Hired Government Internet Disinformation Trolls

I have done a lot of arguing about Sandy Hoax and gun control on YouTube, and I started noticing that a lot of the same characters were popping up under videos about those topics. They are silly characters who are obviously there to insult people for expressing certain opinions. A lot of them ended up posting comments on my YouTube discussion page, and some people commented to me that those are hired government shills who spread disinformation by character smearing people who spread information that goes against shady government agendas. The screen names that seem to be very commonly used and are fairly well known among conspiracy theorists and gun rights advocates include 911sausageman, Twoofers Lie, Stu3100, ctcole77, and LudicFallacies. They are all over the YouTube videos about Sandy Hoax, 911 inside job, and gun rights. Most of them have revealed that they are very pro-Israel. I was on YouTube a little while ago to see if there are any videos about these characters, and I found this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhlsegIE9a4

The comment at the top said that ctcole77 is one of them. People have told me that the account has been at it for about 10 years. I think these people really are professional propaganda trolls, and now there is evidence that the job does exist. However, the news story goes very lightly on them. The trolls are not there to correct false information. They are just there to push an agenda.

Perhaps, they're watching this.

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me much. I don't think we'll be a big brother government any time soon, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

Perhaps, they're watching this.

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me much. I don't think we'll be a big brother government any time soon, though.

---

I don't either, but there is a very strong push in that direction. What's scary is that most of the country doesn't seem to care. I think they eventually will.

I'm sure people in the spy on citizens wing of the government have read just about every public internet comment there has ever been. I wonder if I have changed any of their minds about what they are doing. I can only hope.

By the way, your screen name is hilarious.


Edit: DTD110865, John Mather, and DreadNaught2 are also major ones. I encourage people to find their comments on YouTube and argue with them. It can be hilarious. It's fun to call them out repeatedly for using the ad hominem fallacy.

I have had people accuse me of that before. Usually it is a sign that they are losing a debate and so people grasp at any straw possible to try to discredit the people against them. I am not going to say there couldn't possibly one but most likely a person isn't one just because they disagree with you. I would say all those people are just regular users and have nothing to do with the government, and you are probably just being more paranoid.

You are following the natural progression for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. First you notice some things that don't seem right to you personally(but are usually normal when taken with the proper context or with all the facts), then you think some conspiracy is true, then you think a bunch of conspiracies are true, then you think the government is doing shady stuff all the time and the new world order is trying to combine all the nations into one single super country so the powers that be can rule over us all.

Also, it is funny you mentioned ad hominem fallacy, since that is what this is. This idea that they are paid shills is an ad hominem attack to try to discredit them. In fact, the idea that a person is working for the government is entirely irrelevant to whether they have a valid point or not. If I point out something that is a fact, then it is a fact and if I was paid to say it or not doesn't change it from being a fact. You only care about that, because you need a reason to ignore them. You want a reason to be able to hear a fact they say, and reject it without any good reasoning. Such things allow the poor logic that is included in most conspiracy theories to continue on unexamined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

You are following the natural progression for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. First you notice some things that don't seem right to you personally(but are usually normal when taken with the proper context or with all the facts), then you think some conspiracy is true, then you think a bunch of conspiracies are true, then you think the government is doing shady stuff all the time and the new world order is trying to combine all the nations into one single super country so the powers that be can rule over us all.

---

A tad condescending and trite, no?

@ bolded: That's generally how one's understanding of the world expands. You take in one new idea, cross-reference it with what you previously believed or understood to be true, and then arrive at new conclusions... which inevitably causes you to further question the rest of your belief system. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. The process isn't exclusive to "conspiracy theorists."

Once an individual realizes that their government has gone to great lengths to police the political discourse of the nation in the past, the logical thing to do then is to question everything you previously thought to be true in regards to that system of governance.
-------
I don't know if it these are government spies on Youtube, I personally don't care, but certain government agencies have gone the "extra mile" in the past (eg. the FBI's black-bag jobs, "poison pen" letters, student surveillance, and even coloring books [look up COINTELPRO's Black Panther Party coloring book, an attempt to slander and discredit the Black Panther Party]).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I have had people accuse me of that before. Usually it is a sign that they are losing a debate and so people grasp at any straw possible to try to discredit the people against them. I am not going to say there couldn't possibly one but most likely a person isn't one just because they disagree with you. I would say all those people are just regular users and have nothing to do with the government, and you are probably just being more paranoid.

You are following the natural progression for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. First you notice some things that don't seem right to you personally(but are usually normal when taken with the proper context or with all the facts), then you think some conspiracy is true, then you think a bunch of conspiracies are true, then you think the government is doing shady stuff all the time and the new world order is trying to combine all the nations into one single super country so the powers that be can rule over us all.

Also, it is funny you mentioned ad hominem fallacy, since that is what this is. This idea that they are paid shills is an ad hominem attack to try to discredit them. In fact, the idea that a person is working for the government is entirely irrelevant to whether they have a valid point or not. If I point out something that is a fact, then it is a fact and if I was paid to say it or not doesn't change it from being a fact. You only care about that, because you need a reason to ignore them. You want a reason to be able to hear a fact they say, and reject it without any good reasoning. Such things allow the poor logic that is included in most conspiracy theories to continue on unexamined.

---

You are way, way off. An ad hominem attack involves merely insulting people without countering their arguments on the issues. When did I ever do that? You and I argued about Sandy Hook a ton, and I never did that. I debate the issues. My post is not some substitute for logical debate, and I never said that anybody who disagrees with me on conspiracy claims is a government shill. I showed you a news report which claims that there are government shills on the internet. Those people's comments are about 95% ad hominem. Some shills are 100% ad hominem. The dedication some people have to absurd babble in defense of the indefensible, coupled with their inability to retort, brings their sincerity into question, especially when they are all over YouTube with it. Some of them have been at it for more than a decade. It doesn't mean that I don't debate the issues with them. They are the ones who fall short on that. Did I ever accuse you or anybody else on this site of being a government shill? No, I didn't. That should tell you that I have noticed other factors with the people I am calling shills. Do you know anything about the individuals I am referring to? Why do you behave as though you do?

Yes, Sandy Hoax really called into question for me what else the government has been up to. It inspired me to do a lot of research, and that research taught me about Project MK Ultra, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, Project Bluebird, and the Tuskegee Experiment. What do you know about those programs? What is your opinion of them? If you know about their details, how much do you trust the government? Talk to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

http://www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment

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

I am not saying you are using ad hominem attacks, but the that the idea that people are going around calling others paid shills is an ad hominem. The people who were suggesting those ideas to you are using ad hominem. Their goal is to basically say, "Some of the people arguing against me are paid shills, so you can't really trust anyone who shares similar positions as them." And they think that, even if those other people give valid, well thought out reasons for what they believe.

I don't really need to see anything from those specific posters, because we all know there are people like that all over the internet. People just randomly show up and make stupid comments on places like youtube and stuff. That is just how things are and there is a million people like that. If you were a paid professional, and your position is correct and there is data to back up your position, there is no reason for ad hominem attacks. You are better off just posting the data that proves your point. So if they are just going around saying random stuff, they are probably not being paid for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I am not saying you are using ad hominem attacks, but the that the idea that people are going around calling others paid shills is an ad hominem. The people who were suggesting those ideas to you are using ad hominem. Their goal is to basically say, "Some of the people arguing against me are paid shills, so you can't really trust anyone who shares similar positions as them." And they think that, even if those other people give valid, well thought out reasons for what they believe.

I don't really need to see anything from those specific posters, because we all know there are people like that all over the internet. People just randomly show up and make stupid comments on places like youtube and stuff. That is just how things are and there is a million people like that. If you were a paid professional, and your position is correct and there is data to back up your position, there is no reason for ad hominem attacks. You are better off just posting the data that proves your point. So if they are just going around saying random stuff, they are probably not being paid for it.

---

It's only ad hominem if they are not also refuting the relevant claims. Most of the shills say stuff to the effect of, "You are a sicko. How dare you question tragedy! You are mentally ill. Do you realize that? Please get help!" When people are doing that all over YouTube every day under videos about government shadiness, it calls into major question what their real motives are. It's interesting that there was a news report claiming that such government shill activity has been confirmed.

What is your opinion on the actual government conspiracies I posted links about? Am I just following some conspiracy nut path for believing they happened? The documents on them are declassified now. You can see them on the internet and in Jesse Ventura's latest book, as well as other places.

63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read: Jesse Ventura, Dick Russell: 9781616085711: Amazon.com: Books

Their motives are clear. I want you to consider for a moment that those people are right. If they are correct and you are wrong, then you would be tormenting and making fun of people who lost loves one in a tragic incident. You would be slandering innocent people, and your actions would be consider cruel by most people. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that some are upset by your actions, and thus call you out on them.

Jesse Ventura is a lying scumbag. I wouldn't trust a thing he said, and he has been caught lying in the past. For example, his tv show where he went to an outdoor warehouse for coffin liners manufacturer. He lied and said it was a government place that was storing coffins for when the government tries to kill everyone. He said that, knowing that the company has nothing to do with the government, and that they weren't coffins, and that it was an entirely normal amount of liners that are sold by the company each year.

Any way, the government does shady stuff all the time, however you have to be able to determine truth from fiction. 9/11 and Sandy hook wasn't done by the government and all the facts back that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Their motives are clear. I want you to consider for a moment that those people are right. If they are correct and you are wrong, then you would be tormenting and making fun of people who lost loves one in a tragic incident. You would be slandering innocent people, and your actions would be consider cruel by most people. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that some are upset by your actions, and thus call you out on them.

Jesse Ventura is a lying scumbag. I wouldn't trust a thing he said, and he has been caught lying in the past. For example, his tv show where he went to an outdoor warehouse for coffin liners manufacturer. He lied and said it was a government place that was storing coffins for when the government tries to kill everyone. He said that, knowing that the company has nothing to do with the government, and that they weren't coffins, and that it was an entirely normal amount of liners that are sold by the company each year.

Any way, the government does shady stuff all the time, however you have to be able to determine truth from fiction. 9/11 and Sandy hook wasn't done by the government and all the facts back that up.

---

I would believe in trumpet playing unicorns on the moon before I would believe that.

Think about how you have debated me on Sandy Hook. Also think about the bazillion arguments I have made that have nothing to do with supposed family member reactions. People who join discussions on those and have practically no debate points to make and just insult people and are all over Sandy Hook and gun control video threads doing that are driven by something other than the will to debate or to stand up to what they believe is injustice. They are propagandists who use almost pure emotion to push their causes. They put a great deal of time into it.

Never mind Jesse Ventura. Look at the documents he put in his book. You can look at them on the internet, and you can do all of the research you feel like you need to do to learn that the documents really are declassified government documents concerning actual government deception conspiracies.

I don't know about 9/11. It's fishy, but it's fuzzy. Sandy Hook, on the other hand, was obviously a hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4d2g9XIFnE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Their motives are clear. I want you to consider for a moment that those people are right. If they are correct and you are wrong, then you would be tormenting and making fun of people who lost loves one in a tragic incident. You would be slandering innocent people, and your actions would be consider cruel by most people. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that some are upset by your actions, and thus call you out on them.

Jesse Ventura is a lying scumbag. I wouldn't trust a thing he said, and he has been caught lying in the past. For example, his tv show where he went to an outdoor warehouse for coffin liners manufacturer. He lied and said it was a government place that was storing coffins for when the government tries to kill everyone. He said that, knowing that the company has nothing to do with the government, and that they weren't coffins, and that it was an entirely normal amount of liners that are sold by the company each year.

Any way, the government does shady stuff all the time, however you have to be able to determine truth from fiction. 9/11 and Sandy hook wasn't done by the government and all the facts back that up.

---

I saw that episode, he didn't really say anything to the affirmative, it was Alex Jones making all the claims you're putting on Ventura because Jones was given the space to make those statements on Ventura's show. This is stretching into apologism but Ventura had the interest of presenting ideas he believed were being swept under the rug by the mainstream media, and so he made a compromise with a mainstream network to make his show thinking he could still give these ideas publicity even if it required he occasionally hand off the soap box to David Icke and Alex Jones. David Icke he discredits, Alex Jones he doesn't question, rather he validated Jones claims via lack of fact checking. It's not the same as lying but it's misinformative. It happens in documentary style shows a lot, some conjecture is taken without the preface of "this is my belief." Ventura certainly holds some responsibility for utilizing this tactic, but it's a stretch to call him a lying scumbag because of it. He seems authentic enough to me. Granted, your glibness reveals the black hole this confrontation leads to, claiming all the facts back up that 9/11 wasn't done by the government. The 9/11 commission rejected their own report after they discovered they were lied to so the official story is discounted even by the people that wrote it.

He is a lying scumbag. If you have a guy come on and say they have coffins for the government and then you say, "Hmm why would anyone need so many coffins unless there is going to be mass murders?" And then the guy you have on says, "Yeah, they want to kill everyone." And then you say, "Look they even have it near an airport and a rail line so it would be perfect for secretly shipping people in." You could say, yeah he never 'technically' lied, but that is just semantics. Most people would agree that those sort of lies, half truths and misdirection are still lies.

Any way, I did debate a lot on that Sandy Hook stuff, and honestly, most of the reasons you give are pretty stupid. Most of the 'evidence' was minor video glitches and personal opinions on how you think people are acting strange, while most disagree with you and find their behavior normal for the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Any way, I did debate a lot on that Sandy Hook stuff, and honestly, most of the reasons you give are pretty stupid. Most of the 'evidence' was minor video glitches and personal opinions on how you think people are acting strange, while most disagree with you and find their behavior normal for the circumstances.

---

That is a dishonest assessment. The issues you wanted to discuss the longest were the green screen videos, but that doesn't mean they are the primary evidence. I challenged you to find one tear in an interview, and you never did. I posted a lot of long documentaries that go light years beyond anything you just mentioned, and I discussed a great deal of it.

My challenge to you to find a tear in an interview still stands. I also challenge you to find just one comment from a supposed family member of anger toward the supposed shooter. I also challenge you to find a picture of Adam Lanza at the school, and I challenge you to find a picture of an ambulance in front of the school. I don't mean the pictures of ambulances blocked in at the firehouse. Find me something that serves as good evidence that there was a shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

He is a lying scumbag. If you have a guy come on and say they have coffins for the government and then you say, "Hmm why would anyone need so many coffins unless there is going to be mass murders?" And then the guy you have on says, "Yeah, they want to kill everyone." And then you say, "Look they even have it near an airport and a rail line so it would be perfect for secretly shipping people in." You could say, yeah he never 'technically' lied, but that is just semantics. Most people would agree that those sort of lies, half truths and misdirection are still lies.

Any way, I did debate a lot on that Sandy Hook stuff, and honestly, most of the reasons you give are pretty stupid. Most of the 'evidence' was minor video glitches and personal opinions on how you think people are acting strange, while most disagree with you and find their behavior normal for the circumstances.

---

Like I said it stretches into apologism but you should already know that a television show on a mainstream network about secrets being hosted by a guy who's already said mainstream networks will never let the truth out is going to be wrought with bullshit. Shows like Conspiracy Theory and Decoded regularly discredit themselves and follow outlandish Red Herrings to make good, excitable television and have little to do with informing the public. Alex Jones, likewise, cares little for informing the public and more about his own ratings. I wouldn't disagree with your scumbag assessment if you pointed it at him, but I don't think Ventura genuinely falls into that category. I think his pursuit is authentic, most of what he does in the fringe is authentic research and that his short lived television series was a compromise for him, forced to partially discredit himself in order to gain a voice on a mainstream network. Shows like Ancient Aliens, etc, follow the two truths and a lie formula, giving out good information then poisoning their own well with radical and baseless conjecture because it makes better television and keeps their ideas laughable and oriented toward the ridiculous so no one takes any of the credible information very seriously. It also serves to discredit the original two truths; if you mention them you're suddenly an ancient astronaut theorist even if that evidence doesn't necessarily imply ancient astronauts.

I'm personally on the fence regarding Sandy Hook, it's a quagmire of police panic and the media going into a frenzy of presumptuous and contradictory commentary. It's more of a show of how incompetent the media is than anything else. But I find it interesting that two shootings were orchestrated by the children of two expert LIBOR witnesses. Peter Lanza, father of Adam Lanza, was the tax director for GE and scheduled the testify on the LIBOR scandal. Robert Holmes, father of the Batman shooter James Holmes, is a fraud scientist for FICO and was also scheduled to testify and name names. Information from either of these men would have put some of the wealthiest thieves in this country in prison for a long time, of this there is no doubt. We know the LIBOR scandal happened, after all, and these witnesses had the evidence to link the individuals to the crime.

In my opinion, the pro gun base in this country is far too large and adamant to ever be challenged by a couple shootings, but propping up an anti-gun conspiracy is the perfect way to discredit investigation into a conspiracy to silence LIBOR Scandal witnesses. It's impossible to talk about potential Sandy Hook/Batman conspiracy without the conversation being flooded by pro-gun conspiracy theorists, using the conspiracy theorists themselves to dig the quagmire and create for themselves the Red Herring. Red Herring > Ad Hominem, just look at this thread, it was made to talk about government funded internet trolls and instead we're talking about a quagmire conspiracy. Well played, Agent Alric. Well played.

I pointed out several times where people are clearly crying in the videos you posted and you flat out ignored me. You made the moronic claim that even though the peoples faces were red, their shoulders were shaking, their voice was cracking, that they couldn't possibly be crying because you can't see visible tears. Which I pointed out that tears are transparent and thus hard to see on camera from a distance, and you made another stupid claim, which was that tears are always easy to see on film.

The people are clearly crying, you are just choosing to ignore reality.

As Ventura, I don't really see how any of that is relevant. Comprising your values to get more influence isn't a valid reason to lie to people. In fact, that would fulfill the scumbag part. He is lying for profit.

I feel like you should address which "you" you are referring to, Agent Alric. But I digress, I argued he's compromising with the network to publicize his conspiracies, and he's gone as far as admitting that about his show and explaining he had to play ball to get it aired. You're now claiming I argued that he compromised his values and lied for profit. So you're attacking a straw man but feel free to try again.

No, I am saying that there is no difference between lying to get publicity for other stuff he wants to say, and lying for money. He is getting paid for all that stuff, so I am not sure how you can pretend like he isn't profiting off it. He is selling books on conspiracies isn't he? Sure looks looks like lying for profit to me. I fail to see how your argument says anything else.

So you can't even conceive of the possibility that Ventura was lied to about the coffins and then perpetuated that lie unknowingly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I pointed out several times where people are clearly crying in the videos you posted and you flat out ignored me. You made the moronic claim that even though the peoples faces were red, their shoulders were shaking, their voice was cracking, that they couldn't possibly be crying because you can't see visible tears. Which I pointed out that tears are transparent and thus hard to see on camera from a distance, and you made another stupid claim, which was that tears are always easy to see on film.

The people are clearly crying, you are just choosing to ignore reality.

As Ventura, I don't really see how any of that is relevant. Comprising your values to get more influence isn't a valid reason to lie to people. In fact, that would fulfill the scumbag part. He is lying for profit.

---

No, you have not posted that. Post it here and tell me the minutes and seconds. Your personal insults are worthless. You cannot back up what you are saying. Tears can be seen on video, but not in the Sandy Hook interviews of supposed family members. The only Sandy Hook people crying are the family members of kids who were not supposedly killed. Watch this at 4:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXuSt7H7Ges

Did you see the tears? We've been over this. By the way, check out the news report at 1:05. Compare that madness to what is now the official story.

I still challenge you to find me footage of a Sandy Hook supposed family member of a supposed victim expressing anger toward the shooter. I haven't heard it yet, and I've watched tons of interviews. Let's see what you can find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So you can't even conceive of the possibility that Ventura was lied to about the coffins and then perpetuated that lie unknowingly?

---

Didn't you just say he was seriously into this stuff, and does a ton of research? If that is true, then how could he not know? How come he still hangs out with people like Alex Jones and push similar things? It might be believable if he showed any regret at all, or if he didn't know about this sort of stuff but that isn't the case. He seems well informed and is still pushing these ideas.

As for Universal Mind, you are still being dishonest. If I post videos of people crying you are just going to claim that you can't see their tears and thus they are not crying, even if they show all the other signs of crying that are easier to see on film. You purposely picked the hardest thing to see and make that the only requirement to determine if someone is crying or not.

I post a dozen examples of them crying, if you are willingly to accept the other signs that people are crying, such has red faces, puffy eyes, cracking voices, sobbing sounds, shaking shoulders and all that stuff. Otherwise you can even see tears on that woman in the video you just posted but I know for a fact you will say, "I can't see them, those are not tears." And I don't want to argue over transparent water drops on someone's face that is hard to see. Even if I find them you are going to say you can't see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

As for Universal Mind, you are still being dishonest. If I post videos of people crying you are just going to claim that you can't see their tears and thus they are not crying, even if they show all the other signs of crying that are easier to see on film. You purposely picked the hardest thing to see and make that the only requirement to determine if someone is crying or not.

I post a dozen examples of them crying, if you are willingly to accept the other signs that people are crying, such has red faces, puffy eyes, cracking voices, sobbing sounds, shaking shoulders and all that stuff. Otherwise you can even see tears on that woman in the video you just posted but I know for a fact you will say, "I can't see them, those are not tears." And I don't want to argue over transparent water drops on someone's face that is hard to see. Even if I find them you are going to say you can't see them.

---

I want to see tears, like what I showed you. They show up just fine in interviews. There have been tons of interviews of alleged family members of Sandy Hook alleged victims, and many of the interviews took place within 48 hours of the supposed shooting, so show a tear. Just talking and acting funny don't cut it. Anybody can do that stuff with the voice and shake their shoulders. If a massacre of first graders really happened, you can find tears in interviews. There have been lots of interviews. I also want to hear one of the alleged family members expressing anger toward Adam Lanza. Surely you can find tears and expressions of anger toward the shooter if there really was a massacre of first graders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Didn't you just say he was seriously into this stuff, and does a ton of research? If that is true, then how could he not know? How come he still hangs out with people like Alex Jones and push similar things? It might be believable if he showed any regret at all, or if he didn't know about this sort of stuff but that isn't the case. He seems well informed and is still pushing these ideas.

---

The television business is nothing but compromise and filling a season with new theories each year puts precedence from the network to have finished episodes over accurate episodes. Alex Jones has been pushing the eugenics thing for a long time, so I think in the end Ventura just gave him reigns to practically write the entire thing since that whole theory is Jones' brainchild to begin with. I'm not really sure if a staff even exists to fact check shit for that show, that'd be like fact checking Ancient Aliens. You want to call him a scumbag, you have to call every person who ever produced a show a scumbag, too. That's the television business, and if you watch shows like Conspiracy Theory or Ancient Aliens or Mermaid: The Body Found, you're going to find a lot of conjecture and a lot of assessment taken out of context. It goes back to the two truths and lie formula I mentioned in post 14, but I don't think you even read that.

I wouldn't call the Ancient Aliens dude, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos a scumbag either, just a loopy guy with some loopy theories. Science survives off creativity, and it's unfortunate that fringe ideas aren't given the respect necessary to properly analyze and dispute them. I think you're vilifying people for thinking outside the box. Shame on you, special agent.

I Was a Paid Internet Shill: How Shadowy Groups Manipulate Internet Opinion and Debate : Conscious Life News

I don't know why I love pictures like these so much, but I do
http://consciouslifenews.com/wp-cont...r1-242x160.jpg

If you actually believe in something, then that is fine. If you are putting forth a hypothetical theory, that is fine. If you make a fictional show, and it is known to be fictional, then that is fine. Lying to people's face isn't fine though. Lying to people isn't an acceptable method to promote ideas. I don't know where you get this idea that creativity equals lying. You can be creative and think outside of the box, and look into different theories, without lying to people.

Also, he isn't even lying for entertainment reasons. Ancient Aliens is a bunch of lies but it is for entertainment purposes. Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones are actually pushing for political change and stuff. They are lying but it isn't for entertainment reasons. Telling people that the government wants to kill you, and then given fake proof isn't a "Haha this is just for fun and entertainment" type thing.

As for Universal Mind, this is exactly why those people make fun of you. There are hundreds of pictures and videos of people crying, but you have some absurd level of requirement to consider it crying. If the person wipes the tears away that doesn't count. If the camera is to far away or the lightning isn't correct even if they are crying it doesn't count. If a person sobs but they put their hands over their face, or look away from the camera, it isn't crying.

To you, someone could post a video of a woman with her face red, and mascara all smeared over her face from crying, and snot running down her nose, holding a soaked tissue and you would reply, "I can't see the actual formation of a tear drop, it is fake. She isn't really crying!" It is far easier to call you an idiot than it is to look for some picture that meets some arbitrary and absurdly high level requirement that you just pulled out of your ass. Everyone else knows those people are crying, your the only one not living in reality. That is why people insult you. You are asking me why a person just insults you instead of giving a real reply, and that is the reason. When you say you never seen people cry when there is hundreds of videos and images of people crying, you sound like an idiot. The easiest thing to do is just insult you and move on.

There is no real reason to argue over it, since anyone can look at the videos and see people crying. It is extremely easy to tell they are crying. You can keep saying they are not, but you are living in a fantasy world.

I knew this would be a quagmire. I stated my opinion, you stated yours, this conversation can go no further.

What do you think of the coincidence that both Peter Lanza and Robert Holmes were set to testify on the LIBOR scandal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

As for Universal Mind, this is exactly why those people make fun of you. There are hundreds of pictures and videos of people crying, but you have some absurd level of requirement to consider it crying. If the person wipes the tears away that doesn't count. If the camera is to far away or the lightning isn't correct even if they are crying it doesn't count. If a person sobs but they put their hands over their face, or look away from the camera, it isn't crying.

To you, someone could post a video of a woman with her face red, and mascara all smeared over her face from crying, and snot running down her nose, holding a soaked tissue and you would reply, "I can't see the actual formation of a tear drop, it is fake. She isn't really crying!" It is far easier to call you an idiot than it is to look for some picture that meets some arbitrary and absurdly high level requirement that you just pulled out of your ass. Everyone else knows those people are crying, your the only one not living in reality. That is why people insult you. You are asking me why a person just insults you instead of giving a real reply, and that is the reason. When you say you never seen people cry when there is hundreds of videos and images of people crying, you sound like an idiot. The easiest thing to do is just insult you and move on.

There is no real reason to argue over it, since anyone can look at the videos and see people crying. It is extremely easy to tell they are crying. You can keep saying they are not, but you are living in a fantasy world.

---

You said there are "hundreds" of pictures and videos of people "crying." If that is the case, why can't you find me one damn tear coming out of an eye? You would be able to do that if you were correct. The people are just shitty actors!

And again, show me a video clip of an alleged family member expressing anger toward Adam Lanza. What seems to be the hold up?

The shills insult everybody who even suggests a possible hoax. I am not even close to being the only person on the internet saying what I am saying. Stop talking about what is on the internet and SHOW IT!!! Look into these "hundreds" of videos and pictures and find us...

1. a tear coming out of an eye
2. alleged family member anger toward the alleged shooter

Empty condescension is no substitute.

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

It is because people keep explaining it but you don't listen at all. Tears are transparent, and clear. Light passes through the water that makes up the tear, and so it is hard to see from a distance on a video. I even explained to you that people hold less anger for the killer because they know he is dead, and thus they have experienced resolution to the situation, when you asked why they are not as mad as compared to people who face criminals who have committed similar crimes but are still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It is because people keep explaining it but you don't listen at all. Tears are transparent, and clear. Light passes through the water that makes up the tear, and so it is hard to see from a distance on a video. I even explained to you that people hold less anger for the killer because they know he is dead, and thus they have experienced resolution to the situation, when you asked why they are not as mad as compared to people who face criminals who have committed similar crimes but are still alive.

---

Did you not see the tears in the video I posted? Quit using that nonsense comeback. Yes you can see tears when people are focused in on that much. In The Sandy Hook Actors Part 2, the people are close enough to where you would be able to see tears if there were any. The alleged family members are close enough in all of the interviews. I already covered that in the Sandy Hook thread. Please don't press the reset button on this discussion again. Pick it up here.

People remain angry at murderers long after the murderers are dead. Have you ever heard a Holocaust survivor talk about Hitler? People don't get closure the moment they find out the murderer is dead. The anger continues. Besides, do you hear any of the alleged family members talking about arming teachers, increasing the number of guards or cops at a school, passing laws concerning psychiatric medications, doing more research on mental illness, controlling violence in video games or music or movies, or any of the other stuff people claim is behind violence? With the exception of the token supposed dad who went on Fox News and said he supports gun rights, it has been all about specifically gun control. Think about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su961SCYiGg

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

Tell me with a straight face that this isn't an acting job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGaeAby7AA4

Is that face close enough for you?

Now watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k58raOKbBls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It is because people keep explaining it but you don't listen at all. Tears are transparent, and clear. Light passes through the water that makes up the tear, and so it is hard to see from a distance on a video. I even explained to you that people hold less anger for the killer because they know he is dead, and thus they have experienced resolution to the situation, when you asked why they are not as mad as compared to people who face criminals who have committed similar crimes but are still alive.

---

I asked you a question but I can see why a government shill would want to ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I asked you a question but I can see why a government shill would want to ignore it.

---

Hmmm, Agent L. Richardson, Richards, or Ricks perhaps. Agent Lee Richardson? :chuckle:

Just broke this case wide open. :shadewink:

Showing one or two videos in which you can see tears doesn't prove that you can see tears in all videos, that is a moronic claim. You think people are acting badly, but they are not acting at all. That is how normal people behave. You claim you are an expert on human behavior but I really don't believe that at all, since pretty much everyone out side those people in fringe groups all see their behavior to be perfectly normal. It is just you, and a few others who seem incapable of recognize normal behavior. Not a big surprised however, since you can't even tell when a person is crying or not. You posted people blatantly crying and sobbing and claimed they weren't crying.

This is why those people just insult you. You are just ignoring reality. It is hard to argue with someone who is living in a fantasy world. Plus, every time I bring up the huge logical holes in your story, you just ignore them as well. If their children didn't die, where did they go? We know the children are real people since there is id, and social security numbers for them, and pictures and stuff. So where are they? We know the parents had children since there are records for it.

Where did the children go? Why would parents let their children disappear? How come the neighbors all thought they had children if they didn't? How come other students in the school saw the children if they didn't exist? When it comes down to it, your theory on what happens means the the school and entire city is in on the conspiracy. It is as if you don't think that it was a real city. Is that it?

You think the entire city was created just for the hoax? Do you know how absurd that is?

Then post a video of somebody crying in a way that you consider crying. Let me see your idea of crying. This is real crying:

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

Now show me your Sandy Hoaxers crying.

Yes, I used to be a mental health center case manager. I have dealt with lots of grieving families. I know how they act. Tears come out, and vicious anger is expressed toward the murderer, even if the murderer is dead. That is what happens in reality. A bandwagon of family members of victims of the same murderer bitching only about the gun and going after guns and nothing else together is just absurd. It doesn't happen in reality. The obviousness of the hoax goes way beyond this, by the way.

Your "But most people disagree, so you're wrong" argument is not logical. You could have said the same thing to Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein. Were they wrong? The only people who think Sandy Hook was for real are people who have not researched it. I know that you understand the truth by now. Why are you denying it?

Many of the alleged families moved to Newtown just months before the supposed incident. Many moved away afterwards. Money goes a long way, and shipping their kids off to obscure places would not be hard. Have you ever heard of the witness protection program? I'm pretty sure you have. People sick enough to be part of the hoax are not above taking money for doing sick things.

The vast majority of the people in the town were fooled.

I am having trouble believing that you are really this much in denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwIvy1GXRU

I didn't say anything about random issues being right because the majority agrees. I said the majority of people can tell the difference between bad acting and real human behavior. Just think about that logically for a moment. If it is bad acting, then wouldn't most people be able to tell? If they are acting and it fools 99% of the people who see it into thinking it is real, then isn't that very good acting?

Your argument should be that they are extremely good actors who have fooled everyone, since you seem to think everyone was fooled. However, that isn't your argument at all. Your argument doesn't make sense. Your argument is that they are obviously horrible actors, yet they fooled pretty much everyone. How is that even possible? Your argument doesn't make logical sense. How can they be horrible, bad actors and they are obviously, clearly acting, yet everyone thinks they are not acting?

You think all the people who say that it seems like normal human behavior is just lying to you? You think all the people who say they think they are crying are lying to you? How come nearly everyone thinks they are not acting, if they are such bad actors like you believe? How do you explain that?

You think people sent their children away to live forever some where else over this? Why would parents do that? What is the reason for that? Just for money? Why would the government pay them for that? Where does the government even find people willing to do that? You think people in the government risked their careers over trying to pass increased background checks on congress? That is absurd.

Even if you thought the government was going to fake this, why would they hired hundreds or even thousands of people to do this? Wouldn't that be a huge risk? If the government is so evil, why do they care about the children any way? Why would they fake the children's death and then send them away? Wouldn't it be so much easier to just hire someone to actually shoot the child? Your theories make no sense.

I don't see any videos in your post. What seems to be the hold up?

It's not 99%, and most people have not researched the issue. You act like the whole country has studied this thing. The characters weren't in the national spotlight for very long. Also, most people can't spot a bad acting job. The holes in the official story go way beyond the bad acting. It will eventually catch on with the masses. Just stay tuned. The awareness of this thing is growing big time.

What U.S. government conspiracies that have been confirmed BY THE GOVERNMENT do you know about? Please tell me. I'm serious. That is a for real question, and I ask that you answer it. They can answer your questions about who, what, and why. Money goes far, sociopaths are all over the place, and government conspiracies are part of reality.

I don't think the government hired hundreds or thousands of people. They got a few soulless actors and helpers and fooled tons of people into helping them fool most of the country.

Why did they do it? Because of this:

Connecticut Sends Letter to Unregistered Gun Owners to Surrender Firearms | Ben Swann Truth In Media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnMuBHr1KbY

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty | TheHill

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

Ha ha, check out this pitiful, pathetic, horrible acting job and script:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBIv57Rzv2E

Did you know there's software out there that can confirm whether someone is lying better than an expert!

Instead of spending your days bickering, making petty arguments, how about someone get's a hold on some of this software?

Boom problem solved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Did you know there's software out there that can confirm whether someone is lying better than an expert!

Instead of spending your days bickering, making petty arguments, how about someone get's a hold on some of this software?

Boom problem solved!

---

I'm not too quick to buy into that. Did you watch the video of Gene Rosen or the Sandy Hook Actors Part 2 video? Do you really need high tech equipment to determine whether they are lying? Have you watched any of the documentaries? It would be interesting to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't live in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm not too quick to buy into that. Did you watch the video of Gene Rosen or the Sandy Hook Actors Part 2 video? Do you really need high tech equipment to determine whether they are lying? Have you watched any of the documentaries? It would be interesting to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't live in the U.S.

---

Well high tech equipment would stop this whole credibility argument. If you want to back up a conspiracy get some hard undeniable evidence.

I haven't watched any of the documentaries. I actually don't really have an opinion on the subject, how could I? I don't know much about what happened. In fact I wouldn't put it out of the question that the American government does this stuff.

The reason I don't like to follow conspiracy theories is because they're rarely backed up by decent evidence, and more importantly everyone is too quick to speak their
side. If you want to convince me, get some solid evidence and write a full length report.
I don't believe youtube is the proper platform, it instantly shows a sign of incredibility and incompetence. I know that is not a valid reason to dismiss an argument, but I will not spend my time on something I know will 99% of the time be filled with absolute BS. Same goes for facebook, or sites with the name of the conspiracy in their domain.

If you would research the issue, you would change your mind. The documentaries are full of actual footage that is mind-blowing. You have to see the footage to fully get the point. There are also tons of web pages you can read. Plus, you can read my arguments in this thread and the Sandy Hook thread. Do you have a few seconds to watch the first part of this video? Ask yourself why a kid would be laughing when being interviewed right after being at the scene of a "massacre."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgTzyfYKBfs#t=16

Apathy is the reason most of the U.S. is oblivious to this. That is, for now.

I am not posting the videos because we already went over that in another thread. You saw the videos, and saw where they were crying and claimed they weren't. You still claim you are going to reject all the classical signs of a person crying, so there is no point in in reposting them.

Also, how can you claim that most people can't spot bad acting? Everyone can spot bad acting. That is what makes bad acting bad, that everyone clearly sees it is acting. If everyone believes they are real people acting in real ways, then it can't be bad acting by definition. Also, you don't need to research anything to tell if acting is bad or not. You can tell by seeing a single performance.

Also, you said in the other thread that the hundreds of people walking around the firehouse were all in on it and were all actors. So your theory does include hundreds of people being in on it. Also there is far more than just a 'few' people if you count no one but direct relatives of the people who died. This isn't a small conspiracy, it would have to be a massive one. You also said the news stations, fire department and police department, and hospitals were in on it too. We are talking about thousands of people here.

As for what US conspiracies I know about that were true, I know about pretty much all of them. I can even list many done by other countries, and private groups. I hang out on forums with people are far more into conspiracy theories than you are. I know people who even believe the far out stuff, like the moon landing being fake.

If you look at old conspiracies though, you can see that claims like Sandy Hook are nothing like the old ones. The ones that are true, are actual conspiracies. As in people got together in secret and tried to hide them. Mean while in cases like Sandy Hook people think the government was actively flaunting it. Why would your broadcast the attack in a blockbuster movie, like some people think they did with the batman movie? Why would you have bad actors and put them on tv 24/7 for a week? These theories are obviously silly, since they seem to think that if someone does a conspiracy they will do it in the open for everyone to see, and will flaunt it in front of everyone.

That doesn't even make sense though. If it is in the open it isn't a conspiracy by definition, it is just propaganda. Sandy Hook isn't a conspiracy or propaganda though, since we all know it happened because there was a lot of people who lost family members.

You can pretty much tell what is real and what is fake, and who has credibility and who doesn't with ease. As dutchraptor pointed out, most of the 'evidence' and I use that world loosely is just bullshit. The reason is because of how conspiracy theorist work. They use a shotgun approach where they just throw out tons and tons of irrelevant facts and lies hoping that by sheer number of things will overwhelm people, so they start to have doubt on the situation.

If your goal was to find the truth, you would be trying to put all the stuff together to find out what happened, but people who believe things like Sandy Hook being a hoax never do that. They can't because often their supposed evidence contradicts it self. If you try to put all these pieces together to form a big picture you get an absurd story that no one would believe. In the other thread you have said that the fire department, police department, local hospital, all the major news networks, the school and the local community was in on it. You just didn't say it all at once. You tried to poke little holes in each group to show 'shady' activity on their part. However, if we were to accept everything you said was true, the conclusion would be that they were all working together in a conspiracy that ran across dozens of groups with thousands of people involved, and you don't even seem to believe that.

I want you to try something. I want you to tell me what you believe happened. Give us a theory on what you think took place that day, from start to finish. You have done a lot of research right? So you should have at least an idea of what happened. Give us a rough timeline and outline of what you think happened.

You don't have any videos to post. You never had one that shows real crying. I still challenge you to give it your best shot here. I am not the only person reading this.

If most people could spot bad acting, Keanu Reeves would not be famous.

I think the people at the firehouse thought they were involved in a drill, the school shooting drill that was originally scheduled for just 18 miles away. Relatives of kids might think they are dead. That's two examples of people being fooled, not in on the hoax.

The flauntings are very subtle to the point that most people don't notice them. Some of the real conspiracies that have happened have involved a lot of people.

Dutchraptor said he doesn't know the facts about the situation. Why did you just claim that he said it's bull shit?

Lots of the pieces that have been put together are huge.

No, I did not say all of those people were in on it. You are straight up lying. I have said multiple times that some people were in on it and tons were fooled.

I am not exactly sure what happened. What I do know is that the official story is a major crock of shit. That means it is a deception, which makes the "massacre" a hoax. What you are using here is the either/or fallacy. You want me to try to tell a story that I do not know the full details of so you can poke a hole in it and use that as proof that your story is true. It is what creationists use to argue their wild idea. "Uh, you can't tell us the full details of what happened, so our crazy story is automatically true."

What do you have to say about the video of the kid laughing and acting silly while being interviewed a little while after he was at the scene of the "massacre?" It's two posts back. You can see the laughing and silliness in the first few seconds.

Alric, stop picking apart one piece of evidence and saying "See, everyone thinks your crazy because I can actually argue against this." You're ignoring other aspects, such as the LIBOR scandal connection, which I'm taking as an admission that you have no response and understand this stinks but your boss at Government Shill industries won't let you speak on.

:rolllaugh:

My list of issues he has abandoned is about 7 miles long now. If that kid laughing and acting like he is in a fun house right after the supposed massacre isn't a significant matter worth addressing, then let's just go ahead and assume that the president of the United States is Elvis Presley.

I am trying to get him to stick to one point at a time, because other wise he will bounce around topics at random. Like I said, it is the shotgun approach of saying a ton of random irrelevant stuff, hoping that at least some of them are convincing enough to spread a little doubt. I would happy refute any evidence anyone wants to present, but only if you are going to stay on topic and listen to what I say.

The problem I got with universal mind is that we already went over all that stuff before, and I answered him and when he is stuck he goes on to a new random irrelevant point, then when I answer that, he goes back to the first thing and pretends I didn't answer him. I don't want to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

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.

Now are you going to post some evidences to show it is in fact true? Or are you going to admit that you are wrong? Or are you going pretend you didn't get caught spreading a lie, and move on to the next irrelevant and possibly made up fact?

As for the kid, based on the video it sounds like he didn't witness the shooting first hand, he was just in the building. There is no reason to think he would be traumatized if he doesn't really know what had gone on. Also laughter is a way of reducing stress which is why people do laugh in extremely stressful situations(such as this event). You claim you know human behavior really well, which is why I am really surprised that you never knew this. I have my self laughed and smiled at extremely inappropriate moments, and I have seen others do it first hand as well. It is completely natural for people to laugh when very nervous or in stressful situations. Notice how the child is resting his head against the man in the video, and is very close to him. That shows he is very insecure about what is going on.

You don't seem to be able to pick up basic nuances in human actions and so can't tell the difference between someone laughing out of being nervous or scared, and someone laughing at a joke. How that kid is acting, is a normal reaction to the event. You seem to think everyone acts the same, but they don't. There are many reactions humans have to events like this, and how that boy is behaving is one of the possible reactions a normal human being would have. There is nothing suspicious about it.

Uh, who are you talking to?

That is a dishonest assessment. I am not dodgy, and I am not playing games. What points of yours have I dodged? You are the dodgy one. You finally addressed the giggle box boy who acted like he just left a birthday party in a bouncy house. I had to bring it up again to get you to do that. You never told me you think proven actress Francine Wheeler is not acting in that made for T.V. speech where she is obviously acting. You have dodged a lot.

I know the difference between a freaked out laugh and a relaxed, playful laugh. That kid was not the least bit freaked out. He was being playful and silly. It's not the kind of laughing people do when they are riding a crazy ride or they just dodged a falling book shelf. Also, that kid supposedly knew that there was a big shoot up at his school and 27 people were killed, including 20 kids he had been going to school with. He was camera shy, but he seemed to be enjoying the camera to a certain extent.

With all due respect, I am seriously questioning your sincerity.

He isn't even laughing to start with, he is just smiling and it is clearly because he is uncomfortable, look how he is practically clinging to that guy. Notice how he doesn't face the camera or the person talking to him at all? You are a poor judge of body language. I think that was proven when you said the only way you can tell if someone is crying is based on if you can see noticeable tears or not, when tears are one of the last things people usually notice.

Also, you are not even considering the possible mixed emotions going on within him. Most children(and even adults) would love the idea of being on tv. So it is entirely possible to have positive emotions associated with being on tv while having the negative ones of having been in a bad situation. That is also a common thing with adults when they are talking about their lost children. They reminisce about their love ones(thus have happy feelings associated with positive memories), and then think about their lose(thus suffering the painful memories of losing their child). In which case they have mixed emotions, some being happy and some sad, and so both emotions may show through during an interview.

You seem to have a very one dimensional view on people's behavior, but in reality people can experience multiple emotions at once, or switch between them. Those are all normal things.

The kid is laughing. Look again. I know what freaked out kids look like, and I know what kids look like when they are having just a good ole time. You have no clue, or at least you are not admitting that you do. That kid did not just experience a massacre.

I didn't say that 100% of all crying involves tears. However, most of it does. When family members of so many victims are interviewed about murder that just happened, you see tears. You don't always see them from everybody, but you see tears. 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.

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