction, and it's pro-government, surprisingly. For example (one among many), you accept the claim that Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter like gospel, but you don't acknowledge the mysteriousness surrounding that claim. The mainstream media says it, you believe it, and that's the end of it.

No, on the contrary it doesn't go in one direction, and the simple fact that I don't buy into the idea that it's a hoax doesn't mean I'm on the "pro-government" side. Again, Shermer: "The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies." I'm going to use his statement in a specific context here. I'm not implying you're indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, because it isn't true. And you shouldn't say that I am indiscriminately trusting of all government agencies or private groups, because it isn't true. What I'd like to state is that my preexisting mistrust of people with power will not influence whether I determine if they're at fault for something if they are claimed to be. I don't care if government have histories of doing bad things in secret. I care if they're involved in the topic at hand, such as Sandy Hook. Will I completely ignore their track record? Of course not. But I try to avoid falling into the position where I have to say "Well, they've done things in the past, so they're probably involved in this case." I'd rather have something to back it up, and in my opinion there appears to be very little rigorously verified evidence supporting the claim that they were involved in a position other than picking up the pieces. "The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy."

There is little doubt Lanza was the shooter. What "mysteriousness" are you referring to?

Don't you think it's maybe just a tiny bit bizarre that the school had a very high tech security system with cameras, bullet proof glass, and the need to ring a doorbell to get into the building, yet Lanza got into the school while class was in session and no picture of him at the school has ever been shown to the public or even said to exist by officials? There are no bullet holes in the BULLET PROOF glass. The media reported that he shot a window out, but other media reported that police said there was no broken glass. People in the town said he was completely off the radar for the past three years. That all together is fucked up. Do you see where I am coming from on that? At least I have admitted that your idea of what happened is plausible but not probable.

It would be bizarre only if such security measures were perfect. They're not, so it's not bizarre, though anybody getting in is still unlikely, assuming they don't have weapons. Yet Lanza did have weapons, so again, it's not bizarre.

All reports indicate that he shot his way into the school. A security memo sent out to parents at the beginning of the school year mentioned that they would be implementing a new security system. I don't know where you read that Sandy Hook had bullet-proof glass doors, but from the memo, it appears that visitors did need to ring a bell and be visually recognized. But note the end of the letter, which states:

We need your help and cooperation for our system to work effectively. Our office staff is handling multiple tasks. Though they will work diligently to help you into the building as quickly as possible, there may be a short delay until someone can view you on the handset and allow you to come in electronically. There are times during the day when office personnel are on the telephone, addressing student concerns, or in the copy room; there are other times when only one person is in the front office.

Aside from a sign at the entrance saying "Sandy Hook Elementary is a Gun-Free Zone," that's a pretty good scenario for a crazed shooter: a decent security system, but no one manning it.

The only mentions I see of no broken glass, bullet-proof glass, or no video footage of Lanza come from less than credible places. If I'm going to comment on that I'll need to corroborate it with better sources. I see where you're coming from, but as is constant with the nature of conspiracy theories, the connected dots are very flimsily held together.

The video you posted below refers to a Fox News report. When was that report from? The day-of? The report before it was aired Dec. 15th, one day after the shooting, and they said Lanza's rifle was found in his car. It's indicative of more incomplete reporting.

As for Alex Jones, he is a great entertainer who does make a lot of good points, and I love that he is bringing so much attention to how fucked up things have gotten, but he is a sensationalist who exaggerates. He said on Howard Stern that the build up of Prozac in the ocean is causing shrimp to commit suicide and that the placing of estrogen releasing chemicals in the plastic containers of certain juices turns kids gay and gets in the waters and results in bisexual fish. I am nowhere near that page. However, our government has gotten way too big, intrusive, and untrustworthy. I am skeptical about everything they say. Are you?

Undoubtedly. But as I said, I won't let my mistrust cloud my conclusion.

Now counter what I said about that.

Government is more corrupt than incompetent, but they are horribly incompetent at doing their jobs while maintaining their corruption. Do you know what I mean? They crave power and control, and in having that, they can't keep the economy stable because extreme government control cannot achieve a stable economy. It harms it majorly. They can't control drugs without having a police state, which we don't quite have yet although many of the chess pieces have been positioned. Etc. It doesn't mean nobody in the government is highly intelligent. Tons of geniuses are in the government. They can pay off some people and pull off a media hoax. It's not rocket science, though that is something our government is majorly bad ass at. It's just a matter of being really corrupt and dishonest.

Politicians tend to use policies that make them incompetent at benefiting society but competent at benefiting themselves.

The more accurate explanation is that politicians have a lot of lofty goals, and often implement their ideas into law. But nobody ever said their goals were good. In my opinion, there's not enough emphasis on unintended consequences, and too much emphasis on premeditated evil plans. That's not to say that government isn't often corrupt - it is.

But the reason why libertarianism and conspiracy theories are incompatible is because of the nature of complexity. I said before that one side denounces central planning because it doesn't work while the other side claims central planning can pull off the most astounding feats. You mention corruption, but that isn't the prominent issue here. It's complexity.

Libertarians denounce central planning because markets and society are too complex for a small group of people to run effectively. The same is true for the events that conspiracy theorists love to fiddle with. A small group of people cannot effectively execute and cover up something where so many people are involved. The logistics are too complicated. You need to keep everybody involved quiet. You need to make sure your tracks are totally covered. Organizations try to do this - they fail, and we find out about them. That's why I differentiate between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Alric

You are just making excuses. You are also assuming there was a lot of time, and they didn't have anything to do during the day. As if that one report was the only interview the station had that day. Really, do you believe that? You said yourself it was a huge event with a lot of coverage, meaning they were really busy and had little time to check over everything before reporting it. Also you act like that was some major piece of information, and really it is pretty much not important at all, and no one even cares. Do you see anyone complaining about it being incorrect? Nope, just a few conspiracy theory people, no one else cares. Also several times you said they only lie if they can get away with it, and clearly they got away with it, if that was their intention.

At the end of the day, it was a minor story on a major news day. I am not saying any of those are the reasons, they are just examples. There are tons of ways it can get lost in the shuffle and mistakes can find their way on air.

Alric, the woman told a detailed story about a conversation she had that day about who the shooter was. It's not a matter of being forgetful or distracted. She told a looney land falsehood about information she got from a conversation she herself had about who the shooter was. Either the reporter, the school nurse, a school nurse imposter, or somebody behind it all orchestrating a falsehood that got confused was lying or severely delusional.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, you have to understand the context in which I am using the terms conspiracy theorist and conspiracy theory.

My argument isn't that conspiracies do not happen, which I've made crystal clear, nor is my argument that anybody who thinks an organization is doing something wrong and talks about it is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

When a government or corporation pulls off something scandalous, the people who expose it are often referred to whistleblowers. You know of some examples - Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg, even Brian Deer, who exposed Andrew Wakefield's motivation for writing his paper on the supposed relation between the MMR vaccine and autism. These people often show, with reasonable certainty, that the accused party has done or is doing something particularly egregious. Not only do they tend to have solid evidence to support their claims of wrongdoing, but the likelihood of the organization succeeding in their plan is reasonable as well.

Contrast this with the dime-a-dozen hypotheses that we come into contact with every day, which evidence put forth in support is usually dubious to the highest degree, never mind the logistics involved in 1) pulling it off, and 2) keeping it quiet. I find Michael Shermer's Conspiracy Theory Detector to be a solid resource for differentiating between real scandals and the stuff posted on Infowars, Natural News, or Prisonplanet. Note that I'm not saying you're drawing inspiration from those sites, but rather that the sites provide examples for poor-quality research and reasoning.

A good tool to gauge the validity of a claim of conspiracy is to determine how many people need to be involved to successfully pull off the plan as well as to keep it secret. If the number is high, either it's not going to be a secret for long, or the chances of the claim being true are slim to none.

The NSA scandal shows how a lot of people can be in on a corrupt government plot and not say anything. Snowden eventually did, and I think there is a good chance that somebody from the Sandy Hook situation will eventually come forward.

The whistle blowers you mentioned are people who had first hand knowledge. If people outside of those situations had strong evidence of conspiracy but could not give first hand accounts or present conclusive proof, they would still be correct, and they would be conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Shermer says it best: "The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events." This has been my argument in arguing against both Sandy Hook being faked in some way, or Jaco's CNN broadcast being faked. I think I understand the nature of reporting and news broadcasting in the midst of hectic, ongoing events enough to know that a plurality of the information coming out the day of the event is either going to be false or incomplete. I also understand that it would be an enormous undertaking to get news reporters to deliberately report false information to cover up the truth. You could say that the reporters don't know they're being fed false information. Sure, they could be, but often that possibility is just another assumption in a pile of preexisting assumptions in a conspiracy theory. I tend to err on the side of Occam's Razor.

You tell me to step back and take a look at the big picture, which, as you say, is outrageously far-fetched. Again, Shermer says it best in two ways: 1) "The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events." And 2) "The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality." You know of the saying "the whole is the sum of its parts." If the big picture allegedly screams "FAR-FETCHED," then you'll have to excuse me if I want to examine the parts that make it far-fetched. I shouldn't be faulted if I examine the specifics and find that they're likely innocuous rather than sinister.

I am all for analyzing every piece of the puzzle, but I do not agree with treating every proposed piece of the puzzle as if it is argued to be the entire puzzle. You said several times that my argument comes down to some given piece. I am saying it doesn't come down to any one piece. Remember that I don't claim to have conclusive proof that there was a conspiracy. I think a preponderance of the evidence suggests there was. That preponderance of the evidence involves many, many, many pieces of evidence. I used to have drug addict friends who would tell crazy lies on a regular basis. It was often hard to take any one lie and prove with 100% certainty that it was a lie, but what I could do was say that after they have told me 100 far fetched stories, I don't believe what they say.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, on the contrary it doesn't go in one direction, and the simple fact that I don't buy into the idea that it's a hoax doesn't mean I'm on the "pro-government" side. Again, Shermer: "The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies." I'm going to use his statement in a specific context here. I'm not implying you're indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, because it isn't true. And you shouldn't say that I am indiscriminately trusting of all government agencies or private groups, because it isn't true. What I'd like to state is that my preexisting mistrust of people with power will not influence whether I determine if they're at fault for something if they are claimed to be. I don't care if government have histories of doing bad things in secret. I care if they're involved in the topic at hand, such as Sandy Hook. Will I completely ignore their track record? Of course not. But I try to avoid falling into the position where I have to say "Well, they've done things in the past, so they're probably involved in this case." I'd rather have something to back it up, and in my opinion there appears to be very little rigorously verified evidence supporting the claim that they were involved in a position other than picking up the pieces. "The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy."

Mistrust of government should never be the complete basis of a government conspiracy theory, but it is one more piece of evidence. When a known pathological liar sounds like he is lying, he is probably lying.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

There is little doubt Lanza was the shooter. What "mysteriousness" are you referring to?

The fact that nobody alive who knew him had seen him for the past three years, the original story that the shooter was the son of a kindergarten teacher, the issue of how he got into the building when Fox News reported that the police told them first hand that the glass had not been shot out, the conflicting news reports about what kind of gun was used (that's three news reports that would have to be straight up false.), the fact that he was reported to have his brother's ID, the fact that the car he supposedly drove did not belong to him or anybody in his family (one source says it belonged to a convict from a nearby area), the bogus news report about him having an argument with teachers and administrators on December 13, and the death report which said he died on December 13. I might have left something out there. It's so much stuff that I can't even know that I am keeping up with it all.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It would be bizarre only if such security measures were perfect. They're not, so it's not bizarre, though anybody getting in is still unlikely, assuming they don't have weapons. Yet Lanza did have weapons, so again, it's not bizarre.

All reports indicate that he shot his way into the school. A security memo sent out to parents at the beginning of the school year mentioned that they would be implementing a new security system. I don't know where you read that Sandy Hook had bullet-proof glass doors, but from the memo, it appears that visitors did need to ring a bell and be visually recognized. But note the end of the letter, which states:

We need your help and cooperation for our system to work effectively. Our office staff is handling multiple tasks. Though they will work diligently to help you into the building as quickly as possible, there may be a short delay until someone can view you on the handset and allow you to come in electronically. There are times during the day when office personnel are on the telephone, addressing student concerns, or in the copy room; there are other times when only one person is in the front office.

Aside from a sign at the entrance saying "Sandy Hook Elementary is a Gun-Free Zone," that's a pretty good scenario for a crazed shooter: a decent security system, but no one manning it.

The only mentions I see of no broken glass, bullet-proof glass, or no video footage of Lanza come from less than credible places. If I'm going to comment on that I'll need to corroborate it with better sources. I see where you're coming from, but as is constant with the nature of conspiracy theories, the connected dots are very flimsily held together.

The video you posted below refers to a Fox News report. When was that report from? The day-of? The report before it was aired Dec. 15th, one day after the shooting, and they said Lanza's rifle was found in his car. It's indicative of more incomplete reporting.

I believe it was day of. Fox News does lie, but they are like CNN in the way that they absolutely don't want to get caught doing it. It is terrible for their credibility and their business when they get caught. They said police told them, not told somebody who told somebody who told somebody, that the glass was not shot out. That's bizarre.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The more accurate explanation is that politicians have a lot of lofty goals, and often implement their ideas into law. But nobody ever said their goals were good. In my opinion, there's not enough emphasis on unintended consequences, and too much emphasis on premeditated evil plans. That's not to say that government isn't often corrupt - it is.

But the reason why libertarianism and conspiracy theories are incompatible is because of the nature of complexity. I said before that one side denounces central planning because it doesn't work while the other side claims central planning can pull off the most astounding feats. You mention corruption, but that isn't the prominent issue here. It's complexity.

Libertarians denounce central planning because markets and society are too complex for a small group of people to run effectively. The same is true for the events that conspiracy theorists love to fiddle with. A small group of people cannot effectively execute and cover up something where so many people are involved. The logistics are too complicated. You need to keep everybody involved quiet. You need to make sure your tracks are totally covered. Organizations try to do this - they fail, and we find out about them. That's why I differentiate between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

I am not one of the libertarians who says that central planning is always incompetent. It landed us on the moon. It takes over countries. I just think it is misused. I believe in having a central government, but I think it should be very small. When it is big, it is corrupt and it places power over benefit, sometimes with good intentions. Central planning can involve allowing the free market to function. It's not always a bad thing. It is the large, up in everybody's business central planning that I think screws things up. That is often because of corruption, but it can also be the result of chasing utopian mirages based on the crazy idea that interfering automatically has positive results.

Originally Posted by Alric

You are just making excuses. You are also assuming there was a lot of time, and they didn't have anything to do during the day. As if that one report was the only interview the station had that day. Really, do you believe that? You said yourself it was a huge event with a lot of coverage, meaning they were really busy and had little time to check over everything before reporting it. Also you act like that was some major piece of information, and really it is pretty much not important at all, and no one even cares. Do you see anyone complaining about it being incorrect? Nope, just a few conspiracy theory people, no one else cares. Also several times you said they only lie if they can get away with it, and clearly they got away with it, if that was their intention.

At the end of the day, it was a minor story on a major news day. I am not saying any of those are the reasons, they are just examples. There are tons of ways it can get lost in the shuffle and mistakes can find their way on air.

Excuses? No, your proposals are not reasonable. The reporter gave a first hand account of her own conversation. Would you tell your friends that I told you BLUELINE is actually Dave Matthews for any of the supposedly plausible reasons you gave for the reporter's crazy story?

If it was a lie, she didn't get away with it. Sandy Hook conspiracy hoax postings are all over YouTube and all over the internet. Try to find even a non-conspiracy video about Sandy Hook that enables comments and that doesn't have conspiracy posts all over it. If it was a plot to take away guns, it failed, and the hoax will always be remembered. It might end up becoming common knowledge, and people might end up in prison over it. So many people have come across that reporter's foul up that it has had to have hurt her career and reputation. She is getting a lot of attention for her crazy story.

For some further information and insights:

And now for the feature presentation...

Jonathan Reich was arrested for supposedly making threatening phone calls to two state officials and alleged families of victims at Sandy Hook. I can tell you that I listened to the recording of the call he made to medical examiner Wayne Carver's office. He talked to the secretary and asked a lot of questions and made some points about corruption, but he did not make any illegal threats. Jonathan was using the name "Scotty Walker" on YouTube. His page was taken down repeatedly, but he kept creating new accounts. It looks like a case of stifling free speech. So the Sandy Hook situation isn't just an attack on the Second Amendment. It is also an attack on the First Amendment. This is police state stuff. I hope enough people will realize what is happening to the United States.

New York Man Arrested In Connection To Threatening Calls « CBS Connecticut

Sandy Hook Freedom Fighter, Scott Walker, Arrested | NODISINFO

Even if you don't think Sandy Hook was a hoax, what the Hell is this about?

This is the phone call Jonathan Reich made to Wayne Carver's office, split up and mixed with news clips.



Now tell me... Was the call illegal? Why did the caller go to jail?

I discovered something else recently. On the Emilie Parker Fund website, there is one video. It is a home movie compilation. Emilie is shown several times with a sister. Recall the Obama photo controversy and the explanation that the girl who looks identical to Emilie in it is Emilie's sister named Madeline. Emilie supposedly had another sister named Samantha.

Click to enlarge:

parker-family-pic.jpgparker obama.jpg

Now look at this page and watch the short video. Who is Emilie's sister in the video? Did they leave one out? If Madeline is in the video, when after these clips were filmed did she start looking exactly like Emilie?

The Emilie Parker Art Connection | In Memory of Emilie Parker

Who is that?

police lead people leaving, New Town Bee reporter arrived in Sandy Hook School at 9:59 am and took those pictures. No ambulance was seen in back ground.

The ambulances were at the firehouse, and they were blocked in.

sandy hook firehouse ambulances.jpg

sandy hook firehouse.jpg

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The ambulances were at the firehouse, and they were blocked in.

sandy hook firehouse ambulances.jpg

sandy hook firehouse.jpg

The later coming ambulance parks at the center of the road. Paramedics take easy steps with no hurry. Are they exhausted by repeated drills or just know in advance there is no survivors? Compare that red coat running woman.

http://timethemoment.files.wordpress...5881.jpg?w=735

http://timethemoment.files.wordpress...copu.jpg?w=735

I was blocked to us [img] function. So you have to click up for the pictures.

No others could do Sandy Hook massacre except the Feds because so many resources were activated: police, media, government officials and informants (some were called as "actors" by people.) And they of course would let out disinformation to meddle the water.

Robbie Parker was pushed out as a trap to discredit “Sandy Hook truthers”. Mr. Parker was selected because he has three look alike daughters, all with blonde hair and you can hardly recognize them if they wear same dress.

Here is a doctored picture. Madeline and Samantha have no legs in the photo. That part was cut and replaced by other stuff. The two legs on bottom part is from another photo. The size and location does not fit Robbie Parker’s body.



And they deliberately let Madeline wearing Emilie's dress in photo with Obama. Let her have Emilie’s hair style in picture one too. The dress and hair style were designed to confusing people (that Emilie wasn’t dead) then to prove the suspicious people are "conspiracy theorists". Remember, no others have the motive and resource to do that. Those who could take pictures of Obama and Samantha have the privilege even to manipulate president as their actor.


---
This picture was created particularly to mislead people to conclude Emily hadn't died. (they let Madeline wear Emily's dress) That's a trap set up for suspicious people. See how happy those actors are. Are they family members who just lost a lovely girl and after memory service? It’s more like a celebrating party.

The original url of the above two pictures were disabled. I post them there to prove how the Feds are afraid of my revelation.

That's a good point about the Obama photo with the Parkers. It is such a strange and confusing picture. It does work as a trap for conspiracy theorists to be called out, and maybe that was the point. However, I don't think the calling out is the end of the game. The Parker girls situation is so full of mystery. This supposed Madeline looks more or less identical to Emilie in the Obama photo, but not in any other picture or in the home movie compilation on the Emilie Parker Fund website. It would be interesting to learn the truth about who Robbie Parker's family really is.

I have posted several news reports that contradict the current official story. I recently found a very long news spew of statements that are very out of touch with what the current official story says. Where does such elaborate fiction originate? Watch this video starting at 1:07. It's a real WTF.



At 4:21 in the video is a woman showing real emotion and actual tears over the fact that her living child almost went to Sandy Hook. Compare her behavior to that of the many alleged actual parents of victims.

The truth about Sandy Hook will eventually be known by the public. It might be decades from now, but the truth will be known. A world news story this bizarre and so full of contradictions and mysteries cannot deceive the public forever.