Sandy hook ref in batman movie + father caught 'acting'

King Mob

So why was the same girl who apparently died in a picture with Obama?
Why would they allow this?
Was the girl who supposedly died fake and they used pictures of the girl who late met Obama? Or was this the same girl?
Why didn't the conspirators stop the people from letting the girl from the conspiracy get anywhere near a camera or near the president?

What possible explanation for it is there in the conspiracy that is more likely than the myriad of mundane explanations?

Daithi 1

Was just about to edit my last post.

The guy in the video stated they all changed their clothes, except for Emily. Well, that doesn't really make sense since we don't know when the family photo was taken, they all might have changed their clothes 1000 times since then.
In the picture with Obama, it looks like the other sister on the left in the family photo.

The dress could be a hand-me-down, a sentimental gesture for the fallen sister. Or the simply bought a very similar or exact same dress at a later date.

The fathers interview is very suspicious though, the smiling, prepping himself for action. I know stress and other factors come into it. But I watched it several times and just cant get my head around it
.

Daithi 1

See the video states.

6 year old Emily on the right with her two sisters 4 and 3 years old.

But there is no way Emily is 6 in this particular photo. She was six when she died. So it's kinda misleading. Lest say she was 4 1/2 in the photo.




In a year and a half time, the younger sister would be around 5/12 or 6 years old, as seen in this picture. Looking very much like Emily in a similar or the same dress.

partyatmygaff

King Mob wrote: »

So why was the same girl who apparently died in a picture with Obama?
Why would they allow this?
Was the girl who supposedly died fake and they used pictures of the girl who late met Obama? Or was this the same girl?
Why didn't the conspirators stop the people from letting the girl from the conspiracy get anywhere near a camera or near the president?

What possible explanation for it is there in the conspiracy that is more likely than the myriad of mundane explanations?

One of three things happened:

1. The conspirators decided it would be a good idea to give conspiracy theorists a few hints. Why they would do that isn't very clear as getting more people to associate the event with a conspiracy and building up even more distrust of the government isn't going to help in any way.

2. The conspirators organised what is essentially a nationwide play but failed to do the simple thing of making sure one of the people whose death they faked from didn't appear in a photo with the most important man in the US. Making such a simple mistake in such a critical photo doesn't add up for a conspiracy as complex as everyone is claiming.

3. Everything is more or less as it seems with the "discrepancies" having a sensible explanation.

Run_to_da_hills

Daithi 1 wrote: »

See the video states.

6 year old Emily on the right with her two sisters 4 and 3 years old.

But there is no way Emily is 6 in this particular photo. She was six when she died. So it's kinda misleading. Lest say she was 4 1/2 in the photo.




In a year and a half time, the younger sister would be around 5/12 or 6 years old, as seen in this picture. Looking very much like Emily in a similar or the same dress.

I explained this already in a previous post.

Obama simply raised her from the Dead.

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So why was the same girl who apparently died in a picture with Obama?
Why would they allow this?
Was the girl who supposedly died fake and they used pictures of the girl who late met Obama? Or was this the same girl?
Why didn't the conspirators stop the people from letting the girl from the conspiracy get anywhere near a camera or near the president?

What possible explanation for it is there in the conspiracy that is more likely than the myriad of mundane explanations?

Maybe, just maybe coz the the world is filled with airheads that can be shown 2 facet's of the truth and blindly believe 1, you tell me?

King Mob

stuar wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe coz the the world is filled with airheads that can be shown 2 facet's of the truth and blindly believe 1, you tell me?

Your statement doesn't make much sense and offers no answer to my questions. Could you please rephrase?

stuar

Devastated father of six-year-old Sandy Hook victim Emilie Parker sobs as his Utah hometown pays tribute to the beautiful little girl at memorial..............
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251726/Emilie-Parkers-father-sobs-year-old-Sandy-Hook-victim-remembered-Utah-memorial.html

Wasn't fcuking sobbing when I last saw him.............

RTDH's approach is looking more viable.

Another clearly shaken father of the latter day saints, almost as tearful as the latter day father........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252207/Emilie-Parker-funeral-Final-funerals-tragic-massacre-victims-week-innocent-lives-cut-short-gunman.html


These mormon cnuts............just give them some time...........and some money and all will be brought to light........like Joseph Smiths lies that we still seek answers to, http://emilieparkerfund.com/

Hey it's tony hawk's the skater...........





I'd also allow any funds possible to float this way, all currencies accepted, my skateboard money is gone........ohh and so is my kid..

EDIT:

New Procedure Would Turn Your Brown Eyes Blue

Here's how the "20-second long" laser procedure works: A computer scans the iris and uses a laser to disrupt the brown pigment on the surface of the eye. Since blue pigment lies beneath the brown pigment, removing the outer layer of melanin can reveal a bluer look behind it. Since the brown pigment is damaged and will not regenerate, Homer says, the eye removes it naturally, according to one BBC article. Between two and three weeks later, the pigment lightens up, eventually transforming brown eyes to blue

http://news.discovery.com/human/eye-color-change-111108.html

EDITMYEDIT:
the comparison pic of tony hawks has seemingly gone??(now back??) http://www.godlikeproductions.com/external?http%3A%2F%2Fwellaware1.com%2Fartwork%2Flarge%2Fshooting_hoax.jpg&regp=bm9fMTM1NzAxMDA0NQ==

Brown Bomber

partyatmygaff wrote: »

One of three things happened:

1. The conspirators decided it would be a good idea to give conspiracy theorists a few hints. Why they would do that isn't very clear as getting more people to associate the event with a conspiracy and building up even more distrust of the government isn't going to help in any way.

2. The conspirators organised what is essentially a nationwide play but failed to do the simple thing of making sure one of the people whose death they faked from didn't appear in a photo with the most important man in the US. Making such a simple mistake in such a critical photo doesn't add up for a conspiracy as complex as everyone is claiming.

3. Everything is more or less as it seems with the "discrepancies" having a sensible explanation.

4. It's black propaganda that originates with the "conspirators".

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

4. It's black propaganda that originates with the "conspirators".

3a. It's something with a mundane, non conspiratorial explanation that some people jumped on as evidence for a conspiracy using both deliberate and unintentional ignorance.

Explanations 1, 2 and 4 are very complicated to the point of nonsense and self contradiction.

Which one do you think is most likely?

Run_to_da_hills

never in my life have I seen so many people act so cheerfully, casually and tearlessly about the loss of a young children and family members.

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_b9hh2lp3I

Part 2

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

Tzar Chasm

Tony Hawk, tony F-ing hawk, seriously there are many low profile actors out there, why would they use someone like tony hawk, that makes a negative ammount of sense.

Corkfeen

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Tony Hawk, tony F-ing hawk, seriously there are many low profile actors out there, why would they use someone like tony hawk, that makes a negative ammount of sense.

That site is also claiming hitler was an actor...... Their concept of world events seems like something out of Team America.

Tzar Chasm

hitler was an Actor.
his use of gesticulation and emphasis is something that needs to be practiced as a craft, that would make him a performer/actor in my book

tho thats probably not the line the site in question is peddling

Corkfeen

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

hitler was an Actor.
his use of gesticulation and emphasis is something that needs to be practiced as a craft, that would make him a performer/actor in my book

tho thats probably not the line the site in question is peddling

They named an actual actor that plays hitler throughout WW2. :rolleyes:

thund3rbird_

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Bib Laden saga is another joke.

I am sure he had CCTV, going by these reports on how "sophisticated" this guy was made out to be. :rolleyes:

Cam shots from these seals?

(Most of these "hit men" were killed in a helicopter crash a few weeks later LOL.

Did we see any still images of his burial?

No. :pac:

I thought you would have seen it in the mainstream media?
after all don't the NWO hide all these clues for us to find?

SoulandForm

Anyone know if RunToDaHills has been banned permanently?

He seemed a really cool guy.

humanji

SoulandForm wrote: »

Anyone know if RunToDaHills has been banned permanently?

He seemed a really cool guy.

No idea, but this isn't the place to ask.

SoulandForm

humanji wrote: »

No idea, but this isn't the place to ask.

Where is the place to ask?

partyatmygaff

SoulandForm wrote: »

Anyone know if RunToDaHills has been banned permanently?

He seemed a really cool guy.

According to the banlist
01-01-2013, 5:50 Run_to_da_hills 31-01-2013, 5:50 Breach of Forum Charter Zaph

Thankfully, it's just a one month long ban. I don't always agree with him about his conspiracy theories but it'd genuinely be a big shame to see him go permanently.

Brown Bomber

SoulandForm wrote: »

Anyone know if RunToDaHills has been banned permanently?

He seemed a really cool guy.

Apparently so. I've read through his recent posts and this is the only reason I can come up with.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82408100

The ban itself is an absolute joke. Banned for opinion + link? Really? For the life of me I can't understand why he was banned at all. WTF is going on?

EDIT: Sorry Humanji. I was typing while you were.

gnfnrhead

Is this the next conspiracy theory? Has Obama gotten RTDH banned for a month so he can take over the world in peace :pac:

humanji

This is the last that it'll be mentioned here. I severely doubt he got a site ban for one post. It's the admins who make the decisions and they don't make them lightly. And it's also an issue between RTDH and the admins, and they're not going to discuss it with a third party.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is total bollox. I have always and will always make the distinction. Only a fool couldn't or wouldn't.
etc

Sure you don't.
You never have been criticized for writing "Jews" only to walk it back later.
That's certainly never happened.

Not that I think you're actually anti-semetic, you're just constantly looking to find another excuse to cry foul about those nasty people who have the audacity to not agree with your ideas.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Sure you don't.
You never have been criticized for writing "Jews" only to walk it back later.
That's certainly never happened.

Not that I think you're actually anti-semetic, you're just constantly looking to find another excuse to cry foul about those nasty people who have the audacity to not agree with your ideas.

Any chance you might rephrase your comments so they actually have some meaning?

This may help
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Any chance you might rephrase your comments so they actually have some meaning?

This may help
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

It's quite plainly phrased, your clumsy Orwell reference is unnecessary as is your pretence at stupidity.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

It's quite plainly phrased, your clumsy Orwell reference is unnecessary as is your pretence at stupidity.

Good stuff. Now could you get to the point of what you are trying to say and stop speaking in riddles. Cheers.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Good stuff. Now could you get to the point of what you are trying to say and stop speaking in riddles. Cheers.

If the point is still eluding you, then there is little I can do to help you.
But I suspect that isn't the case, is it?

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

If the point is still eluding you, then there is little I can do to help you.
But I suspect that isn't the case, is it?

Well it is as it happens. It's not so easy to pick up on sarcasm online and there is the added complication that arises in dealing with you that is the expectation of the inevitable veiled insult. Also it appears to me that you have a tendency to try and appear as an intellectual, a giant among men, and use the language of the intellectual. This is bad for communication imo.

Therefore I would appreciate it you would dumb it down for my sake and not use sarcasm and plainly and simply state what it is that you are trying to say.

Torakx

Cya.

On topic, has anyone got a video of an interviewed parent,family member, where they actually have tears when they cry?
I at first thought this CT was a bit unrealistic regarding the acting and fakery part,but not the false flag.
When looking through the video interviews, i did see alot of people crying and acting upset, except no tears at all on anyone yet.
Has someone found a vid relating to the sandyhook incident where you can see genuine grief?
Im still looking anyway.Its a curious case.
People wiping their dry eyes as they talk...and a few minutes later they are back to normal even smiling sometimes.

In fact its so strange to me, i get the feeling somebody wants everyone to think this is fake.