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

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2013 2:07am

Daithi 1 wrote: »

In order for what to be a conspiracy ?

You are the only one talking about actors. Quite frankly, I find it quite disrespectful and of bad taste.

In order for a teacher to see two shadows running past the gym for their to anything up with this the entire cast and crew of lord of the rings, including extras had to be involved, or something like that.

Daithi 1 · 16-01-2013 2:12am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In order for a teacher to see two shadows running past the gym for their to anything up with this the entire cast and crew of lord of the rings, including extras had to be involved, or something like that.

lol.

Johnny starting to sound eerily like the MSM.

Maybe the second shadow was the shadow of his shadow.

No. One was him and the other was his shadow. yeah

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2013 2:42am

Daithi 1 wrote: »

lol.

Johnny starting to sound eerily like the MSM.

Maybe the second shadow was the shadow of his shadow.

No. One was him and the other was his shadow. yeah

I reckon the second shadow was a hired actor, a stunt double from the invisible man and it was the shadow who put all the bullet holes into the teachers car in the car park and then fled in the wooded area to the Swat team guy.

Still not convinced by that aspect though, the way it was casually put in at the end of the article. I still suspect a sting in the tail. Why would an anonymous police source tell a reporter about the swat guy with a gun?

I believe that Lanza had a breakdown and carried out the attack. I also believe that the way this has been handled by the officials and media is too unusual. So many weird questions with this, it feels like they are intentionally being put out there. Also, you have two "conspiracy theorists" on the MSM within days of each other. Something doesn't quite feel right.

I reckon they will release (or leak) CCTV or crime scene photos at some point. Some angry policeman outraged by the "conspiracy theories" will leak them and Anderson Cooper will have a feature on all the disinfo conspiracy theories.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 2:51am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A truther is a member of one of the 9/11 truth groups such scholars for 911 truth and so on. What is their connection to Sandy Hook???

It's now a generic albeit ironic term.

BTW, your above point "in order for this to be a conspiracy 5 million people would have to be involved is nonsense.

I didn't say 5 million.

If you are acting defensive over what I just said, then refute it. Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of it.

BASIC REASONING: Don't engage in black and white thinking.

Would be more relevant to SH theories. Or the non-existence of.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 2:56am

Daithi 1 wrote: »

lol.

Johnny starting to sound eerily like the MSM.

Maybe the second shadow was the shadow of his shadow.

No. One was him and the other was his shadow. yeah

You're the one poking holes in it, yet you'll never commit to an alternative theory because you know one doesn't exist.

So sit on the fence, claim something "fishy" is going on, but you don't know what..

If that's not detective work then I don't know what is

Daithi 1 · 16-01-2013 9:35am

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you are acting defensive over what I just said, then refute it. Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of it.

You are the one being defensive. You are using underhanded insults and discussing us rather than the thread. You are not refuting anything that's being said, so you are arguing for the sake of it. Using words like truther, moron, detective etc in an attempt to bring around an adverse reaction. You are simply looking for a fight.
I suggest if you have a problem with this thread, b1tch to a mod or unsubscribe.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 10:43am

If you have a personal problem with my posts, report me. I'm making valid observations and pointing out some quite obvious truths. It's proving a little difficult for some I can see.

There seems to be quite a few Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists, but absolutely no credible theory. It's a murder case, just like Aurora, and no amount of incessant probing of the details is going to turn up anything exciting and unexpected.

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2013 12:28pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's now a generic albeit ironic term.

Generic term for what? People who have the audacity to disagree with you?

Jonny7 wrote: »

I didn't say 5 million.

If you are acting defensive over what I just said, then refute it. Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of it.

`There is nothing to refute, you were talking nonsense. It was a false dichotomy.

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2013 12:29pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you have a personal problem with my posts, report me. I'm making valid observations and pointing out some quite obvious truths. It's proving a little difficult for some I can see.

There seems to be quite a few Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists, but absolutely no credible theory. It's a murder case, just like Aurora, and no amount of incessant probing of the details is going to turn up anything exciting and unexpected.

Lucky you weren't an advisor to the Hillsbrough victims famililies so, they would have never seen justice.

Were they truthers?

hooradiation · 16-01-2013 12:40pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lucky you weren't an advisor to the Hillsbrough victims famililies so, they would have never seen justice.

Were they truthers?

Brown Bomber's favourite fallacies #6 - Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

I should really get bingo cards made up for this, it'd brighten my day up marginally.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 1:01pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Generic term for what? People who have the audacity to disagree with you?

They coined the phrase themselves.. truther. Therefore it's used commonly, such as Sandy Hook 'truther', crops up a lot on conspiracy sites.

I personally think it's an ironic term because they don't seem the slightest bit interested in the truth, in fact quite the opposite.

`There is nothing to refute, you were talking nonsense. It was a false dichotomy.

If one of the parents is an actor - then all the parents are actors. Explain how that is nonsense?

If you can't grasp that, then I'll explain it more simply for you.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 1:18pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lucky you weren't an advisor to the Hillsbrough victims famililies so, they would have never seen justice.

Were they truthers?

lol

Sorry were these families claiming that the victims of Hillsborough were crushed by an invisible energy beam created by the UK government? or perhaps crushed on purpose in an inside job to kill supporters?

The answer is nooooo.

The term "truther" is well and truly claimed. Nice attempt to try to gain some shred of legitmacy for it though

SteelyDanJalapeno · 16-01-2013 1:39pm

Video debunked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8

Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go:
First off the guy that created this video is Alex Jones. He is a paranoid nutjob, as was pretty evident by his CNN interview - seriously skip to 3 minutes in and tell me this guy is sane. Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...
Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y6C2YmOLWnM
He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.
The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.
Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r61PvN4U3x0
Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.
Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTaC580hfPo It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. http://i.imgur.com/iSuf4.jpg
Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/connecticut-school-shooting-official-says-gunman-killed-85094.html Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.
Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook, listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well ****, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.
Other stuff: The guy that made this video clearly has his own agenda, which is why he keeps bringing up 9/11 and the London bombings. Any time a large, tragic event occurs, he does his best to take media out of context and create his own crazy conspiracy driven narrative for the events that took place. If you are skeptical of this video, you should be. It's crap.

Original links and references see :

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/16lkhq/this_sandy_hook_conspiracy_video_has_been_making/c7xjgzr

Daithi 1 · 16-01-2013 2:27pm

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Video debunked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8

Original links and references see :

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/16lkhq/this_sandy_hook_conspiracy_video_has_been_making/c7xjgzr

Hmmm. Where have I seen this before ? oh yeah, on this thread about 10 pages ago. No-one on this thread was supporting any of the above theories then either.
Nice random news dump., again. Try to pay attention.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 2:36pm

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Hmmm. Where have I seen this before ? oh yeah, on this thread about 10 pages ago.

It was put up on reddit 15 hours ago, where is it in this thread?

Daithi 1 · 16-01-2013 2:45pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you have a personal problem with my posts, report me. I'm making valid observations and pointing out some quite obvious truths. It's proving a little difficult for some I can see.

There seems to be quite a few Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists, but absolutely no credible theory. It's a murder case, just like Aurora, and no amount of incessant probing of the details is going to turn up anything exciting and unexpected.

So, if I sit on the fence and don't put forward a theory because "I don't have one"...
I'm a moronic, f*king truther, wannabe detective conspiracy theorist who lacks basic elementary reasoning.

And if I do take a position I'm a moronic, f*cking truther, wannabe detective conspiracy theorist who lacks basic elementary reasoning.

So, basically just for posting, I'm in for a world of abuse off you.

Great, thanks . :rolleyes:

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 2:58pm

Daithi 1 wrote: »

So, if I sit on the fence and don't put forward a theory because "I don't have one"...

Well you don't have a theory, so we're agreed on that.

I'm a moronic, f*king truther, wannabe detective conspiracy theorist who lacks basic elementary reasoning.

And if I do take a position I'm a moronic, f*cking truther, wannabe detective conspiracy theorist who lacks basic elementary reasoning.

So, basically just for posting, I'm in for a world of abuse off you.

Great, thanks . :rolleyes:

I disagree. Unless you've started harassing people linked to the case, then I might change my mind.

gnfnrhead · 16-01-2013 6:02pm

Don't know how this thread/theory is still going. The only thing that hasnt been 1000% explained several times is why it was dark when they opened the car. That could be explained by a simple case of giving it a quick look over earlier and deciding it wasnt a risk. Instead of wasting time deeply examining it straight away, they focused on the more pressing issue of dead kids. The car isnt a risk and it isnt going anywhere.

Think it's time people faced facts that one lunatic got some guns and went nuts instead of it being a big elaborate conspiracy like they want it to be.

Daithi 1 · 16-01-2013 6:24pm

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Don't know how this thread/theory is still going. The only thing that hasnt been 1000% explained several times is why it was dark when they opened the car. That could be explained by a simple case of giving it a quick look over earlier and deciding it wasnt a risk. Instead of wasting time deeply examining it straight away, they focused on the more pressing issue of dead kids. The car isnt a risk and it isnt going anywhere.

Think it's time people faced facts that one lunatic got some guns and went nuts instead of it being a big elaborate conspiracy like they want it to be.

Well, no-one has explained why an armed off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town ran from police, into the woods or was already in the woods, was arrested, placed in the front of a police car and subsequently let go. Nor has anyone explained about the other men/man who were detained and also let go.

Didn't he hear the shooting ? Couldn't he help ?

hooradiation · 16-01-2013 6:26pm

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Well, no-one has explained why an armed off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town ran from police, into the woods or was already in the woods, was arrested, placed in the front of a police car and subsequently let go. Nor has anyone explained about the other men/man who were detained and also let go.

What makes you think these questions are significant or relevant?

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2013 6:30pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

They coined the phrase themselves.. truther.

]
Honestly , what are you talking about?

Who "coined" the phrase?
When did this happen?
What has this got to do with Sandy Hook?
Why does hooradation want to "**** them"?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Therefore it's used commonly, such as Sandy Hook 'truther', crops up a lot on conspiracy sites.

I genuinely haven't a breeze what you are talking about and I don't think you do either.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I personally think it's an ironic term because they don't seem the slightest bit interested in the truth, in fact quite the opposite.

Again, this means nothing without knowing who "they" are.

Jonny7 wrote: »

If one of the parents is an actor - then all the parents are actors. Explain how that is nonsense?

If you can't grasp that, then I'll explain it more simply for you.

Not that I think this happened but conceivably the FBI could have met with the parents/teachers and said "Look, we don't want you to suffer any more than you need to. Unfortunately, this is a global news event and the hacks are going to be swarming around you and harrassing you constantly. Legally we can't stop this but we have a solution - one or two of our agents will pose as parents, locals and so on and will act as spokespeople and deal with the media. All we need from you to offer you this protection is to sign this confidentiality contract.

Anyway this is all beside the point. What I referred to a "nonsense" was this nonsense below.

In order for this to be a conspiracy, every single parent, including Mrs Pozner above, would have to be an actor.

hooradiation · 16-01-2013 6:41pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

]
Why does hooradation want to "**** them"?

Read the linked article, then stop feigning ignorance.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 6:49pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

]
Honestly , what are you talking about?
Who "coined" the phrase?

When did this happen?

What has this got to do with Sandy Hook?

Why does hooradation want to "**** them"?

I'll address the faux questions.

911 Truthers coined the phrase
Sandy connection, in the articles the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are also referred to as truthers.. the ones harassing people.

Hooradation obviously thinks it's pretty disgusting, so do I, so does anyone. Vi

I genuinely haven't a breeze what you are talking about and I don't think you do either.

You obviously do since you type out this below

Not that I think this happened but conceivably the FBI could have met with the parents/teachers and said "Look, we don't want you to suffer any more than you need to. Unfortunately, this is a global news event and the hacks are going to be swarming around you and harrassing you constantly. Legally we can't stop this but we have a solution - one or two of our agents will pose as parents, locals and so on and will act as spokespeople and deal with the media. All we need from you to offer you this protection is to sign this confidentiality contract.

I'm addressing a non fleshed out theory which is complete garbage, which, not even the most ardent of conspiracy theorists here will touch with a barge-pole... yet you curiously feel the need to be on the defensive.

Hmmm curious

Daithi 1 · 16-01-2013 7:01pm

hooradiation wrote: »

What makes you think these questions are significant or relevant?

Silly question. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2013 7:32pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'll address the faux questions.

Have an inkling you wont but let's see...

Jonny7 wrote: »

911 Truthers coined the phrase

And around and around we go.

When did this happen? Can you provide any evidence of this?

Jonny7 wrote: »

I Sandy connection, in the articles the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are also referred to as truthers.. the ones harassing people.

And...it's one hack in a hitpiece? What has that got to do with scepticism regarding the official explanation of 9/11?

And could you try and answer the questions directly? Tack.

Jonny7 · 16-01-2013 8:09pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have an inkling you wont but let's see...

And around and around we go.

When did this happen? Can you provide any evidence of this?

Ah more false questions.

"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated[17][16] organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.[3][4][5][6][7][18][19][20] The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement.[21][22] Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers",[23] "9/11 skeptics"[24] or "truth activists",[25] while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists".[17][25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

There you go.

And...it's one hack in a hitpiece?

Gene Rosen is being harassed by .. people.. who believe Sandy Hook was a hoax.

If you have info to the contrary please share.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory_n_2481912.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

What has that got to do with scepticism regarding the official explanation of 9/11?

Childish.

"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated[17][16] organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.[3][4][5][6][7][18][19][20] The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement.[21][22] Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers",[23] "9/11 skeptics"[24] or "truth activists",[25] while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists".[17][25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

And could you try and answer the questions directly? Tack.

Make an effort to ask genuine questions.

humanji · 16-01-2013 9:21pm

For the love of god people, stop taking swipes at each other. You just look ridiculous when you do it.

hooradiation · 17-01-2013 9:26am

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Silly question. :rolleyes:

I'm serious.
We have some mixed messages from frantic early reporting.

How important do you imagine an answer (to your satisfaction, because they've already been answered to a satisfactory degree as far as I'm concerned) would be and what do you imagine is being hidden here?

Daithi 1 · 17-01-2013 10:16am

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm serious.
We have some mixed messages from frantic early reporting.

We Who ?

hooradiation wrote: »

How important do you imagine an answer (to your satisfaction, because they've already been answered to a satisfactory degree as far as I'm concerned) would be and what do you imagine is being hidden here?

Real important.

hooradiation · 17-01-2013 11:24am

Daithi 1 wrote: »

We Who ?

We, as in everyone, given we're all looking at the same finite set of information.
Though others might not appreciate you encroaching on their feigning ignorance at simple sentences shtick.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Real important.

Then feel free to detail how.
Because I think that this kind of "yeah, well, what about X" constant topic shifting and fixation on questions which seem to have no value except to reinforce the narrative that there are no questions being asked is becoming more and more like a gish gallop.

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

Comments