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

Corkfeen

Torakx wrote: »

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.

This one is fascinating me still, there's no predetermined way in which they should grieve yet the conspiracy community are behaving as if they have an expertise on what the precise emotional reaction should be. To be honest, I suspect that most families have barely comprehended the event as of yet and are in a state of shock.

It’s normal to feel a sense of shock when someone close to you dies. You might experience shock through physical and emotional reactions. You may feel dizzy, nauseous, dazed, numb or empty. As part of feeling shocked, you may not believe that the news is real.

Shock may cause some people to react in an unusual way when they first hear the news of a death. For example, some people laugh hysterically. This is often a result of the shock, and not necessarily because the person finds the situation funny. Shock is different for everyone and may last for a couple of days or weeks.

http://us.reachout.com/facts/factsheet/after-someone-has-died-how-you-might-feel

Who knows how long it could take these porn to truly realise the effect that this event is going to have upon their lives. The children did not die of a disease or illness, it was entirely unforeseen and horrible.

humanji

I've deleted some off-topic indignation. Please keep to the subject.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

It is simply stated.

hooradiation

Corkfeen wrote: »

This one is fascinating me still, there's no predetermined way in which they should grieve yet the conspiracy community are behaving as if they have an expertise on what the precise emotional reaction should be. To be honest, I suspect that most families have barely comprehended the event as of yet and are in a state of shock.

The whole notion that because people aren't grieving because they are not wailing and pulling their hair out, is the cornerstone of this preposterous theory.

Anyone who has experienced loss ought to know better than that and anyone who has thankfully been spared it thus far would do well to not judge people when they have no frame of reference.

Torakx

Im not going to try debate the definition of grief etc.
I know people can go into shock or can seem unlike themselves for a good while.
My point is that when i have ever seen a person cry, as in shaking, choked up,facial expression etc, they have ALWAYS been followed by tears.
you know the crying where your shoulders shake up and down you put your hand to your face ussually with embarrassment or to wipe tears.
But that fit of crying i have never seen without tears.

In the SandyHook videos i see fits of crying, that would normally require tears if real.Unless ALL of them are dehydrated so much that its imposible, but by then you would need a drip i think.

If you can show me a fit of genuine crying without tears, as i described above(shoulders shaking up and down, wiping eyes,face etc), to show me just how common that is, considering all Sandyhook vids have zero tears from my view, i would probably drop this idea.
Honestly i just have never seen this before, or on such a scale.
Maybe i wasnt looking before, or maybe its suspicious.

Its a genuine query from me.

partyatmygaff

Actors who can fake everything... except tears.

Doesn't seem all that likely to me compared to the more reasonable explanations offered such as trying to hold back tears when put in front of huge audiences and/or shock.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

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.

A colleague of mine lost his father, 4 days later he was back in work, he wasn't crying all the time, in fact I never saw him crying or emotional. I did see him laughing and smiling at times.

Actor. Something has to be going on.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

A colleague of mine lost his father, 4 days later he was back in work, he wasn't crying all the time, in fact I never saw him crying or emotional. I did see him laughing and smiling at times.

Actor. Something has to be going on.

Why have you misrepresented him? He never stated as fact that "something has to be going on".

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

In the SandyHook videos i see fits of crying, that would normally require tears if real.Unless ALL of them are dehydrated so much that its imposible, but by then you would need a drip i think.

That's not really how the human body works.

You have three types of tears, one that is produced constantly and is used to lubricate the eyeball, one that gets created in response to irritants (such as chopping an onion or dust) and the one we're interested in, which gets created in response to emotion.

Basically, you can't keep crying forever, it's physically impossible. The tears you see when people are crying are created by the sympathetic nervous system and like any stimulus the body will eventually grow used to it and it will utterly exhaust you.
You're still sad, you still want to cry but you have no more tears left, so you'll do everything else but be unable to weep.

It's kind of hard to explain if you haven't experienced it - but a close analogy would be dry retching.
Nobody would assume you're not sick if you were dry retching, but all the same nothing is being expelled - which is one of the expected signs of retching.

stuar

I really don't know what to make of this one way or the other, at first it was a straight cut MKULTRA canditate, or something similar, now that (just discovered) rtdh's case actually has some merit, I'm double thinking, it does have some falsities that I can't understand and I threw my hat in, maybe tooo premature, I don't have too much time to chase every link or observation but it's getting murkier at every point I see it, basically things don't add up.

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

Im not going to try debate the definition of grief etc.
I know people can go into shock or can seem unlike themselves for a good while.
My point is that when i have ever seen a person cry, as in shaking, choked up,facial expression etc, they have ALWAYS been followed by tears.
you know the crying where your shoulders shake up and down you put your hand to your face ussually with embarrassment or to wipe tears.
But that fit of crying i have never seen without tears.

In the SandyHook videos i see fits of crying, that would normally require tears if real.Unless ALL of them are dehydrated so much that its imposible, but by then you would need a drip i think.

If you can show me a fit of genuine crying without tears, as i described above(shoulders shaking up and down, wiping eyes,face etc), to show me just how common that is, considering all Sandyhook vids have zero tears from my view, i would probably drop this idea.
Honestly i just have never seen this before, or on such a scale.
Maybe i wasnt looking before, or maybe its suspicious.

Its a genuine query from me.

I never considered that there were actors involved but I admit that dads performance did raise an eyebrow. However, I looked into it a little to settle my doubts and apparently his behaviour is perfectly normal for one in the immediate aftermath of a terrible loss.

Behavioral scientists have accumulated decades of data on both adults and children exposed to trauma. George A. Bonanno of Teachers College at Columbia University has devoted his career as a psychologist to documenting the varieties of resilient experience, focusing on our reactions to the death of a loved one and to what happens in the face of war, terror and disease.
(...)
In one example of his work, Bonanno and his colleague Dach­er Keltner analyzed facial expressions of people who had lost loved ones recently. The videos bore no hint of any permanent sorrow that needed extirpation. As expected, the videos revealed sadness but also anger and happiness. Time and again, a grief-stricken person’s expression would change from dejection to laughter and back.

Were the guffaws genuine, the researchers wondered? They slowed down the video and looked for contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscles around the eyes—movements known as Duchenne expressions that confirm that laughs are what they seem, not just an artifact of a polite but insincere titter. The mourners, it turns out, exhibited the real thing. The same oscillation between sadness and mirth repeated itself in study after study.

What does it mean? Bonanno surmises that melancholy helps us with healing after a loss, but unrelenting grief, like clinical depression, is just too much to bear, overwhelming the mourner. So the wiring inside our heads prevents most of us from getting stuck in an inconsolable psychological state. If our emotions get either too hot or cold, a kind of internal sensor—call it a “re­sil­ience-­stat”—­returns us to equilibrium.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-neuroscience-of-true-grit&page=3

It just doesn't make sense on any level to fake an attack when they could achieve exactly the same aims by carrying out a real attack.

The US is a terrorist state. The US targetted and killed a 16-year-old kid having a barbeque in Yemen because he had the wrong dad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4

In the weeks before the school massacre the US military admitted targetting kids in Afghanistan.

Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/12/marine-taliban-kids-120312w

Torakx

Just watched this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EEKqcRELz4

A good summary.
Although some parts i dont agree with, i think overall its compelling enough to make me wonder if it is possible.

stuar

Torakx wrote: »

Just watched this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EEKqcRELz4

A good summary.
Although some parts i dont agree with, i think overall its compelling enough to make me wonder if it is possible.

Some weird sh!t going on

6:49 Bodies wrapped up, look like new born babies

9:15?? Strangest Chief medical examiner (Dr H Wayne Carver) I've ever seen

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

9:15?? Strangest Chief medical examiner (Dr H Wayne Carver) I've ever seen

This makes me wonder exactly how many Chief medical examiners you've actually had any real interaction with.
I'm willing to bet very few, if you're being honest.
Probably closer to zero.


Also, this along with the "why are they not crying" is a fine example of something called the fundamental attribution error.
basically, when you observe the behaviour of others you often to fail to take into account/under value situational explanations for said behaviour and over value your own explanation for what's occurring.

A simple example would be that if you came into work and found a colleague kicking his desk you may think "he's a pretty angry guy" where as in reality your colleague is thinking about how someone bumped him into a wall on the way to work and then shouted at him.

In this case people going "he's acting weird" and "they're not sad enough" are making this error and should probably realise that it's pretty foolish to try and determine the breadth of a persons character based on a select few television clips.

King Mob

hooradiation wrote: »

This makes me wonder exactly how many Chief medical examiners you've actually had any real interaction with.
I'm willing to bet very few, if you're being honest.
Probably closer to zero.


Also, this along with the "why are they not crying" is a fine example of something called the fundamental attribution error.
basically, when you observe the behaviour of others you often to fail to take into account/under value situational explanations for said behaviour and over value your own explanation for what's occurring.

A simple example would be that if you came into work and found a colleague kicking his desk you may think "he's a pretty angry guy" where as in reality your colleague is thinking about how someone bumped him into a wall on the way to work and then shouted at him.

In this case people going "he's acting weird" and "they're not sad enough" are making this error and should probably realise that it's pretty foolish to try and determine the breadth of a persons character based on a select few television clips.

This assumes that the same people using the lack of crying as evidence of the conspiracy are doing so on the basis of observation.
This is a fatal error in your reasoning, hooradition.

The conclusion comes first, then the evidence is fit into this conclusion.
Had the people been crying the "proper" amount, then the evidence would be that they are overacting and hamming it up and that the media was playing too much footage of the crying parents.

Daithi 1

hooradiation wrote: »

This makes me wonder exactly how many Chief medical examiners you've actually had any real interaction with.
I'm willing to bet very few, if you're being honest.
Probably closer to zero.

I'm guessing hes talking about medical examiners on tv, as Carver was on tv, the news, you know. There is no need to "interact" to work out he's a complete oddball and makes a point of stating his sensibilities are not those of the average person.

I have seen many of them and many more on youtube and every single one seemed highly professional and normal, unlike Carver who cant answer how many girls or boys were killed and why by the time of the interview had examined 7 bodies but had not managed to walk up the stairs to see what had occured up there.

That said, I have looked into him and he has a fully checkable history going back to the 70' so if there is something fishy going on, I doubt he's involved

hooradiation

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I'm guessing hes talking about medical examiners on tv, as Carver was on tv, the news, you know. There is no need to "interact" to work out he's a complete oddball and makes a point of stating his sensibilities are not those of the average person.

Hello fundamental attribution error, so nice to see you again.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I have seen many of them and many more on youtube and every single one seemed highly professional and normal, unlike Carver who cant answer how many girls or boys were killed and why by the time of the interview had examined 7 bodies but had not managed to walk up the stairs to see what had occured up there.

And again!
you are a persistent little fellow, aren't you.

Daithi 1

hooradiation wrote: »

Hello fundamental attribution error, so nice to see you again.



And again!
you are a persistent little fellow, aren't you.

Nope, just general observations.

Jonny7

King Mob wrote: »

The conclusion comes first, then the evidence is fit into this conclusion.

Precisely. It's not even "evidence" in the true sense of the word, it's just hole poking in the established version of events.

hooradiation

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Nope, just general observations.

Both of which make the error I was previously mentioning.

Daithi 1

This guy is pretty popular on facebok. Doesnt think sandy hook was a false flag and is getting some serious stick from his followers, funny ****.

Anyway, he made a video coz he was sick of explaining the same sh1t to the truthers. lol

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=JE_dOMDwtRo&feature=youtu.be&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJE_dOMDwtRo%26feature%3Dyoutu.be&gl=GB

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

This makes me wonder exactly how many Chief medical examiners you've actually had any real interaction with.
I'm willing to bet very few, if you're being honest.
Probably closer to zero.


Also, this along with the "why are they not crying" is a fine example of something called the fundamental attribution error.
basically, when you observe the behaviour of others you often to fail to take into account/under value situational explanations for said behaviour and over value your own explanation for what's occurring.

A simple example would be that if you came into work and found a colleague kicking his desk you may think "he's a pretty angry guy" where as in reality your colleague is thinking about how someone bumped him into a wall on the way to work and then shouted at him.

In this case people going "he's acting weird" and "they're not sad enough" are making this error and should probably realise that it's pretty foolish to try and determine the breadth of a persons character based on a select few television clips.

Chief medical examiner is the US equivelant of Irish state pathologist, I have had a few talks and been in court with Dr John Harbison, retired state pathologist for more than five cases, I've never seen him laugh in any or use the same words as the chief medical examiner in that video, I've seen more murders up front than most of boards members, the first just before I turned 15, so don't give me this crap of never having interaction with a pathologist, which is effectivly what chief examiner is.

humanji

In fairness though, that's one. There's at least 50 in the US. All of them will handle situations differently, but if there's anything they'd have in common, it's acting nervous in front of cameras and huge crowds.


Would it not be relatively easy for someone to get the names of the parents (or "actors" if you're so inclined), find their home address and visit them? If they're all actors, then it'll be fairly obvious as they won't have lived in the area for too long (unless the goal posts are moved again to allow for this conspiracy running for decades). How many people who think it's all a hoax have actually done real investigation as opposed to looking at a couple of Youtube videos and thinking "Hey, I'm not qualified to tell, but I'm going to assume they're all actors"?

Considering the huge number of people involved to create this conspiracy, and the near infinite ways it could cock up and be revealed, it doesn't make sense that a group behind it wouldn't just brainwash someone into going on an actual killing spree. THAT would make sense. A cast and crew of thousands? Not a lick of sense.

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

Chief medical examiner is the US equivelant of Irish state pathologist, I have had a few talks and been in court with Dr John Harbison, retired state pathologist for more than five cases, I've never seen him laugh in any or use the same words as the chief medical examiner in that video, I've seen more murders up front than most of boards members, the first just before I turned 15, so don't give me this crap of never having interaction with a pathologist, which is effectivly what chief examiner is.

One is, indeed, pretty close to zero. So I was right about that.

Also your sample size is very small, isn't it. What is it that makes you presume you can then extrapolate 'correct' behaviour from, by your own admission, five or so interactions with one person?


Not that I believe a word of what you're saying anyway, but let's pretend otherwise for now.

stuar

Believe what you want hooradiation, PM sent.


Anyway back on topic, this woman's daughters pic has been used as one of the victims and splashed across the net, I still really don't know what to think about all this, it's mind boggling.

http://instagram.com/p/TS1VEhSC_U/

Here's a site created just for this topic, a few links on it, I'm not endorsing it or saying I 100% agree with its contents or title.

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com

Jonny7

stuar wrote: »

Believe what you want hooradiation, PM sent.


Anyway back on topic, this woman's daughters pic has been used as one of the victims and splashed across the net, I still really don't know what to think about all this, it's mind boggling.

http://instagram.com/p/TS1VEhSC_U/

Here's a site created just for this topic, a few links on it, I'm not endorsing it or saying I 100% agree with its contents or title.

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com

Yeah I looked at the website.. and to my absolute shock..

"My name is Jay Johnson, and I created this website on 12/21/12.

My story is the greatest true story ever told.

I concluded based on my story, that I am the New Age Messiah, and have since been "New Age Messiah" on line.

I am the only person in the world to solve LOST, and the Goddess who spoke to me appears in the show. "

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah I looked at the website.. and to my absolute shock..

How convenient
Remind you of David Icke?

luketitz

Joining this a bit late, some interesting views on both sides it has to be said, although the Batman fella is spouting utter paranoid/delusional nonsense imho.

The angle on the fathers of both shooters due to take a stand in the tax case is compelling and although quite possibly a longshot co-incidence, it is certainly food for thought which has opened my mind to the possibility of more sinister forces at play ($)

We've learnt not to take mainstream (particularly US) media at face value but I just can't fathom how this could really be a widespread cover-up, having seen the reaction of the local community in the press.

stuar

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah I looked at the website.. and to my absolute shock..

I didn't notice he was the messiah till you pointed it out, thanks.

Don't kill the message because of the messanger, it's only links that the chosen one has put together, he's not talking in them..;)

humanji

In fairness, if I have to trust Fox News or the Messiah, I'd probably stick with the Messiah, just in case.