This... is... insane!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrng...ctr=1371979650
Printable View
This... is... insane!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrng...ctr=1371979650
A hoax as in it didn't happen? No, it happened. Was there more to it than most people realize? I'd say so, definitely. I haven't looked into it enough to be able to say it was a black operation, but will say that only a fool would rule out the possibility.
Why would the US government organise something so unequivocally atrocious when there is a high chance of it leaking?
Pros: helps master plan to fail to pass new gun laws (?)
Cons: high probability of entire administration being thrown out of government and into jail
Nnnah.
I don't know what happened, but there are unanswered questions. I am pretty sure that if it was a hoax, it was to set the stage for gradually making guns illegal. My concern is that the government has gotten so powerful that nobody would go to jail for the hoax. I think the NSA surveillance is treasonous, but we have a government that sees the public as weak and stupid. The government obviously thinks they can get away with all kinds of stuff that is way out of bounds. I don't put anything past them any more.
Remember that the government works in small steps. The government went from certain violations of the Bill of Rights for "fighting drugs" to the Patriot Act, which was a stepping stone to the NDAA, which could very well be a stepping stone to an even greater horror. The government sent some troops to Vietnam for a policing mission, and that turned into 200,000 troops fighting a full blown war. The Iraq War was supposed to be a temporary mission to overthrow the Hussein regime and declare mission accomplished and then have the people happily let us set up a new government, but it turned into a decade long clusterfuck. We set up a military base in Saudi Arabia to have a home base during the Gulf War, but the base is still open to this day. The Department of Education was never meant to rule the nation's public schools on the level that it does. Hitler suspended part of the German Constitution "temporarily" because it was supposedly necessary to handle some of Germany's problems. Then he took over the country, and then he took over most of Europe. Governments cannot be trusted to stop where they say they are going to stop. They always want more power than they have and more power than they say they want. Our government is talking about background checks and banning "assault weapons" (which are not just machine guns) now, but I don't trust them for two seconds to stop there.
Can I answer the topic in one word?
"No."
It takes more than one word to refute all the allegations made in the video. How do you explain for instance that the gun that was supposedly used to shoot everybody was locked in the trunk of the car on the parking lot (and there's video of it being discovered there by police)? And all the parents laughing and smiling 2 days after their children were killed? And the Facebook memorial pages that were put up several days before the shooting occurred? As well as the ridiculous coincidence that the very day of the shooting, at the exact same time school was in session, there was a training operation going on 20 minutes away for how to handle an emergency situation involving children? The 2 other shooters who were caught, at least one of them wearing camo just like the people seen in the training operation, who were originally reported but later mysteriously disappeared from the narrative?
Of course, but if we decided to write essays on each bullshit topic, we wouldn't have much time for other, more productive things.
The gun in the trunk wasn't the gun used in the shooting.Quote:
How do you explain for instance that the gun that was supposedly used to shoot everybody was locked in the trunk of the car on the parking lot (and there's video of it being discovered there by police)?
Nervous laughter, reminiscing, etc. Even after suffering a huge loss, humans can still display happy emotions.Quote:
And all the parents laughing and smiling 2 days after their children were killed?
The pages existed before the shooting, but the names were changed after.Quote:
And the Facebook memorial pages that were put up several days before the shooting occurred?
Not so ridiculous when similar events were occurring multiple times throughout CT in November and December.Quote:
As well as the ridiculous coincidence that the very day of the shooting, at the exact same time school was in session, there was a training operation going on 20 minutes away for how to handle an emergency situation involving children?
An off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.Quote:
The 2 other shooters who were caught, at least one of them wearing camo just like the people seen in the training operation, who were originally reported but later mysteriously disappeared from the narrative?
Essays are not necessary, but explanations are productive
The medical examiner said the gun used was a rifle. A rifle was discovered in the alleged shooter's trunk after the shooting although the shooter never went back to his car after the shooting, but the guns found in the school were all hand guns.
So he looked cheerful for a few seconds before going on television because he was thinking, "Ha ha, I'm about to talk about how my little girl was just murdered." (?)
Where did you get that? Why were the pages created two days before the shooting? Why did a supposed parent post a Facebook status about his dead little girl during the shooting and then come back and say that he didn't know how she was doing because the school was under lock down? Also, a lady who was interviewed talked about the shooter's mother being a kindergarten teacher at the school, but it turned out that she didn't even work at the school. This is odd stuff.
I have seen multiple videos on this, so I don't know how much of what I am bringing up is in the video I posted.
Right by the shooting location? Strangely, the same thing happened with 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing.
Hmmm...
There is also the situation of the witness who told one reporter that a female school bus driver stopped in front of his house and acted frantic and then dropped six kids off at his house although the bus driver didn't know him. The same guy told Megan Kelly on Fox News that a man outside his house yelled at him about taking care of the six kids. The witness lived where the kids would have walked right past a rescue crew on the way. The film maker claims that the witness is a member of the Screen Actors' Guild.
And for the biggest question I have about all of this... What on Earth was Barack Obama doing in a picture with a supposed fatal victim of the shooting and her family? Did Obama get a photo op with this family not long before the shooting?
I am not sold on the conspiracy theory. There could be multiple documentary makers using Photoshop, interviewing phony people themselves, filming fake news clips, and lying their asses off. It's possible. But there are a lot of issues that have not been explained away.
The gun found in the trunk was a shotgun. There were two handguns in the school, along with a Bushmaster rifle.
Unlikely. Do you deny that humans can display happy emotions (even at times one would consider odd or inappropriate) after a tremendous loss?Quote:
So he looked cheerful for a few seconds before going on television because he was thinking, "Ha ha, I'm about to talk about how my little girl was just murdered." (?)
The pages had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, but the names were changed (because you can do that on FB) after the shooting. Page creation dates can be imprecise and confusing (Example: a newspaper's FB page can say Founded 1920 while their FB page was only created in 2009), as can dates in general in Google searches.Quote:
Where did you get that? Why were the pages created two days before the shooting?
The same thing happened with the Boston bombing. Pre-existing pages changed their names to memorialize the event. It happens all the time.
I haven't heard anything about this. More info?Quote:
Why did a supposed parent post a Facebook status about his dead little girl during the shooting and then come back and say that he didn't know how she was doing because the school was under lock down?
I won't insult you by asking if you've ever watched news churn out as events unfold, but misreporting occurs all the time. Again, take Boston. CNN's John King reported that a suspect had been identified and arrested well before decent pictures of the guys had even been released to the public (because the FBI needed help).Quote:
Also, a lady who was interviewed talked about the shooter's mother being a kindergarten teacher at the school, but it turned out that she didn't even work at the school. This is odd stuff.
By "right by" do you mean a half hour away in Bridgeport, CT?Quote:
Right by the shooting location? Strangely, the same thing happened with 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing.
Government involvement will always be associated with violent tragedies because it fits the worldview of the people conjuring up these conspiracy theories. With Boston, they ask why bomb-sniffing dogs were present, despite the fact that we're living post-9/11, so of-fucking-course there will be some sort of anti-terrorism/police units on-scene during large, well-advertised public events. With 9/11, I can't even begin to comprehend the amount of crap they pull from thin air.
Gene Rosen (your witness) noticed six children (and a bus driver) on his lawn. They had made it out of the school. How they ended up there, I don't know, but there was no "dropping off" of children. The film maker is wrong about the SAG connection. There is a Gene Rosen involved with the SAG, but it is not the same Gene Rosen involved with sheltering the children.Quote:
Hmmm...
There is also the situation of the witness who told one reporter that a female school bus driver stopped in front of his house and acted frantic and then dropped six kids off at his house although the bus driver didn't know him. The same guy told Megan Kelly on Fox News that a man outside his house yelled at him about taking care of the six kids. The witness lived where the kids would have walked right past a rescue crew on the way. The film maker claims that the witness is a member of the Screen Actors' Guild.
The child is erroneously reported to be Emilie Parker (who died in the shooting). In the pictures with Obama, it's actually her sister.Quote:
And for the biggest question I have about all of this... What on Earth was Barack Obama doing in a picture with a supposed fatal victim of the shooting and her family? Did Obama get a photo op with this family not long before the shooting?
Have you taken time to look up responses to the video? Doesn't seem like it.Quote:
I am not sold on the conspiracy theory. There could be multiple documentary makers using Photoshop, interviewing phony people themselves, filming fake news clips, and lying their asses off. It's possible. But there are a lot of issues that have not been explained away.
Why is everything a "hoax" or "conspiracy"? Why is it so hard to believe that there are bad people who do bad things without being told to by the government?
Why do most people automatically assume governments never conspire to corruption, in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary?
If someone can point out someplace where the various questions have been answered effectively then there would be no need for a conversation like this. So far I see a lot more questions than answers, and I also see suspicious patterns in a lot of recent tragedies and atrocities where the government seems to basically just say "Stop looking into it - there's nothing to see there" and yet fails to prove it. It's becoming increasingly clear this administration is involved in a lot of deeply corrupt goings-on. We don't yet know the extent of them, so I think it's a very good idea to keep asking such questions.
And what's really surprising is the number of people who just seem to be saying "oh come on - you know governments don't do bad things!"
What's wrong with inquiring into the facts, especially if they don't seem to add up? Should the government always be exempt form suspicion in every case, with no investigation?
I'd like to point out the difference between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Conspiracies happen in the real world, and often we find out about them. No one can deny that.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, never come to fruition and are never rigorously verified. What few factoids are involved, they are diluted by sloppy logic, confirmation bias, poor research, and paranoia. Conspiracy theories are homeopathic.
So, if people theorize that there's a conspiracy, even if it later turns out they were right, that theory is automatically bullshit?
How about people who don't spew conspiracy theories but just want to see crimes properly investigated? Do they automatically get lumped in with conspiracy theorists?
Okay, shotgun. Not a hand gun. What did the medical examiner say the shooter used to shoot up the place?
They can, but I have never seen a parent act the particular way the supposed father of Emilie did, the day after the death. He acted like he was running for office and about to give a political speech.
Do you know a bad acting job when you see one? Check out this WTF...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QVKu4_JxcE
I have never seen that. Why were the pages with crazy dates on them created? Why did their purpose suddenly change within two days?
So other people's memorials were taken away for a new tragedy? Were those pages created two days earlier too? Two days???
Go to 9:34 of the video I posted in my original post.
Did you watch the video I posted? The reporter said she herself talked to the school nurse, who told her that the gunman's mother was "a very caring, experienced kindergarten teacher." How could that get messed up?
Yes, that is pretty damn close to the obscure town. Are those drills going on in your metro area right now?
Yes, Emilie Parker. My sources have said that the girl in the pictures is Emilie. Like I said, people lie, but many sources say the girl in the picture with Obama is Emilie Parker. There was an older sister and two younger ones who look like twins. Which one do you claim was Emilie?
The ones I have found make me facepalm and cringe at the same time. Have you found a good one?
No, I'm not saying that the government is completely innocent and never does anything wrong. But you can't blame every bad thing that happens on the government. I've heard all the 9/11 conspiracy theories and now people are saying the shooting and Boston bombing were also done by the government.
I know you didn't address that to me, but I want to chime in. I don't claim to know that the government did any of that stuff, but there is craziness that has not been explained. You can look at old threads here and see how much I argued against the 9/11 inside job claims. I don't think college students on the internet understand skyscraper engineering better than the engineering world, who scoff at the engineering claims. I don't think the airplanes were remote control, and I don't think the government would have bothered with airplanes if they used bombs to blow up the buildings. But might the government have used Bin Laden to get terrorists to hijack airplanes and crash them into major U.S. buildings? My view at this point is that it's possible but not proven. I say the same about the existence of the Illuminati. However, I know with complete certainty that all of these tragedies have been used by the government to argue for major government expansion and the trampling of civil liberties. That we do know.
Same here - I didn't blame anything on anybody, nor do I 'always blame government for everything'. UM and I have done nothing but ask questions.
As I said above, it's becoming clear there is a deep corruption in our government. When someone has proven themselves to be untrustworthy, doesn't it seem like a good idea to investigate anything oddly suspicious that they're involved with?
The Bushmaster rifle. Both the medical examiner and a CT statie confirm this.
As with before, I won't insult you by explaining what an argument from incredulity looks like.Quote:
They can, but I have never seen a parent act that way the day after the death.
They could've been created for any reason. They could've been pages for Star Trek fan fiction for all I know. As for why their purpose changed, well, it was a horrific event. Page owners often turn their pages into springboards for donations, activism, etc.Quote:
I have never seen that. Why were the pages with crazy dates on them created? Why did their purpose suddenly change within two days?
No, the existing pages (whose original purpose could've been for ANYTHING) were changed for the reason stated above.Quote:
So other people's memorials were taken away for a new tragedy? Were those pages created two days earlier too? Two days???
Did you bother to read the post directly adjacent to the one stating the school is still in lockdown? The page was set up by friends of the Parker's, not the Parker's themselves. The post mentioning the lockdown also apologizes for the misinformation given earlier regarding the loss of Emilie Parker. Tense, horrible situation with information scattered all over the place, with nobody sure what exactly was happening...is accidental false reporting such an unreasonable explanation?Quote:
Go to 9:34 of the video I posted in my original post.
To be honest I haven't watched the video, but a lot of its claims (which you've laid out) are similar to other hypotheses brought up by hoaxers.Quote:
Did you watch the video I posted?
The same way John King messed up. It happens all the time with situations like these.Quote:
The reporter said she herself talked to the school nurse, who told her that the gunman's mother was "a very caring, experienced kindergarten teacher." How could that get messed up?
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.Quote:
Yes, that is pretty damn close to the obscure town. Are those drills going on in your town right now?
I looked up whether MEMA is having any training courses. There are three in my city this month. I'll let you know if anything tragic happens. Though I doubt anything will, as there were four in March and for some reason I can't recall any major violent incidents occurring.
The girl with Obama was the younger sister.Quote:
Yes, Emilie Parker. My sources have said that the girl in the pictures is Emilie. Like I said, people lie, but many sources say the girl in the picture with Obama is Emilie Parker. There was an older sister and two younger ones who look like twins. Which one do you claim was Emilie?
No videos, but lots of articles.. Stories have been clarified, and there is a lot of emphasis on the media simply fucking up their reporting because, well, they're competing to be the "first to know." Other hoax hypotheses are simply nonsense, fueled by paranoia. It's no wonder why people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others.Quote:
The ones I have found make me facepalm and cringe at the same time. Have you found a good one?
I agree with this.
Sorry, I thought you and Universal Mind were arguing that the government did it, not just asking questions.
Yes, the government is corrupt. I did some research because like you said, the government is untrustworthy and suspicious, but I just don't see any real evidence for this, just bad reporting and some fakes.
Ok cool. Yeah, I can see where any thread that begins with a video like this one would almost automatically bee seen by most people as pure Alex Jones style conspiracy theory idiocy. I'm not just buying wholeheartedly into any of it, but I also refuse to go the opposite extreme and assume that there's never a grain of truth at the heart of some conspiracy theories.
I really haven't researched into this much - ok at all, so I was hoping somebody would give links to some explanations or a place to start. I hate the way it seems like these stories start off so strong, you know, 24-7 coverage for a week or two and then suddenly they disappear before there are enough answers or before anything has really been resolved. It's a shame anyone who wants to learn more after the news stories dry up needs to launch their own independent investigation.
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.
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 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.
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.
I have a history of scoffing at conspiracy videos, but this is some of the weirdest shit I have ever seen. You really should watch the video. The way the people of the town act in it is very surreal because it just seems so unreal, but it's on the news. The facts are insane, and so is the behavior.
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?
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.
That's 1 every 10 days, and you live in Boston, where a terrorist attack just occurred, not Newton, Connecticut.
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.
I don't "believe" any of them. There is just crazy stuff that still hasn't been explained. For debunking the conspiracy theory, this video is about the best I have found so far, and it leaves many holes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzMtYWvvnQ4
It does explain the man who ran away from the school. He was supposedly looking for his daughter after he found out that she got away from the school. The Gene Rosen situation, the Emilie Parker situation, and the bizarre acting of family members of victims still leave huge question marks.
The Emilie Parker mystery is presented very well on this page:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-con...r-2558804.html
Jackpot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G5Dw2QS86I
Lots of actual news clips, interviews, and speeches in that, and they are quite eerie.
I want to reiterate this, particularly the pictures of Emilie Parker:
Sandy Hook: The Curious Case Of Emilie Parker | Opinion - Conservative
People get annoyed because it is always the same things people bring up. After you refute the same argument 20 times, you can get very annoyed.
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.
Some times media sources are crap, that doesn't make it a conspiracy though. It just means their company is more into entertainment than news reporting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8G5Dw2QS86I#at=661 0
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?
Attachment 5013Attachment 5014
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.
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.
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:
Attachment 5019Attachment 5020
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.
She is making crying sounds and gestures. I said that there are no tears. This is what tears look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-JXwOQXQGk
You can obviously see tears in a video.
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. :shadewink:
It's what tears look like. You can see tears on video. The people in the interviews were close up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOcwwW8lF64
They are obviously walking out a door and around the building and into another door instead of just walking through the building.
Could you elaborate on that? "Just wow," is a non-argument.
This is what people look like when they are truly upset and crying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sd-j0rKeKw
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prdo6qrRJRA
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.
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?
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.
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:
Attachment 5022
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.
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'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.Quote:
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.
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.
Sandy Hook Hoax: Were Websites And Facebook Groups Published Before The Massacre? -- I'm thinking Occam's Razor has you beat here.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
No, I don't live in Boston. And all three courses are offered in a single week on simultaneous days.Quote:
That's 1 every 10 days, and you live in Boston, where a terrorist attack just occurred, not Newton, Connecticut.
That, and:Quote:
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.
Attachment 5024
Edit - Was fooling around with picture comparisons. Not sure how to remove the attached thumbnail.
That is the story now. It was not the original story. Apparently it's what the official police report says.
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.
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.
Were people closely connected to the Boston victims creating pages about dead ones while there was an issue about whether they were still alive?
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?
That's very close, close enough to be suburbs of the same city.
You said you live just north of Boston. That sounds like Boston metro area. What did you mean by "just north?"
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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'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 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.Quote:
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?
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.
We'll have to agree to disagree. "Right by" makes it seem like the place was right up the street IMO.Quote:
That's very close, close enough to be suburbs of the same city.
No, I said:Quote:
You said you live just north of Boston. That sounds like Boston metro area. What did you mean by "just north?"
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.
Of course they look alike. They were sisters, with only two years separating them.Quote:
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.
Did you hit your head recently?Quote:
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.
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oJkvB9goPAA
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?
I think information that the kids are still in the school after a mass shooting just happened would come very easily.
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.
They could pass for identical twins with the same hair part and same outfit. Rod Serling could present that scenario and get good ratings.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHWwmkc6_E
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.
First of all, if you don't think the Prism program is "amazingly serious," please go to my Edward Snowden thread and make that argument. It's a few down. I would love to discuss that with you.
As for Sandy Hook, if it was a hoax, I do think the truth will eventually come out. If it was a bunch of paid actors who turned the whole thing into a clusterfuck, money and threats can go a long way. The people would have been picked partly based on having a submissive nature without conviction, conscience, or guts. A lot of actors fit that description. When you take a person like that and give him/her a lot of money accompanied by extreme threats, that person will stay silent. If you can get one person to stay silent, you can get hundreds to stay silent... at least for a long time.
After seeing what I have seen lately, I am suspicious about the 9/11 reports too. If a government agent tells a news company a simple fact, it is really strange that it gets screwed up on its way to the air. That is always bizarre. When it's a reporter saying she talked to the school nurse and gives some detailed information supposedly told to her by the nurse, and the whole thing is a huge crock, that is really suspicious.
Check out this circus clown...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBIv57Rzv2E
I was reading through this and I remembered a real incident that highlights how people remember facts in times of tragedy or high-stress.
People can get confused and make mistakes of all kinds when they're upset.
My first job was working at a 7-11, night-shift. It was a neat place to work, and rarely were there serious problems.
One night a man got into an argument with a group of young, Hispanic man in the parking lot. When the conversation seemed finished he walked away to head into the stare, not thinking much about it. Unfortunately one of the young men was quite offended, and as the car containing the group of people backed up and started to drive away, he stuck his arm out of the car window and pointed a gun at the man walking into the store.
Fortunately for the intended victim one of the other young men in the car knocked up the arm of the shooter and the bullet missed the man and went instead through the store-front window and into the ceiling. The broken glass made me look up thinking someone had broken a pickle jar.
When the police arrived and questioned the man he was so shaken up by his near-death that he couldn't describe the men (not even their skin color) nor the car type or color they were driving. Other witnesses had to fill in the details.
It really doesn't take much to upset the human mind in a crisis and cause reason and memory to become faulty. In a situation like Sandy Hook where reporters are scrambling to be the first with key details it's common for reporting mistakes to be made, and some never get properly corrected. I saw the same thing happen here in Austin when a man flew his plane into an IRS building (on purpose), just minutes after his home burst into flames. It turned out he was emotionally unstable but there were quite a few rumors flying around that day, and many reporting mistakes were made.
I'm not saying conspiracy doesn't exist and that governments don't do shady things, but 9/11, Boston, and Sandy Hook are all examples of people grasping for a hidden agenda that wasn't there and turning the reactions following the events into secret plots that are nothing more than the reactions of large groups of upset people and the occasional opportunist who turns tragedy to their benefit.
I know how being upset can mess with people's heads, but I don't understand how it makes a school nurse say what a loving and caring kindergarten teacher the shooter's mother was when she wasn't a kindergarten teacher and didn't even work at the school. I don't understand how a reporter would dream up such a story because she is upset about the news she is reporting. I don't understand how it would make a federal agent say that only hand guns were found in the school if the weapon used was a rifle or make a reporter report that the federal agent said that when he didn't. I don't often see reporters getting so personally affected by their own stories that they go delusional.
People do make mistakes, unfortunately there's not really a lot of hard evidence to confirm anything they've said. If Lanza had survived instead, this whole incident would be a criminal defense's wet dream.
This is an example of fake CNN news. It is proven to be fake at the end of the video. There's no mystery here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApZDJo5wsH4
If that news report was fake, what other news reports have been fake?
I saw this today and it sums it all up perfectly. It's only about 4 minutes long.
The Word - Truthinews - The Colbert Report - 2013-24-06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
Isn't it nice how Pete prefaces his report with a statement about how it's a complex situation with a lot of contradictory information going around? It foreshadows not only the coming quality of his report, but succinctly describes the quality of most reporting done in similar events.
We can look at the owner of the store who sold the weapons to Lanza's mother.
Or the official CTSP report.
Or the medical examiner's report of how the victims died.
26 people were killed. Did every immediate family member appear on television? It'd be a large group.Quote:
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?
Still in the school, maybe. But alive? Dead? Shot? Unharmed? Unlikely.Quote:
I think information that the kids are still in the school after a mass shooting just happened would come very easily.
Did Andrea McCarren mention a name to Sally Cox? All decent reports I find say no.Quote:
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.
I'm interested in what's probable, not possible.Quote:
They could pass for identical twins with the same hair part and same outfit. Rod Serling could present that scenario and get good ratings.
Don't let your mistrust of the government (or this administration specifically) cloud your judgment. This hypothesis has as much evidence behind it as the anti-vaxxers do, or the 9/11 truthers, or the Obama Birthers.Quote:
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.
They were definitely in some kind of clusterfuck situation.
Okay, there are reports and witnesses. We already knew that. Can you find any video of what went on at the school with frantic parents, kids, employees, and EMS all over the place?
No, but we still have lots of immediate family members speaking in a three part documentary.
Under lockdown? Definitely. Not yet determined who is alive, dead, injured, or okay? Definitely.
According to Andrea McCarren, Sally Cox reported the identity of "shooter's mother" to Andrea McCarren. I still don't understand how that could get fucked up.
Considering the rest of the Twiligh Zone mystery, I am interested in both. Either Emilie or her body double is in that picture.
I agree that I should be as objective as possible, but I think this conspiracy theory has a ton more evidence and unanswered questions.
No, but what would you be looking for in the video? The people who would film anything of value would be the media, who were there in force. But as usual, they weren't allowed close enough to the school to get anything good.
And EACH AND EVERY ONE of them acted as if nothing was wrong? Give me a timestamp.Quote:
No, but we still have lots of immediate family members speaking in a three part documentary.
But no names were mentioned. Cox evidently knew a kindergarten teacher had been killed. As you said previously, as the school nurse (for 15 years as McCarren reports), she probably knew all of the teachers. Maybe some of their family as well. If she bought into the early (and false) reports of the shooter being that teacher's son, it's entirely reasonable for her to say that there were no indications that the teacher's son had any issues or any problems (since the teacher's real son probably doesn't), and that she thought the teacher was a loving, caring person.Quote:
According to Andrea McCarren, Sally Cox reported the identity of "shooter's mother" to Andrea McCarren. I still don't understand how that could get fucked up.
Now, if the name "Nancy Lanza" or "Adam Lanza" had been mentioned, the report probably would've been entirely different.
By body double I hope you mean her sister Madeline (since that's who it is).Quote:
Considering the rest of the Twiligh Zone mystery, I am interested in both. Either Emilie or her body double is in that picture.
Is that because you want it to be a hoax? It'd fit the worldview that bad people are out to cause trouble en masse.Quote:
I agree that I should be as objective as possible, but I think this conspiracy theory has a ton more evidence and unanswered questions.
They were acting totally normal and all the parents showed emotions, some times sadness and some times they were remembering happy thoughts about their children and they weren't as sad in those moments, but pretty much all the interviews they were showing emotions and all those emotions are normal in the situation.
It is also normal from some conflicting reports to come out as a story is breaking but once the official report came out and it was clear what happened, it never changed and there was no conflicting or strange reports at all.
This is all what normal real life looks like.
The media didn't even take pictures from a distance or from a helicopter? They filmed the people walking in a circle at the firehouse. Why not the school? About all we have are witnesses, documents, and a photograph of some kids walking with a teacher.
No, I said that none of them showed a tear (except maybe the Soto sister for a brief moment) or acted the general way people act when they are extremely upset. Remember... What's weird is that a lot of people were interviewed, and finding a tear is like finding a needle in a haystack. Do you understand what I am saying?
That is the best possibility suggestion I have come across yet, but wouldn't the school nurse have found out by then that the kindergarten teacher's son wasn't the shooter? This situation would have been a gossip fest.
I mean genetic replica with the same hair part and outfit.
I would hate for it to be real. It would mean we are almost finished as a country. I just want to get to the bottom of it. Are you in complete denial about the fact that all of the issues come together to form a big picture that is insane?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwjoUNA3kP4
The person adding comments to the video have no clue what they are saying. I doubt there was any screaming since no one was shot with the opening attack. According to the official timeline the shooter shot through a locked door. There wasn't anyone at the front door when he shot his way in, so who would of screamed? Obviously no one, the screaming would come later when he began shooting people.
I didn't follow the news coverage closely that day. Did they have helicopter shots of the school? Probably. Were they allowed to stand right outside the building and film bodies and/or weapons being pulled out? I doubt it. What exactly would you be looking for? A cameraman following a response team extracting the exact weapons?
I understand, yes. But I'm challenging the notion that people behave in any "general way" when under severe stress. There will be some commonalities, but others bottle up their grief. Others let it out. Others turn to humor. Others become automatons. Give me a timestamp in your three-part documentary that shows these families so I can comment further.Quote:
No, I said that none of them showed a tear (except maybe the Soto sister for a brief moment) or acted the general way people act when they are extremely upset. Remember... What's weird is that a lot of people were interviewed, and finding a tear is like finding a needle in a haystack. Do you understand what I am saying?
Depends on when McCarren talked to Cox. Judging by the report it seems to have taken place earlier in the day (the report was given at night).Quote:
That is the best possibility suggestion I have come across yet, but wouldn't the school nurse have found out by then that the kindergarten teacher's son wasn't the shooter? This situation would have been a gossip fest.
I deny that these facts form a picture that says Sandy Hook was faked in any way, not just because conspiracy theorists have an awful track record of successfully connecting the appropriate dots, but because the facts do not form such a picture.Quote:
I would hate for it to be real. It would mean we are almost finished as a country. I just want to get to the bottom of it. Are you in complete denial about the fact that all of the issues come together to form a big picture that is insane?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwjoUNA3kP4
What's the point of that video? I don't get the annotations in it either. BS story? What?
That would be good. So would pictures/video of... anything. How about a picture of Adam Lanza entering the school?
That's right. Grief can be handled in different ways. But somebody in such a large group will cry real tears at some point. Many of the interviews took place within days of the shooting, which happened just six months ago.
Notice something else about the interviews (Have you watched any of them?). Not one person expresses the slightest trace of anger against the shooter. The ones who give any opinions of the incident just bitch about guns and say we need to ban them. Can you imagine the obscene thoughts of hatred you would be having against such a person? Have you heard Ron Goldman talk about O.J. Simpson? Goldman didn't blame the murder of his son on a knife. Have you heard Tupac Shakur's mother talk about Tupac's killer? Have you seen videos of people speaking to juries during sentencing hearings for murderers? Tears are absent from the Sandy Hook interviews, and so are expressions of anger. They are nonexistent. Honestly, do you see the slightest thing strange about that?
That would have given Cox plenty of time to call the news station and say, "Oh, sorry. The school nurse's son didn't really create this horrible tragedy. Sorry about the false information."
The kid and the teacher tell two seemingly different stories about what they heard. Also, the teacher's story about going into the 3 X 2 bathroom with 15 kids and reading them books is extremely bizarre. If they had their "morning meeting" in a room other than the classroom, why did they not have it in the classroom? If they had the meeting in the classroom, what was a bathroom doing in the classroom? Why did she not keep everybody completely quiet so they wouldn't be detected? Visualize her story. It's more Twilight Zone.
This video adds more perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3aYQEJXJfo
The maker doesn't agree with the grief or gun report arguments, but I think he is overlooking some important points. The other stuff added is very considerable. The school has been shut down ever since, nobody is allowed on school property, Adam Lanza would have been a better marksman than any other massacre shooter in history, Lanza would have had an assault rifle and practiced to be Rambo with it although assault weapons are illegal in Connecticut and he had not been seen for three years, Lanza's death report says he died on December 13, nobody can explain where the report that he had Aperger's originated, the medical examiner is really shady, reports say there is still an investigation into who a second shooter might have been, the school had a very expensive security system, other things. I saw another video that has a reporter saying that there was no sign of glass being broken for Lanza to enter the school, but people had to check in. How did Lanza get in?
You can go all over YouTube and Google and see actual news reports, interviews, photographs, raised issues, etc. No one video or site I have come across contains all of it. You can do research for miles on this situation. It's pretty fucking crazy.
There is a huge difference between the examples you gave of people being angry with the killers, and sandy hook. In those situations the killer was still alive, in this case the killer was dead. That sense of anger and wanting to make the criminal pay for what he did greatly decreases if the killer is dead. He has suffered his final fate and there is closure.
You don't suddenly stop being pissed at a killer the day after the murder just because he is dead. Jews who went through the Holocaust are mad at Hitler to this day. Also, Tupac's murder case was never solved. A lot points to Biggie Smalls, who was dead when Tupac's mother did the interview I saw. Tell me this isn't a commercial for gun control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gViMvqm7wNU
Were these kids recently murdered, or are they running for office?
Do you know what a green screen is? It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key
When an object is past a certain point, the part that is past it will not show up in the video. You can very briefly check this video at 2:09 and 4:39 and see the hoax at work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TKocPon8Yto
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Pause this video about a tenth of a second after it gets to 1:28. After that, play through that point and watch what happens across the street.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idTJ7Csi86s
Have you had a vision of Rod Serling yet?
No offense or anything, but you really need to get more evidence than some obviously biased YouTube videos that present an apparent change in the distance between a photographer and someone being interviewed as 100% absolute proof that an interview was faked. If this was a huge conspiracy, I think that the conspirators would be a bit more careful to make sure that no-one caught them out.
Hmmm, just had a look at the other videos that "Tinfoilhatdood" has posted and they are pretty suspect, including claims that because the weather got cloudy after some planes flew over, these are secret government chem trails. The clincher: the weather forecast said "Sunny". Unrefutable evidence!
That video shows an example of extension distortion and compression distortion, a common issue with camera lenses of different focal lengths. Yeah, I had to Google the terms but I saw this often back when I took photography. It's definitely not a sign that something is weird or faked, merely an illusion caused by the camera optics.
Here's some reading and examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspe..._(photography)
Exploring How Focal Length Affects Images
Perspective and Distortion
Using Telephoto Lenses
Many of these "theories of bizarre things" are posted by people who don't understand how cameras work or are deliberately trying to play on people's natural suspicions by forcing them to focus on things that 'appear' to be wrong, distorting facts and perspectives to further a cause or belief.
That explains one of the issues the video poster raised. The people suddenly appearing closer didn't grab my attention. What I think is really strange is what I said two posts ago.
Pause this video about a tenth of a second after it gets to 1:28. After that, play through that point and watch what happens across the street.
Maybe there is a logical explanation for it, but I don't know what it is. I might have overlooked something in one of your links that could explain it. Did you see my green screen post?
The reason I say I worry for the mental and emotional health of someone who would believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is as follows. There are plenty of ways to debunk the myths of government conspiracy, and that is obvious to see. What is not as clear, are the motivations behind those who claim these conspiracies to be real.
Fact is not on their side; knowledge is missing. So what motivates someone to claim this as real if they have no reasonable explanation?
These are simple diversions; the construction of an alternative reality, replacing the unbearable truth. What is easier, remove and dissociate yourself from truth through elaborate illogical smoke screens, or face the reality that someone can walk into any school in any town to kill anybody's children? Which outcome causes more fear, and which cause of the event demands more control? If the event demands more control, its easier to swallow because then there is something clear to blame. What can we blame when teenagers walk into their own school and blow away their classmates?
Whats the cause and effect when emotion overpowers every other mental faculty. Those other mental pieces begin following the emotion.
This paranoia will probably always exist and its a good reminder to keep level headed. Otherwise you may end up turning dead bodies into talking points.
Also...Lets look at the real genocides in the world. The unrest in Africa precipitated by colonialism, endless wars against invisible "terrorist" enemies, the decimation of natural resources and essential creatures of the environment, the Native population of the Americas, the mass slaughters of people all over the world by inflated despots and tyrants. Address the real problems of humanity and society, instead of wasting time creating elaborate smoke screens.
That's an interesting blanket generalization. Are you familiar with any of the historically documented conspiracies of any of the governments that have ever existed? Have you ever heard of Watergate? Have you ever heard of the Nazis? Iran Contra? Gulf of Tonkin? Bay of Pigs? IRS political targeting? NSA data mining? You might have some reading to do.
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blog...cies-from.html
You made a boast. Now prove its truth. If you can't do that, then you are just making worthless noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I shouldn't have snapped at you earlier Chimpertainment, since obviously your comment wasn't directed at me at all. I got too caught up in the argument. I completely agree with what you just said - people like Alex Jones have definite issues. Obviously it wasn't a 'hoax' in the way the video posters mean, as in no children were even killed. Personally I'm just stumped at why all the parents and family members are like pod people. Yes they seem sad - some of them (those who aren't smiling through their interviews), but sad is not the way I'd expect a bereaved parent or brother or sister to act over the recent death. I'd expect inconsolable - at least from some of them.
Wow, what is with those parents. Nervous smiles my ass. Have you all forgotten Katrina? There you can see real human grieving parents. I'm not sure what I just saw in those videos.
And what is with the firehouse walk-a-loop?
You assume the parents rage is solely directed at the murderer. But most people are not hateful or vengeful, most people don't make it their personal vendetta to KILL a murderer. There for, the murderers death would bring no sense of closure. Its not like that will bring back the deceased child. For most parents, real closure takes years, regardless of the murderers fate.
The real issue with conspiratards is that they often WANT their hoax theories to be true. It fits their worldview that there is a super secret group of powerful men running the world committing atrocities and subsequently covering them up. Of course that makes no sense, because if such a group were powerful enough to pull off said atrocities with ease, they're awful as covering themselves up. So awful that bored teenagers can make YouTube videos detailing their discovery of the alleged slip-ups.
If you watch a conspiracy video with the aim to prove that those who make it or question it or simply idiots - then youre being biased. Don't make the need to prove or disprove a conspiracy about you. This has nothing to do with whatever belief you do or don't have about the world.
Unless you're ready to question everything then you aren't ready to question at all.
I could just as easily say that you are in complete denial and being intellectually dishonest, which I think you are. Your characterization of conspiracy theorists involves the hasty generalization fallacy. I have never once said I believe in the shadow government/Illuminati (except years ago when I was playing games with Mystic7) or world control by elites. I don't rule it out, but what I know is that the U.S. government has gotten way too powerful and that big government is inherently corrupt. It is very capable of pulling large scale conspiracies for corrupt purposes. Guess what else. It has happened... a lot! Since you claim to be an anarchist, I am surprised at your denial of how insanely corrupt government can be. You have a bizarre trust of government and media for somebody who says he thinks government is so rotten that we shouldn't even have one. I don't expect you to be convinced that there was a Sandy Hook conspiracy, but you have not expressed even the slightest hint at surprise over any of the stuff I have posted that is at least sort of weird. You haven't suggested that it is even possible that the government might have at least coached a few family members of victims into speaking for gun control since the Second Amendment is obviously under major attack by the Obama Administration, which I am sure you would admit.
I posted this for Chimpertainment earlier, and I'm not sure if you saw it. Look at this list of conspiracies and tell me in seriousness that none of them ever actually happened. Will you do that?
CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE: List of Proven Conspiracies - from Wikipedia
Now, if you do admit that at least one of those really did happen, does that make you a "conspiratard" who wants it to be true and who believes in the Illuminati? Tell me.
The government is often corrupt, and they do a lot of stupid things at times. I wouldn't really be surprised by anything they did. That said all the evidence seems to support the official story in the incident of the sandy hook shooting, and the government was not involved. Honestly I don't think any of the stuff you posted even remotely hints at anything unusual happening. Most of it you claim is odd behavior but I honestly find it all normal and I have seen it before, so I don't count that as evidence of anything nor do I find it at all suspicious.
Do false news reports, contradictory accounts, impossible document information, impossible web page dates, and complete absences of information and evidence count as "odd behavior?"
There is only a few contradictory accounts and reports and they are from people gossiping, and from chaotic situations often being chaotic at the start. After a little time went by everyone was on the same page as all the facts came out. It is normal for there to be some chaos though. As explained several times the web dates are easily explains.
The truth is usually somewhere between the extremes - in this case the extremes of totally believing conspiracy theorist videos or totally believing the mass media official story.
And as for making dead bodies into talking points, that was done immediately by media and politicians. This is another incident that was instantly politicized.
You missed this post earlier in the thread:
I'd like to point out the difference between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Conspiracies happen in the real world, and often we find out about them. No one can deny that.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, never come to fruition and are never rigorously verified. What few factoids are involved, they are diluted by sloppy logic, confirmation bias, poor research, and paranoia. Conspiracy theories are homeopathic.
Because they all have reasonable explanations that don't require assuming they were coached, or that the whole thing was faked to push an agenda. Has it been used to push an agenda? Undoubtedly. But was it faked? No. It happened. Children and faculty died because of a deranged young man. Often times I think conspiracy theorists just don't want to recognize that there are fucked up people out there doing fucked up things by their own will. So they invent esoteric cabals to explain away their frustrations.Quote:
Since you claim to be an anarchist, I am surprised at your denial of how insanely corrupt government can be. You have a bizarre trust of government and media for somebody who says he thinks government is so rotten that we shouldn't even have one. I don't expect you to be convinced that there was a Sandy Hook conspiracy, but you have not expressed even the slightest hint at surprise over any of the stuff I have posted that is at least sort of weird.
There is a massive difference between maintaining a certain level of distrust for the government and thinking they're behind every tragic event. Libertarians often get a bad rap for either associating with or actually being conspiracy theorists. A good percentage of the rabid Ron Paul followers are also disciples of Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones. I'm not going to be one of them. I'm introducing skepticism into these matters to get to the truth. If it leads me to think that the government wasn't actually behind it, so what? Does that mean I have a bizarre trust of government and the media? Not in the slightest.
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.
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?
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.
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. 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.
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?
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.
I live in a city where the local government is so corrupt that it might hold the national record for city corruption, though nearby New Orleans is pretty major competition. Our new mayor-elect, who will be inaugurated on Monday, is a racial separatist who hates white people and wants to move all of the black people into their own nation called The Republik of New Africa. One of our recent mayors owned the local NBC affiliate and was the head of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN). He became mayor by getting on the news on a regular basis (because he owned WLBT) and talking in a very convincing way about his attitude about being really tough on crime. As it turned out, he was also a drug kingpin. He became head of the MBN so he could take down his competition. He was having them arrested left and right. He handled one of his rivals by sending cops to demolish the rival's house. It is things like that which have made me very mistrusting of government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyu_4MyetHQ&list=WL4DB275D66CE0553A
Simple question: How did Adam Lanza get into the school building?
I'm not sure what you mean by "corrupt". This is a word that has been so abused over the years that it has lost an objective meaning. Let me just ask you a question: is it possible for a hypothetical government to be "non-corrupt", and would you be happy to give 40% of your income to them?
He shot the door open and broke in. As mentioned before there is always some confusion right after big events like this, and some did think he was let in by someone in the building at first but it has long been confirmed that he did in fact shoot his way in.
He shot his way through the door? What was the door made of? If you watch the very end of the video I posted, you will hear the Fox News reporter saying in regard to the claim that Lanza shot out glass, "That is not the case, based on what police are telling us here in Newtown."
You don't know what "corrupt" means?
cor·rupt
/kəˈrəpt/
Adjective
Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
I don't think it is realistically possible for a government to be completely without corruption, but I also think that there is a major correlation between a government's level of corruption and its level of power.
All governments have some level of corruption, as all populations do, but there is a major correlation between a government's level of corruption and its level of power. I pay taxes because it's the law and there's not really any way around it for people who are in touch with reality, but I would not be "happy" about giving 40% of my income to a government. It's not a producer of positive emotions. How is this relevant?
It was a glass door. So he did shoot out the glass. That part is correct.
The news report said the police reported to them that the glass was not shot out. It's at the very end of the last video I posted.
And it is wrong, it was shot out.
So many wrong news stories. It's just one after another. Path of very simple information: Police/feds --> reporters --> public... FAIL time and time again for the world's biggest news story (months ago) which has an extremely long list of Twilight Zone elements. There's something funny going on around here, folks.
It actually isn't all that surprising at all. In big breaking events they rush to get information as quick as possible and so don't check sources as well as they should, in favor of getting a scoop. Which causes errors. There isn't anything unusual about it at all, and pretty much all of it was clarified shortly after.
That doesn't explain how a simple statement of fact coming directly from the police, federal officials, or a school nurse gets botched. Being in a hurry to tell a story isn't going to make you say, "The coach of the Saints told me the Saints won the Super Bowl," when really he said they lost, or he didn't tell you anything about the Super Bowl and instead told you he went fishing on Lake Ponchartrain. I don't see how being in a hurry throws that off, especially when your credibility on the world stage and therefore your job standing will be affected by what you say.
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.
Your argument simply makes no sense.
YOU are the one defining what a non-corrupt government means but you're being tricksy - because it turns out your definition is false and it is still a corrupt. You then falsely assume that all conspiracy-theorists apply to this definition and are therefore magically wrong for applying to your made up false definition of a non-corrupt government (which according to you is still technically corrupt)
You said "primary atrocities committed by government are not due to corruption". If its an atrocity, then its corruption.
The problem is youre confusing corruption with conspiracy. Corruption simply means a bunch of greedy men taking advantage of loopholes, therefore corruption can be entirely legal yet entirely morally wrong.
Conspiracy on the other hand is a deliberate covert action involving two or more parties. When corruption adds up and is connected in ways it shouldn't be, then you have a conspiracy.
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.
Where's the loophole in the income tax? Or in congress declaring a war that kills millions of people? Or in prohibition? Explain to me where they used "loopholes" to ban drugs.
Do you understand what I'm saying? The government does things out in the open that are far worse than the claims of conspiracy theorists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There was all day to get that extremely relevant information straight.
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.
That doesn't get around what I said about having all day.
So a reporter who reports tragic stuff as part of her job went full delusional for the news report? How likely is that?
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?
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.
She listens with her eyes?
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.
:rolllaugh: Seriously? It was a first hand account!
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?
Now counter what I said about that.
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://thumbs.myopera.com/sz/colx/ka...jpg?1368395042
http://contrailscience.com/skitch/sk...218-105845.jpg
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.
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.Quote:
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/
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.
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."Quote:
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.
There is little doubt Lanza was the shooter. What "mysteriousness" are you referring to?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Undoubtedly. But as I said, I won't let my mistrust cloud my conclusion.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAVnSIHryFo&lc=ZSRZHNaEsLsj_AOgnQeSnwto6nW 1yjDXOvu81PmWE6w
And now for the feature presentation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZ9HnMLKXg
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4vyXiBKUd0
This is the phone call Jonathan Reich made to Wayne Carver's office, split up and mixed with news clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25sp9IJFWs
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:
Attachment 5121Attachment 5122
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?
http://timethemoment.files.wordpress...5603.jpg?w=735
http://timethemoment.files.wordpress...9562.jpg?w=735
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.
Attachment 5141
Attachment 5142
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.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...13_634x421.jpg
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.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...03_634x632.jpg
---
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXuSt7H7Ges
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.
More bad acting and fouled up con artistry?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89sjixoTWo
Even if all this circumstantial evidence was slightly believable, it would still seem to me that it's much more likely a madman with a gun killed some kids.
Governments are made up of people just as stupid as us. There's no way anyone could pull off anything this complex.
It doesn't have to be complex. One person could have hired one gunman. Maybe one person hired one gunman and a few actors. There are many possibilities.
So you're saying someone got a gunman to kill a bunch of kids just for the chance of restricting gun laws?
Or if you're saying that no-one was actually shot, then someone managed to create a huge fabrication which could not possibly be simple.
Either way, the conspirators would have put in a huge amount of effort (and shed a large amount of blood if you're admitting that people were killed) for the chance to restrict gun laws. And they obviously didn't hire good forecasters, because it didn't really change anything.
I think it probably got botched, and I absolutely do believe there are people at high levels of the government ruthless enough to kill kids just to make an attempt at getting public support for a policy. Have you ever read about Operation Northwoods?
Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook, but it reads like an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Operation Northwoods was rejected, and I believe anything like it would have no chance of getting close to being realised. It's just over-zealous idiots who suggest this kind of thing, who aren't clever enough to cover their tracks if they tried to do it by themselves.
Operation Northwoods was drafted and supported by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All that was needed was John F. Kennedy's agreement. Kennedy was an unusually principled president, and he was the one person who rejected Operation Northwoods. We have had some sociopaths in office since then who I think would have given the okay. After seeing what a lying manipulator Obama was with his campaign promises and how meaningless the Constitution is to him, I don't put false flags past him.
Government monopolized the news agency. They censored the important news of Sandy Hook shootings. Sandy Hook - Judge seals police records for 90 days. It helps to fume suspicion of people. Why did they release so much inconsistent information on Sandy Hook shooting?
Do you know why they released the following news (MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE)? Because there are many people work for government as informants. They are afraid of becoming sacrifices when they were told to carry out a mission. So the late news (hijackers still alive) released to comfort them. Now we saw so many disinformation released later after Sandy Hook shooting. It hints "we didn't kill that many children". That's the trick how the government fool you the people.
MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.
The world's media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. For example the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report:
Quote:
Hijack "suspects" alive and well.
The following article is a remake of http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm which lists many of the media articles dealing with the hijackers who were not hijackers.
Many 9-11 "Hijackers" are Still Alive.
Sandy hook school location map from sky
Sandy Hook School was selected particularly for its location. It was in a dead end of a road. No others would pass by and witness what have happened. It largely protect the perpetrators to commit a crime without being discovered and then left. The time was at 9:40, parents left already and they couldn’t be witness too. The victims were first grade pupils, they were too young to describe a scene even if they were survived the massacre. Yet, the murderers tried to kill everyone.
http://i.imgur.com/EjE1J.jpg
Full Disclosure: CO, WI, CT shootings.. Are These The Work of "Lone Wolf" Gunmen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZPS7AdgNgE&feature=youtu.be
Chief State Medical Examiner Carver Retires
By DAVE ALTIMARI, [email protected] Hartford Courant
4:58 p.m. CDT, May 23, 2013
Long-time chief state medical examiner H. Wayne Carver announced Thursday that he is retiring and will be replaced by the deputy medical examiner in New York City.
Carver, who always joked he was aptly named for the job, has been the chief state medical examiner since March 1989 and has worked at the office since July 1, 1982. He took over as chief following the controversial exit of Catherine Galvin, who left after it was revealed she took her pet dog into rooms where autopsies were being conducted.
Topic Galleries - chicagotribune.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHGYIxdBcVY&feature=player_detailpage
Sandy Hook Medical Examiner H Wayne Carver FRAUD EXPOSED - YouTube
Sandy Hook Medical Examiner H Wayne Carver FRAUD EXPOSED
I don't claim that this is a smoking gun, but I would love to see somebody explain what on Earth is happening here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGfYMBh5Fo
Umm the spot he claims is the 'same' spot clearly isn't the same spot. There is zero reason to think the location he randomly picked was where those people were standing.
What??? How did that other building get so close?
Bill Drafted In Secret Would Block Release Of Some Newtown Massacre Records
The staffs of the state's top prosecutor and the governor's office have been working in secret with legislative leaders on a law to withhold records related to the police investigation into the Dec. 14 Newtown elementary school massacre.
By JON LENDER, EDMUND H. MAHONY and DAVE ALTIMARI, [email protected] Hartford Courant
10:18 p.m. EDT, May 21, 2013
The staffs of the state's top prosecutor and the governor's office have been working in secret with General Assembly leaders on legislation to withhold records related to the police investigation into the Dec. 14 Newtown elementary school massacre — including victims' photos, tapes of 911 calls, and possibly more.
The behind-the-scenes legislative effort came to light Tuesday when The Courant obtained a copy of an email by a top assistant to Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane, Timothy J. Sugrue. Sugrue, an assistant state's attorney, discussed options considered so far, including blocking release of statements "made by a minor."
Newtown Massacre Records: Bill Drafted In Secret Would Block Release Of Some Newtown Massacre Records - Courant.com
What other building? You mean that wall that is clearly two inches thick at most and clearly isn't a building because a person walked right around it? The flat white wall clearly isn't the same wall that they show of the other building, which looks nothing even remotely similar. I am not sure what it is, but it is clearly a free standing wall and not a building. My guess is either some kind of barrier, or a privacy screen.
It clearly isn't the building that guy claimed it is, unless you think the building magically changed to look totally different.
This is an aerial view of the premises:
Attachment 5733
You can't even see the building that seemed so close in part of the video. There seem to be differences but similarities between the two building images, but I can't tell if it is just dimness that makes the difference. What I do know is that the firehouse is supposedly the one and only official spot where people went to walk around, panic, and wait on news while the school was in lock down. So where is that building that appears to be so close to the firehouse?
It clearly isn't the same building. The wall in the first picture is entirely smooth, and the wall in the second is like vinyl siding that is in layers. Also the type of lens you use can easily effect how far away an object appears in the background. Take a look at this, and notice how the object in focus at the front is basically the same in every photo, yet things in the background has massive differences. The object wasn't moved at all but look how much farther things appear to be in the last than in the first.
What is the building that looks close up in the background? They were supposed to be at the firehouse.
Even before we brought over a bunch of nazis we were committing the same atrocious experiments on people as Germany and the USSR. We were at best Nazi Lite. Looking back historically, from the purposefully instigated massacre to start the Mexican American war to the Gulf of Tonkin, the United States is no stranger to false flags. It seems asinine to dismiss the possibility that our government fabricates tragedy to manufacture consensus since it's so well established that they have in the past.
However that doesn't mean Obama has much to do with it, or that he's a sociopath. Ever since Kennedy, each president's hair grows inexplicably whiter directly after their inauguration. Kennedy, Lincoln and Jackson all attempted to free us from a central banking system. Jackson actually succeeded but survived several assassination attempts due to miraculous gun misfire. It's not necessary that the president or any member of his cabinet be in on it. From Woodrow Wilson to Eisenhower to Kennedy many of our nation's leaders have referred to a secret government that acts independently of the executive branch.
From what I can see, he has the wrong corner of the building picked out. It looks more like it's the corner of the bottom of the "T" shape. My reasons for thinking this is because there is a pole right next to the corner in both instances of the footage, but there is none on the corner he picked. However, the cops in both instances of the images are all extremely large for being in the background--unless their entire police force is freakishly huge, there is still something wrong with the video here.
Actually, I take back my first statement. After watching the third video, you can clearly see the pole on that corner where he thinks it is. Now it's more like the left corner of the horizontal part of the "T" when looking at the building as a "T". Curiously, though, there is now a garage addition to the bottom of the T nearest the shed that wasn't there before, but that doesn't mean it isn't the same building.
Also, think about what you're saying. I don't think I've ever been to a parking lot that has a free standing wall or privacy barrier simply for the sake of having one. I think skepticism is healthy, especially in a case like this where both sides are throwing out wild claims, but what you say needs to at least make sense. I will definitely admit that the guy speaking in the video's attitude isn't helping to prove his point very much, but he's got a legitimate point. The depth of field in all this footage is all fucked up and so are the sizes of everything in the background.
That's true. It wasn't necessarily a presidential action. However, I think it was. Obama has been parading around with the supposed victims' families, crying fake tears, and pushing gun control over the situation. I think he probably fits into the picture somewhere, but he might not be the ring leader.
Here's another phenomenon caught in the same scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Kx4I5C9XA
Notice what happens to the woman's body from :42 to :45. Also, that guy with the big blue jacket doesn't look right to me. He looks like he was green screened in or something. His coloration and his mannerisms just don't seem to match the situation. It's odd in a way I can't fully identify.
The president is never the ring leader, only the mascot. Just cause he's following orders doesn't mean he decided to instigate a hoax.
Keep something else in mind, the father of the Sandy Hook shooter and the father of the Aurora shooter were both set to testify and name names regarding the FICO hearing. Meaning they both posed threats to money laundering elites in the top of the financial industry, such as Goldman Sachs. Obama acted as a puppet for Goldman Sachs then, why not now as well? Maybe his anti-gun shit is a red herring to distract all the conspiracy theorists from what's really going on.
I wasn't there so I can't tell what it is, though the man in that video claims that to be the exact spot when it clearly isn't. His claim that the video is proof of a green screen can't even be taken seriously if he picked the wrong corner of the building to compare views to. Besides did you look at the pictures I posted? Those pictures prove that objects in the background can be distorted due to the type of lens you take a picture with.
As for that new video, it is easily explained. You are watching a poor quality recording of the video that has degraded slightly. Here is the actual video. Notice how it is more clear, and she clearly doesn't walk through the wood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEtQTQUV0bk
The video degraded and a woman walked through another one? Could it be that your video is just an improvement of the other one?
I don't agree with the guy who said he had a smoking gun. He was just trying to get hits so he could get ad money. However, where is that building on the firehouse premises? I posted an aerial view of the area. What on Earth is that building? I can't find it in any aerial view.
It was degraded and slightly fuzzy so the blue bled over slightly where the two colors touched. It only happens for a single frame and is barely noticeable. What seems more likely?
A. The video was recorded and showed on tv, someone then recorded the video from their tv, then put it on the internet, then someone copied that and made it into a youtube video, and during the process of converting to different formats with different compression rates and different frame rates minor anomalies appeared on the image.
B. The poorer quality video was the original one they showed on a major news network, which they then enhanced and edited after someone on youtube pointed out the flaw that it revealed they faked the scene?
You are ignoring UM's other points. Are you just refusing to acknowledge them because you agree or because you can't argue against them? You could be totally right about what you are saying, but that doesn't prove that it's the wrong corner of the wrong building. It proves the guy was being a sensationalist asshole who didn't do enough investigation because he was too lazy, didn't want to because it went against his point, or is just stupid. However, that only proves that she does not go through the wood. Alright, point established. What is your argument for the building or the corner being different than the one he claims it to be? You can see from the third video and the aerial that it is indeed the corner he claims, the pole sticking up off the wooden corner is in both shots and the angle and view matches as well. If you want to claim that the camera field of view has been lowered on the news videos then that is one thing, but it is clearly the same corner.
Except the wall looks nothing at all similar.
After what all I have seen, I would say B. Did you see Anderson Cooper's nose disappear in an interview of an alleged Sandy Hook victim's mother?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxAWy_bUuio
Are you saying that a multiple copying process can cause people to look like they are walking through each other? Maybe it can. I have no reason to believe it at this point.
My biggest issue in this part of our discussion is where that building is. I showed you an aerial view of the firehouse premises and showed you a building that you are saying is not the same one that is in the video. Where is the distant building in the video? This extra one is on the premises in this picture:
Attachment 5792
Where is the other one?
Attachment 5733
I don't know what happened to the first picture in my last post. I am editing this post because it failed again. I will just post a web page link with it.
http://sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/...-fire-station/
So there's that building. Where is the background building that is in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGfYMBh5Fo
Here are two more aerial views of the firehouse premises:
http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/16/66/27.../5/628x471.jpg
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2012/...tVxf.St.4.jpeg
Where is that mysterious building?
That video of his nose disappearing is pretty much evidence of what I am talking about. Why would that happen if they were using a green screen? Do you think his nose was painted green? Of course not, that is absurd. Standing in front of a green screen wouldn't cut anything off that wasn't green. That is the entire purpose of the technology. The computer fills in everything that is the color of the background. So unless you think his nose was green, it wouldn't cut it off.
All these minor things you are pointed out is due to pixelation from high quality video to lower quality video. It happens all the time. I really can't believe that you never seen a photo that has become pixelated before. That is why the high quality videos look normal and the low quality videos have minor things like colors bleeding over from one object to another.
I think I remember seeing a video where a victim of the shooting was the same person as another school shooting, both dead.
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i6Xt1hmm8Scg.jpgQuote:
Newtown Votes to Rebuild Sandy Hook Elementary
Oct. 6, 2013
By GILLIAN MOHNEY and ALEXIS SHAW via Good Morning America
The town will be allotted $50 million in state funds to rebuild the school.
A new facility will be built away from the initial site so that a memorial could be built in its place.
Newtown, Connecticut Votes to Rebuild Sandy Hook Elementary - ABC News
A traditional way to wipe out evidence. That’s how they demolished so said Bin Laden house.
Split green screen use causes visual boundaries. When something crosses the boundary, it does not show up on film. You can see an exact line that marks the cut off for Anderson Cooper's nose.
I am going to ask you again... Where is that building in the firehouse video located in reality? I can't find it on the firehouse premises in photographs.
That is because you can't see it clearly. The building in the background that they call the 'shed' actually looks like the front of the main building to me. You can't get a good reference point of anything from a foot of wall, and a building blocked by dozens of cars and trucks.
Also, if you think they are using a split green screen and putting the two images together, that means the two people where filmed in different locations, why would they do that if they were hired actors? Your theory is so convoluted. You film two actors in separate rooms on a green screen, then put the image together to make it seem like they were in the same room? Why? How does that make any sense at all?
The image is clearly just suffering from minor damage due to the switch in compression rate when it was converted to a lower quality film format.
CNN is based in Atlanta, not Newtown, Connecticut. Anderson might have had Atlanta business to deal with. Split screens are a convenience.
Are you now saying that the two background buildings are the same building? Earlier, you argued that they are two different buildings. Never mind the traffic at the place. There are tons of photographs of the firehouse from multiple days. That building is nowhere to be found on the premises.
No, I am saying that the building in the background might be the front of the main building, and that the other wall might not be a building at all. Which is exactly what I said at that start, that I thought it was probably not a building but some kind of temporarily structure.
Though I have to ask something. Why did you use two photos that showed a ton of people at the firehouse, if you are arguing that no one was at the firehouse? If you are arguing they are actors in front of a green screen and they were never at the firehouse, why use photos showing people at the firehouse? Either the aerial photos directly refute your theory that no one was at the firehouse, or you are knowing comparing the video to photos that you believe were faked.
Can you find a picture of the main building looking like that? I can't.
I said you can find plenty of other photos of the firehouse if you are not satisfied with the ones I have posted. There are zillions of them. I am not arguing that nobody was at the firehouse. I am arguing that some studio shenanigans might have taken place for putting on a show. Film makers use green screens all the time for convenience and other bonuses.
That makes no sense. If the actors were there on location, and the cameras were there on location, why would you not take pictures of them there? Why would you make fake pictures on a green screen? That makes no logical sense what so ever. Please explain why a person would hire a bunch of actors and pay off the fire department to make a hoax, send everyone to the firehouse and film it, then not use the footage and instead make a green screen of the location and fake people in front of it?
Also the photo you posted shows the front of the building and it looks just like that. Though it doesn't really matter if it is the main building or the shed. The issue was it's relation to the other objects which you can't really make out clearly, and if they are temporary or movable objects, they are not going to be in any photos taken during other times.
For that matter, why use green screens at all? For maximum production effect and convenience. They could concentrate on a few actors at a time, take after take, and then hit the production room and put everything together in the artful way of their choice.
That building we were trying to figure out earlier is not the front of the firehouse. You yourself said it is not the shed, so I am asking where it is. It is nowhere to be found on the firehouse premises except in that bizarre video.
This is the front of the firehouse:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CDcQ9QEwAQ
http://wfsb.images.worldnow.com/images/20482945_BG1.JPG
Where is this building?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGfYMBh5Fo
I meant the building in the back might be the front of the firehouse. I don't know what that wall on the side is, I am not even sure that it is a building. If it isn't, then that would explain why you can't find it.
It is not the front of the firehouse. I just posted the front of the firehouse. That's not it. One of the pictures shows the entire premises. That building is not there.
Here are lots of firehouse angles, along with mysterious pictures of the man in the blue jacket in front of the building in question:
http://www.metabunk.org/threads/debu...g-photos.1173/
That video helps. So that white wall is the main building, and that second building in the background, is that building the guy said it was in your original video. So he was right. I didn't think the white wall was the main building because it was smooth but from the other video you can see it isn't smooth it is just blurred in the image, probably due to glare of the sun on the white wall.
Any way if you look at that thread you posted there is an image showing the light of sight which touchings both the corner of the front building and shows the building behind it. So that angle is definitely possible.
If so, that building is outrageously closer in the video, not just sort of closer like the fence in the pictures you posted.
What are you talking about? In the first picture the house in the background takes up nearly the entire screen, and in the last picture the house takes up like 1/8th of the screen. The house looks closer in the photo I posted than in the video you posted in the first photo, and it looks further away than the shed actually is in the last photo. Also those are just examples, the distortion can even be worse than that depending on the lens.
I was talking about the fence in the pictures you posted that have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
The full length Sandy Hook - The Documentary 2013 video got taken down from YouTube, but the documentary is still up in two parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwIvy1GXRU
http://www.youtube.com/verify_contro...%3DkE5Gpwwrblc
Look at the house instead of the fence, the difference is even more dramatic so you can easily see how huge the difference can be due to the lens shape and size.
Oh, I see it. Do you have any info on what caused that?
Here is a picture of two lens, one using a wide view and one using a narrow view. The objects are both the same size in both images, but as you can see the second object in the first photo takes up a larger portion of the camera's field of view, thus would appear bigger.
The camera people weren't in the parking lot, but they wanted to see people's faces. So they used cameras with a very narrow field of view in order to zoom in closer to the people they were filming, as a side effect the background appears larger than you might be used to seeing.
Whether it was a hoax or not really doesn't make a difference, because the American government is going to use it as an excuse to scare people into obedience and justify restricting their personal right to bear arms.
This is a very new Sandy Hoax documentary, and it is EXCELLENT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1yfJDCMU64
Do you own a camera and take picture often? Otherwise how would you come across it? It is all very common, most people just don't pay attention to that sort of stuff. After all, unless someone specifically pointed out to you like they did in the video, would you have ever noticed on your own?
She makes a good case in that video. Its not so much about gun control, as it is maybe a psychological experiment enacted by CIA. People can roll their eyes at that one but, haven't entire towns been the subject of CIA experiments before?
Yes, and I have noticed it in other videos. That guy in the blue jacket looks superimposed. I would have noticed it if it were just another news clip. Other Sandy Hook news clips have the same bizarre effect.
It might be that. It has happened before. I still think it's most likely a gun control false flag because of the gun control bandwagon the alleged family members went on tour with, but that could possibly be intended to make people think a gun control false flag happened to test their reactions. What I know is that the official story is full of holes and that something really bizarre is going on. I am much more opinionated about that than I was when I started this thread in June.
:popcorn: Had a casual skim and it looks like the current bone of contention in this thread is a failure to understand that stuff looks bigger when you're closer to it. Great stuff.
And it looks smaller when you're farther away from it. There is also the superimposed look that people have in the video and the fact that a woman partly walked through another one. This is just a chip in a brick in the wall of the Twilight Zone, though. What do you think of the many other mysteries?
I have not given it any kind of dedicated reading, but Alric seems to have been patiently giving cogent responses to the various points throughout the thread.
The cognitive effects which lead people to honestly conclude conspiracies in things like this where there's lots of footage and stuff are well-documented. I think it's always good to be research them before engaging in such conversations, so that you're sufficiently self-critical not to stumble into any pitfalls.
That's all I have to say. I don't have any interest in discussing particular points. Even if the gun control conspiracy were true, it didn't come close to working... so the conspirators are pretty incompetent and powerless. That's my last contribution here.
You should research the issue. It's a pretty insane picture.
Well said.
I didn´t want to post initially - but - if you really think, it was a hoax - how come it has so many anchor points, where stuff wasn´t orchestrated - if it was staged - it was a damn rotten job.
I mean - the pathologist really didn´t seem like somebody the CIA (or whoever) would put on such a high-profile job.
Where it is all about convincing people and pretend something has been happening differently than it did.
"They" never would have ...
The poor guy resigned the next day, if I remember correctly - maybe he got traumatised.
That can lead to people laughing in a hysterical way - it wouldn´t be the first time, even a pathologist can snap in such a case.
Remember - he is the guy, who had to deal with all the dead children´s bodies.
So I got to say - this guy is the strongest hint, that it is not staged - just human shock and inconsistencies.
And on the other side reporters not wanting to miss "the newest bit of news".
Anyway - only conjecture - see Xei`s post.
The medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, retired from his position as chief medical examiner of Connecticut in May. He has continued as a part time medical examiner.
http://articles.courant.com/2013-05-...d-wood-chipper
Sandy Hook happened on December 14, 2012.
Sandy Hoax / Shady Hook / Sandy Crook / Fishy Hook was not a well orchestrated hoax. I don't think you will find any of us who disagree with that. It's the basis of our argument. I really don't think the CIA or the FBI was behind it. I think it was probably some knuckle heads in the Obama administration. I don't put Obama on much of a pedestal. He is just a community organizer who pulled off a Senate seat in Illinois, quickly went from there to a Senate seat in the U.S. Congress, and quickly went from there to being president. He was nowhere near qualified for job, he is obviously a con artist, and a sloppy hoax is exactly the kind of thing he would pull.
I have posted some really good documentaries on the issue. I highly encourage you to watch at least one of the documentaries that is longer than 20 minutes. Those are the ones that are full of information and footage. If you click one with the intention of just watching a minute of it, you probably won't want to stop watching it. This is fascinating stuff.
Okay for the sake of argument, lets pretend all those conspiracies are true. That means, the children are actors, none died. The parents are actors, the fire department, police department, medical examiner office and the hospital are in on the conspiracy. All the media people are in on it. What does that mean?
It means that you believe the city of New Town doesn't exist. They faked the entire city. Think about it. If the children and parents are not real, then the school can't possibly exist, no one goes to it. If the school doesn't exist and no one in the city doesn't even notice that, and all the government groups are in on it, then where are the normal people, where are the average citizens? There are none.
The entire city doesn't exist. It is a made up city. Is that what you believe? That Newtown isn't a real place? If you think the town exists then how do you explain people not realizing that the school doesn't exist and that no children actually go to it?
Thank you Alric - this is what I was too lazy to point out yesterday - but I could have written it myself word for word.
Well said!
Attachment 5916
Okay - thanks for the info on the medical examiner - I think, my point about his "weird" behaviour still stands - even if he did not retire as a direct consequence like I thought he did.
But he is referred to over and over as a strong argument for staging - I find him to be the exact opposite.
His behaviour still is a strong hint that he has not been put on as an actor - nobody would be that incompetent to set it up like this.
But this whole thing pales compared with Alric´s points.
Do you really think, there are no real children with no real parents involved with this school?
Why do you not see dozens of parents, and the real fire and emergency personnel and whatnot else real people going to the media and kicking up a fuss?
You can not on earth pay everybody off.
And who is now in that school?
Is it shut down?
Do you think, the whole city - or at least the whole school being all one big hoax?
Please answer this question!
Everything stands or falls with this!
Don´t you think?
And how on earth can you imagine something mega-huge like this not being pulled off by CIA or FBI?
Who would on the one hand have the power to do it at all and on the other hand be such "incompetent"?
Seriously? Pulling off such a huge thing - like faking a whole school, fire-department, emergency people, cars, equipment - hundreds of completely silent co-conspirators on the side of all the - hundreds of? - actors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
If they were able to pull such a silencing off - they would have pulled the whole thing off really, really competently.
Also - please answer with your theory in a concrete matter as well - which "knuckleheads"?
Obama is a very clever man.
Oh - and - like one week ago - I was bored, and read the thread and even watched two of the over 20 min. videos.
Look in my dream journal - I even ended up with two butchered children in a dream and I have been going Nazi-hunting afterwards. Even got lucid for a tiny bit to fly up to a tree and get a better view, where that camp was - well - off-topic-total..
Surely it was not a hidden Nazi-camp in the woods?
Sorry for the sarcasm.
But I can not help to feel - it is just a hunger for excitement and sensationalism to keep on suspecting conspiracies virtually behind every bigger bush.
I've been reluctant to post here, but at last I figured why not if the info is useful.
I grew up in Newtown and went to that very school as a kid. I left Connecticut years ago to be a hermit because of the bad politics (they love Obama, hate guns, and hate liberty). I have not been in touch with my family since then, as we don't see eye to eye (they are all die hard conformists, as as such do not like me very much; nor I them), but having recently found out about my sister's sons' friend(s) being involved in Sandy Hook we have had some dialogue. I have heard that one of the boys involved had seen the shooter; and that he had confessed to my sister's son (in private) that his friend had been killed. I asked if a description of the shooter was given, but she said that none thought to ask, though I suppose no one wanted to ask a traumatized kid such a question anyway. As it was it took some time for her children to stop having nightmares themselves.
I stay out of arguments that involve political opinions these days because I have learned through much pain that they are utterly pointless, as no one actually studies politics or history; so rather than getting into the discussion, that is all that I will say.
I think both of you just went off to Mars. I don't have a theory about what did happen. What I know is that the official story is full of holes. It would not take the entire town being in on something for it to work. If there really was a shooting, there could have been just a few people in on it. If there was not a shooting and the alleged parents are crisis actors, it could have been them, their children who were sent somewhere else or else phony children who were created through computer tricks, a few cops, the medical examiner, and an orchestrator. The rest of the town could have been fooled.
Unlike the other schools where shootings happened, Sandy Hook is being demolished.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1496521
I do not easily accept conspiracy theories. You can't pin that description on me.
http://www.dreamviews.com/extended-d...-9-11-a-4.html
I don't have to explain what really did happen at Sandy Hook to point out that the official story is a huge WTF. These are the major holes in the official story:
Bad acting from alleged family members, pre-dated web pages, lack of evidence that Adam Lanza was alive in the previous three years, bizarre gun control (as opposed to some other political stance against murder) bandwagon, the fact that many of the alleged parents are proven stage performers, use of green screens, firehouse circle walk, Gene Rosen's nonsense story, Emilie Parker photo with Obama, contradictory and absurd witness accounts, cops video at wrong school. No video or photo of Lanza at the school although the school had a high quality surveillance system, no ambulances at the school, ambulances blocked in at the firehouse, "Sandy Hook" on map in Dark Knight Rises, police chase in woods, scheduled school demolition, Wayne Carver saying he would examine the suspect's body last, parents not allowed to see bodies, cop threatening people who express public disagreement with his story, photoshopped Parker photos (kids with no legs), etc.
Oh, really? You're from Newtown, which has a population of 1,973? And you found my thread? I think I have seen about 1,973 people on the internet claiming to be from Newtown. They all know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who heard something. I'm sorry that the love for Obama and hatred for guns in Newtown turned you into a hermit although you went to a different state.
By the way, I do study politics to the point of obsession, and I wrote the first draft of a world history textbook. You made a judgment error.
Wow such anger. I was simply trying to help. Unfortunately I am still human in some ways.
For what it's worth, if anyone on this forum can see my IP, you will see that I am connecting from Newtown right now; I am visiting an old friend. I know it doesn't prove much, but whatever. One of these days I will have the sense to stay out of these things entirely. Forget I said anything. When one generalizes it is always seen as a condemnation of every single person on the planet.
Anger, no. Just skepticism and disagreement. I notice that you are playing professional victim. That too is common. I'm sure there are servers in Newtown that your account can use. There is clearly an organized effort to have people all over the internet saying they are from Newtown. It's every bit as pathetic as the hoax itself.
However, it's not impossible that you are from Newtown. I am just pointing out that your line of argument is all over the place and is typically bullshit. If the people of Newtown are really this determined to express passionate defense of the official story, go on television and do it. Let Ben Swann or RT interview you. The audience you are trying to reach on the internet will be watching.
I already debunked pretty much all those 'holes'. The holes you are seeing are entirely imaginary and in your head. Like you saying Sandy Hook is on map in Dark Knight Rises. Are you suggesting that the people who made the movie were in on it too? How could they possibly have any connection what so ever to it? And even if they did, why would they put that in a movie? That is absurd, it makes no sense.
The fact that you still believe those things, despite them being proven untrue shows how biased you have become on the issue.
Is that supposed to be an argument? Well gosh gee willikers, I think I'm stumped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qXxqdUUIS0
You didn't debunk any of them. You are in extreme denial.
I think there is a good chance that the person or people behind Sandy Hoax got their kicks by slipping Sandy Hook onto a map in Dark Knight Rises. All it would take is knowing or paying the director or producer. Do you not find it the least bit odd that the name is the main thing showing on a map in a movie that was shown in a theater where another alleged shooting happened, when that same movie showed a building with the name of the town where the theater shooting happened? I'm not 100% positive that there is a connection, but do you admit that it's at least a really weird coincidence?
That is the smallest hole, by the way. I think that's why you picked it. The list is way longer than that.
No.
I find your info useful.
Look at BLUELINE`s and my reaction.
Actually - I wasn´t yet answering, because I wasn´t sure, what exactly you are saying.
Once more:
So you directly contradict Universal Mind and say the majority vote conservative and there are comparably many weapons in private use?
Here something, which backs this - the democrats seem to be even happy with getting at least 40% back - administration is conservative:
Strange use of the term "confession" I find. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://newtownctdemocrats.org/
Well. Not so good maybe.
I would ask my child.
Especially after such a long time and especially with children, who are very suggestive in general - this is much too late now, probably.
Depends.
I just before had the impulse to quote my husband elsewhere - and he actually loves to listen to history lecture series - among other topics, as a side-note.
He said something like "trying to convince people on the internet is one definition of madness".
And he does have a point.
More to follow..
Steph, what is your retort to the holes I listed?
I found this video recently. It's pretty interesting. I am still curious about where Madeline's and Samantha's legs are in the picture where Emilie is wearing the dress she wore in the picture with Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBvJzsqD0zY