Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I hope this doesnt get deleted, again, as I feel it is very necessary. There are many theories that continue to be brought in as legitimate regarding Sandy Hook, and many of them are outright lies. I'd like to start a list, so that, perhaps, people will quite using them as evidence of conspiracy.



Claim 1) The entire event was staged, no one died.
answer)The first thing that needs to be answered with this claim is something that has been outright ignored, many times, by those who make the claims. How does it possibly make sense that some 'agency' would decide to create this event, and would decide it was a better option to stage the entire thing, that is, have 28 fake dead people, many more family members, and hundreds of responders, all in on it, than it would be to have a merc go in and actually do it, thus creating an ACTUAL event?


IF this is some conspiracy, there is absolutely NO logical argument as to why they would fake it instead of having somebody actually do it. Why leave a trail of people who know it is fake, when you could just send a merc in to do it?

Claim 2) The parents are actors:
Answer) Simple, no, they are not. There is ZERO evidence to support this claim. The best that they have is a video of Emilie Parker's father smiling before he goes on camera. People who support this claim obviously have no experience with grief. They obviously have no experience in a tragic situation. Being in a tragic situation does not mean that one does not try to find single moments where they can smile. It does not mean that they cannot laugh at a joke. It does not mean they cannot give a nervous smile before addressing a tv crowd of millions. And that is not to mention that it is HEAVILY documented that a smile is often an involuntary reaction in times of grief.

Furthermore, the 'getting into character' argument holds no water. Any person with even the slightest acting training can tell you this. An actor does not wait until seconds before they start talking to get into character, especially when they know the camera is already on. Very basic stuff.

Claim 3)We saw no bodies, so it must be a movie set.
Answer) Does this really even need to be answered? Do you expect them to trot dead children out there for the whole world, and their families, to see?

Claim 4) Emilie Parker appears in a picture with obama after her death.
Answer) No, she doesnt. There is NOTHING about that picture that proves that Emilie Parker is still alive. What is proven, is that her siblings look a lot like her, and we KNOW they have matching dresses. There is not one single bit of evidence to prove that that picture is Emilie Parker.

Clam 5)Nobody on here knows anyone affected by that day.
Answer)False. I do. Others have stated as much as well.

Claim 6)Sotos facebook page already existed:
Answer: False. Even the creator of the page says flat out that it was a page that was re-appropriated to the topic after the fact.

Claim 7)LIBOR scandal
Answer: Two words: Sorcha Faal.

Any others that need to be added to the list?




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
You may very well be right in each of these instances. But just because someone tells me something has been "debunked", doesn't mean mean it has been. That's just group think at its finest. It sounds very definitive, as though I'm not allowed to make up my own mind now that its been labeled "debunked".

However unlikely you may consider these scenarios to be, others still have to conclude that for themselves. Just a thought. No offense intended.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
claim: The nurse has told different versions of the story:
Answer: No, she hasnt. THE NURSE NEVER SAYS SHE LOCKED EYES WITH THE SHOOTER. She never says he saw her and then moved on. The reporter is doing what reporters do-sensationalizing. Look at it like this: The reporter talked to the nurse. The nurse simply says "i saw him, and he turned, and left". The reporter, then, trying to make it sound juicier, reports it as "They locked eyes". Then a bunch of people desperate to find a conspiracy angle latch on and wont let go.

Its pretty clear from her statements that she initially hid under the desk, then moved to the closet after the gunman moved on.

There is no inconsistency, other than ONE reporter taking liberties with the wording.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
You may very well be right in each of these instances. But just because someone tells me something has been "debunked", doesn't mean mean it has been. That's just group think at its finest. It sounds very definitive, as though I'm not allowed to make up my own mind now that its been labeled "debunked".

However unlikely you may consider these scenarios to be, others still have to conclude that for themselves. Just a thought. No offense intended.
No offense taken. however, the majority of things listed have been definitively proven false. To treat them as though they are a possibility is to continue to spread disinfo.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Sitting on the sidelines watching these "arguments", I cant help but feel the conspiracy theorists have a huge amount of self importance.

The shooting event is a HUGE media event, and every single media organisation on the planet who could spare a reporter has sent one to the actual scene to actually interview actual people and see the actual evidence.
BBC, Al Jazeera, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc... Left wing, Right wing, Local, National, Foreign.
Huge number of journalists.

But apparently they're all stupid. Every single one of them.

Reporters on the scene are too stupid to know its a movie set.
Reporters on the scene are too stupid to know dead girls are meeting the President.
Reporters on the scene are too stupid to know there are no dead bodies at all.

...but ATS users surfing the net, are (rather conceitedly) much cleverer than they.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I dont want this thread to turn into a "people who believe this are stupid" thread, or anything of that nature. I am trying to create a reference, so that people can stop wasting their time pursuing theories that are outright bunk.

Our effort should be to find truth, and to do that, we must stop focusing on falsehoods.

I also hope that anyone else that knows of any other debunked theories will add them to the page. Having them all in one place will be very helpful to all.
edit on 23-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Questioning the official story is one thing. Stating the Conspiracy is a fact, is another. Stating lies are a fact? Sensationalizing the deaths? That's were many on ATS are drawing the line....... Its almost inhuman to make these victims, Parents of the victims, and ANYONE who is still mourning the victims, suffer the audacity of the lies being wielded around by those on ATS. Perpetrating the lies is shameful actually........


S&F



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I see what you are trying to do. Perhaps you should list the facts and then let the group extrapolate from that?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryyptyk
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I see what you are trying to do. Perhaps you should list the facts and then let the group extrapolate from that?


If you'd like that list, please, start that thread. It would be very helpful.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That's a good start, getting rid of the ridiculous conspiracy elements allows people to focus on the more important aspects of the discrepancies regarding the case.

The only one I have a question about is this:




Claim 6)Sotos facebook page already existed: Answer: False. Even the creator of the page says flat out that it was a page that was re-appropriated to the topic after the fact.


From what I understand, the name of the facebook page can be changed later but the URL of the page stays the same after creation, that url in question has RIP in it. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I thought you wanted the truth? The only way to get there is together.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


S&F for posting this, I really appreciate it! For a while there I was thinking that everyone on this site had gone overboard.

I believe the theory that the police found a Bushmaster in the trunk of the car has been debunked by many.

It was interesting to see how conspiracies are born out of overzealous reporting and people making up facts to fit their theories. I hope that this will be a lesson to journalists to what until they have the facts before reporting, but, alas, I think they don't care as long as their ratings are high.

Again, thank you for posting!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

Your argument goes for both sides in this debate. You just said it yourself.


...but ATS users surfing the net, are (rather conceitedly) much cleverer than they.

You've decided you're more clever(rather conceitedly) than other ATS users. Because they are such fools to question things you see as foolish to question. To question what is said by another member to be "definitively debunked".

"It now has a label folks. Nothing to see here, move along".

That determination should be made by each individual. I decide for myself whether another members evidence is definitive or not. Again, no offense is intended by my statements.

Who exactly decided these have been definitively debunked? Another ATS user(s).



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
This is a false flag inside job event. I smell troll/dis-info.

You didn't mention Rodia, as has already been exposed in the other thread. And one of the dozens of smoking guns here.

At 30:15 into the video link posted below, an officer asks for a license plate to be run.

"872 YEO"

Then at 30:40 Dispatch comes on and spells his name - Christo­pher A. Rodia. It's a bit garbled but then gives his birth date Aug 6 '69.

Listen here:


There is a Christo­pher A. Rodia in Connecticut, born in 1969. If you Google his name you will find an article from February 2012 about him stealing copper
Article

Here's a video of the police taking a gun out of the trunk.




And yes, of course there are actors involved. Heard of crisis actors? Anyone with any common sense can see pretty much every interview features someone displaying extremely unsettling or odd behavior. Even the children, notice in every child interview, they show no signs of trauma..Columbine high school students showed trauma, there were pictures of the alleged shooters and victims and not everyone who was shot was killed. This is a terrible 'B' movie. I'm losing sleep over the fact that the majority believe anything the MSM is saying, and the official story.
edit on 23-12-2012 by ProphetOfZeal because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-12-2012 by ProphetOfZeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That's a good start, getting rid of the ridiculous conspiracy elements allows people to focus on the more important aspects of the discrepancies regarding the case.

The only one I have a question about is this:




Claim 6)Sotos facebook page already existed: Answer: False. Even the creator of the page says flat out that it was a page that was re-appropriated to the topic after the fact.


From what I understand, the name of the facebook page can be changed later but the URL of the page stays the same after creation, that url in question has RIP in it. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
The owner of the page confirmed that the page was created for something else first, then changed when the event happened.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryyptyk
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I thought you wanted the truth? The only way to get there is together.
Sure it is. what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that I am detracting from the truth?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by alfa1
 

Your argument goes for both sides in this debate. You just said it yourself.


...but ATS users surfing the net, are (rather conceitedly) much cleverer than they.

You've decided you're more clever(rather conceitedly) than other ATS users. Because they are such fools to question things you see as foolish to question. To question what is said by another member to be "definitively debunked".

"It now has a label folks. Nothing to see here, move along".

That determination should be made by each individual. I decide for myself whether another members evidence is definitive or not. Again, no offense is intended by my statements.

Who exactly decided these have been definitively debunked? Another ATS user(s).



Other ATS users who backed up the debunking with facts.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal
This is a false flag inside job event. I smell troll/dis-info.

You didn't mention Rodia, as has already been exposed in the other thread. And one of the dozens of smoking guns here.

At 30:15 into the video link posted below, an officer asks for a license plate to be run.

"872 YEO"

Then at 30:40 Dispatch comes on and spells his name - Christo­pher A. Rodia. It's a bit garbled but then gives his birth date Aug 6 '69.

Listen here:


There is a Christo­pher A. Rodia in Connecticut, born in 1969. If you Google his name you will find an article from February 2012 about him stealing copper


Here's a video of the police taking a gun out of the trunk.




And yes, of course there are actors involved. Heard of crisis actors? Anyone with any common sense can see pretty much every interview features someone displaying extremely unsettling or odd behavior. Even the children, notice in every child interview, they show no signs of trauma..Columbine high school students showed trauma, there were pictures of the alleged shooters and victims and not everyone who was shot was killed. This is a terrible 'B' movie. I'm losing sleep over the fact that the majority believe anything the MSM is saying, and the official story.
edit on 23-12-2012 by ProphetOfZeal because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-12-2012 by ProphetOfZeal because: (no reason given)


1)I didnt mention Rodia because that mystery has not been solved yet. Did you miss the title of the thread? The fact that it is about the parts THAT HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED? It seems you want to paint me as saying that there is nothing to see here, which is fallacy on your part. I have said, flat out, that there are issues with this event. But much of what is being reported is blatantly false.

2)"Of course there are actors involved"? Really? Got ANY proof of that? Just because crisis actors exist, does not mean that any of the people accused of being such actually are. There is ZERO proof to back up the assertion.

3)You really need to learn more about child trauma.

4)What is the official story? I was unaware that it had been released.

edit on 23-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Speaking from the tiny quadruple disaster ridden state of Connecticut.

There has been no official release of information conclusively by the Connecticut State Police as of yet, ie: there is no official story only Media Speculation...



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join