Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 10
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmeine
I for one don't appreciate receiving messages like this when I have only commented on one discussion about Sandy Hook - at which I expressed my disgust at the people participating in the thread. There are a lot of us here who do participate in discussions with respect and follow the rules. Please don't lump us all in with the few people who ruin it for the rest of us. I've seen on too many threads the same few people who turn threads into an opportunity to bash each other. Perhaps there needs to be a revision in ToR for posting replies because I've reported many posts by people that were way out of line...I logged in and was hoping that perhaps AtS had sent out a friendly Christmas greeting but no instead everyone got a slap on the wrist. Not necessary in my books. Hopping off my soap box now.


The biggest problem with the world is this notion of "Ruining it for everyone."

When you have a public forum where everyone is anonymous, you are BOUND to get the bad apple, nay, you will ALWAYS get the bad apple.

Get rid of the bad apples, leave the good apples alone -- they didn't do anything to receive "Justice."

Truth be told, I don't even see any bad apples here, just a bunch of sour ones with power and a contrary bias.

If the whole "Adma Lanza" was the "shooter" thing is what we're talking about here....

That didn't even start on ATS. Which pretty much proves my point.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
claim: The nurse has told different versions of the story:
Answer: No, she hasnt. THE NURSE NEVER SAYS SHE LOCKED EYES WITH THE SHOOTER.

The MSM had her locking eyes with the shooter. What is your source that she didn't?


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Posting personal information of private citizens, then casting nasty aspersions on them, is the lowest of lows

Even more so when the target is dead. Does not Adam Lanza deserve the same consideration?
[Although I agree we shouldn't be slandering anybody.]



No. A single reporter said she locked eyes with the shooter. Thats it. And thats all. There is not one piece of corroborating evidence. The nurse herself even says that she SAW HIS FEET. She has NEVER stated that they locked eyes.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AFewGoodWomen
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


I am aware of the thread being discussed and can understand the point of the Admins and owner...speculation should not be let allowed to grow into outright assumptions...especially when concerning innocent victims, the family members of the shooter...and anyone who may have ever had a relationship (albeit personal or professional) with the shooter.

No one...and I mean no one....saw this coming...and to start a thread that delves into what-if's and blame goes against everything that I come to ATS for ....if you want tabloid and conjecture, and a little bit of hate...start a thread on that "other" ungodly forum.

That is all I have to say on the subject...Merry Christmas...I hope that some people got what they needed-a lesson in critical thinking and humility.


Speculation IS assumption. And ASSUMPTION is CRUCIAL in investigation. One looks at a scene, assumes what may or may not have happened, and uses those assumptions as jump off spots to gathering more information.

When detectives show up at the scene, they ask witnesses what they saw, and what they THINK happened.

They then use the collection of assumptions to determine what is the most plausible scenario and work it backwards.

Banning people from giving their opinions no matter how absurd they are is absurd itself. The only way these assumptions become wrong, is if they are mislabeled as FACT when they aren't verified. This would be misrepresenting information, and that could justify correctional recourse.


Outside of that, if someone wants to believe it's all actors -- how does that hurt anyone else? It doesn't. Saying it does is stretching reality.
edit on 25-12-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The way some ATSers are ripping apart this incredible nightmare to a subatomic level ....is truly disheartening. I thought the members here were a little more sophisticated than what I've witnessed the past several weeks.

I think some people simply can't cope and wrap their heads around such bone chilling events like this (and Aurora) so they start reinventing scenarios (i.e., NWO agenda to disarm Americans)!

We're all a little more cynical after 9-11. Grant it--- however, that doesn't give us license to tear apart every single unfathomable event (hurricanes included) the way you are. It's not only disrespectful, it's insane.

Frankly?.....I am more disturbed by the ATSers who are drawing these twisted lines, connecting invisible dots and injecting bedazzling bull**it than I am of the killers themselves. For these disturbed people are the very ones who want to hoard the guns and ammo and live next door to me. You are all crazy!!!

I would love to see all these SandyHook threads tossed in the abyss somewhere. Thank you Springer for bringing logic and lecture back to this out-of-control topic.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by notquitesure
 


And I am guessing this is what you believe happened?


Believe? No. Belief is way too strong of a word.

Feel that it is worth exploring? Absolutely. I feel that if children were not involved, more would be willing to examine this as a false flag.

I'm open to all possibilities, including the option that this is an isolated, tragic event. It's the media and government's immediate move to use this tragedy to further several agendas which gives me the most pause.

Do THEY sit around waiting for tragedy to strike with a message prepared to roll out? Or do THEY sometimes give things a nudge (or worse)?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You are turning it into a gun arguement, too.

I have not discussed this event to any degree, either on ATS or off. The first day i had someone shout me down for disagreeing with them about gun control.

But, once again, I see someone equating being a gun rights advocate with being crazy. This is exactly the type of comment that is fueling the hatred in this argument.

Like I have pointed out before, I am far from crazy or stupid. And I have quite a few guns, and quite a lot of ammo.

With your position now turned into fallacy, I hope you will temper future comments appropriately.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


they gave the address of the rosen guy away



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I will repost, again, what I posted in other threads dealing with Sandy Hook, because I want in know how I -- one of the chief architects of what ATS is today -- thinks of our membership in respect to the subject.


This site, and its discussion board, was refashioned between 2003 and 2005 to hold conspiracy speculation to a higher standard and ideal than the typical mayhem and lunacy that was then popular throughout Internet communities dealing with similar subject matter. Our motto of "Deny Ignorance" was a call to action to be skeptical critical thinkers with regard to official stories and the ever worsening mass media. We took a great deal of flak, absorbed consistent criticism, and often saw ourselves smeared simply for holding to our ideals that these subjects deserve better of us. ATS management and staff held strong, never wavered, and grew to one of the most popular discussion boards of any topic.

The wildly foolish self-absorbed conjecture regarding the massacre in Newtown, CT has, in my opinion, thrown the quality of conversation on ATS all the way back to how horrible it was before we started our 6 years of hard work. Posting personal information of private citizens, then casting nasty aspersions on them, is the lowest of lows I've ever seen on this site for which I was once proud.


Those who have the urge to speculate on the minute oddities of the "story line" as is currently known should take fair warning that if the ethical quality of the discussion does not immediately improve, the staff will have no choice but to place a temporary hold on all discussions related to the massacre.

The staff and I will not let you ruin our years of hard work and suffer your ridiculousness.







When I first saw the title of the U2U message in my inbox my first thought was "what the heck is going on, I have been playing nice".

Then I opened the message and read it...

...and I have to agree 100% with SO. I have started two threads about Sandy Hook but have not posted to any of the other threads because of just such garbage being spewed as described by SO. In fact, one of my threads was pretty much in line with SO's stand on the subject and can be seen HERE.

My other Sandy Hook thread was a tribute by Dr. Phil to the Sandy Hook victims and it can be seen HERE.

I would like to add, when any tragedy happens lately there are a few whackos and hate mongers who immediately try to turn it into some heinous government false flag operation or coverup. Those are the more civil of the bunch. Worse than them are the real nutcases who try to convince us that the victims brought it on themselves or some similarly ridiculous claim that demeans the victims, their families or the law enforcement agencies who are trying to sort out what happened and prevent a repeat of it.

Am I saying our government is incapable of such things, absolutely not. But tragedy brings the cockroaches out of the woodwork without any proof of anything they claim and their comments make the supermarket rags like the National Enquirer look like Sunday church bulletins.

For ATS site administration to NOT try to keep garbage like that to a minimum reflects badly not only on the site, but on the rest of us who participate here.

Here is a suggestion for you SO. You already have your cute little tags for deleted material that you replace the content of a post with when it violates manners and decorum or terms of service rules. But that leaves the poster's name up and any quotes that happened before the deletion are still out there with all or part of the deleted material. I think you should institute another level of deletion where the offending post, when it is as heinous as some of the Sandy Hook stuff, is completely removed from the thread along with any other posts with quoted material having that material mod edited out. And the person who posted the offensive material that deserved that level of deletion should receive at least double the point penalty along with a banning for a second offense of that nature.

I am not saying we cannot have conspiracy theories about certain touchy subjects, but rather that they be kept civil and backed up by PROVEN facts and not some wild conjecture that appears somewhere else on the internet. And not in any other way violate ATS standards for manners and decorum or terms of service.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Frankly?.....I am more disturbed by the ATSers who are drawing these twisted lines, connecting invisible dots and injecting bedazzling bull**it than I am of the killers themselves. For these disturbed people are the very ones who want to hoard the guns and ammo and live next door to me. You are all crazy!!!


In a nutshell!!!

I've said as much in another thread, and I'm glad the U2U was sent out, I'm glad to see attention to it.

My father was big into UHF radio and when he passed many years ago, there was one miscreant who used to troll the airwaves and no one could stop him. He has a jolly good laugh about the fact my dad had died. Him and his pals. As these clowns would swear and curse during the family orientated quiz nights and ruin it for everyone, they were looked for by groups.. police knew of them, for suping up their rigs overpowering them...

It was all I could think of... finding him and ending his miserable life. Easy to be a big man behind anonymity and ridicule people who don't know...

So I really cannot imagine what someone who has lost their baby in such a tragic manner would think if they read anything put out here of late.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laykilla

Speculation IS assumption. And ASSUMPTION is CRUCIAL in investigation. One looks at a scene, assumes what may or may not have happened, and uses those assumptions as jump off spots to gathering more information.

When detectives show up at the scene, they ask witnesses what they saw, and what they THINK happened.

They then use the collection of assumptions to determine what is the most plausible scenario and work it backwards.


That is simply incorrect. Forensics, behavioral or otherwise, do not reply upon specious practices to arrive at conclusions. Even at the fringes, in behavioral modeling or profiling, large data sets are involved - not what people "think happened".

If a detective happens to ask you what you think happened - then the reality is that you are being eliminated from a pool of potential suspects and it is your behavior and demeanor being examined - not any speculation or theories.

Having said that?

Tell all this crap to this guy - who ended up with a ruined life over people irresponsibly speculating.

This is not a freaking video game. The names, addresses, phone numbers, and tag numbers posted in the removed threads were of real human beings. REAL PEOPLE who are much closer to the tragedy than the vast, vast majority of the people posting their opinions and theories.

I am absolutely amazed that so many on ATS currently don't get it. If any of you woke up to find YOUR REAL NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER, along with accusations of gross impropriety or criminal behavior, would any of you shrug it off and say "OK, that's fine, folks must speculate. It's all good?"

BS. Any honest person would admit that they'd lawyer up and sue ASAP.

Amazing.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Marlow
 


This honestly deserves its own thread, not b/c ts off-topic, but b/c the video shows Dec 24th uploaded, but the incident happened in MAY. (Not saying a conspiracy, obviously)

Point being when I googled this exact title of video i only found THREE links to this story, and they were all from the same site, which means this story got BURIED.

What scares the living hell outta me, is how fast ppl are accepting/actually discussing in earnest, the GOODNESS of having your child around armed cops/guards, as "the new norm".

/start rant

wtf is a matter with some of you ppl who think this is a good idea? Haven't you been watching youtube videos of cops/guards on steroids or something beating the living CRAP outta ppl and getting away with it & now you wanna subject our kids to this kind of mentality?! seriously, WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT

/end rant

having said that, i think everyone thinking the TSA creep from airports to trains & buses took a serious left handed turn and now we're facing something much worse then "go through this scanner or get felt up",

surely i'm not the only person who has thought this.

Oh & merry xmas 2 all.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sconner755
 


No no no. See you are dismissing something you obviously have not looked into and trying to make me look goofy. Read the article. They didnkt make a simple error they posted an interview with the principle, with her name and quotes. That isn't a mistake or small error. Then in their retraction which was buried on their webpage they claimed a woman came up and presented herself as the principle, but that doesn't mesh unless the woman actually gave the principles name as her own

Why did you even make this thread if you aren't going to respond to people seriously? Either you are downplaying something you haven't even looked at or you are intentionally disregarding it for some reason. Why a yu so willing to use your brain?
edit on 25-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by sconner755
 


No no no. See you are dismissing something you obviously have not looked into and trying to make me look goofy. Read the article. They didnkt make a simple error they posted an interview with the principle, with her name and quotes. That isn't a mistake or small error. Then in their retraction which was buried on their webpage they claimed a woman came up and presented herself as the principle, but that doesn't mesh unless the woman actually gave the principles name as her own

Why did you even make this thread if you aren't going to respond to people seriously?


I made this thread, not sconner.

And you are correct, there are inconsistencies with the story that have not been debunked. Which is why they are not listed in this thread.

That said, there is nothing that makes it more likely that they actually did interview the principal after her death than that they simply messed up the article and who they were talking to.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


He didn't make the thread. A bit of research shows that.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You are turning it into a gun arguement, too.

I have not discussed this event to any degree, either on ATS or off. The first day i had someone shout me down for disagreeing with them about gun control.

But, once again, I see someone equating being a gun rights advocate with being crazy. This is exactly the type of comment that is fueling the hatred in this argument.

Like I have pointed out before, I am far from crazy or stupid. And I have quite a few guns, and quite a lot of ammo.

With your position now turned into fallacy, I hope you will temper future comments appropriately.




And you're turning my generalized post into your personal email. I don't know you nor how you feel but now that you directed a post to me, I feel I want to respond.

It's simple.
Most (if not all of) the members here who took this story and tried in earnest to uncover some 'agenda' are the ones who turned this into some bogus psy-op/false flag.....courtesy of their government..... to disarm them.

They have turned this into an unsubstantiated debate over the second amendment not me. I am still mourning the death of 27 people (plus the gunman) on Christmas Day 2012. It's still incredibly sad.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You've done an admirable job listing the debunked theories. Thanks for posting.

However, the OS, no matter how long it takes, will contain nothing about crisis actors. That aspect of the conspiracy will be forgotten, officially. Yes, we are all awaiting the OS.

I find it odd to note that within 48 hours we knew everything pre-rampage about Cho (Virginia Tech), and Holmes (Aurora). No details are official yet, 2 weeks later, on Lanza (Sandy Hook).

Are they taking their time to make all the details correlate perfectly? If so, when ATS gets the OS, well, then there will be nothing more to talk about on the subject of Sandy Hook, as all our questions will be sufficiently answered. The OS will effectively answer all our questions, right?

Why the media bungle here? The media was fairly concise on Cho and Holmes.

I will officially state I am on the fence, and will await further information while chewing over what we have already been told. The story is sinister, no matter which way it goes, no matter what hidden agendas there are, and thanks to members like you we can at least rule out some of the improbabilities.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
On my phone, my apologies. Since it wasn't OP replying. I would like OP to tell me what he thinks about the article. It's not as easy as a mistake. Things like this don't happen at newspapers.
edit on 25-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


I am on my phone, couldn't see the avatar. The research remark was cute, but obviously I just didn't see who I was replying to.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I for one am extremely thankful for his message. I have seen some extremely disturbing conjecture that has been borderline libel in some cases and have been shouted down because I expressed my concern over it. I have been called asleep because I will wait to see the official report before jumping on any bandwagon. I like a good conspiracy but a good conspiracy should have good reasoning and supporting evidence which I have not seen regarding this topic.

There was one thread in my opinion worth participating and that was concerning the weapon retrieved from the trunk considering the conflicting reports where many tried to identify the caliber and make however many including the person who started the thread were not interested in the truth. Instead they were interested in making the evidence fit a theory. It is that kind of attitude that discredits theorists. They wanted their theory to be right so they obtusely ignored reason and facts when it was clearly and rationally identified. I left the thread because they were not interested in the truth at all. No matter the subject common sense and decency should be adhered to IMHO especially concerning this case.

This thread was started with great intentions but has veered away from its intended goal many times I believe and that is unfortunate. The OP I believe to be solid and has held solid.
edit on 25-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 





face that there is something queer that allows legit room for questions.


That is my stance, and I tend to agree overall with your position (I read the whole thread, and starred your comments). I am not adhering to any theory, but addressing the plausibility of them all, in light of what we already know. Those without substantial support will fail. The evidence will vindicate the truth.






top topics



 
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join