# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

## Universal Mind

This... is... insane!!!

----------


## DeletePlease

A hoax as in it didn't happen? No, it happened. Was there more to it than most people realize? I'd say so, definitely. I haven't looked into it enough to be able to say it was a black operation, but will say that only a fool would rule out the possibility.

----------


## Xei

Why would the US government organise something so unequivocally atrocious when there is a high chance of it leaking?

Pros: helps master plan to fail to pass new gun laws (?)
Cons: high probability of entire administration being thrown out of government and into jail

Nnnah.

----------


## Woodstock

> Pros: helps master plan to fail to pass new gun laws (?)



The thing most of the Republicans and Alex Jones followers forget is that no one is even trying to take their guns, it's just background checks. I don't think they'd need to fake a school shooting for that.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why would the US government organise something so unequivocally atrocious when there is a high chance of it leaking?
> 
> Pros: helps master plan to fail to pass new gun laws (?)
> Cons: high probability of entire administration being thrown out of government and into jail
> 
> Nnnah.



I don't know what happened, but there are unanswered questions. I am pretty sure that if it was a hoax, it was to set the stage for gradually making guns illegal. My concern is that the government has gotten so powerful that nobody would go to jail for the hoax. I think the NSA surveillance is treasonous, but we have a government that sees the public as weak and stupid. The government obviously thinks they can get away with all kinds of stuff that is way out of bounds. I don't put anything past them any more. 





> The thing most of the Republicans and Alex Jones followers forget is that no one is even trying to take their guns, it's just background checks. I don't think they'd need to fake a school shooting for that.



Remember that the government works in small steps. The government went from certain violations of the Bill of Rights for "fighting drugs" to the Patriot Act, which was a stepping stone to the NDAA, which could very well be a stepping stone to an even greater horror. The government sent some troops to Vietnam for a policing mission, and that turned into 200,000 troops fighting a full blown war. The Iraq War was supposed to be a temporary mission to overthrow the Hussein regime and declare mission accomplished and then have the people happily let us set up a new government, but it turned into a decade long clusterfuck. We set up a military base in Saudi Arabia to have a home base during the Gulf War, but the base is still open to this day. The Department of Education was never meant to rule the nation's public schools on the level that it does. Hitler suspended part of the German Constitution "temporarily" because it was supposedly necessary to handle some of Germany's problems. Then he took over the country, and then he took over most of Europe. Governments cannot be trusted to stop where they say they are going to stop. They always want more power than they have and more power than they say they want. Our government is talking about background checks and banning "assault weapons" (which are not just machine guns) now, but I don't trust them for two seconds to stop there.

----------


## Woodstock

> Remember that the government works in small steps. The government went from certain violations of the Bill of Rights for "fighting drugs" to the Patriot Act, which was a stepping stone to the NDAA, which could very well be a stepping stone to an even greater horror. The government sent some troops to Vietnam for a policing mission, and that turned into 200,000 troops fighting a full blown war. The Iraq War was supposed to be a temporary mission to overthrow the Hussein regime and declare mission accomplished and then have the people happily let us set up a new government, but it turned into a decade long clusterfuck. We set up a military base in Saudi Arabia to have a home base during the Gulf War, but the base is still open to this day. The Department of Education was never meant to rule the nation's public schools on the level that it does. Hitler suspended part of the German Constitution "temporarily" because it was supposedly necessary to handle some of Germany's problems. Then he took over the country, and then he took over most of Europe. Governments cannot be trusted to stop where they say they are going to stop. They always want more power than they have and more power than they say they want. Our government is talking about background checks and banning "assault weapons" (which are not just machine guns) now, but I don't trust them for two seconds to stop there.



Obama has less than 4 years and then we'll have a new president, do you really think he can make all guns illegal in that time when he's been trying to get background checks for a year and it hasn't happened yet?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Obama has less than 4 years and then we'll have a new president, do you really think he can make all guns illegal in that time when he's been trying to get background checks for a year and it hasn't happened yet?



I think he's working for a bigger element that has an agenda to ban all guns. I am not saying it's the Illuminati or the New World Order, but it is a collectivity of control freaks.

----------


## Descensus

Can I answer the topic in one word?

"No."

----------


## Darkmatters

It takes more than one word to refute all the allegations made in the video. How do you explain for instance that the gun that was supposedly used to shoot everybody was locked in the trunk of the car on the parking lot (and there's video of it being discovered there by police)? And all the parents laughing and smiling 2 days after their children were killed? And the Facebook memorial pages that were put up several days before the shooting occurred? As well as the ridiculous coincidence that the very day of the shooting, at the exact same time school was in session, there was a training operation going on 20 minutes away for how to handle an emergency situation involving children? The 2 other shooters who were caught, at least one of them wearing camo just like the people seen in the training operation, who were originally reported but later mysteriously disappeared from the narrative?

----------


## Descensus

> It takes more than one word to refute all the allegations made in the video.



Of course, but if we decided to write essays on each bullshit topic, we wouldn't have much time for other, more productive things. 





> How do you explain for instance that the gun that was supposedly used to shoot everybody was locked in the trunk of the car on the parking lot (and there's video of it being discovered there by police)?



The gun in the trunk wasn't the gun used in the shooting.





> And all the parents laughing and smiling 2 days after their children were killed?



Nervous laughter, reminiscing, etc. Even after suffering a huge loss, humans can still display happy emotions. 





> And the Facebook memorial pages that were put up several days before the shooting occurred?



The pages existed before the shooting, but the names were changed after.





> As well as the ridiculous coincidence that the very day of the shooting, at the exact same time school was in session, there was a training operation going on 20 minutes away for how to handle an emergency situation involving children?



Not so ridiculous when similar events were occurring multiple times throughout CT in November and December. 





> The 2 other shooters who were caught, at least one of them wearing camo just like the people seen in the training operation, who were originally reported but later mysteriously disappeared from the narrative?



An off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Of course, but if we decided to write essays on each bullshit topic, we wouldn't have much time for other, more productive things.



Essays are not necessary, but explanations are productive





> The gun in the trunk wasn't the gun used in the shooting.



The medical examiner said the gun used was a rifle. A rifle was discovered in the alleged shooter's trunk after the shooting although the shooter never went back to his car after the shooting, but the guns found in the school were all hand guns. 





> Nervous laughter, reminiscing, etc. Even after suffering a huge loss, humans can still display happy emotions.



So he looked cheerful for a few seconds before going on television because he was thinking, "Ha ha, I'm about to talk about how my little girl was just murdered." (?)





> The pages existed before the shooting, but the names were changed after.



Where did you get that? Why were the pages created two days before the shooting? Why did a supposed parent post a Facebook status about his dead little girl during the shooting and then come back and say that he didn't know how she was doing because the school was under lock down? Also, a lady who was interviewed talked about the shooter's mother being a kindergarten teacher at the school, but it turned out that she didn't even work at the school. This is odd stuff. 

I have seen multiple videos on this, so I don't know how much of what I am bringing up is in the video I posted. 





> Not so ridiculous when similar events were occurring multiple times throughout CT in November and December.



Right by the shooting location? Strangely, the same thing happened with 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. 





> An off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.



Hmmm... 

There is also the situation of the witness who told one reporter that a female school bus driver stopped in front of his house and acted frantic and then dropped six kids off at his house although the bus driver didn't know him. The same guy told Megan Kelly on Fox News that a man outside his house yelled at him about taking care of the six kids. The witness lived where the kids would have walked right past a rescue crew on the way. The film maker claims that the witness is a member of the Screen Actors' Guild. 

And for the biggest question I have about all of this... What on Earth was Barack Obama doing in a picture with a supposed fatal victim of the shooting and her family? Did Obama get a photo op with this family not long before the shooting?  

I am not sold on the conspiracy theory. There could be multiple documentary makers using Photoshop, interviewing phony people themselves, filming fake news clips, and lying their asses off. It's possible. But there are a lot of issues that have not been explained away.

----------


## Descensus

> The medical examiner said the gun used was a rifle. A rifle was discovered in the alleged shooter's trunk after the shooting although the shooter never went back to his car after the shooting, but the guns found in the school were all hand guns.



The gun found in the trunk was a shotgun. There were two handguns in the school, along with a Bushmaster rifle. 





> So he looked cheerful for a few seconds before going on television because he was thinking, "Ha ha, I'm about to talk about how my little girl was just murdered." (?)



Unlikely. Do you deny that humans can display happy emotions (even at times one would consider odd or inappropriate) after a tremendous loss?





> Where did you get that? Why were the pages created two days before the shooting?



The pages had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, but the names were changed (because you can do that on FB) after the shooting. Page creation dates can be imprecise and confusing (Example: a newspaper's FB page can say Founded 1920 while their FB page was only created in 2009), as can dates in general in Google searches.  

The same thing happened with the Boston bombing. Pre-existing pages changed their names to memorialize the event. It happens all the time.





> Why did a supposed parent post a Facebook status about his dead little girl during the shooting and then come back and say that he didn't know how she was doing because the school was under lock down?



I haven't heard anything about this. More info?





> Also, a lady who was interviewed talked about the shooter's mother being a kindergarten teacher at the school, but it turned out that she didn't even work at the school. This is odd stuff.



I won't insult you by asking if you've ever watched news churn out as events unfold, but misreporting occurs all the time. Again, take Boston. CNN's John King reported that a suspect had been identified and arrested well before decent pictures of the guys had even been released to the public (because the FBI needed help).





> Right by the shooting location? Strangely, the same thing happened with 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing.



By "right by" do you mean a half hour away in Bridgeport, CT?

Government involvement will always be associated with violent tragedies because it fits the worldview of the people conjuring up these conspiracy theories. With Boston, they ask why bomb-sniffing dogs were present, despite the fact that we're living post-9/11, so of-fucking-course there will be some sort of anti-terrorism/police units on-scene during large, well-advertised public events. With 9/11, I can't even begin to comprehend the amount of crap they pull from thin air.





> Hmmm... 
> 
> There is also the situation of the witness who told one reporter that a female school bus driver stopped in front of his house and acted frantic and then dropped six kids off at his house although the bus driver didn't know him. The same guy told Megan Kelly on Fox News that a man outside his house yelled at him about taking care of the six kids. The witness lived where the kids would have walked right past a rescue crew on the way. The film maker claims that the witness is a member of the Screen Actors' Guild.



Gene Rosen (your witness) noticed six children (and a bus driver) on his lawn. They had made it out of the school. How they ended up there, I don't know, but there was no "dropping off" of children. The film maker is wrong about the SAG connection. There _is_ a Gene Rosen involved with the SAG, but it is not the same Gene Rosen involved with sheltering the children. 





> And for the biggest question I have about all of this... What on Earth was Barack Obama doing in a picture with a supposed fatal victim of the shooting and her family? Did Obama get a photo op with this family not long before the shooting?



The child is erroneously reported to be Emilie Parker (who died in the shooting). In the pictures with Obama, it's actually her sister. 





> I am not sold on the conspiracy theory. There could be multiple documentary makers using Photoshop, interviewing phony people themselves, filming fake news clips, and lying their asses off. It's possible. But there are a lot of issues that have not been explained away.



Have you taken time to look up responses to the video? Doesn't seem like it.

----------


## Woodstock

Why is everything a "hoax" or "conspiracy"? Why is it so hard to believe that there are bad people who do bad things without being told to by the government?

----------


## Darkmatters

Why do most people automatically assume governments never conspire to corruption, in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary?

If someone can point out someplace where the various questions have been answered effectively then there would be no need for a conversation like this. So far I see a lot more questions than answers, and I also see suspicious patterns in a lot of recent tragedies and atrocities where the government seems to basically just say "Stop looking into it - there's nothing to see there" and yet fails to prove it. It's becoming increasingly clear this administration is involved in a lot of deeply corrupt goings-on. We don't yet know the extent of them, so I think it's a very good idea to keep asking such questions. 

And what's really surprising is the number of people who just seem to be saying "oh come on - you know governments don't do bad things!"

What's wrong with inquiring into the facts, especially if they don't seem to add up? Should the government always be exempt form suspicion in every case, with no investigation?

----------


## Descensus

I'd like to point out the difference between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Conspiracies happen in the real world, and often we find out about them. No one can deny that.

Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, never come to fruition and are never rigorously verified. What few factoids are involved, they are diluted by sloppy logic, confirmation bias, poor research, and paranoia. Conspiracy theories are homeopathic.

----------


## Darkmatters

So, if people theorize that there's a conspiracy, even if it later turns out they were right, that theory is automatically bullshit? 

How about people who don't spew conspiracy theories but just want to see crimes properly investigated? Do they automatically get lumped in with conspiracy theorists?

----------


## Universal Mind

> The gun found in the trunk was a shotgun. There were two handguns in the school, along with a Bushmaster rifle.



Okay, shotgun. Not a hand gun. What did the medical examiner say the shooter used to shoot up the place? 






> Unlikely. Do you deny that humans can display happy emotions (even at times one would consider odd or inappropriate) after a tremendous loss?



They can, but I have never seen a parent act the particular way the supposed father of Emilie did, the day after the death. He acted like he was running for office and about to give a political speech. 

Do you know a bad acting job when you see one? Check out this WTF...









> The pages had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, but the names were changed (because you can do that on FB) after the shooting. Page creation dates can be imprecise and confusing (Example: a newspaper's FB page can say Founded 1920 while their FB page was only created in 2009), as can dates in general in Google searches.



I have never seen that. Why were the pages with crazy dates on them created? Why did their purpose suddenly change within two days? 





> The same thing happened with the Boston bombing. Pre-existing pages changed their names to memorialize the event. It happens all the time.



So other people's memorials were taken away for a new tragedy? Were those pages created two days earlier too? Two days???





> I haven't heard anything about this. More info?



Go to 9:34 of the video I posted in my original post. 






> I won't insult you by asking if you've ever watched news churn out as events unfold, but misreporting occurs all the time. Again, take Boston. CNN's John King reported that a suspect had been identified and arrested well before decent pictures of the guys had even been released to the public (because the FBI needed help).



Did you watch the video I posted? The reporter said she herself talked to the school nurse, who told her that the gunman's mother was "a very caring, experienced kindergarten teacher." How could that get messed up?  





> By "right by" do you mean a half hour away in Bridgeport, CT?
> 
> Government involvement will always be associated with violent tragedies because it fits the worldview of the people conjuring up these conspiracy theories. With Boston, they ask why bomb-sniffing dogs were present, despite the fact that we're living post-9/11, so of-fucking-course there will be some sort of anti-terrorism/police units on-scene during large, well-advertised public events. With 9/11, I can't even begin to comprehend the amount of crap they pull from thin air.



Yes, that is pretty damn close to the obscure town. Are those drills going on in your metro area right now? 





> The child is erroneously reported to be Emilie Parker (who died in the shooting). In the pictures with Obama, it's actually her sister.



Yes, Emilie Parker. My sources have said that the girl in the pictures is Emilie. Like I said, people lie, but many sources say the girl in the picture with Obama is Emilie Parker. There was an older sister and two younger ones who look like twins. Which one do you claim was Emilie? 





> Have you taken time to look up responses to the video? Doesn't seem like it.



The ones I have found make me facepalm and cringe at the same time. Have you found a good one?

----------


## Woodstock

> Why do most people automatically assume governments never conspire to corruption, in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary?
> 
> If someone can point out someplace where the various questions have been answered effectively then there would be no need for a conversation like this. So far I see a lot more questions than answers, and I also see suspicious patterns in a lot of recent tragedies and atrocities where the government seems to basically just say "Stop looking into it - there's nothing to see there" and yet fails to prove it. It's becoming increasingly clear this administration is involved in a lot of deeply corrupt goings-on. We don't yet know the extent of them, so I think it's a very good idea to keep asking such questions. 
> 
> And what's really surprising is the number of people who just seem to be saying "oh come on - you know governments don't do bad things!"
> 
> What's wrong with inquiring into the facts, especially if they don't seem to add up? Should the government always be exempt form suspicion in every case, with no investigation?



No, I'm not saying that the government is completely innocent and never does anything wrong. But you can't blame every bad thing that happens on the government. I've heard all the 9/11 conspiracy theories and now people are saying the shooting and Boston bombing were also done by the government.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No, I'm not saying that the government is completely innocent and never does anything wrong. But you can't blame every bad thing that happens on the government. I've heard all the 9/11 conspiracy theories and now people are saying the shooting and Boston bombing were also done by the government.



I know you didn't address that to me, but I want to chime in. I don't claim to know that the government did any of that stuff, but there is craziness that has not been explained. You can look at old threads here and see how much I argued against the 9/11 inside job claims. I don't think college students on the internet understand skyscraper engineering better than the engineering world, who scoff at the engineering claims. I don't think the airplanes were remote control, and I don't think the government would have bothered with airplanes if they used bombs to blow up the buildings. But might the government have used Bin Laden to get terrorists to hijack airplanes and crash them into major U.S. buildings? My view at this point is that it's possible but not proven. I say the same about the existence of the Illuminati. However, I know with complete certainty that all of these tragedies have been used by the government to argue for major government expansion and the trampling of civil liberties. That we do know.

----------


## Darkmatters

Same here - I didn't blame anything on anybody, nor do I 'always blame government for everything'. UM and I have done nothing but ask questions. 

As I said above, it's becoming clear there is a deep corruption in our government. When someone has proven themselves to be untrustworthy, doesn't it seem like a good idea to investigate anything oddly suspicious that they're involved with?

----------


## Descensus

> Okay, shotgun. Not a hand gun. What did the medical examiner say the shooter used to shoot up the place?



The Bushmaster rifle. Both the medical examiner and a CT statie confirm this. 





> They can, but I have never seen a parent act that way the day after the death.



As with before, I won't insult you by explaining what an argument from incredulity looks like. 





> I have never seen that. Why were the pages with crazy dates on them created? Why did their purpose suddenly change within two days?



They could've been created for any reason. They could've been pages for Star Trek fan fiction for all I know. As for why their purpose changed, well, it was a horrific event. Page owners often turn their pages into springboards for donations, activism, etc. 





> So other people's memorials were taken away for a new tragedy? Were those pages created two days earlier too? Two days???



No, the existing pages (whose original purpose could've been for ANYTHING) were changed for the reason stated above.





> Go to 9:34 of the video I posted in my original post.



Did you bother to read the post directly adjacent to the one stating the school is still in lockdown? The page was set up by _friends_ of the Parker's, not the Parker's themselves. The post mentioning the lockdown also apologizes for the misinformation given earlier regarding the loss of Emilie Parker. Tense, horrible situation with information scattered all over the place, with nobody sure what exactly was happening...is accidental false reporting such an unreasonable explanation?





> Did you watch the video I posted?



To be honest I haven't watched the video, but a lot of its claims (which you've laid out) are similar to other hypotheses brought up by hoaxers. 





> The reporter said she herself talked to the school nurse, who told her that the gunman's mother was "a very caring, experienced kindergarten teacher." How could that get messed up?



The same way John King messed up. It happens all the time with situations like these. 





> Yes, that is pretty damn close to the obscure town. Are those drills going on in your town right now?



A thirty minute travel for me is roughly from my house to just north of Boston with light traffic. I'll have you know that Boston seems like a world away.

I looked up whether MEMA is having any training courses. There are three in my city this month. I'll let you know if anything tragic happens. Though I doubt anything will, as there were four in March and for some reason I can't recall any major violent incidents occurring. 





> Yes, Emilie Parker. My sources have said that the girl in the pictures is Emilie. Like I said, people lie, but many sources say the girl in the picture with Obama is Emilie Parker. There was an older sister and two younger ones who look like twins. Which one do you claim was Emilie?



The girl with Obama was the younger sister.





> The ones I have found make me facepalm and cringe at the same time. Have you found a good one?



No videos, but lots of articles.. Stories have been clarified, and there is a lot of emphasis on the media simply fucking up their reporting because, well, they're competing to be the "first to know." Other hoax hypotheses are simply nonsense, fueled by paranoia. It's no wonder why people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others.

----------


## Woodstock

> However, I know with complete certainty that all of these tragedies have been used by the government to argue for major government expansion and the trampling of civil liberties. That we do know.



I agree with this.





> Same here - I didn't blame anything on anybody, nor do I 'always blame government for everything'. UM and I have done nothing but ask questions.



Sorry, I thought you and Universal Mind were arguing that the government did it, not just asking questions.





> As I said above, it's becoming clear there is a deep corruption in our government. When someone has proven themselves to be untrustworthy, doesn't it seem like a good idea to investigate anything oddly suspicious that they're involved with?



Yes, the government is corrupt. I did some research because like you said, the government is untrustworthy and suspicious, but I just don't see any real evidence for this, just bad reporting and some fakes.

----------


## Darkmatters

Ok cool. Yeah, I can see where any thread that begins with a video like this one would almost automatically bee seen by most people as pure Alex Jones style conspiracy theory idiocy. I'm not just buying wholeheartedly into any of it, but I also refuse to go the opposite extreme and assume that there's never a grain of truth at the heart of some conspiracy theories. 

I really haven't researched into this much - ok at all, so I was hoping somebody would give links to some explanations or a place to start. I hate the way it seems like these stories start off so strong, you know, 24-7 coverage for a week or two and then suddenly they disappear before there are enough answers or before anything has really been resolved. It's a shame anyone who wants to learn more after the news stories dry up needs to launch their own independent investigation.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The Bushmaster rifle. Both the medical examiner and a CT statie confirm this.



Was the Bushmaster rifle found in the school? According to the video, only hand guns were found in the school. If the video is wrong about that and there is evidence to confirm it, then that's one hole in the video. 





> As with before, I won't insult you by explaining what an argument from incredulity looks like.



I have said several times that it is not proof. It is definitely a really weird, eyebrow raising situation. Did you watch the other video I posted? If you will watch even a few minutes of it, especially the teacher's family, you will see something very bizarre. 

Keep in mind that I am not convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax. If I were, I would not have titled this thread with a question. 





> They could've been created for any reason. They could've been pages for Star Trek fan fiction for all I know. As for why their purpose changed, well, it was a horrific event. Page owners often turn their pages into springboards for donations, activism, etc.



I wonder why the other cause/identity lasted only two days on Facebook. I wonder how the parent found out there was an available page and got ownership of it instead of just starting from scratch. Creating a Facebook page from scratch can be done in a matter of minutes. I wouldn't know how to find a Facebook page where the owner is saying, "Hey, take this page. We don't need it... after two days." More strangeness. 





> Did you bother to read the post directly adjacent to the one stating the school is still in lockdown? The page was set up by _friends_ of the Parker's, not the Parker's themselves. The post mentioning the lockdown also apologizes for the misinformation given earlier regarding the loss of Emilie Parker. Tense, horrible situation with information scattered all over the place, with nobody sure what exactly was happening...is accidental false reporting such an unreasonable explanation?



A Facebook dedication page was set up for a dead student while the school was still in lockdown? People hear that a school has been taken over by at least one gunman, and people in the town react by immediately hitting Facebook and doing dedications to children who had reportedly just been murdered, and one of them hadn't even really been murdered? Do you see anything off the wall about that? It is very difficult for me to see that happening in real life. I would be glued to the television or the radio to find out what is going to happen next at my town's elementary school during such a crisis. It wouldn't be Facebook dedication time. I don't come within a million miles of relating to that madness. 





> To be honest I haven't watched the video, but a lot of its claims (which you've laid out) are similar to other hypotheses brought up by hoaxers.



I have a history of scoffing at conspiracy videos, but this is some of the weirdest shit I have ever seen. You really should watch the video. The way the people of the town act in it is very surreal because it just seems so unreal, but it's on the news. The facts are insane, and so is the behavior. 





> The same way John King messed up. It happens all the time with situations like these.



Then the reporter is lying, she had a very detailed false memory of a conversation she just had, she talked to a school nurse who told a whopper about a tragedy that just happened at the elementary school where she works, or some freak claimed to be the school nurse but wasn't. Is there a fifth alternative? 





> A thirty minute travel for me is roughly from my house to just north of Boston with light traffic. I'll have you know that Boston seems like a world away.



I live about twenty minutes from the Jackson city limits, but the city line is so close that the name of the metro area where I live is Jackson. It doesn't seem far at all. I could bike into the city in no time. 





> I looked up whether MEMA is having any training courses. There are three in my city this month. I'll let you know if anything tragic happens. Though I doubt anything will, as there were four in March and for some reason I can't recall any major violent incidents occurring.



That's 1 every 10 days, and you live in Boston, where a terrorist attack just occurred, not Newton, Connecticut. 





> The girl with Obama was the younger sister.



I did more research on that. There were three sisters. Emilie was the oldest, and she was the alleged victim. The girl standing right in front of Obama in the picture looks identical to Emilie and is wearing her outfit. The other blonde headed girl is Emilie's sister who, I think, is the identical twin of the other surviving sister. Emilie was considerably older than the other two and had much longer hair. The other two girls had hair of the same length. 





> No videos, but lots of articles.. Stories have been clarified, and there is a lot of emphasis on the media simply fucking up their reporting because, well, they're competing to be the "first to know." Other hoax hypotheses are simply nonsense, fueled by paranoia. It's no wonder why people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others.



I don't "believe" any of them. There is just crazy stuff that still hasn't been explained. For debunking the conspiracy theory, this video is about the best I have found so far, and it leaves many holes. 





It does explain the man who ran away from the school. He was supposedly looking for his daughter after he found out that she got away from the school. The Gene Rosen situation, the Emilie Parker situation, and the bizarre acting of family members of victims still leave huge question marks.

The Emilie Parker mystery is presented very well on this page: 

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-con...r-2558804.html

----------


## Universal Mind

Jackpot: 





Lots of actual news clips, interviews, and speeches in that, and they are quite eerie. 


I want to reiterate this, particularly the pictures of Emilie Parker:

Sandy Hook: The Curious Case Of Emilie Parker | Opinion - Conservative

----------


## katsung47

I think my allegation on Emily's 12/14 face book fund raising page hit the target. After I posted it, I got a reply 





> 01-24-13, 12:24 AM#52
> FreedomFromAll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...



I went to that url, the Emilie's fund raising page was disappeared. They found the flaw and disabled the site.

----------


## Universal Mind

Katsung, this is the Emilie Parker Fund website: 

The Emilie Parker Art Connection | In Memory of Emilie Parker

On the page is a home movie compilation. I want to know where in that compilation is the sister who looks identical to Emilie in the Obama photo. Nobody can tell me that. 

emilie parker obama.jpg

----------


## Alric

You can see her sister in several places, but you have to take into account that she looks younger in those videos. The only thing suspicious going on here, is that fact you don't realize that people look different depending on their age.

----------


## Universal Mind

You are welcome to find me a picture of Madeline at a later age whenever you're ready. People claim that Madeline is in the Obama photo although the girl looks identical to Emilie, and nobody can find another picture of Madeline looking identical to Emilie. 

Isn't it strange that there is not a single frame with all three sisters at once in that video?

----------


## Alric

I believe that is all three of them in the video at 1:10. The two older ones dancing together and the youngest one is sitting in the background. So there you go, all three at once. Also we went over this, your vision isn't very good. When compared in side by side with other photos the girl with Obama looks far more like Madeline than Emilie.

I am not sure if you are just not used to seeing blond girls so they all look the same to you, or you are being difficult on purpose because it creates a hole in your theory, but that girl with Obama definitely doesn't look identical to Emilie. It is clearly a different person and when you look at the photos, it is clearly Madeline.

----------


## Universal Mind

That is not Samantha at 1:10. It is some girl sitting a few people down. The girl in the Obama photo looks so much like Emilie that there is a controversy over whether it is Emilie, and you have yet to find me any other photo of Madeline looking identical to Emilie. Don't worry. Nobody else on Earth can do it either. I have 20/20 vision, by the way. 

Why would I not be used to seeing blonde girls? Where do you think I live? I don't think they all look alike. For example, I don't think Madeline looks like Emilie. 

Let me know when you find that picture. I won't be holding my breath.

Okay, this is the most recent picture of all of the supposed members of the Parker family. Get a hard look at Madeline's hair. Notice its texture, where it is parted, and how long it is. Do the same with Emilie. 

parker-family-pic.jpg

Now look at the girl in front of Obama. Look at her hair texture, its length, and where it is parted. Also notice what she is wearing. 

parker obama.jpg

Now tell me honestly... Which girl in the first photo has the same hair length, hair texture, hair part, and outfit as the girl in front of Obama?

Also, can you explain where Madeline's and Samantha's legs are in the first photo?

I want to remind you that the alleged father, Robbie Parker, is the guy who did this the day after the supposed massacre: 





Check out this bizarre Parker response: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fujlo1jCCcY

Check this out too: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVRFYJJAw2Y

They made a ton of money off people giving to the "Emilie Parker Fund." What's that about? What is that money supposed to do other than get them even richer? Do you sort of smell a scam yet?

----------


## Alric

They do not look the same. The girl with obama looks more like the girl on the left than the girl on the right. And the girl definitely doesn't look identical to the girl on the right. How can you say the one with Obama looks identical to the girl on the right? And why do you always use a two year old picture? Oh is it because they happened to be in the same dress, and that is the only thing that makes them look even remotely similar?

----------


## Universal Mind

How carefully did you read my post? I think you need to read it again. You apparently missed a lot. 

I posted the most recent pick of the whole supposed family, and I explained in detail the similarities between the Obama girl and Emilie in the family picture. I mentioned hair part, hair texture, and hair length. You just added a new element too. Look at Emilie's build in your picture on the left and the build of the girl in the Obama picture. Both are Emilie.

Also, Madeline's hair does not swerve. Emilie's does.

----------


## Universal Mind

Alric, do police have the authority to pronounce people dead? Aren't shooting victims supposed to be taken to the hospital? Why were the bodies left in the school for so long? There weren't even ambulances right in front of the school. They were blocked in at the firehouse. 





That is one of the best points against the official story I have come across yet. The police did not have the authority to pronounce the kids dead. That is the job of medical professionals, who are supposed to try to save victims even when they really seem dead on the surface. Also, as the video title says, the triage was never used. They just left the dead bodies in the school for hours and hours without help from medical professionals, according to the official story, which is absurd. The hoaxers really screwed up on that. It was a botched hoax.

----------


## Alric

Notice how you didn't say anything about her actual face? You are talking about hair and stuff. Madeline has a more roundish head with Emilie a more oval shape. Madeline has a wider chin, and her nose is different as well. When you look at the close up of them, you can clearly see by the facial features that the girl with Obama is Madeline, not Emilie. Though you keep comparing hair, something that changes over the years. You have to look at their face.

Also that video is not true. If a person is murdered a medical examiner often comes to a scene and that person can pronounce people dead, and the bodies are left where they are until they can record the crime scene(taking pictures and stuff). So it doesn't matter if the police have authority or not, since a medical examiner would of been called to the scene with them.

Also it isn't true that no one was taken to the hospital. 3 people who were still alive but wounded were taken out, 2 of which later died at the hospital. Everyone else was already dead by the time help arrived.

----------


## Universal Mind

Hair is very relevant, and I also mentioned body build. I posted the last supposed family photo taken of the Parkers and put it next to the Obama photo. There is supposed to be very little time between the two. Madeline did not have time to transform into Emilie's body double. The girls' chins and noses are very much alike. Some people question whether Madeline is just an earlier Emilie used in the photoshopping. The girl in the Obama photo looks just like Emilie did in her supposed last days. 

The medical examiner has no role until people are pronounced dead. The procedure is to try to save the people first, even when they appear dead. The cops can't just go, "Well, they look dead to me. Let's bring in the medical examiner." Instead, paramedics try to save the people. 

I didn't say nobody was taken to the hospital according to the official story. I said that the supposedly dead bodies were left in the school without paramedics ever getting to them, according to the official story. That's insane.

One of the confusing issues in the Parker girls mystery is that Emilie was not a big smiler. Madeline was more prone to have that spunky, energetic smile. I can't find a picture of Emilie having that demeanor aside from the Obama photo (where she would have been extra excited), but if you pause this video at 1:11, you can see that general demeanor. 

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


I am going to pose this question again for whoever wants to answer it because I think the issue is so baffling: Where are Madeline's and Samantha's legs in this picture? 

Attachment 6295

 ::shock:: 


Here's another bizarre situation, among the very many. A mother discovered that her daughter's picture was used to represent a Sandy Hook supposed victim on several media sites, including ABC, although her daughter was alive in Georgia. 





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

https://www.google.com/#q=lily+gaubert&safe=off

----------


## cmind

OMG you people are still talking about this.

----------


## Universal Mind

That's a pretty good point, cmind. You just convinced me that the official Sandy Hook story is totally coherent and believable. However, this is interesting: 





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

----------


## katsung47

Other people noticed that and have taken a screen shot. 

12/14/ facebook

The page dated 12/14 until January when I copied the content then disappeared after I recommending it. 

12/15 

A new page appeared in same url sometime later(after January, I suppose) with the join date: 12/15. 

The article about Emilie’s fund raising. 
Sandy Hook: The Curious Case Of Emilie Parker | Opinion - Conservative

----------


## cmind

> That's a pretty good point, cmind. You just convinced me that the official Sandy Hook story is totally coherent and believable.



Why does it matter? What would it prove if it was all a hoax? That the state is a corrupt institution? We already know this. That they will use lies and propaganda to bend public opinion to their will? We already know this. That they steal from us and our unborn children to kill and enslave? We already know this.

Why would it matter if they faked a shooting?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why does it matter? What would it prove if it was all a hoax? That the state is a corrupt institution? We already know this. That they will use lies and propaganda to bend public opinion to their will? We already know this. That they steal from us and our unborn children to kill and enslave? We already know this.
> 
> Why would it matter if they faked a shooting?



Who is "we?" The masses do not know it. Even the people who do know those things don't know that the government has gone this far. It's a big deal. If everybody in the U.S. knew the truth about Sandy Hoax, the size of the U.S. government would drastically shrink in a hurry. We need that. When I think of Sandy Hoax, I think of big government. It is inevitably corrupt.

----------


## cmind

> Who is "we?" The masses do not know it. Even the people who do know those things don't know that the government has gone this far. It's a big deal. If everybody in the U.S. knew the truth about Sandy Hoax, the size of the U.S. government would drastically shrink in a hurry. We need that. When I think of Sandy Hoax, I think of big government. It is inevitably corrupt.



Oh, I see. THIS is the one that will wake people up. 

Ten Proven US Government Conspiracies, and why I still trust the Government. « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)

Read that, and then pull your head out of your ass.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Oh, I see. THIS is the one that will wake people up. 
> 
> Ten Proven US Government Conspiracies, and why I still trust the Government. « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)
> 
> Read that, and then pull your head out of your ass.



Why do you want to act like a rude little orphan about this? You must know that I have a point. I was being civil. Can you do that? 

I agree with the article, except for the conclusion. I never said that 100% of the people in the government are corrupt. In fact, I have made the point that only small groups of government officials are involved in these things. Did you read where people kept saying that you can't get thousands of people to participate in such a conspiracy and I responded by saying there weren't that many people behind it? What I don't trust is a government with too much power over its people. It allows the psychos to have the means to pull things like Sandy Hoax. Understand? 

I didn't say that Sandy Hoax is "the one" that will wake up the public. I said that if the entire country knew about it, the size of the U.S. government would shrink. I am of course not counting on the masses to know the truth any time soon. I think eventually they will, but other things are going to happen to influence government shrinkage before then. 

Thank you for posting a list of government conspiracies that really did happen. I have posted them in this thread too, but some people might have missed them. If you agree that those conspiracies happened, which they in fact did, why do yo have a hard time accepting that Sandy Hoax happened?





Watch the first few seconds of this: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVOXK...B275D66CE0553A

----------


## katsung47

When they found a fund raising page on 12/14 was a flaw, they created some case like this one.
Sandy Hook fundraising relief page created 3 days before shooting, Google search results confirm

Friday, January 11, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger



It's easy to create such a page at the purpose to prove "Alter the date is easy". 
Did the Robbie Parker's friend had motive to alter the page set up date? 

This information and other similar ones obviously were made by the "disinformation workshop" to cover up the flaw of Emilie's fund raising page. It was impossible for Mr. Parker doing all this on 12/14. The police blocked people to entering the school. They moved the dead people out at night. How could Robbie Parker confirm his daughter's death that day then to inform his friends in UTAH then to open a donation account in bank then to set up a fund raising page in facebook? 

They planned all this in advance, think it was natural that Mr. Parker should know Emilie's death right on that day. Only found it's impossible in practice. 

Watch the disinformation was issued in January, that's a later remedial measure to cover up the flaw.

----------


## Universal Mind

Is this the girl in the Obama photo, or is it Madeline? emilie parker.jpg

----------


## katsung47

ABC, CBS, NBC Admit No Assault Rifle Used at Sandy Hook

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Universal Mind

I think I now know what the very specific purpose of the hoax was. The 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? | Pakalert Press

Now tell me... Why on Earth is that not a mainstream news media story?


There is a really good Facebook page on Sandy Hoax, and it has new stuff being posted often. You can see stuff there that you are not likely to find anywhere else. 

https://www.facebook.com/HoaxAtSandyHook

----------


## Universal Mind

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Adam-...46930825404319

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Universal Mind

A major gun grab is going on in Connecticut. Hmmm, I wonder if Sandy Hoax is connected to this. I guess getting the U.S. to join the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty wasn't the only reason for the hoax. 

Botched registration leads to confiscation in Connecticut

----------


## Universal Mind

This is insane:

https://www.google.com/#q=how+old+is...lanza&safe=off

----------


## katsung47

34 Questions On Sandy Hook Shooting That Have Never Been

34 Questions On Sandy Hook Shooting That Have Never Been Answered - YouTube

----------


## Universal Mind

Petition to the White House for an independent investigation of Sandy Hoax: 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...oting/dS2KF0xH

----------


## Universal Mind

What really appears to be a gun control propaganda hoax resulted in a gun grab scenario? Wow, nobody saw this coming. 





http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...ll-not-comply/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/citizens-...register-guns/

----------


## Universal Mind

Some awful acting is in that video. It's the worst I have seen yet. Also, Carlee Soto claims that "millions and millions of Americans" are being killed by guns in the United States. She says it while an FBI statistic of 11,493 gun homicides per year is on the screen and it is at the bottom of the list.

----------


## Universal Mind

Video: National School Safety Expert: Sandy Hook shooting was a fraud Washington's Blog


    law enforcement parked 1/4 mile away upon arrival. Why didn’t they rush to a heart-wrenching emergency if it really occurred?
    no trauma helicopters were ordered. This is unheard of for an actual emergency.
    no paramedics were allowed in the school. This is unheard of.
    officials refuse to say who declared all 26 people dead. By law, this must come from a doctor. This refusal of so much basic information indicates lies and cover-ups.
    official narrative claims emergency personnel didn’t find the school secretary and nurse after 4 hours of searching.
    this “event” included a traffic sign lit with the message, “everyone must sign in.” Officials refuse any comment on this element that would be present for a staged event/drill.
    porta potties were on site; again with no comment by officials and consistent with holding a staged event.
    no names were listed for the 26 children and chorus director at the 2013 Super Bowl event in honor of Sandy Hook. The children resemble the alleged shooting victims. It’s unimaginable to not list these names for such a huge deal.
    no lawsuits filed by parents for negligence against school district. This is unheard of.
    Asperger’s causes poor motor skills and muscle tone – how did an alleged 120 pound shooter without training carry ~30 pounds of gear to shoot with such precision? This combination seems impossible to imagine.
    2 homicide investigators threatened Mr. Halbig for making inquiries consistent with his professional duties to learn about this event for future school safety.
    Newtown Public Schools won’t return any calls. Mr. Halbig says this non-cooperation to contribute information for other schools’ safety is unheard of.
    the FBI classified the report on Sandy Hook. This has never been done before, and indicates a cover-up of all the evidence that this was a staged event.
    radio transmissions are consistent in tone and content for a drill, not an actual emergency.
    multiple weapons reported at a limited crime scene were never found. This is not credible.
    law enforcement sent a kindergarten girl from the hall to stay at the crime scene of room 8 to be alone with dead bodies. This is a ridiculous claim that demands investigation and answers.
    no parents viewed the bodies of their children. This is also unheard of.
    no documents are being released via Freedom of Information Act requests. This is unheard of.
    trauma services were never requested. This would never occur.
    tearing down the school is consistent with destruction of evidence, given the HUGE gaps between official accounts and the evidence.
    there’s zero evidence that a bio-hazard company was contacted to clean blood, bodily fluids, and officials refuse comment. This is impossible.
    Mr. Halbig’s inquiries of who installed the school security system has been met with silence. This is unheard of to not get this information to improve other schools.

----------


## Universal Mind

Don't eyes have pupils?

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Universal Mind

I'm about to chill out with talking to brick walls about this issue, so this thread doesn't have to stay bumped up unless somebody else wants it to be, but I want to post something really crazy that even I dismissed at first. Get a good look the faces in this. If any of you are good at facial recognition, see what you think. 





This is a good summary of a lot: 

Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax | Veterans Today

Okay, United States of America. Good luck with this issue. I did my part. I'll post another link if something really off the charts gets revealed, but I'm pretty much through with this. The country will accept the truth of it when the country is ready to accept the truth of it. That might take decades.

----------


## Original Poster

Alright you've convinced me, now what do we do?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Alright you've convinced me, now what do we do?



Vote for Libertarians and buy people guns for Christmas and birthdays in order to increase the number gun fans and thereby make the Second Amendment harder to take away. Then again, what if the Libertarian Party and the gun industry were behind Sandy Hook? They both benefitted tremendously from it.  ::shock::

----------


## Universal Mind

Okay, I found another nice jackpot of good information. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiJ...09afWsQ/videos

----------


## Descensus

UM what do you think about the FBI crime stats listing zero murders in Newtown in 2012?

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM what do you think about the FBI crime stats listing zero murders in Newtown in 2012?



Holy shit... I somehow didn't even know about that until you brought it up. I just researched it. At first, I was just seeing articles from Alex Jones, God Like Productions, and other conspiracy sites. However, I got directed to the FBI's page, fbi.gov. It's right here. 

FBI &mdash; Table 8 - Connecticut

I never thought the FBI was involved in the hoax. I do think some FBI agent imposters were. What do you think of what it says on that page? Is there a possibility we might be overlooking?

----------


## Descensus

> Holy shit... I somehow didn't even know about that until you brought it up. I just researched it. At first, I was just seeing articles from Alex Jones, God Like Productions, and other conspiracy sites. However, I got directed to the FBI's page, fbi.gov. It's right here. 
> 
> FBI — Table 8 - Connecticut
> 
> I never thought the FBI was involved in the hoax. I do think some FBI agent imposters were. What do you think of what it says on that page? Is there a possibility we might be overlooking?



It clearly lists Newtown with zero murders and negligent manslaughters. It's right there, and undeniable. But if we only looked at those stats, we would indeed be overlooking something. 

The FBI does not group all murders into the same category; they seem to differentiate between regular murders and deaths from an active shooter. If there is what they call an "active shooter" event, such as there was at Sandy Hook, any deaths there would be listed in their active shooter stats instead of regular murder stats. For example, their September 2013 report on active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 includes the Newtown deaths. To add to that, the deaths fell under state jurisdiction, so Connecticut's 2012 crime report lists the Sandy Hook deaths as well.

----------


## Universal Mind

That's some weird, convoluted shit. Active shootings that result in deliberate death, such as what is described in the fiction story of Sandy Hook, qualify as murders under federal law. 

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder | LII / Legal Information Institute

*Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought*. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or *perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree*.

So why is there no spot for active shootings on the crime stats page if they somehow don't qualify as murders? Also, can you tell me on which pages of the long report you posted there is backing for your claims? 

You don't have to convince me that local law enforcement got infiltrated by corrupt fucks. I already knew that. 

So it's verified. The FBI crime statistics for 2012 involve zero murders in Newtown, Connecticut. I am really glad you told me about this. Thank you.

----------


## Descensus

> So why is there no spot for active shootings on the crime stats page if they somehow don't qualify as murders?



I said they differentiate between them, not that they don't qualify as murders. See my comments on how the FBI page collected the data. 





> Also, can you tell me on which pages of the long report you posted there is backing for your claims?



For the CT State report: page 11 (see footnote 2), page 12 (see second footnote) footnote), page 245 (Newtown municipal data, see footnote 3) and page 415 (State Police data, see footnote 3). You'll notice that the Newtown municipal data lists 0 murders just like the FBI crime stat page. But the State Police data does list the deaths. 





> You don't have to convince me that local law enforcement got infiltrated by corrupt fucks. I already knew that.



Actually the reason I asked if you had heard of that FBI list was to see what your reaction was to see whether you'd investigate the issue yourself and see that the omission in the FBI list is due to differences in jurisdiction and record keeping, or do what most conspiracy theorists do and unflinchingly and immediately incorporate it into their conspiracy as evidence of, in this case, a hoax. As I expected, you chose the latter route. 





> So it's verified. The FBI crime statistics for 2012 involve zero murders in Newtown, Connecticut. I am really glad you told me about this. Thank you.



That list shows zero murders because it is based on municipal data which did not include the Sandy Hook deaths since they fell under state jurisdiction. If you don't believe me, you can look at the data declaration under the FBI list:

This table provides the volume of violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) *as reported by city and town law enforcement agencies* (listed alphabetically by state) that contributed data to the UCR Program.

The data used in creating this table were from all *city and town law enforcement agencies* submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012.
How could the omission be evidence of a hoax when the deaths are included in two separate reports, including one by the FBI itself?

----------


## Universal Mind

No, I asked if there is something we are overlooking. Do I need to quote myself? However, your explanation does not take away the Twilight Zone element. If true, it illustrates a very bizarre disconnect between the FBI and local law enforcement. The FBI did in fact report zero murders in Newtown, Connecticut, for 2012. If there was incompetence on the part of town and state law enforcement in that process, that's weird as shit too. I don't think it was incompetence, though. It was corruption. That is the real story. 

Reminder: The FBI crime report listed ZERO MURDERS for Newtown, Connecticut, for 2012. Babble away about convoluted what the fuck all you want. That is one more bizarre as Hell fact to add to the mountain of bizarre facts concerning Sandy Hoax.

Here it is again:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr..._city_2012.xls


P.S.- I need to ask you this again because you dodged it last time. On what page of that long FBI report you linked is their inclusion of the supposed Sandy Hook MURDERS? If they did include that data, how did they get the information?

----------


## Descensus

> No, I asked if there is something we are overlooking. Do I need to quote myself?



I believe I've already answered this. If you're asking for more, be specific. 





> However, your explanation does not take away the Twilight Zone element. If true, it illustrates a very bizarre disconnect between the FBI and local law enforcement. The FBI did in fact report zero murders in Newtown, Connecticut, for 2012. If there was incompetence on the part of town and state law enforcement in that process, that's weird as shit too. I don't think it was incompetence, though. It was corruption. That is the real story.



There's no disconnect; the page itself explicitly states that the data were pulled from local police data. That they list 0 murders is because the shooting fell under state jurisdiction. 





> Reminder: The FBI crime report listed ZERO MURDERS for Newtown, Connecticut, for 2012. Babble away about convoluted what the fuck all you want. That is one more bizarre as Hell fact to add to the mountain of bizarre facts concerning Sandy Hoax.



I introduced the FBI crime report to you four days ago and it has taken you less time than that to incorporate it into your worldview despite receiving the explanation for the data in the report. If I were to run a study on "trends in conspiracy theorizing", you would be my representative sample. 





> Here it is again:
> 
> FBI &mdash; Table 8 - Connecticut



I'm the one who showed you the page. You don't need to link it to me. 





> P.S.- I need to ask you this again because you dodged it last time. On what page of that long FBI report you linked is their inclusion of the supposed Sandy Hook MURDERS? If they did include that data, how did they get the information?



I thought I had answered this since you vaguely referred to "the long report." Since the Connecticut State report is, you know, really long, I gave you the references for it. If you wanted the FBI report, you should have specified.

For the FBI Active Shooter Incident (2000-2013) report: page 15, page 40. The report's methodology is on page 44. It's unclear what you mean by "how did they get that information?" Are you asking me how they collected data?

----------


## Universal Mind

> I believe I've already answered this. If you're asking for more, be specific.



What are you doing? The point was to counter a comment you made, not to ask the question again. You lied by saying I jumped the gun. That was false. I asked if there was something we were overlooking. You're back on troll watch. 




> There's no disconnect; the page itself explicitly states that the data were pulled from local police data. That they list 0 murders is because the shooting fell under state jurisdiction.



They were still murders, according to the fiction story. The situation shows incompetence at best and corruption at worst. There is no good excuse for local law enforcement reporting zero murders to the FBI if there were 27. No matter how you try to spin this, something fucked up happened in the communication process. Period. 





> I introduced the FBI crime report to you four days ago and it has taken you less time than that to incorporate it into your worldview despite receiving the explanation for the data in the report. If I were to run a study on "trends in conspiracy theorizing", you would be my representative sample.



That's cute, little Johnny. You are not explaining away the communication faultiness involved in the scenario. There is something really screwed up. Explaining what is screwed up does not explain how it is not screwed up. You are not getting around that. 





> I'm the one who showed you the page. You don't need to link it to me.



I didn't link it to you. I linked it for the other people reading this. 





> I thought I had answered this since you vaguely referred to "the long report." Since the Connecticut State report is, you know, really long, I gave you the references for it. If you wanted the FBI report, you should have specified.
> 
> For the FBI Active Shooter Incident (2000-2013) report: page 15, page 40. The report's methodology is on page 44. It's unclear what you mean by "how did they get that information?" Are you asking me how they collected data?



Yep. You just played desperate lawyer for the local law enforcement by talking about what the procedure is on giving the FBI information as if that explains away how fucked up it is. So if the FBI didn't get information from local law enforcement on how many murders there were in Newtown for their crime stats page, how did they get it for the report you linked? Why didn't they use that route for posting the information on their crime stats page? 

rod serling.jpg

----------


## Descensus

> What are you doing? The point was to counter a comment you made, not to ask the question again. You lied by saying I jumped the gun. That was false. I asked if there was something we were overlooking. You're back on troll watch.



I don't think we are overlooking anything given the robust explanation I've provided. I didn't lie; your posts make it clear that you think the omission on the FBI website is more evidence that the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary was a hoax. Do you disagree?





> They were still murders, according to the fiction story. The situation shows incompetence at best and corruption at worst. There is no good excuse for local law enforcement reporting zero murders to the FBI if there were 27. No matter how you try to spin this, something fucked up happened in the communication process. Period.



Whether they were murders or not was never up for debate. I said they were not collected in municipal murder data (i.e. the FBI website) since the shooting did not fall under municipal jurisdiction. I even provided the data collection rationale the website provides. 





> That's cute, little Johnny. You are not explaining away the communication faultiness involved in the scenario. There is something really screwed up. Explaining what is screwed up does not explain how it is not screwed up. You are not getting around that.



It's not screwed up; I provided the explanation which is based on differing methods of data collection. Even if the Sandy Hook shooting never happened, the data would've been collected in the same way. 





> Yep. You just played desperate lawyer for the local law enforcement by talking about what the procedure is on giving the FBI information as if that explains away how fucked up it is. So if the FBI didn't get information from local law enforcement on how many murders there were in Newtown for their crime stats page, how did they get it for the report you linked? Why didn't they use that route for posting the information on their crime stats page?



The FBI crime stats page is based on voluntary submissions from local law enforcement. The FBI does not collect the data itself. Rather, it receives it from local agencies and just compiles it into a report. Local agencies collect the data for the various categories (murder, rape, etc.) that _fall under their jurisdiction_. 

The FBI active shooter report is different. The FBI collected the data on incidents in that report regardless of jurisdiction. And as you can see, Sandy Hook was included. 

If you still don't believe me, look again at the Connecticut State report. Newtown is listed with zero murders, just like the FBI website. Why? Because that's the data the FBI compiled for their website. But under the data for the CT state police, the Sandy Hook deaths are included. I included references in an earlier post. 

I can go even further with my explanation. That data was omitted from the FBI website is not new; they did the same thing for 9/11 (page 3). An extra ~3000 deaths would be problematic if you're analyzing NY's crime stats. With Newtown, for a place with zero murders falling under municipal jurisdiction, an extra 27 would be just as problematic.

----------


## Universal Mind

You're missing the boat, on purpose. The FBI reported zero murders in Newtown, Connecticut, for 2012 although there were supposedly 27 murders that year in a matter of minutes. That's fucked up. Explaining who fucked up and how does not counter the point that it is fucked up. Saying that the fucked upness is standard procedure does not get around the fact that it is fucked up either. It's extremely bizarre. Local law enforcement can report all murders to the FBI. They can. It would not be hard. If the system is set up so that it doesn't happen that way, that's insane.

----------


## Descensus

I wasn't countering a point which claims somebody fucked up. Look, if you want to have the FBI's UCR program include all data, both state and local, then send them a letter. Don't complain to me.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I wasn't countering a point which claims somebody fucked up. Look, if you want to have the FBI's UCR program include all data, both state and local, then send them a letter. Don't complain to me.



Ha ha, complaining to you? You jumped back into this thread to discuss an issue that you brought up and to illustrate a lack of strangeness concerning the situation, so I explained what really is very strange about that situation. Did you forget that we were having a discussion on an issue that you introduced?

----------


## katsung47

FBI Says No One Killed at Sandy Hook
Adan Salazar
Agency publishes crime report showing 0″ murders occurred in Newtown in 2012

Recently released FBI crime statistics curiously show that no murders occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, despite reports that numerous schoolchildren and faculty members were slaughtered during a shooting rampage in December of that year.



FBI Says No One Killed at Sandy Hook | Pakalert Press

----------


## Descensus

...We just fucking went over that.

----------


## DeletePlease

> ...We just fucking went over that.



Do it again, and do it slow so he really feels it.

----------


## Descensus

Excellent article relating to conspiracy theorizing: NeuroLogica Blog » Anomaly Hunting and the Umbrella Man

----------


## StephL

> Excellent article relating to conspiracy theorizing: NeuroLogica Blog » Anomaly Hunting and the Umbrella Man



Indeed. And there's value in the comments as well. I really liked this part:





> I see it as different tunings of our heuristics mechanisms: after all, seeing patterns, categorizing (and, often, assigning meaning) is the first necessary step to thinking about anything. And I think it’s a multi-dimensional spectrum, governed by brain wiring, personality traits, previous experience, current mental state, etc.



I enjoy seeing this site's scope. Even a very good article on Ebola and human error. Been reading for quite a while on the former topic - maybe I should start a thread. That's a _real_ topic.

----------


## Universal Mind

Here is another good article on conspiracy theorizing:

True Government Conspiracies - Business Insider

----------


## StephL

Sounds credible enough, UM, upon glancing over it. I take a little issue with calling them "huge", but it would certainly be irrational to expect no conspiracies to exist whatsoever. The bigger they supposedly are, the less credible, usually. Especially if they include hundreds of civilians in the know.

----------


## Universal Mind

That's a good outlook. Most, if not all, of those have been declassified by the government. Operation Northwoods would have been much more insane than Sandy Hook if it had been carried out. All of the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed the plan, but Kennedy did not approve it. The government declassified the proposal document, which means that they made it available to the public. 

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals for actions against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals, which called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere, were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2]

At the time of the proposal, Cuba had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts.[3] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the US government's anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals._

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Universal Mind

In addition to these, there were the attempts at measures that were almost taken but didn't quite make it. The two biggest were Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban bill that didn't pass the Senate and the attempt by 46 Senators to allow the United States to enter the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. 

23 Gun Safety Victories Since Sandy Hook | Blog | Media Matters for America

Gun "safety"

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Universal Mind

This is the latest masterpiece documentary on Sandy Hoax. A lot of fascinating points I had not come across before are made in it.

----------


## VinceField

Thanks for the videos Universal Mind.  Very eye-opening information.  It's funny how some people refuse to entertain ideas that contradict their world view, even in the presence of solid evidence.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thanks for the videos Universal Mind.  Very eye-opening information.  It's funny how some people refuse to entertain ideas that contradict their world view, even in the presence of solid evidence.



I'm glad you see what is so bizarre about Sandy Hook. I was hoping to help at least a few people get the picture. Yeah, it is mind-blowing how so many people don't see what is severely warped about the scenario. The hoax idea seems so insane on the surface that it's really hard for a lot of people to see past the surface. 

For a while, I was just about the only person here arguing against the 9/11 inside job theory, but a lot of people were arguing for it. Lately, I have been just about the only person arguing that Sandy Hook was a hoax while a lot of people have been arguing that it was not one. I was not a conspiracy theorist about anything until I studied Sandy Hook. It gave me a whole new way of looking at things. From there, I studied Operation Northwoods, Project Artichoke, Operation Mockingbird, Gulf of Tonkin, and fake CNN broadcasts. Now I am skeptical of every news story I come across.

----------


## cmind

9/11 was a conspiracy of incompetence.

----------


## SearcherTMR

> ... I was just about the only person here arguing against the 9/11 inside job theory...



Hey, 9/11 WAS an inside job. It has been proven using remote viewing....

----------


## Universal Mind

> Hey, 9/11 WAS an inside job. It has been proven using remote viewing....



Hmm, I'm skeptical.

----------


## SearcherTMR

^^ That's ok. Everyone has his point of view. But I practice RV and I am convinced that these RV sessions are genuine and so are the data...

----------


## Descensus

> Hey, 9/11 WAS an inside job. It has been proven using remote viewing....



LOL

----------


## Alric

> Thanks for the videos Universal Mind.  Very eye-opening information.  It's funny how some people refuse to entertain ideas that contradict their world view, even in the presence of solid evidence.



That is because there is no evidence at all to support this crazy stuff. Some people use the term 'evidence' very loosely. If someone 'thinks' someone 'might' be acting strangely, that isn't evidence. That is speculation. People who believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is full of wild speculation but no evidence. Evidence would be something like, the bodies of the dead children, the bullet holes in the building, the weapons found at the scene, and all that.

----------


## Rozollo

Are you still fighting this battle, Alric? It's a lost cause, man. There's no convincing people that they have a loose horse when all the want to find are zebras.

----------


## Descensus

> That is because there is no evidence at all to support this crazy stuff. Some people use the term 'evidence' very loosely. If someone 'thinks' someone 'might' be acting strangely, that isn't evidence. That is speculation. People who believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is full of wild speculation but no evidence. Evidence would be something like, the bodies of the dead children, the bullet holes in the building, the weapons found at the scene, and all that.



You forget that in the conspiracy theory mindset, even _lack_ of evidence is taken just as equally as real evidence. They do anything to fit the wrong-shaped puzzle piece into the hole.

----------


## Universal Mind

> That is because there is no evidence at all to support this crazy stuff. Some people use the term 'evidence' very loosely. If someone 'thinks' someone 'might' be acting strangely, that isn't evidence.



If someone is obviously acting, it is evidence. If EVERYONE is obviously acting, it is very strong evidence. 





> Evidence would be something like, the bodies of the dead children



Hey, we agree on something. The bodies of dead children would be evidence. That is very true, but the public has never had access to seeing pictures of any of them, and the funerals were closed casket. The official narrative says that even parents were not allowed to see the bodies. 





> the bullet holes in the building



What building? It got torn down. 





> the weapons found at the scene



Which the mainstream media said were something but then changed their story when "police and federal officials" told them the guns were just hand guns before mainstream media changed their story yet again to also throw an AR-15 into the mix? Interestingly, the AR-15 turned into the only weapon used in the last phase of story evolution. 





> and all that.



Such as?






> Are you still fighting this battle, Alric? It's a lost cause, man. There's no convincing people that they have a loose horse when all the want to find are zebras.



A lot of weak comments have shown up in this thread in recent days, but I will use yours as an example to illustrate the general trend. Saying stuff like what you said is worthless. I have made a great deal of points in this thread. If you think you can counter any of them, go for it. If you can't, get off the field. So far, it looks like you can't.

----------


## Alric

> If someone is obviously acting, it is evidence. If EVERYONE is obviously acting, it is very strong evidence.



No it isn't. First of all it is only your opinion someone is acting, you have used no objective means to determine if they were or not. All you say is you think it is strange. Secondly, it still wouldn't be evidence. Police can not arrest you and you can't be convicted of a crime based off "You acted weirdly", because that isn't evidence. At most people acting strangely would be a 'clue' that might help you understand a situation better, it isn't evidence of anything though.





> Hey, we agree on something. The bodies of dead children would be evidence. That is very true, but the public has never had access to seeing pictures of any of them, and the funerals were closed casket. The official narrative says that even parents were not allowed to see the bodies.



If you are so convinced they are lying get a camera and dig up their caskets and video tape what you find. If there was nothing in them, it would have proven it a hoax and would be a national hero. This isn't something I can do for you, if I dug them up and found their bodies and showed you the video you would say it was just staged and I made up the entire thing. Is if you personally witness it, then go do it.





> What building? It got torn down.



There was photos of it.





> Which the mainstream media said were something but then changed their story when "police and federal officials" told them the guns were just hand guns before mainstream media changed their story yet again to also throw an AR-15 into the mix? Interestingly, the AR-15 turned into the only weapon used in the last phase of story evolution.



Yeah, hence the reason wild speculation is bad. You should learn their lesson. Some in the media jumped ahead of them self and reported stuff before confirming the facts with the police and got it wrong. You can hardly blame them since you are doing the same thing, jumping to conclusions based off speculation rather than actually looking at what is presented as evidence.

----------


## Descensus

The mere fact that hoaxers are literally demanding pictures of dead children and questioning why they had closed-casket funerals shows the comical depravity of their thought processes.

----------


## Rozollo

> The mere fact that hoaxers are literally demanding pictures of dead children and questioning why they had closed-casket funerals shows the comical depravity of their thought processes.



Nah, you don't get it, sheeple:





The entire Sandy Hook Hoax (like most government-based conspiracies) requires the the government be so evil, intelligent, and cunning while simultaneously being so incompetent they missed details that people with access to videos could spot. When you really think about that, it kinda explains the reason the conspiracy theorist rally so hard on their various platforms; they need to feel like they are not only smarter than the government, but smarter than most people they interact with.

And before you do, UM, I know the Government has been caught committing acts of war, covertly concealed, but those are VASTLY different in the sense that they aren't in place to fool people for life, but to get an immediate action (Gulf of Tonkin, for example, was all about the Vietnam War) and usually not even involving every one in office. If the real goal was just to get weapons banned (which still hasn't happened, btw), then why not just brainwash or whatever magic the government evidently possesses a lone psychopath to go shoot up a real school in a very public way with the perfect parameters for getting gun regulation?

Because that's silly. Sometimes, really bad stuff happens without anyone being able to stop it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No it isn't. First of all it is only your opinion someone is acting, you have used no objective means to determine if they were or not. All you say is you think it is strange. Secondly, it still wouldn't be evidence. Police can not arrest you and you can't be convicted of a crime based off "You acted weirdly", because that isn't evidence. At most people acting strangely would be a 'clue' that might help you understand a situation better, it isn't evidence of anything though.



Not true. 

1. I am into film, have acted in films, have written films, and have taken acting classes. I know what acting looks like. If you don't, it doesn't mean that I don't. 
2. I was a case manager at a mental health center. I know what goes on when a large group of people is grieving. Tears come out of eyes, though not everybody's. Anger is expressed by at least some when a death results from any kind of injustice. Inanimate objects are rarely blamed for intended killing. Those crisis actors blamed nothing but the gun, except one of them said Nancy Lanza did a less than perfect job as a mother when asked about her, and none of them expressed anger.  
3. Many of the family members of the supposed victims are people with acting histories and can be seen in theatrical presentations on YouTube. I have posted many of those videos. 

My favorite crisis actor involved is this lady. 













> If you are so convinced they are lying get a camera and dig up their caskets and video tape what you find. If there was nothing in them, it would have proven it a hoax and would be a national hero. This isn't something I can do for you, if I dug them up and found their bodies and showed you the video you would say it was just staged and I made up the entire thing. Is if you personally witness it, then go do it.



I don't think I would be able to pull off digging up those caskets, and I wouldn't even consider trying. I would be arrested within minutes. Even if I dug them up and saw that there were no bodies in them, I would be accused of doing something with the bodies or the official story would be that there were bodies in them. If I video taped such a thing and showed the world that there were no bodies in the caskets, the masses would just rationalize why there were no bodies in them or else just say things to the effect of, "Oh my God, how dare you say these things when children were killed!! You are so heartless, you creepy grave digger!!!" I have seen how much denial most people go into when this issue is brought up. You and BLUELINE have shown an extreme amount of it, for example.  





> There was photos of it.



How do you know what they were photos of or when they were taken? Major news footage showed cops running into a nearby school. Remember that this is a hoax. The actual school was blocked off immediately and soon torn down. How fishy is that? 





> Yeah, hence the reason wild speculation is bad. You should learn their lesson. Some in the media jumped ahead of them self and reported stuff before confirming the facts with the police and got it wrong. You can hardly blame them since you are doing the same thing, jumping to conclusions based off speculation rather than actually looking at what is presented as evidence.



NBC News said that state and federal officials told them only hand guns were found at the scene... in a CORRECTION piece! That is called lying, on somebody's part. 

Newtown shooter's guns: What we know - CNN.com





Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold

----------


## Alric

> Not true. 
> 
> 1. I am into film, have acted in films, have written films, and have taken acting classes. I know what acting looks like. If you don't, it doesn't mean that I don't. 
> 2. I was a case manager at a mental health center. I know what goes on when a large group of people is grieving. Tears come out of eyes, though not everybody's. Anger is expressed by at least some when a death results from any kind of injustice. Inanimate objects are rarely blamed for intended killing. Those crisis actors blamed nothing but the gun, except one of them said Nancy Lanza did a less than perfect job as a mother when asked about her, and none of them expressed anger.  
> 3. Many of the family members of the supposed victims are people with acting histories and can be seen in theatrical presentations on YouTube. I have posted many of those videos.



1. Having acted in a film and taking classes in acting doesn't make you an expert on acting. 
2. Being a case manager doesn't make you an expert on mental health. What degrees do you have in sociological or psychology that makes you a professional in human behavior?
3. Just like how you overblown your own credentials you make the same claims about other people. A person is in a youtube video, they were in a band in high school, those things don't make you a professional actor. In fact, you even made the claim that anyone who plays a musical instrument is automatically qualified as an actor, which doesn't even make sense. For someone to be considered a professional actor, would require them to make their primary living off jobs that require acting. Part time jobs, hobbies, stuff you did years ago but no longer into, singing which is a totally different area, stand up comedy, or whatever other side things, none of that matters. You are not a professional actor unless you make a living acting. We been over this before, that you basically define 'acting' in such a broad definition(anyone who does anything in front of other people) that it includes nearly everyone.

If there was a youtube video of me giving a public speech for a communications class I took once during college, you would probably say I am a professional actor. 





> I don't think I would be able to pull off digging up those caskets, and I wouldn't even consider trying. I would be arrested within minutes. Even if I dug them up and saw that there were no bodies in them, I would be accused of doing something with the bodies or the official story would be that there were bodies in them. If I video taped such a thing and showed the world that there were no bodies in the caskets, the masses would just rationalize why there were no bodies in them or else just say things to the effect of, "Oh my God, how dare you say these things when children were killed!! You are so heartless, you creepy grave digger!!!" I have seen how much denial most people go into when this issue is brought up. You and BLUELINE have shown an extreme amount of it, for example.



So now they have police watching the graveyards 24/7 in order to keep the conspiracy going? If you film the graveyard so we know it is the real graveyard someone is buried in and then film digging up a casket, I would totally accept it as valid evidence. So would most people. It would be extreme solid evidence. However, I would suggest not doing it because you will find the dead corpse of a child in there, and it would be a very disturbing thing to see. However, if you really believe this stuff, why wouldn't you try to prove it?





> How do you know what they were photos of or when they were taken? Major news footage showed cops running into a nearby school. Remember that this is a hoax. The actual school was blocked off immediately and soon torn down. How fishy is that?



It wasn't torn down right after. There was a huge delay. If you are going to use that argument that it was taken some where else, then what is the point of having any evidence? No matter what video or photos are shown to you, you can always just say they were faked. Could have video of the shooter killing the children all on tape and you will just say it was faked. Everything is fake. How can a person refute that if you believe it?

There is photos of what looks to be the school that people who lived in the area saw and agreed was the school and the police said was of the school and all the news stations said was of the school.





> NBC News said that state and federal officials told them only hand guns were found at the scene... in a CORRECTION piece! That is called lying, on somebody's part.



Yeah, it is NBC's fault. They either lied or didn't check their facts and were mistaken. The police report was consistent over the entire time and never changed. It isn't the first or last time NBC has been wrong about something, there is a reason people do not watch as much news on tv as they used to. Hardly makes that a conspiracy by the government though.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The mere fact that hoaxers are literally demanding pictures of dead children and questioning why they had closed-casket funerals shows the comical depravity of their thought processes.



I haven't demanded pictures. I have just said that there aren't any. Please excuse me for questioning government claims, "anarchist," but it is bizarre that the funerals were closed casket and Lynn McDonnell said that parents were not allowed to see their children's bodies. That is virtually unheard of. I know that information will do nothing to snap you out of your delusional denial routine, but those are bizarre circumstances. 

What is your evidence that a massacre took place? Do you blindly trust what a few cops and a government medical examiner say these days, "anarchist?" Are you still an "anarchist?"  ::chuckle:: 





> The entire Sandy Hook Hoax (like most government-based conspiracies) requires the the government be so evil, intelligent, and cunning while simultaneously being so incompetent they missed details that people with access to videos could spot. When you really think about that, it kinda explains the reason the conspiracy theorist rally so hard on their various platforms; they need to feel like they are not only smarter than the government, but smarter than most people they interact with.



What are you talking about? The hoax worked. People like you are so hopelessly in denial about the obvious that the flaws don't matter. They fooled you. Mission accomplished, if that was the full mission. However, I think they might actually want a certain faction of the population to know it was a hoax. The goal might have been to raise gun sales so that the country would be better armed. It might have been to raise awareness of the potential for future government manipulations and/or the threat the Second Amendment is under at this point. It might have had something to do with tightening school security as a counter terrorism measure. School security has gotten much stricter as a result of Sandy Hook. There are many possibilities. 

Do you honestly believe that nobody really believes a hoax took place? Do you seriously think it's all about emotional needs and zero about what people really think? I assure you that I am as convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax as I am that professional wrestling is fake. You people sound like wrestling fans who think the stuff is real. "Uh, how can you be sure the wrestlers are acting? You just want to sound smart." I swear you official story believers who debate me on this come across just like that to me. 





> And before you do, UM, I know the Government has been caught committing acts of war, covertly concealed, but those are VASTLY different in the sense that they aren't in place to fool people for life, but to get an immediate action (Gulf of Tonkin, for example, was all about the Vietnam War) and usually not even involving every one in office. If the real goal was just to get weapons banned (which still hasn't happened, btw), then why not just brainwash or whatever magic the government evidently possesses a lone psychopath to go shoot up a real school in a very public way with the perfect parameters for getting gun regulation?
> 
> Because that's silly. Sometimes, really bad stuff happens without anyone being able to stop it.



Not just war. There are declassified documents about U.S. government deceptions concerning media manipulation, brainwashing, STD testing, and other things. 

I am not sure what the purpose of Sandy Hook was. I thought for a while that it was about gun control, but now I think it might be deeper than that, as I explained. There have been legal changes against gun rights that have resulted from Sandy Hook, but gun sales have also gone way up. It's a mystery. The one thing I do know is that Sandy Hook was a hoax. It is clear as air to me. 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12...dy-hook/197211





> 1. Having acted in a film and taking classes in acting doesn't make you an expert on acting. 
> 2. Being a case manager doesn't make you an expert on mental health. What degrees do you have in sociological or psychology that makes you a professional in human behavior?
> 3. Just like how you overblown your own credentials you make the same claims about other people. A person is in a youtube video, they were in a band in high school, those things don't make you a professional actor. In fact, you even made the claim that anyone who plays a musical instrument is automatically qualified as an actor, which doesn't even make sense. For someone to be considered a professional actor, would require them to make their primary living off jobs that require acting. Part time jobs, hobbies, stuff you did years ago but no longer into, singing which is a totally different area, stand up comedy, or whatever other side things, none of that matters. You are not a professional actor unless you make a living acting. We been over this before, that you basically define 'acting' in such a broad definition(anyone who does anything in front of other people) that it includes nearly everyone.
> 
> If there was a youtube video of me giving a public speech for a communications class I took once during college, you would probably say I am a professional actor.



1. Having acted in multiple films and taken acting classes makes me an actor. I understand acting, and I can spot a bad acting job. 
2. Being a mental health center case manager involved counseling, including grief counseling. I have a degree in psychology. What I said about tears, anger, and blame is factual. When a large group of people who are supposedly grieving over mass murder shed zero tears, act like their supposedly murdered family members are running for student council, and blame nothing but a fucking inanimate object for the murders, an act is taking place. 
3. You are undermining what I have posted. I posted videos of people acting on stage and in videos in adulthood. The acts were not high school plays. Did you watch the Francine Wheeler video of her doing musical acting for the Dream Jam Band? That is not some high school phase project. She also did voice work for a porn cartoon. 

How do you know that professional wrestling is fake, aside from the fact that the industry now admits it? They didn't admit it in the 70's and 80's. Would they have fooled you then? If not, how would you have known? 





> So now they have police watching the graveyards 24/7 in order to keep the conspiracy going? If you film the graveyard so we know it is the real graveyard someone is buried in and then film digging up a casket, I would totally accept it as valid evidence. So would most people. It would be extreme solid evidence. However, I would suggest not doing it because you will find the dead corpse of a child in there, and it would be a very disturbing thing to see. However, if you really believe this stuff, why wouldn't you try to prove it?



With all of the internet talk about how the kids weren't really killed, of course they have at least a night watchman watching the cemetery. I'm not risking jail and professional suicide just to throw another chunk of obviousness at people who are relentlessly in denial any way. If I did, I am certain that you would make up some kind of excuse. The masses feel emotions over Sandy Hook that prevent them from doing critical thinking. Time will change that, but the hoax is only a little more than two years old. In 40 years, the masses are going to know that Sandy Hook was a hoax. 





> It wasn't torn down right after. There was a huge delay. If you are going to use that argument that it was taken some where else, then what is the point of having any evidence? No matter what video or photos are shown to you, you can always just say they were faked. Could have video of the shooter killing the children all on tape and you will just say it was faked. Everything is fake. How can a person refute that if you believe it?
> 
> There is photos of what looks to be the school that people who lived in the area saw and agreed was the school and the police said was of the school and all the news stations said was of the school.



The school was torn down less than a year later. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/ny...hook.html?_r=0

The house Adam Lanza supposedly lived in is scheduled to be torn down. 

Sandy Hook killer's home to be demolished, Newtown votes - CNN.com

This video shows police running into a nearby school. 









> Yeah, it is NBC's fault. They either lied or didn't check their facts and were mistaken. The police report was consistent over the entire time and never changed. It isn't the first or last time NBC has been wrong about something, there is a reason people do not watch as much news on tv as they used to. Hardly makes that a conspiracy by the government though.



Maybe they "didn't check" the fact that they didn't really talk to state and federal officials? Seriously? 

Multiple news stations kept changing their stories. They don't tend to lie when they are certain people will see blatant contradictions in their reporting.

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Alric

> 1. Having acted in multiple films and taken acting classes makes me an actor. I understand acting, and I can spot a bad acting job.



It makes you an amateur actor and conveys nothing in relation to your ability to see acting in others. Your opinion is that you think you are an expert on acting, and my opinion is I think you are totally clueless. Both are just opinions though, not evidence.





> 2. Being a mental health center case manager involved counseling, including grief counseling. I have a degree in psychology. What I said about tears, anger, and blame is factual. When a large group of people who are supposedly grieving over mass murder shed zero tears, act like their supposedly murdered family members are running for student council, and blame nothing but a fucking inanimate object for the murders, an act is taking place.



When I asked you before if you would expect any difference in how someone acts based on whether or not the murderer was alive or dead, you said it wasn't a factor what so ever. Which makes me think you are full of shit. If you truly believe that who the murderer is, is totally irrelevant to how a person reacts to a family member being murdered, it makes me think you really have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously have an extremely simplistic view on the subject.

You would claim the simplistic view is because everyone is the same and everyone acts alike in all situations and so are easy to predict, but anyone living in reality knows that is bullshit. People have massive different reactions to similar events, and the fact that you can't even comprehend how that might be possible, makes me think you are really not an expert at all, like you claim to be.

Also you seem to be totally incapable of telling if a person is crying or not. You showed videos in the past where people were very clearly, visibly crying and you claim they weren't.





> 3. You are undermining what I have posted. I posted videos of people acting on stage and in videos in adulthood. The acts were not high school plays. Did you watch the Francine Wheeler video of her doing musical acting for the Dream Jam Band? That is not some high school phase project. She also did voice work for a porn cartoon.



Like I said, she wasn't acting. That is singing. Singing is not acting. That is exactly my point. If a few people were actors, that isn't unusual at all. Your claim is that nearly everyone is an actor however, and you reach that conclusion by stretching the definition of the word acting so that it includes pretty much everything. You are insane, you know that? How can you watch the video of her singing about tying her shoes and claim that proves she is a professional crisis actor? They are nothing even remotely similar. They are not even in the same ballpark.






> With all of the internet talk about how the kids weren't really killed, of course they have at least a night watchman watching the cemetery. I'm not risking jail and professional suicide just to throw another chunk of obviousness at people who are relentlessly in denial any way. If I did, I am certain that you would make up some kind of excuse. The masses feel emotions over Sandy Hook that prevent them from doing critical thinking. Time will change that, but the hoax is only a little more than two years old. In 40 years, the masses are going to know that Sandy Hook was a hoax.



You are the one who isn't thinking critically. None of the stuff you are saying makes any sense at all. It is all wild speculation based off goofy stuff. NBC makes a mistake due to bad reporting, one of the parents sang a silly children's song about tying shoes, obvious video glitches from video being copying multiple times across different video formats, you can't see tears on someone who is making sobbing sounds with their face red and shoulder shaking because the video isn't zoomed in on their eyes close enough, a parent reminiscing about their dead child, a man not used to being on tv being grilled in an interview for an hour straight makes an odd remark or two, none of these things show a conspiracy. None of them even hint towards a conspiracy. Your 'evidence' is total and utter garbage. What is even more insane, is that you say all these stupid things I listed are clear and blatant evidence of a conspiracy and people are in denial if they don't see it.

No, they don't see it, because it isn't evidence. It isn't even remotely close to evidence. It doesn't even look like evidence. It is garbage. Then you say you wouldn't get video of the empty casket because people wont believe it. Why so scared of real evidence? Why all this bullshit evidence? Let me guess, because it isn't true. The events really did happy and the hoax is all in your mind.

I mean, scroll back up and look at that video you posted of the girl singing about tying shoes. Your claim is that video some how shows that she is a paid professional crisis actor, hired by the government to pretend to be a grieving parent during a massive secret government cover up. The claim is absurd. It is a joke. No one would take that claim seriously. No one would believe that claim. That isn't evidence, of anything. Even if she was an actor, why would you post that? That video actually makes your claim look more silly than if you had no video at all and we thought you were just making it up.

----------


## Rozollo

Since Alric and Blueline are responding to their points, I'll only respond to mine. They are doing a fine job of addressing you. I am trying to tamper my tone, but you really come off as a raging ass to everyone. Like your comments towards Blueline being an anarchist was so condescending, that I don't understand how people even listen to you with any sense of seriousness. The point of a conversation or debate should be to pass along information in as coherently and respectful a manner as possible. When you start ad hominem attacks, you lost. Period.





> What are you talking about? The hoax worked. People like you are so hopelessly in denial about the obvious that the flaws don't matter. They fooled you. Mission accomplished, if that was the full mission. However, I think they might actually want a certain faction of the population to know it was a hoax. The goal might have been to raise gun sales so that the country would be better armed. It might have been to raise awareness of the potential for future government manipulations and/or the threat the Second Amendment is under at this point. It might have had something to do with tightening school security as a counter terrorism measure. School security has gotten much stricter as a result of Sandy Hook. There are many possibilities.



The mind of a conspiracy theorist is best summed up in this message. "I don't know why they staged something, but they did, and I figured it out... Maybe they wanted people to know!" No. That's idiotic and so utterly illogical it's laughable. Literally everything you suggested is so silly and stupid because it could be done ANY other way.

 Raise Gun Sales: By all accounts, all this did was start a run on Assault Weapons that has already started to slow down. Not to mention the NRA has seen a $100 million boom in donations. So, if anyone benefited from Sandy Hook, it was actually the gun ADVOCATES. Considering the shooter's mother was associated with the NRA, it is a bit of a stretch to believe they'd allow that to happen with this plan in motion. In fact, Adam Lanza and his mother have certificates from the NRA Thinking as the NRA who wants to scare people into buying guns because the government is going to ban them, why would you want to stage a mass shooting at a school where the person blamed is a kid who is alleged to murder his mother, both of whom are associated with the group who benefits the most? Second Amendment/Government Manipulations - Same as last point. If the goal was to make such a public display that people would cradle their weapons like infants, then it didn't work in the long run. Assault weapons boomed for a bit and are back to "normal" levels. And again, the people who benefited the most are the people who would have perpetrated the act. 

The problem is Sandy Hook really hasn't changed that much. If it was a conspiracy to fool the American public, and it would have fooled the majority of Americans, then it worked to the point where people moved on. The Boston Bombing happened a few months later, and people weren't even talking about Sandy Hook. That event, perpetrated by two young brothers with homemade explosives, did more to damage public safety than Sandy Hook ever did.

Again, it all comes back to reasoning and logic: in order for your hoax argument to be real, we would have to suppose a group so intelligent and thorough that they fooled most Americans. They would have to have actors who sign contracts for life, and have made sure that the kids named weren't even possible to be seen by anyone outside of the circle of the conspiracy. Oh, but they had to be so sloppy, that people could debunk it with Youtube and pausing news videos.

Do you understand how impossible that is?





> Do you honestly believe that nobody really believes a hoax took place? Do you seriously think it's all about emotional needs and zero about what people really think? I assure you that I am as convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax as I am that professional wrestling is fake. You people sound like wrestling fans who think the stuff is real. "Uh, how can you be sure the wrestlers are acting? You just want to sound smart." I swear you official story believers who debate me on this come across just like that to me.



Because you aren't grounded in reason or logic. You have the pre-supposed notion that Sandy Hook was faked. Nothing will ever change that because, to you, absence of evidence is evidence. To you, you are already in the know. It's funny though: Sandy Hook hoaxers are a SMALL group of people. According to Salon, the combined number of videos was 25 million views. That's not a lot at all when you consider there are 400 million Americans, but let's say 200 million use the Internet daily. That means only 1 in 8 may have seen the video, and that doesn't account for multiple viewers, people like me who watched it and didn't buy it, etc. The video they cite as having the most - 10 million views in 11 days in January 2013 - is only at 11 million in February 2015. That isn't even a blip. 

Do me a favor, read this article with the cap that Sandy Hook happened as the government reported. Turn off the inner monologue. When you get to the end, feel free to debate it, but it basically has done the research and answered all the claims with evidence.

The pro-wrestling analogy isn't even sound. The pro-wrestling industry doesn't even pretend it is real. They don't open announce it is staged, but they don't pretend what happens on TV is real life. You can see people acting out of character all over the place, including on their own TV shows. What you are doing is like saying "Football is completely staged and everyone is acting." The NFL prides itself as being legitimate competition, it makes a lot of money off of its legitimacy, and would completely come unhinged it if was revealed a farce.

----------


## Descensus

> Since Alric and Blueline are responding to their points, I'll only respond to mine. They are doing a fine job of addressing you. I am trying to tamper my tone, but you really come off as a raging ass to everyone. Like your comments towards Blueline being an anarchist was so condescending, that I don't understand how people even listen to you with any sense of seriousness. The point of a conversation or debate should be to pass along information in as coherently and respectful a manner as possible. When you start ad hominem attacks, you lost. Period.



Being snugly wrapped up in a fantasy tends to elicit douchebaggery whenever somebody challenges it, as evidenced by his weird attempt to dig up an entirely irrelevant topic from another discussion (anarchism).

----------


## Universal Mind

> It makes you an amateur actor and conveys nothing in relation to your ability to see acting in others. Your opinion is that you think you are an expert on acting, and my opinion is I think you are totally clueless. Both are just opinions though, not evidence.



There is a difference between you and me here. I know me. I didn't even claim to be an expert. I just said that I know a bad acting job when I see one. 





> When I asked you before if you would expect any difference in how someone acts based on whether or not the murderer was alive or dead, you said it wasn't a factor what so ever. Which makes me think you are full of shit. If you truly believe that who the murderer is, is totally irrelevant to how a person reacts to a family member being murdered, it makes me think you really have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously have an extremely simplistic view on the subject.
> 
> You would claim the simplistic view is because everyone is the same and everyone acts alike in all situations and so are easy to predict, but anyone living in reality knows that is bullshit. People have massive different reactions to similar events, and the fact that you can't even comprehend how that might be possible, makes me think you are really not an expert at all, like you claim to be.
> 
> Also you seem to be totally incapable of telling if a person is crying or not. You showed videos in the past where people were very clearly, visibly crying and you claim they weren't.



I didn't say it would make no difference. I said that death of the murderer would not make their anger go away. Get off it about everybody acting the same in all situations. You official story gulpers keep using it. If not everybody acts the same, why has everybody acted the same? What you are saying supports my point. If you have found a live interview with a tear coming out of an eye, post it. That challenge still stands. You haven't met it yet. My challenge to you to find an interview in which a family member expresses anger still stands. My challenge to you to find an interview in which something other than the gun is blamed still stands. Many people were interviewed, even within 48 hours of the fake massacre. 





> Like I said, she wasn't acting. That is singing. Singing is not acting. That is exactly my point. If a few people were actors, that isn't unusual at all. Your claim is that nearly everyone is an actor however, and you reach that conclusion by stretching the definition of the word acting so that it includes pretty much everything. You are insane, you know that? How can you watch the video of her singing about tying her shoes and claim that proves she is a professional crisis actor? They are nothing even remotely similar. They are not even in the same ballpark.



She was both singing and acting, like people do in musicals. Why do I need to explain this to you? I told you that she also did voice over work in a porno cartoon. Do you want to claim that voice over work is not acting either? You seem to have close to zero knowledge about acting. No wonder you are so easy to fool. 

When these actors sing, are they not acting? Seriously, do you claim that there are long periods of no acting in this? 





I have posted videos of Francine Wheeler acting. This is her husband, David Wheeler:









> You are the one who isn't thinking critically. None of the stuff you are saying makes any sense at all. It is all wild speculation based off goofy stuff. NBC makes a mistake due to bad reporting, one of the parents sang a silly children's song about tying shoes, obvious video glitches from video being copying multiple times across different video formats, you can't see tears on someone who is making sobbing sounds with their face red and shoulder shaking because the video isn't zoomed in on their eyes close enough, a parent reminiscing about their dead child, a man not used to being on tv being grilled in an interview for an hour straight makes an odd remark or two, none of these things show a conspiracy. None of them even hint towards a conspiracy. Your 'evidence' is total and utter garbage. What is even more insane, is that you say all these stupid things I listed are clear and blatant evidence of a conspiracy and people are in denial if they don't see it.
> 
> No, they don't see it, because it isn't evidence. It isn't even remotely close to evidence. It doesn't even look like evidence. It is garbage. Then you say you wouldn't get video of the empty casket because people wont believe it. Why so scared of real evidence? Why all this bullshit evidence? Let me guess, because it isn't true. The events really did happy and the hoax is all in your mind.
> 
> I mean, scroll back up and look at that video you posted of the girl singing about tying shoes. Your claim is that video some how shows that she is a paid professional crisis actor, hired by the government to pretend to be a grieving parent during a massive secret government cover up. The claim is absurd. It is a joke. No one would take that claim seriously. No one would believe that claim. That isn't evidence, of anything. Even if she was an actor, why would you post that? That video actually makes your claim look more silly than if you had no video at all and we thought you were just making it up.



You are either in Category 5 denial about what is obvious or just flat out lying. There are no tears coming out of eyes in live interviews, there is no anger, there is no blame toward anything but the gun, witnesses made astoundingly absurd comments, and lots of the supposed family members are in fact actors. This is ridiculous. 

If you were around in 1985, which maybe you were, how would you have known that professional wrestling was fake? 





> Since Alric and Blueline are responding to their points, I'll only respond to mine. They are doing a fine job of addressing you. I am trying to tamper my tone, but you really come off as a raging ass to everyone. Like your comments towards Blueline being an anarchist was so condescending, that I don't understand how people even listen to you with any sense of seriousness. The point of a conversation or debate should be to pass along information in as coherently and respectful a manner as possible. When you start ad hominem attacks, you lost. Period.



Did you overlook BLUELINE's insults toward me? Be honest. I was responding to them. Also, do you see anything strange about somebody claiming to be an anarchist yet trusting a story just because people in the government told it? Be honest about that too. 





> The mind of a conspiracy theorist is best summed up in this message. "I don't know why they staged something, but they did, and I figured it out... Maybe they wanted people to know!" No. That's idiotic and so utterly illogical it's laughable. Literally everything you suggested is so silly and stupid because it could be done ANY other way.



When you are driving and you see people driving the other direction, do you know where all of them are going? If not, do you still conclude that they are driving? 






> Raise Gun Sales: By all accounts, all this did was start a run on Assault Weapons that has already started to slow down. Not to mention the NRA has seen a $100 million boom in donations. So, if anyone benefited from Sandy Hook, it was actually the gun ADVOCATES. Considering the shooter's mother was associated with the NRA, it is a bit of a stretch to believe they'd allow that to happen with this plan in motion. In fact, Adam Lanza and his mother have certificates from the NRA Thinking as the NRA who wants to scare people into buying guns because the government is going to ban them, why would you want to stage a mass shooting at a school where the person blamed is a kid who is alleged to murder his mother, both of whom are associated with the group who benefits the most? Second Amendment/Government Manipulations - Same as last point. If the goal was to make such a public display that people would cradle their weapons like infants, then it didn't work in the long run. Assault weapons boomed for a bit and are back to "normal" levels. And again, the people who benefited the most are the people who would have perpetrated the act.



Yes, the goal might have been in the name of gun advocacy. I said that earlier. Are you sure that you are reading my posts before you argue with them? 






> The problem is Sandy Hook really hasn't changed that much. If it was a conspiracy to fool the American public, and it would have fooled the majority of Americans, then it worked to the point where people moved on. The Boston Bombing happened a few months later, and people weren't even talking about Sandy Hook. That event, perpetrated by two young brothers with homemade explosives, did more to damage public safety than Sandy Hook ever did.



You just posted something saying that Sandy Hook benefited gun advocates. Did you suddenly change your mind? It also changed a lot of policies. 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12...dy-hook/197211





> Again, it all comes back to reasoning and logic: in order for your hoax argument to be real, we would have to suppose a group so intelligent and thorough that they fooled most Americans. They would have to have actors who sign contracts for life, and have made sure that the kids named weren't even possible to be seen by anyone outside of the circle of the conspiracy. Oh, but they had to be so sloppy, that people could debunk it with Youtube and pausing news videos.
> 
> Do you understand how impossible that is?



No, it's light years from impossible. The masses were fooled. The sloppiness, or perhaps deliberate leaving of clues for some to notice and accept, did not prevent the fooling of the masses. That is why I also consider the possibility that Sandy Hook was a social experiment. 






> Because you aren't grounded in reason or logic. You have the pre-supposed notion that Sandy Hook was faked. Nothing will ever change that because, to you, absence of evidence is evidence. To you, you are already in the know. It's funny though: Sandy Hook hoaxers are a SMALL group of people. According to Salon, the combined number of videos was 25 million views. That's not a lot at all when you consider there are 400 million Americans, but let's say 200 million use the Internet daily. That means only 1 in 8 may have seen the video, and that doesn't account for multiple viewers, people like me who watched it and didn't buy it, etc. The video they cite as having the most - 10 million views in 11 days in January 2013 - is only at 11 million in February 2015. That isn't even a blip.



Like I said, the masses were fooled. So, if there was a hoax that was meant to fool the masses, it didn't fail. Right? 





> The pro-wrestling analogy isn't even sound. The pro-wrestling industry doesn't even pretend it is real. They don't open announce it is staged, but they don't pretend what happens on TV is real life. You can see people acting out of character all over the place, including on their own TV shows. What you are doing is like saying "Football is completely staged and everyone is acting." The NFL prides itself as being legitimate competition, it makes a lot of money off of its legitimacy, and would completely come unhinged it if was revealed a farce.



Now I know you're not reading my posts carefully, or at least not being honest about what I have said. In the 70's and 80's, the professional wrestling industry tried to make the fake sport look real. Did you catch it that time? In 1985, how would you have known that professional wrestling was fake? When I was in school back then, I would argue with other kids about that issue. Some of them got really pissed off at me for saying that pro wrestling was fake. My arguments with them were a whole lot like the arguments I am having with you three now. The debates are so much alike. 

So, how would you have known in 1985 that professional wrestling was fake? 






> Being snugly wrapped up in a fantasy tends to elicit douchebaggery whenever somebody challenges it, as evidenced by his weird attempt to dig up an entirely irrelevant topic from another discussion (anarchism).



That's cute. Do you have any actual debate points to make? The points I addressed to you still stand because you haven't countered them. 

If you are an anarchist, why do you believe something just because people in the government claim it? Seriously, why do you?

----------


## Universal Mind

I am going to post this separately so you three can't so easily dodge. These are clips from 1987. They are not long, and you can watch a few seconds of them to get the point. You really don't even have to play them to know what they are. I challenge you to explain how you would have known in 1987 that these people were acting.  The industry did not admit that professional wrestling was fake back then, so how would you have known? I knew. I argued with kids a bunch of times about it, and they sounded like you do now. How did I know?

----------


## Universal Mind

I just ran into another piece of evidence. This guy at 7:00 in this video is Nick Phelps. He is the supposed father of two kids who went to Sandy Hook but were not killed. 





Check IMDB to see that Nick Phelps played on Season 1 Episode 18 of the Michael J. Fox sitcom Spin City. The name of the episode is "Snowbound." 

"Spin City" Snowbound (TV Episode 1997) - IMDb

Now see him on the show with your own eyes. Keep in mind that this was a popular ABC sitcom with one of the biggest actors in the world playing the lead role. 





Oh, by the way, this is his wife, Laura Phelps. She too is interviewed in the video at the top of this post.

----------


## Alric

You seem to not be listening to what I am saying. Actors are real people, who have real lives. Finding a few actors among all the parents who had children at the entire school, isn't that uncommon. I mean there is 456 children at that school, so it is possible there is upwards to 1000 parents who might be there, plus family of staff working there and stuff like that. A few actors isn't anything. That wasn't your claim though, your claim is that most or almost all of them have acting backgrounds, a claim which is utter and total bullshit. A claim that you only reached by counting pretty everything as acting even if it has nothing to do with acting. If you stop distorting reality and look at the number of people who actually qualify as an actor, then you see nothing unusual. I am willing concede a handful of parents might actually be actors, but what is a handful out of 1000?

Also, I address the concern you had about them not being 'angry enough' before. I proposed the idea that the reason some were upset at guns, is because the shooter died and so they can't do anything to or about him, so they redirected their anger towards something that they could change, which would be gun laws. Which is kind of like how James Brady got shot, and became anti gun and supported the Brady bill. You seem to think that is impossible and that everyone would go down cursing the shooter with every fiber of their being, despite it being a totally useless thing to do. Which I don't think really reflects the reality of how people act. Sure you will be upset if someone you knows is murdered but if the murderer is shot dead then justice has been served, there is nothing else to do about it. The idea that most people moved on with their life and tried other methods to accept their loss without railing against a dead child is entirely reasonable and not all as suspicious as you seem to think. 

As for the crying, I don't know what to say. You are just flat on wrong. There are a ton of pictures of people crying, including pictures you posted yourself. You seem totally incapable of recognizing when another human is crying.

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh, I'm wrong about the crying in live interviews? Then post us a video of it, Alric. What have you been waiting for? 

How many Sandy Hook parents were interviewed by mainstream television media? How many of them are actors? So many it's jaw dropping. Even just the pool of parents who supposedly lost children has a lot of actors in it. Many others are stage musicians, which I have argued have to be able to act. Have you ever seen a band suck at stage presence? It really puts a dent in the show. Stage musicians are actors. That is why no famous concert musician has ever done a bad acting job in a movie. There is not a single example of it. 

As I have said, even when the murderer is dead, people are still severely pissed off at him. There are Jews who would tell you today that they wish they could bring Adolf Hitler back to life so they can torture him. People in a real situation like the one portrayed concerning Sandy Hook would be pissed at the school for not having good enough security, pissed at the killer's parents for not doing enough to teach him morals, pissed at the makers of the violent video games the killer was playing all the time, pissed at the war on drugs for creating a climate of violence that has majorly rubbed off on America's kids, pissed at movies and television shows and controversial music for glamorizing violence, pissed at pharmaceutical companies, pissed at the mental health system, pissed at bullies who taunted the killer, pissed at girls for being snobby toward the killer, etc. There has been ZERO of that!! There has been no anger whatsoever, and there has been no blame on anything but the gun. What we are talking about is obviously an act. 

Now, what is your answer to my wrestling question? I highlighted it in red for you. Do I need to post it yet again?

----------


## Rozollo

> I am going to post this separately so you three can't so easily dodge. These are clips from 1987. They are not long, and you can watch a few seconds of them to get the point. You really don't even have to play them to know what they are. I challenge you to explain how you would have known in 1987 that these people were acting.  The industry did not admit that professional wrestling was fake back then, so how would you have known? I knew. I argued with kids a bunch of times about it, and they sounded like you do now. How did I know?



Because you aren't unique, and A LOT of people were publicly questioning that professional wrestling was stage:





Here's the same expose, which tongue-in-cheek mocks the idea that wrestling is wrestling... in 1984. You didn't magically come up with it on your own.

At 2:48, John Stossel flat out says "This isn't wrestling."





This was on 20/20 in 1984. That means by the time you would have been thinking it, it was part of the public conversation whether you remember it or not. I'm sorry, Universal Mind, you aren't special.

Also, building off the strange argument that people aren't grieving so "ACTORS." Read this: The Neuroscience of True Grit - Scientific American They have more credentials than you do.

When I lost people, often when we were young, I wouldn't react with constant tears. I'd shift moods for months to years. My best friend who lost his brother still hasn't recovered, and his parents either. A friend who lost her son has gone through every single mood imaginable, and she wasn't even being interviewed.

Again, your argument is that these people are actors covering up a faked mass murder. Actors YOU FOUND ONLINE. Do you not think ANYONE reporting body would check into this? Nick Phelps is barely an actor. He was on Spin City (and if he has a single line, he is in SAG), some show in 1996, and an independent film. I have a friend who has done more plays where he was paid and seen by large crowds, I guess if ANYTHING happens to him for the rest of his life, he's a hired actor now. 

This is making wide reaches just to prove your point, when in reality, a lot of these people were in one or two roles, and are younger parents who still think they can succeed.

----------


## Universal Mind

So let's get this straight. 

- You would have known in 1987 that professional wrestling was fake because a lot of people were saying it was and it was discussed a bit in the mainstream media. 

- The fact that so many of the parents involved in the Sandy Hook saga are actors is insignificant because you know an actor. 

- Some people don't cry tears while grieving, therefore nothing is odd about a large group of grieving people who don't cry tears. 

Wow. That is very naive of you. Consider this. 

- A lot of people are saying Sandy Hook was a hoax. Check YouTube or the very long list of documentaries on the hoax. Check Google for the very long list of web pages on it. The Sandy Hook hoax has been mentioned by the mainstream media. Hearing the mainstream media mention the idea that wrestling was fake would not be full proof that it was fake. It would just be a raising of the idea, so I am going to ask my question again. How would you KNOW that professional wrestling was fake in 1987? 

- The fact that you know an actor does not change the fact that a very small percentage of the population has acted on stage, film, or prime time network television in adulthood. The percentage is a great deal smaller than the percentage of Sandy Hook parents who have done it.

- Although some people don't cry tears while grieving, a very large faction of the population does. Now, what about expressing anger?

----------


## Rozollo

> So let's get this straight. 
> 
> - You would have known in 1987 that professional wrestling was fake because a lot of people were saying it was and it was discussed a bit in the mainstream media.
> 
> [...] 
> 
> - A lot of people are saying Sandy Hook was a hoax. Check YouTube or the very long list of documentaries on the hoax. Check Google for the very long list of web pages on it. The Sandy Hook hoax has been mentioned by the mainstream media. Hearing the mainstream media mention the idea that wrestling was fake would not be full proof that it was fake. It would just be a raising of the idea, so I am going to ask my question again. How would you KNOW that professional wrestling was fake in 1987?



What? The video I posted was from 1984, and they had kids there, interviewed in the video, saying it was fake and they clearly saw the wrestlers not hitting each other. John Stossel even declared this as a fact. This wasn't even controversial. You aren't special. I remember having the same argument when I was a kid in the 90s.

And 11 million people have watched one of the most popular hoax films, with 50% positive votes. Giving you the benefit of rounding, let's say 7 million people saw that one and thought favorably of it. We currently have 318 million, but let's subtract to 250 million to account for people without Internet, that's less than one percent of the US supporting this nonsense. That isn't a lot of people. 

I really have no idea what your point is here. 





> - The fact that so many of the parents involved in the Sandy Hook saga are actors is insignificant because you know an actor. 
> 
> [...] 
> 
> - The fact that you know an actor does not change the fact that a very small percentage of the population has acted on stage, film, or prime time network television in adulthood. The percentage is a great deal smaller than the percentage of Sandy Hook parents who have done it.



It does when your lynch pin is "A lot of these people are actors!" First, the one guy who was on Spin City was an extra. I can get an extra job this week and be in a ton of movies and TV shows. That does mean I am a life long actor who will commit to a hoax. A hoax most people believe. 





> - Some people don't cry tears while grieving, therefore nothing is odd about a large group of grieving people who don't cry tears. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> - Although some people don't cry tears while grieving, a very large faction of the population does. Now, what about expressing anger?



Every person is different. Every single person will grieve in some way, and the way is totally accessible. I'm sorry but this isn't even a point. It has been disproven by professionals with credentials better than  people watching YouTube.

----------


## Alric

We been over this so many times. I have already posted several examples of people crying. You, yourself have posted videos of people crying! Scroll back through the thread and look at them. In every single instance it has been shown a person was crying, you stated they weren't really crying even though it was obvious they were. You are really starting to annoy me, because you keep telling me to post examples of people crying and every time I do you just say they are not crying. You are utterly incapable to recognizing when a person is crying or not. There is no point in posting new examples, because you are incapable of recognizing crying on video, or you are just lying.

Also you are just wrong about musicians. Musicians are not actors. You are full of shit. Your claim isn't even logical even in your own wrapped reality. Even if you assume all musicians are capable actors , why would you hire a musician for an acting job instead of an actor? Also you claim all musicians are great actors, but then you claim all the people are obviously bad actors? So which is it? Even if you were right, you would be wrong because your claim is that they all suck at acting and you can easily see through them. So shouldn't you be arguing that musicians are hacks and can't act at all, and because they were cheap and hired musicians instead of real actors they got sub par acting from them? That is still stupid but at least it is logically consistent. 

The premise of your argument goes like this. 1. There are a lot of musicians. 2. Musicians are all good actors. 3. The sandy hook parents suck at acting. Then your conclusion is, It is clearly a hoax and the musicians were hired as actors. That is an illogical line of thought. Based off your own arguments, if musicians are such good actors it wouldn't be so easy to see through them.

As for wrestling being fake, it isn't faked but choreographed. The way you know it is choreographed is because they beat each other up the entire match and no one ever gets hurt aside from the occasional accident here and there. Also it is obvious because often one person will stand around while letting the other set up their special moves and stuff, moves that are often not at all realistic. None of the videos you have posted are the equivalent of a professional athlete hitting someone in the head with a metal chair, and then that person getting up and walking away 20 seconds later. In wrestling that happens. If some 350 pound guy made of pure muscles hits you in the head with a chair, you are not getting up after. In fact, there is a good chance such a blow could kill you. So obviously it is fake.

----------


## Universal Mind

> We been over this so many times. I have already posted several examples of people crying. You, yourself have posted videos of people crying! Scroll back through the thread and look at them. In every single instance it has been shown a person was crying, you stated they weren't really crying even though it was obvious they were. You are really starting to annoy me, because you keep telling me to post examples of people crying and every time I do you just say they are not crying. You are utterly incapable to recognizing when a person is crying or not. There is no point in posting new examples, because you are incapable of recognizing crying on video, or you are just lying.



You are engaging in Category 5 dishonesty. You have posted ZERO videos of any supposed Sandy Hook victim's family member crying tears in a live interview. That is the challenge, and you have not met it. The challenge still stands. I bet you don't meet it in your next post either. No such interview footage exists! 





> Also you are just wrong about musicians. Musicians are not actors. You are full of shit. Your claim isn't even logical even in your own wrapped reality. Even if you assume all musicians are capable actors , why would you hire a musician for an acting job instead of an actor? Also you claim all musicians are great actors, but then you claim all the people are obviously bad actors? So which is it? Even if you were right, you would be wrong because your claim is that they all suck at acting and you can easily see through them. So shouldn't you be arguing that musicians are hacks and can't act at all, and because they were cheap and hired musicians instead of real actors they got sub par acting from them? That is still stupid but at least it is logically consistent.



I said that all famous STAGE musicians are good actors. All average STAGE musicians are average actors or better. Compared to a high level acting job, an average acting job is bad. I can spot such acting jobs. A lot of people can. 

Name one famous stage musician who has done a bad acting job in a movie. Just one. 





> The premise of your argument goes like this. 1. There are a lot of musicians. 2. Musicians are all good actors. 3. The sandy hook parents suck at acting. Then your conclusion is, It is clearly a hoax and the musicians were hired as actors. That is an illogical line of thought. Based off your own arguments, if musicians are such good actors it wouldn't be so easy to see through them.



False. See my last paragraph. Stop being dishonest. 

My reasoning on the acting, which is one area among many involved in my knowledge that Sandy Hook was a hoax, is that stage musicians and actors are actors, many of the Sandy Hook parents who have been interviewed are actors, and I can tell that the actors were acting in their interviews. Thus, the Sandy Hook saga was an act, like professional wrestling. 





> As for wrestling being fake, it isn't faked but choreographed. The way you know it is choreographed is because they beat each other up the entire match and no one ever gets hurt aside from the occasional accident here and there. Also it is obvious because often one person will stand around while letting the other set up their special moves and stuff, moves that are often not at all realistic. None of the videos you have posted are the equivalent of a professional athlete hitting someone in the head with a metal chair, and then that person getting up and walking away 20 seconds later. In wrestling that happens. If some 350 pound guy made of pure muscles hits you in the head with a chair, you are not getting up after. In fact, there is a good chance such a blow could kill you. So obviously it is fake.



Professional wrestling is a fake sport. It does not involve real competition. It's an act, just like Sandy Hook. You talked about how wrestlers would really act in certain situations, and I talked about how family members would really act in certain situations. However, my evidence goes a whole lot deeper than that. Also, can you tell that the wrestlers are acting when they talk? 





> What? The video I posted was from 1984, and they had kids there, interviewed in the video, saying it was fake and they clearly saw the wrestlers not hitting each other. John Stossel even declared this as a fact. This wasn't even controversial. You aren't special. I remember having the same argument when I was a kid in the 90s.



Oh, so some kids said they thought the wrestling looked fake and a journalist said wrestling is fake, and that proves it? Well, I have posted witnesses saying that Sandy Hook looked fake. I have posted dozens of journalists' documentaries on the fakeness of Sandy Hook. Are you sold yet? 

Can you tell with your own observations that professional wrestling is fake? 





> And 11 million people have watched one of the most popular hoax films, with 50% positive votes. Giving you the benefit of rounding, let's say 7 million people saw that one and thought favorably of it. We currently have 318 million, but let's subtract to 250 million to account for people without Internet, that's less than one percent of the US supporting this nonsense. That isn't a lot of people.



The opinions of other people seem to have everything to do with what you believe. Have you ever considered thinking for yourself? Also, not everybody who thinks Sandy Hoax was a hoax has +1'ed every YouTube documentary on it. I know people who have said they haven't watched any of the documentaries but could tell by watching the interviews on television that the actors were full of shit. People have watched documentaries with me and said Sandy Hoax was clearly a staged act but did not +1 the documentaries. Some of them don't even have YouTube accounts. 

More importantly, popular opinion is not the measure of truth. Most rednecks in the 80's thought professional wrestling was real. If you had lived in a redneck community, would you have thought professional wrestling was real? 





> I really have no idea what your point is here.



Uh, that my arguments that Sandy Hook was fake parallel the major arguments that professional wrestling is fake. Did you honestly not get that? 





> It does when your lynch pin is "A lot of these people are actors!" First, the one guy who was on Spin City was an extra. I can get an extra job this week and be in a ton of movies and TV shows. That does mean I am a life long actor who will commit to a hoax. A hoax most people believe.



Nick Phelps, one of the many actors who played a Sandy Hoax parent, was not a mere extra on Spin City, a prime time ABC sitcom starring Michael J. Fox. He played a character who had a conversation with the main character. Do you think you could have landed that job? 





> Every person is different. Every single person will grieve in some way, and the way is totally accessible. I'm sorry but this isn't even a point. It has been disproven by professionals with credentials better than  people watching YouTube.



Yes, not everybody grieves the same way! I keep saying that. Thank you for supporting my point. People grieve in different ways. So why can none of you find me a video of a live interview with a tear coming out of an eye? Why can none of you find me a video with a Sandy Hook alleged victim's family member expressing anger? Why can none of you find me a video of somebody blaming something other than the gun? Where is this diversity you official story gulpers keep bringing up?

----------


## Universal Mind

Click to enlarge: 

globalist 33.jpg

----------


## Rozollo

> Oh, so some kids said they thought the wrestling looked fake and a journalist said wrestling is fake, and that proves it? Well, I have posted witnesses saying that Sandy Hook looked fake. I have posted dozens of journalists' documentaries on the fakeness of Sandy Hook. Are you sold yet? 
> 
> Can you tell with your own observations that professional wrestling is fake?



On the first point: you are literally twisting the post just because it disproves one of your points to support another point. You proclaim "I knew prowrestling was fake in 1987!!!" I respond, "well, duh, most people knew that including people who paid to see events. See? A child of about 7 to 10 said he could see them not punching each other." And you you use that logical to extend to the Sandy Hook hoax. Notice, no one of any valid credentials has ever testified under oath that Sandy Hook was faked. Notice, no one has brought a lawsuit of any sort that Sandy Hook was faked. It's just Internet users with no credentials whatsoever other than what they purport through anecdotal evidence of video clips.





> The opinions of other people seem to have everything to do with what you believe. Have you ever considered thinking for yourself? Also, not everybody who thinks Sandy Hoax was a hoax has +1'ed every YouTube documentary on it. I know people who have said they haven't watched any of the documentaries but could tell by watching the interviews on television that the actors were full of shit. People have watched documentaries with me and said Sandy Hoax was clearly a staged act but did not +1 the documentaries. Some of them don't even have YouTube accounts. 
> 
> More importantly, popular opinion is not the measure of truth. Most rednecks in the 80's thought professional wrestling was real. If you had lived in a redneck community, would you have thought professional wrestling was real?



Ahh, the conspiracy theorist paradox "Think for yourself!" you yell at me after I assert my opinion. This is a logical fallacy because there's no end. If I am thinking for myself, then I cannot use ANY corroborating evidence that opposes your viewpoint, which has been declared de facto correct in this conversation, somehow. If I, through my own investigation, agree with the official story at all, then I am "trusting mainstream media blindly." It's a silly and stupid argument that I am not engaging in. The rest of your paragraph is the definition of conjecture. I am going by the actual numbers. The numbers are barely a sliver of the population. Anything else is hearsay, and you are just pulling it out of your ass.

I lived in south Louisiana, not far from where Swamp People was filmed. They have shows dedicated to how redneck people down there were. No, I didn't believe prowrestling was real, and I asked my dad, who was a fan since the 50's with my grandmother, and neither of them thought it was real.

Do you want to know why?

LOGIC. You cannot drop someone on their head or face or even back without doing serious damage. You cannot bare handed slap a person, repeatedly, without causing significant bruising. You cannot contort a person into positions, that though they look a bit easy to get out of if they were really fighting, that they have to give up or pass out, only for them to hop up after.

This part may shock you... these people also understand that movies are fiction. See, entertainment is, simply put, divided into fiction and non-fiction. A lot of the time, the fiction tries to show itself as non-fiction, but it isn't. This is how people in sitcoms can just not go to work but have multimillion dollar lifestyles. I make this point because you seem incapable of shaking the notion that prowrestling was a widely accepted "not fake" thing, when it was jokingly considered a fix since it started. That doesn't really stop the die hard fans, who will play along with the deception because it's fun. This argument is another null. It means nothing related to a conspiracy involving faking the deaths of a bunch of kids.





> Nick Phelps, one of the many actors who played a Sandy Hoax parent, was not a mere extra on Spin City, a prime time ABC sitcom starring Michael J. Fox. He played a character who had a conversation with the main character. Do you think you could have landed that job?



This is laughably amazing to me. If anyone still is reading this, here is the clip you are referring:





He has 3 lines. Alson, you mention it is a primetime show on ABC, which is true. Except this is the first season and it was in 1997. That really devalues his role as an actor. He has no other television acting credits, and he did a profoundly poor job here. But, in the world of conspiracy, that was just him preparing for Sandy Hook by being a terrible actor almost 20 years before the role of his (literal) lifetime would happen. To answer your question, yeah, I could get this role because it is a role of talking extra. Have you ever seen Criminal Minds? They have so many people that have more lines than this guy did every week from non-established actors. It's the role they just have to fill.





> Yes, not everybody grieves the same way! I keep saying that. Thank you for supporting my point. People grieve in different ways. So why can none of you find me a video of a live interview with a tear coming out of an eye? Why can none of you find me a video with a Sandy Hook alleged victim's family member expressing anger? Why can none of you find me a video of somebody blaming something other than the gun? Where is this diversity you official story gulpers keep bringing up?



"Official story gulpers" is literally the most telling comment in this entire place. So disconnected from reality...

Anyway, here's a video Sandy Hookers like to use as proof that this guy was acting: 





SAW HIM LAUGHING? OMFG! I RECANT.

Nah, every funeral I have been to where someone may age or slightly younger or older that has died has had the parents joking with friends and family. I remember when my best friend's brother died, and we were cracking jokes with his mom, some about the dead son, then we'd go see the body and she'd breakdown and be unable to stand.

At my own aunt's funeral, I made jokes, that were really inappropriate but made a lot of people laugh. 

The point is we have no context for why he was smiling and laughing. Maybe he was have a good conversation. He's allowed to do that. Then, he started talking about his however old daughter and it was like a dagger to the chest.

----------


## Universal Mind

> On the first point: you are literally twisting the post just because it disproves one of your points to support another point. You proclaim "I knew prowrestling was fake in 1987!!!" I respond, "well, duh, most people knew that including people who paid to see events. See? A child of about 7 to 10 said he could see them not punching each other." And you you use that logical to extend to the Sandy Hook hoax. Notice, no one of any valid credentials has ever testified under oath that Sandy Hook was faked. Notice, no one has brought a lawsuit of any sort that Sandy Hook was faked. It's just Internet users with no credentials whatsoever other than what they purport through anecdotal evidence of video clips.



What does "most people" have to do with anything? I asked why YOU would have believed professional wrestling was fake in 1987. 





> Ahh, the conspiracy theorist paradox "Think for yourself!" you yell at me after I assert my opinion. This is a logical fallacy because there's no end. If I am thinking for myself, then I cannot use ANY corroborating evidence that opposes your viewpoint, which has been declared de facto correct in this conversation, somehow. If I, through my own investigation, agree with the official story at all, then I am "trusting mainstream media blindly." It's a silly and stupid argument that I am not engaging in. The rest of your paragraph is the definition of conjecture. I am going by the actual numbers. The numbers are barely a sliver of the population. Anything else is hearsay, and you are just pulling it out of your ass.



I didn't say you had to blindly trust the mainstream media to believe Sandy Hook was real. I just said that you are doing it.  You have nothing convincing to say. You just stick to the official story because it's the official story and because most other people believe it.  





> I lived in south Louisiana, not far from where Swamp People was filmed. They have shows dedicated to how redneck people down there were. No, I didn't believe prowrestling was real, and I asked my dad, who was a fan since the 50's with my grandmother, and neither of them thought it was real.
> 
> Do you want to know why?
> 
> LOGIC. You cannot drop someone on their head or face or even back without doing serious damage. You cannot bare handed slap a person, repeatedly, without causing significant bruising. You cannot contort a person into positions, that though they look a bit easy to get out of if they were really fighting, that they have to give up or pass out, only for them to hop up after.
> 
> This part may shock you... these people also understand that movies are fiction. See, entertainment is, simply put, divided into fiction and non-fiction. A lot of the time, the fiction tries to show itself as non-fiction, but it isn't. This is how people in sitcoms can just not go to work but have multimillion dollar lifestyles. I make this point because you seem incapable of shaking the notion that prowrestling was a widely accepted "not fake" thing, when it was jokingly considered a fix since it started. That doesn't really stop the die hard fans, who will play along with the deception because it's fun. This argument is another null. It means nothing related to a conspiracy involving faking the deaths of a bunch of kids.



There we go! You can tell by watching professional wrestling that it is fake, and you know that events in the stories defy reality and common sense. You can tell that movies are fake the same way. Now snap out of your mainstream media and popular opinion hypnosis and notice how absurd Sandy Hook is for the same kinds of reasons. 





> He has 3 lines. Alson, you mention it is a primetime show on ABC, which is true. Except this is the first season and it was in 1997. That really devalues his role as an actor. He has no other television acting credits, and he did a profoundly poor job here. But, in the world of conspiracy, that was just him preparing for Sandy Hook by being a terrible actor almost 20 years before the role of his (literal) lifetime would happen. To answer your question, yeah, I could get this role because it is a role of talking extra. Have you ever seen Criminal Minds? They have so many people that have more lines than this guy did every week from non-established actors. It's the role they just have to fill.



Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a speaking role on a prime time network sitcom? Nick Phelps is an actor. 





> "Official story gulpers" is literally the most telling comment in this entire place. So disconnected from reality...



You gulped the official story. It was way too easy for the hoaxers to fool you. 





> SAW HIM LAUGHING? OMFG! I RECANT.



Uh, yeah. He is very plainly laughing as he walks up to the microphone. 





> Nah, every funeral I have been to where someone may age or slightly younger or older that has died has had the parents joking with friends and family. I remember when my best friend's brother died, and we were cracking jokes with his mom, some about the dead son, then we'd go see the body and she'd breakdown and be unable to stand.
> 
> At my own aunt's funeral, I made jokes, that were really inappropriate but made a lot of people laugh. 
> 
> The point is we have no context for why he was smiling and laughing. Maybe he was have a good conversation. He's allowed to do that. Then, he started talking about his however old daughter and it was like a dagger to the chest.



He was walking to the microphone to give a speech about his supposed daughter who supposedly was killed in a massacre the previous day. The previous day!! 



 







Pause this at 7:16.

----------


## Rozollo

> There we go! You can tell by watching professional wrestling that it is fake, and you know that events in the stories defy reality and common sense. You can tell that movies are fake the same way. Now snap out of your mainstream media and popular opinion hypnosis and notice how absurd Sandy Hook is for the same kinds of reasons.



There really is nothing outrageous about the official story. Quick: Did you see the bodies from Columbine? Did you see pictures or video of parents crying? What about Virginia Tech? What about Aurora Cineplex? What about the mass shooting in Australia they left them with the strictest gun control in the world?

You haven't seen any of these things. 

This is where conspiracy theorists will lose people. As someone who has logic facilities and sound reasoning abilities, I cannot start looking for a conspiracy when there is no answer to why. The official story barely has a why, which makes it very uncomfortable to accept as fact. Not unrealistic; uncomfortable. A teenager or whatever had an event that caused him to lose all control of his restraint facilities, and her murdered his mother then a bunch of children in a school. That's a crazy world to live in, and that is the world we live. A world where shit just happens.

In your world, there are massive conspiracies to, and I am quoting, "I am not sure what the purpose of Sandy Hook was." This is defines any scientific inquiry. You are LOOKING for a conspiracy. You have yet to entertain my notion that there wasn't anyone beyond Adam Lanza acting alone. Take off your world against you glasses for a second and look at it from that perspective.

Also, you said the conspiracy was "possibly intentionally bad so some people would see that." Do you have ANY idea how egotistical that sounds on top of how utterly insane that is? If Sandy Hook is proven to be a hoax, they have broken a myriad of federal laws that would likely imprison them for several lifetimes. It's like saying 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, but they left clues for the smarter ones. If the US Government was revealed to be behind 9/11, other countries would go to war with us without hesitating.





> Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a speaking role on a prime time network sitcom? Nick Phelps is an actor.



About as easy as auditioning: Extras Casting | Jobs for Movies, Television, & More | Backstage

All extras need to do is look a certain part. If they have a speaking role, they will have to audition, but for the love of science, this is Spin City in the first season; it's not Shindler's List.

----------


## Universal Mind

Some of the shootings you named might have been hoaxes, but the only one you named that stands out as WTF other than Sandy Hook is Auroroa. That raises weird issues too, but nothing like Sandy hook does. I am not completely convinced that any of them were real, but all of them very well might have been, except Sandy Hook. It was a hoax, obviously. 

The fact that I don't know what the purpose of Sandy Hook was doesn't prove that I am wanting there to be a conspiracy any more than your not knowing where cars driving the other direction are going proves that you want cars to go the other way. I already explained that to you. Pick up there, or at least quit hitting the reset button. 

There are loopholes in the law that would allow a shooting hoax, such as the legality of false media reporting. A 9/11 inside job would have been extremely illegal, but I haven't been arguing that it happened. I am one of very few people who has ever said on this website that 9/11 was not an inside job. It was me vs. many on that issue here too. I wonder where all of the conspiracy theorists on that issue went. 

Did you pause that video at 7:16?

----------


## Rozollo

> Some of the shootings you named might have been hoaxes, but the only one you named that stands out as WTF other than Sandy Hook is Auroroa. That raises weird issues too, but nothing like Sandy hook does. I am not completely convinced that any of them were real, but all of them very well might have been, except Sandy Hook. It was a hoax, obviously.



Holy shit! Your world view is so completely insane... So, let's clarify.

Columbine - 
Virgina Tech - 
Aurora -  
Santa Barbara Rampage - 
Norway Island Shooter -

Which of these were real?





> The fact that I don't know what the purpose of Sandy Hook was doesn't prove that I am wanting there to be a conspiracy any more than your not knowing where cars driving the other direction are going proves that you want cars to go the other way. I already explained that to you. Pick up there, or at least quit hitting the reset button.



Except it does. You are looking for smoke where there is no fire. The day of, it was weird as news came out, maybe even the week later, but beyond reasonable doubt, we have a story that most people have accepted for over 2 years. It's part of the fabric of history now. Keeping that in mind, very little has come out of it. Gun sales, sorta, went up, but they went back down since. Gun laws have been in motion for decades, and we have laxer gun laws than any other country in the world. Fear of the government or preparation? Both zero. The NSA leaks are still coming out, and people are as trusting of the government as ever before.

How many people, in your estimate, would be part of this conspiracy?





> There are loopholes in the law that would allow a shooting hoax, such as the legality of false media reporting. A 9/11 inside job would have been extremely illegal, but I haven't been arguing that it happened. I am one of very few people who has ever said on this website that 9/11 was not an inside job. It was me vs. many on that issue here too. I wonder where all of the conspiracy theorists on that issue went.



There's a good median ground. 9/11, as the official story said was purported by 19 hijackers (quick Googling, forgive me if that number is wrong). With rudimentary flight training and capability. They were able to commandeer 4 planes, I think, with three striking critical buildings, one being the Pentagon. What's scarier? A government conspiracy or just some random lunatics attacking AND SUCCEEDING at destroying buildings that are still being felt almost 15 years later?

It's the same with the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing. It's far, far, far scarier to realize that one to possibly 3 men with very simple explosives killed a bunch of people than to believe the government orchestrated it. The reasoning is if fewer people with less resources, skills, education, and ability can execute an act of mass violence, then they can keep doing this.

Looking at Sandy Hook with the same goggles (you won't), and you can see how this official story is far scarier and freakier than any other argument. Literally the guy next to you on a bus could open fire.





> Did you pause that video at 7:16?



2015-02-28 10_42_47-Was Sandy Hook a Hoax_.jpg

Yes, I see a person reacting... This is so mind-blowing that you believe ACTORS are portraying grieving parents, but they are so poor at their craft they would laugh on camera. Have you ever been duplicitous? You don't let your guard down the entire time while lying. This all has to assume the media isn't in on it or they would simply edit the footage. So, these actors have fooled journalists, which despite your opinion have credentials and experiences to suss out total whack job liars, and maybe 90% of the population, but you caught it because you can pause a video. That doesn't gel. It's just finding smoke where there's no fire and not taking the totality of a situation.

Also, she is crying. If you cannot see that, then I don't really plan to engage you on any more argument about whether or not people are grieving. As Alric said, you simply are ignoring what tears look like.

----------


## SearcherTMR

> Yes, I see a person reacting...



Thank god I am not the only one to see a person laughing - there is also Universal Mind... :Cheeky: 
Btw Universal Mind, I really don't understand why you try so hard to convince people.
Its so easy for someone to fit everything in his world view that you simply can't convince anyone unless they are open to the possibility that they might just be wrong...and this is definitely not the case here.

----------


## Rozollo

You literally just described both sides of this argument.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Holy shit! Your world view is so completely insane... So, let's clarify.
> 
> Columbine - 
> Virgina Tech - 
> Aurora -  
> Santa Barbara Rampage - 
> Norway Island Shooter -
> 
> Which of these were real?



Did you read what I wrote about that? It looks like you were trying to respond to it. Are you sure you are being honest here? 





> Except it does. You are looking for smoke where there is no fire. The day of, it was weird as news came out, maybe even the week later, but beyond reasonable doubt, we have a story that most people have accepted for over 2 years. It's part of the fabric of history now. Keeping that in mind, very little has come out of it. Gun sales, sorta, went up, but they went back down since. Gun laws have been in motion for decades, and we have laxer gun laws than any other country in the world. Fear of the government or preparation? Both zero. The NSA leaks are still coming out, and people are as trusting of the government as ever before.



No, people are not as trusting of the government as ever before. People are a lot less trusting now than they had been for a long time. Also, the country is better armed. School security is stricter. Gun legislation was passed, other gun legislation was merely attempted, and certain government departmental policies have changed. 

23 Gun Safety Victories Since Sandy Hook | Blog | Media Matters for America

Why did I need to post that yet again? 





> How many people, in your estimate, would be part of this conspiracy?



It's hard to say. Definitely at least one orchestrator, some cops, a medical examiner, and some actors playing witnesses and family members. How many people were involved in Project Artichoke? What about Operation Mockingbird? How many people would have been involved in Operation Northwoods if Kennedy had approved it? 

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals for actions against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration._





> There's a good median ground. 9/11, as the official story said was purported by 19 hijackers (quick Googling, forgive me if that number is wrong). With rudimentary flight training and capability. They were able to commandeer 4 planes, I think, with three striking critical buildings, one being the Pentagon. What's scarier? A government conspiracy or just some random lunatics attacking AND SUCCEEDING at destroying buildings that are still being felt almost 15 years later?



Why are you asking me about 9/11? I don't think it was a U.S. government conspiracy. Check out some of the threads here on that. I think the U.S. government pulled some tricks in dealing with the public in regard to the situation, but I don't think they orchestrated the attacks. 





> Looking at Sandy Hook with the same goggles (you won't), and you can see how this official story is far scarier and freakier than any other argument. Literally the guy next to you on a bus could open fire.



What is your point on this? 





> H
> Attachment 8223
> 
> Yes, I see a person reacting... This is so mind-blowing that you believe ACTORS are portraying grieving parents, but they are so poor at their craft they would laugh on camera. Have you ever been duplicitous? You don't let your guard down the entire time while lying. This all has to assume the media isn't in on it or they would simply edit the footage. So, these actors have fooled journalists, which despite your opinion have credentials and experiences to suss out total whack job liars, and maybe 90% of the population, but you caught it because you can pause a video. That doesn't gel. It's just finding smoke where there's no fire and not taking the totality of a situation.
> 
> Also, she is crying. If you cannot see that, then I don't really plan to engage you on any more argument about whether or not people are grieving. As Alric said, you simply are ignoring what tears look like.



You trust the media not to run with something like this? Do you know what kind of viewership they got for it? They are not on some conscientious hunt for the truth. What rock have you been living under? Also, my conclusion about acting is not based on merely this one freeze frame. You know that. Carlee Soto had a devilish smirk on her face, and what is the downfall there? That masses refuse to question such things. You are among them. However, I still ask you to get a look at the actual smirk. 

Click to enlarge: 

Attachment 8225

Tell me where in the interview you see a tear coming out of an eye. 









> Thank god I am not the only one to see a person laughing - there is also Universal Mind...
> Btw Universal Mind, I really don't understand why you try so hard to convince people.
> Its so easy for someone to fit everything in his world view that you simply can't convince anyone unless they are open to the possibility that they might just be wrong...and this is definitely not the case here.



It's interesting to put the obvious right in people's faces when they are in complete denial and see what they have to say about it. It really amuses me.

----------


## Universal Mind

The pic situation on this site has been screwy for the last two years. I don't know if the screen shot I posted is going to last. The moment you see this video hit 7:16, pause it. It's at about 7:16.2. The wicked smile lasts for only part of a second. 





I hope the freeze frame screen shot I posted will last.

----------


## Merck

Nope.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Nope.



Why do you disagree with the points I have made?

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

I get the sense that the only reason you're so adamant in believing this is fake is because you're scared of the government using an excuse to take your precious guns away. This whole thread is so laughable, if only it wasn't so deeply offensive towards the families of the victims...

----------


## Universal Mind

> I get the sense that the only reason you're so adamant in believing this is fake is because you're scared of the government using an excuse to take your precious guns away. This whole thread is so laughable, if only it wasn't so deeply offensive towards the families of the victims...



That's some cute speculation. Do you have a debate point to make? Prove that there were victims. Counter my arguments that there were no victims. You have contributed nothing. 

There were no victims. I have explained the logic supporting that conclusion. See what you can do with it.

----------


## Rozollo

The onus is on you. You are claiming something very fantastical and silly, but your "evidence" is atrocious. You are pointing at things that the majority of the population totally disagrees with as your sources, and you won't hear one way or another as to why you are wrong.

Alric gave you the opening; go dig up the bodies. Live stream it on Twitch, and prove there's no corpses in there. While there, take scrappings of any bones you find to absolutely prove those corpses aren't the purported victims of Sandy Hook.

The fact of the matter is, in science, when you challenge an accepted notion, you have to provide real evidence to oppose this notion. All videos on Youtube are automatically barred because the nature of them; you are just making conjecture from evidence that runs counter to what everyone else sees, and there's no shaking you on that. In my opinion, if a conspiracy happened to the level you suggest, they wouldn't have had slip-ups on national television in the year 2012/2013 when nothing is temporary. So, find me evidence that right now these people are acting. Using past examples of acting roles only proves it to you and the people who have already excepted this worldview.

And for the nth time, stop being a condescending bitch. Calling Deery's response as cute speculation is so completely unnecessary and just proves a weak character and argument. She upset you and mocked you? Cool, prove him/her wrong. It makes me, and I imagine others, not want to post here because the last concern I have in my life is whether or not someone online mocks me.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The onus is on you. You are claiming something very fantastical and silly, but your "evidence" is atrocious. You are pointing at things that the majority of the population totally disagrees with as your sources, and you won't hear one way or another as to why you are wrong.



There you go again with your appeals to mainstream opinion. What the mainstream believes is not my basis for believing anything. However, it is yours, at least on this issue. What is your belief about the origin of humanity? 





> Alric gave you the opening; go dig up the bodies. Live stream it on Twitch, and prove there's no corpses in there. While there, take scrappings of any bones you find to absolutely prove those corpses aren't the purported victims of Sandy Hook.



I told you why I am not going to go to Newtown and be a grave digger. Why did you press the reset button on that discussion? What an asinine challenge. 





> The fact of the matter is, in science, when you challenge an accepted notion, you have to provide real evidence to oppose this notion. All videos on Youtube are automatically barred because the nature of them; you are just making conjecture from evidence that runs counter to what everyone else sees, and there's no shaking you on that. In my opinion, if a conspiracy happened to the level you suggest, they wouldn't have had slip-ups on national television in the year 2012/2013 when nothing is temporary. So, find me evidence that right now these people are acting. Using past examples of acting roles only proves it to you and the people who have already excepted this worldview.



Do you honestly believe that the burden of proof in science has anything to do with popular opinion?  ::roll::  

You are confused. Positive claims establish burden of proof. I have made positive claims, and I have proven them. However, you have made positive claims and won't even say why you believe them aside from the fact that they are popular opinion and part of the official story. So far, your opinion on this issue is 100% about what other people believe. Is that the best you've got? 

Do I really need to explain yet again how I know that the actors are acting, aside from the fact that they are in fact actors with histories of acting? Tears come of out none of their eyes in any live interviews, zero of them express anger, zero of them take a political stance other than supporting gun control (despite the fact that murder has a history of raising MANY political issues), zero of them blame anything but the gun (except one of them said Nancy Lanza didn't fully do her job as a mother, when asked), they all act like their supposedly murdered family members / friends were running for student council or local office and not dead, and all of that together proves that their speeches were scripted and staged. I also have a history of acting and grief counseling, so I know when a large group of people (remember... we are not talking about just one person) is being fake about losing somebody to murder. 

Did you read it that time? Here's another example, of the MANY. 





My evidence goes far beyond the obvious acting. You should read my entire posts. 





> And for the nth time, stop being a condescending bitch. Calling Deery's response as cute speculation is so completely unnecessary and just proves a weak character and argument. She upset you and mocked you? Cool, prove him/her wrong. It makes me, and I imagine others, not want to post here because the last concern I have in my life is whether or not someone online mocks me.



That's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you read your own posts? I know you don't read much of mine, but at least be aware of what yours say. 

Deery did nothing but insult me personally. Did you really not notice that? I told her that her post is worthless because it is. It is an ad hominem post with zero debate points in it. Let's see you admit that.

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

Why do you demand to be taken seriously for such a ridiculous, baiting conspiracy theory? I'm wondering what your motive is for wanting to deny that this tragedy actually happened at all... do you also deny the holocaust? The moon landing? It's one thing to believe in crazy conspiracy theories, it's another to completely disregard human life that was taken away in the process. It makes you come across as a cold sociopath. Again, you condescend me, in your tone trying so hard to sound superior (as usual), that it has nothing to do with pro-gun feelings, yet you continually mention how all the witnesses blame guns. It seems obvious that you don't like the fact that they're blaming guns. If the shoe fits, wear it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why do you demand to be taken seriously for such a ridiculous, baiting conspiracy theory? I'm wondering what your motive is for wanting to deny that this tragedy actually happened at all... do you also deny the holocaust? The moon landing? It's one thing to believe in crazy conspiracy theories, it's another to completely disregard human life that was taken away in the process. It makes you come across as a cold sociopath. Again, you condescend me, in your tone trying so hard to sound superior (as usual), that it has nothing to do with pro-gun feelings, yet you continually mention how all the witnesses blame guns. It seems obvious that you don't like the fact that they're blaming guns. If the shoe fits, wear it.



Do you know what the ad hominem fallacy is? Learn about it. 

ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mere personal insult is not argument, and neither is bare assertion. You claim that people were killed at Sandy Hook. Why do you believe any were? I don't believe any were, and I have been debating the issue for 16 pages. You have contributed zero to the debate. If you think a massacre took place at Sandy Hook, explain your reasoning. If you think I have made illogical points in this thread, counter them. If you are going to do neither, then you are just spinning your wheels in the mud when you address posts to me in this thread. 

You are starting from the premise that people were killed at Sandy Hook, and that is the claim I am challenging. I challenge you to prove that there was a massacre at Sandy Hook. Make the best argument you possibly can. So far, you haven't shown the first sign that you even have one.

----------


## StephL

Well - the time I've been reading and answering in here are long gone, I just jump in shortly now, and maybe I just forgot that we were through this particular argument zig times before, but since I got reminded of this matter reading "Jennifer Government" by Max Barry, book about anarchy, in a way, I want to try this (once more?):


UM:

What would compel a government wanting to shock people into accepting gun-regulation to spend thousands of Dollars on pulling off such an elaborate scheme instead of just manipulating one labile individual into really doing the actual shooting?
Would that not be much more clever and just as effective?

----------


## Universal Mind

That's a good point. I am not sure why it was done the way it was. I am not even sure at this point what the purpose was. I thought I knew for a while, but I have seen that the rabbit hole goes deeper than I realized. It might have been some kind of act of reverse psychology. It might have been a social experiment. It's a really bizarre mystery. What I do know is that the official story is phony as a $7 bill.

----------

