Hired Government Internet Disinformation Trolls

Your not really paying attention. It was already said that he probably didn't experience a massacre, he was just in the same building. The is a huge difference between seeing your friend get shot, and hearing a student some where in the building got shot. Your being dishonest(though maybe accidentally so) when you say stuff like that. There isn't a reason for him to be freaked out since he didn't see anything but there is reasons for him to be stressed and troubled. Hence the reason he should look like a student that heard something troubling happened, not like a student that survived a massacre. Which, he does indeed look like. His behavior does fit in the normal reaction of what a person would do in that situation.

Also you seem to be misunderstanding me. I never said there wasn't tear, I am saying tears are heard to see and not as easily visible as the other signs of crying. Most people can tell if a person is crying even if that person is looking the other way, and you can read it based on several signs that are far easier to notice than tears. Most people can probably easily tell if someone is crying 20 feet away, but at that range most probably couldn't see a single tear. They also don't show up very well on camera, especially recycled video on youtube and stuff which are lower quality video. However, all the other signs of crying that are easily visible do show up. I am not sure why you keep ignoring them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Your not really paying attention. It was already said that he probably didn't experience a massacre, he was just in the same building. The is a huge difference between seeing your friend get shot, and hearing a student some where in the building got shot. Your being dishonest(though maybe accidentally so) when you say stuff like that. There isn't a reason for him to be freaked out since he didn't see anything but there is reasons for him to be stressed and troubled. Hence the reason he should look like a student that heard something troubling happened, not like a student that survived a massacre. Which, he does indeed look like. His behavior does fit in the normal reaction of what a person would do in that situation.

Also you seem to be misunderstanding me. I never said there wasn't tear, I am saying tears are heard to see and not as easily visible as the other signs of crying. Most people can tell if a person is crying even if that person is looking the other way, and you can read it based on several signs that are far easy to notice than tears. Most people can probably easily tell if someone is crying 20 feet away, but at that range most probably couldn't see a single tear.

They also don't show up very well on camera, especially recycled video on youtube and stuff which are lower quality video. However, all the other signs of crying that are easily visible do show up. I am not sure why you keep ignoring them.

---

* you're

There is no way an AR-15 would not be heard all over the school, and there is no way he would not find out about people he knew being shot, and there is no way he would not wig the Hell out over knowing that somebody went to the school and shot up a bunch of people while the kid was there. He would not be a smiley smirker acting playful.

I'll tell you what. Your descriptions of people crying are going nowhere. Post something for us. Let us see specifically what you are referring to. Then we can go from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QVKu4_JxcE

---

For example, in this video you posted. Go to 6:46. She clearly makes weeping sounds, and you can see her eyes are watery but the video, like you claims there are no tears. Yeah, there is no tears because she wiped them away. I don't see how you can watch that entire part with her up to 7:45 and say that she wasn't crying or sad.

Then at 12:12 that woman is clearly crying. She is making sobbing and sniffing noises, and like the other girl you can see she is crying by her face expressions as well.

Also, you sure seem to be making a lot of assumption. There reason to assume that boy knew any of the people shot. Students don't all know each other in school. In fact most students probably don't know people outside of their grade, and a lot probably only know a few outside of their class.

Weeping sounds? That's all it takes to convince you that somebody is crying? Water in Carlee Soto's eyes? Eyes always have water in them, and she had just moved something across her face. Nothing really stands out there. It's funny that the moment you are referring to is when it says, "No tears," on the screen. Is that really the best you can do with the crying challenge? If I were a sociopathic salesman, I would dive into you like a bald eagle to a fish if I knew you in person. You can't be that gullible.

By the way, pause that video at 7:16. ;)

I'm glad you posted that video. It is the best on YouTube for showing the phoniness of the alleged family members. They are all really close up, and you cannot find one tear coming out of an eye. That's big time. Those are people who allegedly had immediate family members who were murdered in a bloody massacre less than 48 hours before. Keep that in mind. Now watch this. This is some sorority girl crying over some stupid shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sd-j0rKeKw

Did you see the tears on her face? What seems to be the major malfunction in the Sandy Hook Actors video? Were there not enough alleged family members interviewed in it?

The school had like 400 kids, supposedly. That's almost exactly how many went to my high school, and I knew most of the students and at least knew who all of them were, except when I was a senior, when there were some sophomores I wasn't too familiar with. Do you think I would have acted like that kid if I heard 1,600 rounds from an AR-15 go off and found out that 20 of my school mates and 6 of the school employees (you know the kid knew at least some of them if the official story is true, which it isn't.) had been murdered? How silly do you think I would be in front of the camera at that moment? How silly would you be? Be realistic.

So tell me, what is your claim? Is no one crying, or are they fake crying? If you think they are fake crying then you can no longer go around saying stuff like, "Why isn't anyone sad, and why isn't anyone crying?" See, that is how you work. You are using circular logic.

You say they are not behaving like normal people would because their not sad, then if the person says the person is crying so of course they are sad, you say it is fake crying and their actors. What is the proof of them being actors? That they are not acting like they should be, but they are acting like they should be, you just don't believe it because you think they are acting.

Also, I had that many people in my school and I didn't know anyone outside my class. I also had what people believed was a gun fired at school once(police even came and investigated but I was a kid so I didn't follow up on the news or anything so I don't know if it was true) and it didn't bother me at the time. While I was at a school on another occasion one of the children died on school grounds. They were out in PE and had a sudden respiratory or heart issue and dropped dead. It was sad but I didn't really know the person and it also didn't effect me.

You thinking that these things would automatically devastate all children is what is absurd. There is no reason to believe a child that heard loud sounds would be as scared as you think, nor any reason to believe he knew any of the people that died. You are just bulling that out of your ass because it fits your theory. You like to make a lot of assumptions, but you lack on anything that would be considered real evidence.

Like I said at the start, all your evidence is video glitches and your personal opinion on how you think people act strangely and what have we been talking about this entire time? Your personal opinion how how you think people act strangely.

I want you to think of something for a moment. You claimed all the parents don't care about their children. I asked why the parents would send their children away and your answer was basically they don't give a shit about their children. For the sake of argument, lets just pretend that is true and the reason the people act strangely is because don't care about their children.

If that was true, isn't it equally likely that the parents would be acting just so they don't appear heartless on tv? Couldn't they just be acting sad so people don't think they are horrible parents and they just don't give a shit about their children? Isn't that a more logical position? They would be 'bad actors' because they just regular people pretending to care and not professionals.

I don't believe that for a second. However, even if you are right none of that is proof of what you are claiming. These are all assumptions you are pulling out of your ass. There is no evidence to support any of it. Even if what you said was true, it would only suggest they don't care about their children, not that the government committed a conspiracy.

Lets take it a step further. You think the people at the firehouse thought they were still part of a drill right? Isn't it possible they thought they were still part of a drill even if the shooting did occur? That is entirely possible, confusion can and does happen. What if that laughing child is mentally challenged and doesn't understand the situation at all. You assumed a child that age knew everyone and fully understands what is going on. I disagree but lets assume that is true, having a mental disability would still easily explain it.

All this stuff is just your personal opinion on how people should act, and isn't evidence. However, even if we accept your personal opinion on all of it, we still have no evidence that there was a conspiracy. If we accept everything you say, there still is no evidence supporting your conclusion. And at the end of the day, no one is going to take you seriously when there is no evidence at all supporting your claim. In fact, you don't even really have a claim and admitted you had no idea what happened.

They are fake crying. Fake crying isn't crying.

You wouldn't have been freaked out by a massacre at your school when you heard 1,600 rounds from an AR-15? Were there 400 kids at your high school? If 20 of your school mates had been killed in the massacre, would you be acting silly about being bashful in front of a camera right afterwards? Wouldn't you have have known or known of at least some of the people who had been MURDERED at your school when you were there and you heard the gun going absolutely insane? Wouldn't you have known at least one of the six school employees? What about the principal? No alarm there either?

I said those parents would send their children away for money, considering how much they lack morals enough to be part of something so sick and evil.

Did you watch the sorority girl crying TEARS over stupid shit? Now answer my question. What is different about the Sandy Hoax people whose family members were allegedly MURDERED within 48 hours before then? Why the extreme difference?

The firehouse is allegedly where family members, medical staff, and victims went. How absurd is that story? No, there would not have been a drill and a real shooting social panic going on at the same firehouse at the same time.

Stop saying there is no evidence. It is a dishonest statement. I have presented a great deal of it, mainly through documentaries I have posted. Here's another one. It's one of the top Sandy Hoax documentaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1yfJDCMU64

Do you want to pretend there is just a blank screen and no sound on that too?

Did you pause the Sandy Hook Actors Part 2 video at 7:16?

All he heard was banging and he didn't even think it sounded like gun fire. He clearly says so in that video. Also 1600 rounds is just silly, you have an extra 0 in there. It was 150 shots, and you wouldn't hear them as all separate shots when fired off quickly. Also no, there is no reason to think he would know everyone in the school. He might have seen them, but that doesn't mean he knows their name or anything. Most children in elementary school are not going to know people outside their class, with the exception of people who happen to live in their neighborhood.

I also noticed how you are comparing it to high school, which is totally different. For one, in high school you start to have separate classes while in elementary school you stay in a single room with a single class. So you don't see as many people. Also elementary children are a lot younger and so wouldn't act like teenagers. Also since we are talking about very young children, there is a higher chance that they don't really understand what happened. You failed to take any of those things into account, which is why you are way off the mark.

Also, you just answered your own question didn't you? A sorority girl crying over stupid shit isn't anything like family members being murdered. They are totally different things. Why would you ever compare the two? If you were being honest you wouldn't.

Finally, those videos are not evidence of anything. They are not done by credible sources, and are full of lies, half truths, rumors and speculation. I have yet to see any real evidence given by any of them. Plus the stuff they say is evidence is all easily debunked or explained. I don't watch those full videos any more since they all show the same stuff, the same stuff that was proven untrue time and time again.

When I watch a video and the first five minutes of it is them saying out right lies or stuff that is just moronic I just skip it because I know the person is not at all a credible source.

That's right. He didn't even say it sounded like gun fire. Another bizarre situation. Kids have said it sounded like stuff falling and dishes breaking. Why does anybody buy into that nonsense?

Kids in elementary school play on the same playground, have mutual friends, go to birthday parties all the time, etc. The idea that the kid would not be freaked out over hearing that much gun fire and knowing that many people at his school were killed is absurd enough by itself, but the principal and five other employees were supposedly killed. Come on.

The sorority girl was showing real emotion and real tears!

Ha ha, why don't you make a video and debunk Sofia Smallstorm? I'm sure you would have it down and make a landmark case against hers. Go for it. You also have The Paulstal Service, Teamwakemup, RandomShots174, and Mark Howitt to take on. Let's see what you can do. You could just talk for 5 seconds and say they just make stuff up and babble and don't really say anything important. I'm sure that would smash 100% of their specific arguments and footage.




DID YOU PAUSE THE SANDY HOOK ACTORS PART 2 AT 7:16?

You even read what you type? They said it sounded like stuff falling, so why would they think it was gun fire? If you hear a loud noise and you think something fell it would startle you but you wouldn't believe your life was in any danger. Children do not have 400 friends, they don't even have a 100 friends. I don't know where you get this absurd idea that you think children have 100s of friends. I guess they go to birthday parties like two or three times a week right? Because they got so many friends? Umm no, they don't. You are living in a fantasy world.

I watched the video and she is one of those people making retarded comments like, "Look these people don't have legs in the picture." I mean, how do you debate someone who doesn't realize you can't see someones legs because their skirt is covering it? She is either an idiot or a lair, and all her evidence is similar to that. All this stuff has already been debunked. If you actually researched the issue like you said, then clearly you visited all the debunking sites too right? To get both sides? Or did you forget that part?

They wouldn't have thought it sounded like stuff falling. 1,600 rounds. All right? 1,600 rounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/ny...anted=all&_r=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdCUU8RyyEs

Stuff falling? Dishes breaking? Seriously? And Francine Wheeler wasn't acting in that video although she was the leader of the Dream Jam Band, which performs for children and makes videos? And people are crying tears in the Sandy Hook Actors Part 2 documentary but you just can't see the tears? And Madeline Parker wore Emilie's dress, had her hair texture, had her hair part, and had her body build in the picture with Obama right after the "massacre" and acted spunky and had just a good ole time? And you know where Madeline and Samantha's legs are in this picture?

Attachment 6669

http://www.dreamjamband.com/about.html

http://www.dreamjamband.com/

The video I keep asking about is The Sandy Hook Actors Part 2 at 7:16. Why are you acting like I am not even mentioning that? You haven't even acknowledged it yet. What is the story on that?

I have gone to lots of debunking sites and debunking videos, and I have had discussions with lots of debunkers. I know the debunker arguments. They don't cut it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahON9ckvBpc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwH6LYa2XKU

Like I already pointed out there wasn't 1600 rounds shot. That is a lie. If you say it again after I corrected you twice, you are just lying. He shot 154 rounds, you off off by a factor of ten.

Also the gun was shot inside. A gun shot inside, several rooms away sounds different than a gun shot outside in an open field. That is common sense if you know anything about how sound travels.

Also we went over the fact that those two girls are not the same. I have proven that over and over again by showing side by side images and it is clear that they are different people. You are in total denial. As for the picture, the girls legs are exactly where they are supposed to be. Those sort of claims make you look mentally retarded. By the way, you said you thought the children were real and they were shipped off? If they were shipped off and were real then why would they need to use fake images? Just another hole in your absurd theory. The child were real but they weren't real but were shipped off. What is it? Are they fake child or were they shipped off? If they were fake then how come people saw them? Who is buried in the cemetery?

Lastly I am ignoring your question because your being obnoxious by asking random, irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with anything. Yes I looked at the video, there was nothing even remotely interesting worth looking at if you pause it there.

I refuse to watch the videos for exactly this purpose. If there is such ambiguity and potential for disagreement the evidence is not sound.

Essentially these differences are down to human interpretation. You can't discuss this stuff, get some actual evidence together.

Let's take the following examples from both alric and universal mind (not trying to choose sides here)

Quote:

---

I know what people look like when they are grieving, and I know the many forms grief can take. Those many people who have been interviewed are phony as $7 bills.

---

This is a opinion, and as far as credibility goes, it's completely lacking. One can easily assert anything following this schematic.
Show us a credible analysis (human or machine) of their faces and I will get involved.

Quote:

---

I didn't reply to the LIBOR scandal thing because as far as I knew it was just something pulled out of your ass. I went and looked it up, and it doesn't seem to no surprise I was correct. Peter Lanza and Robert Holmes were NOT set to testify on the LIBOR scandal. That is totally made up. It is a lie. It is a baseless internet rumor that is entirely not true.

---

Evidence! this means nothing to me without a link where I can verify that information. That burden shouldn't necessarily be on you, but it's still proper practice to include citation.

That video you linked proves absolutely nothing! I won't discuss another one of these videos, but just while I'm on the topic. The video asserts he said "I guess, I don't know if it was gunshots", but he never finishes the word gun and if you have ever been in accident you would know that the stuff you say is often twisted as you try to come with terms of the situation. When people are frightened they try to logically assess the situation as they talk, thinking of reasons or answers. I do this all the times, when I fall over and someone asks what happened I blurt out something trying to explain what happened, then later I figure that it would not have been possible at all.
Even worse is the kid, kids say dumb shit all the time. The video footage of the gunshots is not a fair representation of what it would have sounded like. The microphone on a mobile is not capable of recording that type of noise, there's no way to judge how load it really sounded. If you have ever dropped a pan you know what kind of a shock you can get from it. It's reasonable for a kid to link up two events like that.

Anyways, the video is weird but not concrete in any sort of way.

By not providing reasonable evidence you are the one shooting yourself in the foot. Cheesy youtube videos will only contribute to the consensus that conspiracy theorists are absolute nut jobs.

Dutchraptor, why not look at the evidence and decide for yourself? You are doing what the shills want you to do, and that is why they do what they do. It's the whole point of their mission. Could you explain how 154 shots from an AR-15 inside a school building sounds like "dishes falling?" Would you also tell me where Madeline and Samantha's legs are in the Parker family photo I posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Like I already pointed out there wasn't 1600 rounds shot. That is a lie. If you say it again after I corrected you twice, you are just lying. He shot 154 rounds, you off off by a factor of ten.

Also the gun was shot inside. A gun shot inside, several rooms away sounds different than a gun shot outside in an open field. That is common sense if you know anything about how sound travels.

Also we went over the fact that those two girls are not the same. I have proven that over and over again by showing side by side images and it is clear that they are different people. You are in total denial. As for the picture, the girls legs are exactly where they are supposed to be. Those sort of claims make you look mentally retarded. By the way, you said you thought the children were real and they were shipped off? If they were shipped off and were real then why would they need to use fake images? Just another hole in your absurd theory. The child were real but they weren't real but were shipped off. What is it? Are they fake child or were they shipped off? If they were fake then how come people saw them? Who is buried in the cemetery?

Lastly I am ignoring your question because your being obnoxious by asking random, irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with anything. Yes I looked at the video, there was nothing even remotely interesting worth looking at if you pause it there.

---

Okay, I got a better look at the rounds issue. He allegedly went into the school with 1,600 rounds but only shot 154. Still, think about the sound made by the AR-15 in the video I posted. Imagine 154 of those in 5 minutes... INDOORS. A gun is even louder inside a building because of the echo factor. It does not sound like dishes breaking or stuff falling. You know that.

So you think Madeline Parker did wear Emilie's outfit and make her hair just like hers while she acting spunky and fun with Obama right after the "massacre." I have a vision of Rod Serling explaining how that really happened. The legs in the family photo are not identifiable. You cannot see them or impressions they are making anywhere. Lots of images were Photoshopped for the hoax because they wanted to have pictures they thought would really help. Film makers do the same thing. I don't think "Madeline" is really a Parker. I don't think "Victoria Soto" was really a Soto. They were characters created for the fiction story. Even their images might be fabricated from pictures of real people. I think a lot of family fiction was created for the hoax.

Try to cool it with the nursery school aspect of your posts. This doesn't have to be personal. Try to act like an adult.

You're ignoring the 7:16 in The Sandy Hook Actors Part 2 issue because you know the image speaks volumes. It is from a CBS interview about her allegedly just murdered sister within 48 hours of the alleged murder.

Click to enlarge:

Attachment 6672

Here is a link to an article talking about the scandal.

Newtown Conspiracy Hoax Spreads Fast Across Fringe

I know what you are trying to do with the image, you are trying to take it out of context, which is why you want to look at it as a still frame instead of watch the video. You watch the video and you know exactly what is going on. Why would you try to remove it from context? Because you are a dishonest person it seems.

As for where their legs are, these are the type of arguments that make conspiracy theorist look crazy. The dresses have the skirt like bottom that fans out so you don't have a good view of her legs, and that is all there is to the story. By the way, they are right where they should be, off to the side since they are straddle each leg.

This pretty much shows your quality of evidence though. You don't think a person can mistake a gun shot in doors with a pan falling, and you can't see a persons leg in a picture. Must be a government conspiracy to try and control everyone?

Does what I'm saying even register?

I don't want to have to decide for myself. I need solid evidence that when presented undoubtedly proves that sandy hook was a hoax.

Really it doesn't interest me in the slightest otherwise because I'm willing to assume it's not a hoax. I will not spend my time sifting through this.

The burden of proof lies on those who believe it's a conspiracy theory. I can tell you right now that I believe it wasn't a hoax, purely because nothing of substantial value has been presented yet.

This is an absolute joke! seriously how hard is it to understand the the need for solid evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I know what you are trying to do with the image, you are trying to take it out of context, which is why you want to look at it as a still frame instead of watch the video. You watch the video and you know exactly what is going on. Why would you try to remove it from context? Because you are a dishonest person it seems.

As for where their legs are, these are the type of arguments that make conspiracy theorist look crazy. The dresses have the skirt like bottom that fans out so you don't have a good view of her legs, and that is all there is to the story. By the way, they are right where they should be, off to the side since they are straddle each leg.

This pretty much shows your quality of evidence though. You don't think a person can mistake a gun shot in doors with a pan falling, and you can't see a persons leg in a picture. Must be a government conspiracy to try and control everyone?

---

Context? Ha ha, all I have said is to look at it and explain it because it speaks volumes, desperate attorney. I also posted the video it's in so people watching it can have 100% context. You're struggling.

You can see Robbie Parker's pants in the picture, but you cannot see Madeline or Samantha's legs anywhere. They are not off to the side or anywhere else.

Did you listen to the AR-15 in the video? If that were shot inside a building 154 times in 5 minutes, would it sound like a pan falling? It's a laughable concept.

You know I have argued a whole lot more than this. Stop suggesting otherwise. It's not honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Does what I'm saying even register?

I don't want to have to decide for myself. I need solid evidence that when presented undoubtedly proves that sandy hook was a hoax.

Really it doesn't interest me in the slightest otherwise because I'm willing to assume it's not a hoax. I will not spend my time sifting through this.

The burden of proof lies on those who believe it's a conspiracy theory. I can tell you right now that I believe it wasn't a hoax, purely because nothing of substantial value has been presented yet.

This is an absolute joke! seriously how hard is it to understand the the need for solid evidence.

---

This is absurd. How are you going to have solid evidence if you refuse to look at evidence? Are you trolling? If your mind is that closed, it's bizarre that you are even commenting in this thread. Don't argue about what you (admittedly) refuse to understand. (Seriously?)

What an illogical and bizarre response. I just did a reality check after reading your post. Much to my surprise, I'm not dreaming.

...youtube is not evidence

But you're right it is bizarre I'm here.

Good job coming across as completely deranged, I tried to help but the paranoia has gotten to your head.

Video footage is not evidence? Also, you can research the facts stated in them. They can tell you what to check out with other sources. That is what I do with the mainstream media.

You are actually arguing that you should not look into an issue that you are arguing about. Yet you dish out personal insults over the issue. The illogical clusterfuck nature of that concept is so WTF outlandish that it's almost as if Eugene Ionesco came up with it for a theater of the absurd play. I really hope you don't vote.

There is nothing to explain in that video, she is crying. Just like I said she was, and which you can clearly see in the video. It was also pointed out that the gun shots inside wouldn't sound the same as outside, you even admitted that yourself.

dutchraptor was pretty neutral but you made him think you were crazy too. I told you in my second post that none of this stuff is evidence. It is all just random irrelevant stuff that clouds the issue and doesn't show anything. For the sake of argument, lets pretend you are right and the family photo is photo shopped. It isn't but lets pretend it is. All that would show is that the person who took the photo touched it up to make it look better for the family portrait. There would be nothing shady about it what so ever, since professional photographers routinely do things like that. Such evidence would seem to suggest they went to a high class photographer instead of a cheap one. It wouldn't be evidence at all that the girls don't exist.

Also your claim doesn't even make sense. Since you think the two 'missing' their legs are real children and the third girl is fake. If the third girl is faked why would the two real girls be added in? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't you add the fake child into the photo? Why would the fake child and the parents be in a photo and then you add in the real children afterwards? That is absurd.

None of the videos are even remotely close to evidence and most amount to nothing more than, "This looks weird and I don't understand it, they must be lying." Or, "There is a glitch in this video so it must mean this(insert random assumption)."

She is smiling big at 7:16 and trying to hide it. Duh.

The echo effect makes a gun even louder in doors, and that AR-15 video I posted shows how outrageously loud they are even when they are shot outside.

Dutchraptor is being about as honest as you are.

Several of the Sandy Hook photos that are famous are Photshop jobs that go beyond the regular jobs. They involve superimposed people. That's not typical family portrait stuff. They screwed with the Parker picture so much that two of the kids don't have legs.

Do you encourage people to research this stuff so they can understand it for themselves and not just trust you?

You claim they are photo shopped but then it isn't even the correct people photo shopped. Why would the superimpose the real children of the parents into a picture with the parents? That doesn't even make sense. Your story falls apart the moment you even think about it just a tiny bit. Please explain why they would have to superimpose their own children into the photo. It makes no sense. If the fake girl was added in that would make sense because you said she is fake, but why would the real girls need to be added? Try to think about that for a moment.

And no, the girl wasn't trying to hide she was smiling. She smiled several times during the video and it was open and it was because she was thinking about her sister which she had happy memories of. Which is exactly what you would expect. She was also crying, and it was also painful. Which is why she was crying. Like I said you have a one dimensional understanding of humans emotions. It is entirely possible and normal to go from happy to sad and back again when talking about loved families memories who have died. That is normal.

It's about making things look all good and lovely so that suckers will go, "Awe, golly. They were such a wonderful family. I guess we need to ban guns because guns make bad decisions." Also, I am not convinced that Madeline is really a family member. I don't even know that she really exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbx-mv0P5Ww

Ah, so Carlee acts like she is upset but starts smiling suddenly and just happens to cover her face. Yeah. There might be a few people who will read this and think that adds up. It's also a very devilish smile. So much crying, so zero tears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3aYQEJXJfo