Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

Originally Posted by Alric

If you claim a person couldn't possible commit a crime because he was dead, then the burden of proof is most definitely on you. Otherwise you are just pulling it out of your ass, like you are doing everything else. You are just saying a bunch of stupid things in hopes that people get sick of looking up all the information to disprove you, so you can claim you won. The fact that his body was found at the scene, is pretty good evidence that he was alive.

You are being either really slow or really dishonest. I didn't claim Lanza was not alive. I said that there is a problem with the idea that he was. Again (this is getting ridiculous.), I am pointing out holes in the official story. There is stuff that does not add up about it. If you don't understand what I mean by that, let's work together on it. I keep having to tell you the same thing over and over. Your claims about my intentions are still unfounded and false. What evidence do you have that Lanza's body was found at the scene? I know it's part of the official story, which is what I am saying is full of holes. Lack of evidence that Adam Lanza was alive is a hole. Do you understand what I mean by that? If not, tell me. You have been missing the boat so far.

Originally Posted by Alric

Also someone being a musician doesn't mean they can't have children. Just because someone is an actor doesn't mean they can't have children. Are you mentally retarded? Are you being stupid on purpose? Having been in some third rate band when you were younger doesn't mean you are a paid actor, and anything you do is part of a hoax. Like a quarter of the US population knows how to play a musical instrument. You can find someone who was in a band almost any where you go.

WTF? Being an actor or musician doesn't mean a person can't have children? Who are you talking to? You have some of the wildest interpretations of my comments. Many of the Sandy Hoax actors were stage actors and/or stage musicians in adulthood. Lots of them! That is not just all that common. The vast majority of adults do not fit the label. It is as if you are just trying to be an attorney for a pathetic side of an argument. What is your deal here?

Originally Posted by Alric

Also I don't need to look up another picture of Madeline, I already proved it wasn't Emilie, and that is enough. You claimed it was Emilie so I proved it wasn't. I don't need to prove that it was someone else. That is kind of funny though, that you think you can basically claim anything you want and the burden of proof is always on the other person and you never have to back up anything you say.

No, you did not prove that it wasn't Emilie. You said it was Madeline, and whoever it was looked identical to Emilie. Madeline did not look identical to Emilie. So I am giving you the challenge of finding a picture of Madeline in which she did look identical to Emilie. You can't find one. They don't exist because Madeline was not identical to Emilie!!! That is Emilie in the Obama picture.

Originally Posted by Alric

Also, how many times do I need to point out that there was no loop at the fire house. There was some people walking to the left behind the building and some people walking right at the top of the building. THAT IS NOT A LOOP. For it to be a loop the SAME person has to walk in a circle around the building. If someone walks left, then an entire different person walks right, that isn't a loop, that is just two people walking in opposite directions. That is where the manipulation comes in. They looped the video to try to make it appear that the people walked all the way around when they did not. They were separate people who were going in different directions. Not a single person in that video went in a circle. Not a single one.

This is another very simple concept that you are not acknowledging. Look at this, and you will see a circle. There are no people entering or exiting the circle. It is a circle, not a randomly structured crowd. Walking people form a circle. What on Earth is that about? Pause at 2:41.



StephL, my biggest concern here is not even loss of gun rights. It is having a government that is corrupt and controlling enough to pull something so evil. The government has way, way too much power over the people. Taking away gun rights is just one of the things I am worried they might do. We need to drastically shrink the size of government, and this hoax is strong evidence of that.

Why do you think it might be a conservative hoax if there was a hoax? I don't rule it out. Maybe they made the hoax transparent so that people would wig out and stand against gun control. Maybe. However, Dianne Feinstein introduced gun control legislation the next month. It failed in the Senate in April, but a very threatening and close call legislative process took place.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are being either really slow or really dishonest. I didn't claim Lanza was not alive. I said that there is a problem with the idea that he was. Again (this is getting ridiculous.), I am pointing out holes in the official story. There is stuff that does not add up about it. If you don't understand what I mean by that, let's work together on it. I keep having to tell you the same thing over and over. Your claims about my intentions are still unfounded and false. What evidence do you have that Lanza's body was found at the scene? I know it's part of the official story, which is what I am saying is full of holes. Lack of evidence that Adam Lanza was alive is a hole. Do you understand what I mean by that? If not, tell me. You have been missing the boat so far.

What do you want? Me to go dig up his body then drive it over to your house so you can see it? His body was found at the scene, and the police confirmed his identity. Your claim is in fact, that he wasn't alive, so where is your proof? Where is there anything at all that suggests he was dead? If there is nothing to suggest he was dead prior to the event, then there is no hole. There is just you saying you don't want to believe the official story for no reason other than it doesn't fit your theory. That is just a bizarre thing you pulled out of your ass, saying he died 3 years ago. You have nothing at all to support that. What happened three years ago that you think killed him?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

WTF? Being an actor or musician doesn't mean a person can't have children? Who are you talking to? You have some of the wildest interpretations of my comments. Many of the Sandy Hoax actors were stage actors and/or stage musicians in adulthood. Lots of them! That is not just all that common. The vast majority of adults do not fit the label. It is as if you are just trying to be an attorney for a pathetic side of an argument. What is your deal here?

You are the one that implied that if a person was a musician and their child is reported dead, there is a chance they don't really have the child and it was just an act. That is what you are implying when you say stuff like that, and yea it doesn't make any sense when you say it out loud does it? So why are you saying it? First off why would a musician be hired as an actor? Being a musician doesn't make you an actor. Secondly there are a lot of them, a huge chunk of adults were in bands at some point. Also if they were actors who didn't have children, and didn't live in the state, why don't you show us evidence of that? Where is your evidence? Oh that is right, you have none. You just jump to the conclusion that if a person played a musical instrument they must be a lying scumbag who would make up having a child and claim that child die. If you had evidence that they didn't have any children, that would be a hole, someone happening to be a musician isn't a hole.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, you did not prove that it wasn't Emilie. You said it was Madeline, and whoever it was looked identical to Emilie. Madeline did not look identical to Emilie. So I am giving you the challenge of finding a picture of Madeline in which she did look identical to Emilie. You can't find one. They don't exist because Madeline was not identical to Emilie!!! That is Emilie in the Obama picture.

I don't know what to say, your eyes are just bad. There is clear differences between the two pictures I posted. If you think all blond girls look the same then I am not sure how to argue it, you are just wrong, and maybe consider getting glasses.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is another very simple concept that you are not acknowledging. Look at this, and you will see a circle. There are no people entering or exiting the circle. It is a circle, not a randomly structured crowd. Walking people form a circle. What on Earth is that about? Pause at 2:41.

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but just because people happen to be vaguely going in the same direction and then some other people happen to be vaguely going in another direction, doesn't mean people are walking in a circle. To prove someone is walking in a circle you would have to show a video of a person leaving the door, walking around the building and entering the other door, which does not happen. The video does not show anyone walking in a circle. No one in that video is walking in a circle like you claim. Your claim is a lie and totally false.

The people at the top of the screen and the bottom of the screen are different people. If person A walks left at the bottom of the screen and person B walks right at the top of the screen, that does not mean person A and B are walking in a circle. It means there is two people who just happen to be walking in opposite directions. I will repeat it again, since you don't seem to understand it. No one is walking in a circle, those are separate groups of people.