It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

A few kids get shot, and all of a sudden we're all about 'ethical' discussion.


I doubt it was "all of a sudden." Probably more along the lines of saying something after a long period of degradation in the quality of posts on this site, where people refuse to use common sense or a do a modicum of research before boldly posting their crazy theory of the week.

And people have different levels of empathy - some completely lack it. Don't try to tell others how to feel, simply because you or someone like you has had their brains numbed by the endless mass media news streaming into your electronically-driven social life 24/7. Some perhaps are over reacting, but many are probably quite sincere. Kids are shot all the time during the course of a year. That's bad. It's just worse when it's a mass killing of young children within minutes. I certainly teared up, and I don't do that sort of thing (tear up that is).

I don't blame them for sending out a message. Good on them. People here have a horrible habit of finding a youtube video, a badly written blog, or the lastest fad on 4chan or some other tasteless board, and post it here as if it's a well researched project that they have put a lot of time and effort into. People here have no problem calling MSM horrible liars and producers of misinformation. Until that is, one source either puts forth a story with poor research (in the attempt to beat others to the punch), or they have a misprint, or just a bad source of information.. and then quite magically, MSM has never been more right! It's lazy and pathetic how quickly people here jump on board to take advantage of such a situation.

And some of you are just too damn sensitive. I don't see why anyone would get angsty over message from the site owner. Perhaps instead of getting defensive, which is the norm around here, take a moment to decide if perhaps.. there is some grains of truth that pertains to you, and whether or not you can help make it better.
edit on 25-12-2012 by fleabit because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:56 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:







The Tragedy at Sandy Hook

HAS BROUGHT OUT THE WORST

of AboveTopSecret.com



I and our staff have witnessed the most incredible shameless self-absorbed credulous nonsense from our members following one of the worst horrors ever to hit a small community -- much less any community.

And this thread is the absolute worst display of your ludicrous narcissistic conjecture -- outing personal details of a private citizen and mocking him on the pages of our precious ATS for the world to see.


You should be ashamed -- but clearly, you're not capable of that.





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.








If I am to "deny ignorance" I am going to have to read this entire thread and make my own mind up about what has transpired...

I highly respect the moderation here, and tenacity for detail and scrupulence among posts.

However... this post .. this message I got in my message box.. has got me interested as to what the hell is going on..

not taking sides.. just raising an eyebrow as to what the hell is REALLY going on with this story even more...



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

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



You're nuts. Without speculation you can't find evidence to forensically test in most incidents that aren't as straight forward as "He left finger prints."

Speculation -> Investigation.

It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct.

I didn't say speculation or bust, I did say -- speculation is STEP ONE.

Also, the investagator would be looking for more information about a scenario he wasn't privy to. That makes everyone a suspect at first, yes -- and indeed, he would be ruling people out, but if you don't think he's getting ideas and useful information to form his own assumptions you are sadly mistaken. GROSSLY mistaken.

L2R next time please, less you like being the jester.

As to your second point. All my information is given away from the county, including my address. It's public domain.

A lawyer wouldn't get you anywhere... A random blurb from a shmoe on a message board is a far cry from defamation of character. You must think ATS is more important than it actually is in reality.

Need we not forget, this is a message board for entertaining non mainstream ideas. 99.99% of the content here is bogus made up mumbo jumbo... no matter how heavily moderated it becomes, it will always be 99.99% mumbo jumbo. If it gets to the point where everything is modded, there won't be an ATS.

This crusade is futile and silly.

Above all else, it's self destructive. If SO doesn't want a site to own anymore, he can continue this fool hearted quest to control the blurbs he doesn't agree with. He will quickly realize that he can't enforce what he wishes to, and if he does brutely, the posters will leave.

If we have to cloak and dagger around topics of conversation just to not get the immediate ban, I don't think many people would figure it's worth the effort.

Rather, most will just jump to a different board where they are free to say what they would have said here.

This is called reality. The problem is -- everyone keeps saying the people who are coming up with alternative scenario's are the ones who can't accept what happened. The reality is, it is they who could care less one way or the other, which is why they are looking into alternative theories.

The people who wish to not hear alternative theories are the people who can't deal with reality. They shut down and say things like "That's disrespectful."

With that said, I'd like to ask a very serious question;

IF one were to say this event was a false flag... HOW is that disrespectful to the victims?

If anything, wouldn't it be noble to want to understand the truth and investigate a hunch?

Where does the disrespect come into play?
edit on 25-12-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Along with the OP, I think I am probably one of the members who tried to fight this the most. Not to somehow say Im great for that. I got sucked into it instead of just ignoring it.

So in other words, there were JUST TWO of you who fought the "right thing"?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct...


Huh?


This isn't Dragnet or CSI or whatever it is people watch these days. They look for factual information first. Guesswork (and ergo hunches or whatever you want to call them) comes into play when they hit dead ends and they have no choice. They don't walk up to people the day or the day after such a shooting and say "So.. what do you THINK happened?" They will make best guesses once they have a punchlist of factual information regarding a suspect or motive. But to suggest they build a case on hunches is ridiculous.

They want facts first and foremost. They don't build an entire investigation on guesswork of witnesses. They ask "What happened." Not "what might have happened." If someone is building a case to take to court, they want witnesses who KNOW.. who actually SAW it happen. You'll never see someone hit the stand who is just taking their best guess on what happened - unless they are trying to lose the case.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by westcoast
.....and YOU'RE talking about ethics?

This kind of statement is exactly the kind of crap we are talking about.

Yes...some of things you listed, I agree with you, there is too much liberation in those discussions. But how can you write about all of that in your post, postulating that none of that is okay, and then say THAT? Completely unvalidates any of your post, IMO.



No, I'm talking about HYPOCRISY! I'm talking about using ethics and decorum as a cudgel to silence discussion whenever the topic makes us feel icky, but letting everything slide when we have no personal axe to grind.

My entire point is that I claim no ethical or moral high ground! I do not think there is "too much liberation in those discussions" -- on the contrary, I think that all of those topics are FAIR GAME! I also think that Sandy Hook is fair game!

I think ATS should be the kind of place where I can make whatever claim I want, short of libel.

And for the record, I did not shed one bloody tear for the victims at Sandy Hook. Wanna know why? Because it's a big world full of suffering; children die every day, tragedy strikes lives every day, and I don't decide to rent my clothes and put on a big freaking show just because the victims were middle-class white kids living in suburban Connecticut.

Call me a monster all you want. At least I'm not a bloody hypocrite.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Well said. I don't mean to invalidate any ones' emotions, I merely want to point out that other peoples' emotions should NOT affect my ability to express myself on an internet forum. Many people are understandably upset -- heartbroken and in shock -- over what happened in Connecticut. I am not. And I would like to speculate and discuss this event as I would any other event. If that offends people... too bad. Be offended. I'm not going to bow my head and feign solemnity and contrite submission to silence simply because a few individuals want all discussion to cease whilst they grieve. That is just ludicrous.

-R



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laykilla

You're nuts. Without speculation you can't find evidence to forensically test in most incidents that aren't as straight forward as "He left finger prints.

Speculation -> Investigation.



Definition
spec·u·la·tion[ spèkyə láysh'n ]
spec·u·la·tions Plural
NOUN
1. opinion based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information
2. reasoning based on incomplete information: reasoning based on incomplete facts or information
"mere speculation"
3. risky transaction: a financial transaction that involves risk, but is potentially profitable
"a failed speculation on a dot-com"
4. making of risky transactions: the practice of engaging in financial transactions that are risky, but potentially profitable

~

in·ves·ti·ga·tion[ in vèsti gáysh'n ]
in·ves·ti·ga·tions Plural
NOUN
1. examination: an examination or inquiry into something, especially a detailed one that is undertaken officially, or the act of undertaking an examination.

Source
Source


Originally posted by Laykilla

It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct.

I didn't say speculation or bust, I did say -- speculation is STEP ONE.

L2R next time please, less you like being the jester.


Maybe you're correct. I have a hunch that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. However I do have ample evidence that you probably should review this link Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link. and learn how to effectively mount an argument sans the ad hominem attacks.


Investigations do not start with hunches - they start with crimes.

What you are literally describing, in your version of how investigation works - is the very definition of how to arrive at conformation bias and is not something that real world investigations are based in.

~Heff
edit on 12/25/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


When you have people positing Emilie Parker was a satanist in the electronically printed word, that is serious deformation of character.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:14 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:







The Tragedy at Sandy Hook

HAS BROUGHT OUT THE WORST

of AboveTopSecret.com



I and our staff have witnessed the most incredible shameless self-absorbed credulous nonsense from our members following one of the worst horrors ever to hit a small community -- much less any community.

And this thread is the absolute worst display of your ludicrous narcissistic conjecture -- outing personal details of a private citizen and mocking him on the pages of our precious ATS for the world to see.


You should be ashamed -- but clearly, you're not capable of that.





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.








WELL SAID. It has been embarrassing to even come here with the amount of asinine comments being made in these mass shooting threads. This place has been for the most part a tight nit community, that respected one another. It's become another place for trolls and rude people to rage on others. I don't mind the disagreements, or even calling someone out for posting something overly ridiculous...but things have been out of hand for the last year or so.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct...


Huh?


This isn't Dragnet or CSI or whatever it is people watch these days. They look for factual information first. Guesswork (and ergo hunches or whatever you want to call them) comes into play when they hit dead ends and they have no choice. They don't walk up to people the day or the day after such a shooting and say "So.. what do you THINK happened?" They will make best guesses once they have a punchlist of factual information regarding a suspect or motive. But to suggest they build a case on hunches is ridiculous.

They want facts first and foremost. They don't build an entire investigation on guesswork of witnesses. They ask "What happened." Not "what might have happened." If someone is building a case to take to court, they want witnesses who KNOW.. who actually SAW it happen. You'll never see someone hit the stand who is just taking their best guess on what happened - unless they are trying to lose the case.



Are you serious?

*face palm*

smh....


Okay, so you've made it completely obvious you've never investigated a single thing in your life. You ask people what happened. You don't know what is factual and not. Everyone's story is different.

The shooter said "X" the shooter said "Y" the shooter was wearing purple, no he was wearing blue, no he was wearing white and red!

Witnesses give erroneous information all the time, even those NOT involved with the crime. Why? Because memory is often faulty.

A cop is called to the scene of a double homicide, but the husband called it in and said he came home to the scene.

The cop is going to assume it was the husband. He will get there and investigate, if the husband checks out factually, he will come up with another assumption based upon information he uncovered.

It is ALWAYS THEORY until proven fact. NO MATTER WHAT.

That makes it built off of a hunch, doesn't it?

Hunch first, corroboration second, when both ring true, you proceed to look for empirical evidence that the previous steps are correct. Along the way, one might stumble acrossed empirical evidence that rules out your hunch and what corroborations you've established pertaining to that hunch. This is when you develop a new speculation.

This is the order of operation for any investigation.

Haven't you even caught a g/f cheating, or thought she was, or had a kid who got in trouble with a group of friends and tried to figure out what REALLY happened?

Good investigators speculate and scientifically check their speculations. It's not all guess work, it's science too. However, 99.9% of the time it starts with guesswork.


You say speculation ruined a man's life, I offer the opposite scenario. The scenario where the investigator lacks imagination and arrests the wrong person because of a finger print.

Do you know how easy it is to plant a finger print? In that scenario, unless you speculate the print MIGHT have been planted, you're going to arrest the wrong guy EVERY TIME.


An investigator will come to a conclusion. A good investigator will come to the RIGHT conclusion.

You can't be sure you're right if you lack imagination.
edit on 25-12-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Druid42
 


Driud: I stated it once before and I will again for the sake of everyone who may have missed it.. In every single major crime that has happened in this state, the Connecticut State Police do not release any substantial information until their investigation is done, they did this with Cheshire and they are doing it again with Sandy Hook.

This is the same logic people used when they tried to claim things about cars and registration expiration's because we don't tie our vehicle registrations to our birthdays here.

the CSP will not, as is practice with them, release a report, or otherwise until their investigation is 100% complete and (in the case of a live suspect) be able to be sent to a States Atty for further process.

I think in the end this is the more responsible way to do it, that way if information changes they don't have to keep backpeddaling.



Since you are close to the matter, I respect your posts. Your information provided yields insight.

I commend you for that.

The fact remains is that the OS will be the OS once released, and they better have all their ducks in a row. Just saying. I am awaiting the OS, just like all of us, but it better not be full of holes like the travesty of injustice first reported.

To release a bunch of conflicting stories, then go mum, well, just like any other ATS member, I raise my eyebrows at the quality of reporting and fact-finding.

Regardless of the true story involved, there are members like you that stick to the facts, and your contributions are appreciated. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by RedBird
 


When you have people positing Emilie Parker was a satanist in the electronically printed word, that is serious deformation of character.


You're right, that IS defamation of character. But If I choose to say that Emilie Parker might have been a satanist... what then? What if I simply say "it's possible that Emilie Parker was a satanist"?

Still over the line?

What if we pick a less emotionally charged target? Nancy Lanza? Can I say that "Nancy Lanza might have been a satanist?" What about "Nancy Lanza might have been a secret socialist"?

What about Barrack Obama? Can I say that Barrack Obama is a secret socialist bent on destroying America? Is that defamation of character?

I think it is. What's the moral difference? I know what the practical difference is. What's the ethical difference?

Do you see what I'm saying? Do you see that this isn't about defamation of character at all, but merely about emotion, and offense, and outrage?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
Thank god someone said something. After arguing that we know next to nothing about any of it, I've actively avoided the threads.
There's no arguing with people who wantt to jump at shadows.
The sad fact of the matter is, people are more worried about digging up the dirt in any manner possible than actually finding and validating facts.
This one topic (as well as the 2012 threads) are the main thing keeping me away right now.


This is the thing that is getting me, I've made but a few posts about the shootings, but there is the same feeling as you, jumping at shadows. The gun lobby was straight in, with various rationale, with Obama in his political frame, yet the gun lobby is in fact political in itself and far from apolitical as you might expect in a debating forum.

Quite frankly, WTF would anyone expect a country's leader to do under the circumstances, NOTHING?

What you do have is a situation where someone can cause all this tragedy and others, because of easy access to deadly weapons, while being, out of his/her mind, or on drugs, or senile, or didn't like his lawyer, or that his wife told him to get out his gun, or that someone had a funny walk, yes a mixture of cases, all documented. It is insane.
edit on 25-12-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


And nothing ATS armchair 'investigators' cooked up has come anywhere close to being enough to spark an investigation of the kind you define. Avatars and handles and the anonymity they provide have allowed some folk to run amuck with wild delusional theories, satisfying their own vain agendas and nothing more.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


The problem is that opinion went out the window and people were writing as 'fact'. I understand the defamation laws fairly well, and believe me that there is enough 'opinion' written as fact to make some very serious legal cases.
edit on 25-12-2012 by LarryLove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

A few kids get shot, and all of a sudden we're all about 'ethical' discussion.


I doubt it was "all of a sudden." Probably more along the lines of saying something after a long period of degradation in the quality of posts on this site, where people refuse to use common sense or a do a modicum of research before boldly posting their crazy theory of the week.


With complete sincerity...this is something I see more from people defending official stories, than those examining the alternatives.

The "official story" folks have their minds made up pretty quickly.

The best example is 9/11. Can't tell you the number of times someone has said an alternative theory is stupid. So, I ask, have you felt that way since you first heard the idea of an alternate theory? They, of course, say yes.

So, why would someone who has their mind made up early on even bother to investigate?

Exactly.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by Laykilla
 


And nothing ATS armchair 'investigators' cooked up has come anywhere close to being enough to spark an investigation of the kind you define. Avatars and handles and the anonymity they provide have allowed some folk to run amuck with wild delusional theories, satisfying their own vain agendas and nothing more.


And they should be allowed to do that! In fact, if you look closely, all over this website, you'll see that they are.

Everywhere.

It's only here, in the discussion about Sandy Hook, that we have individuals trying to censor discussions because they find the theories being thrown around offensive.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

The shooter said "X" the shooter said "Y" the shooter was wearing purple, no he was wearing blue, no he was wearing white and red!

Witnesses give erroneous information all the time, even those NOT involved with the crime. Why? Because memory is often faulty.


You underestimate people's ability to recall things. Yes, they often give out incorrect information, but as long as there are enough witnesses, they can get facts. If two people say they saw someone wearing purple, 3 said wearing dark green, and 8 said he was wearing black.. do you think the investigators say "Well.. I have a hunch he was wearing yellow then."

Not to get too far off track, but it's like the Pentagon crash - people act as if someone has never seen a JUMBO JET before. But they claim that the witnesses were just "mistaken" by what they had seen. Baloney. I think the police can gather quite a lot of very specific, correct information via witnesses, without having to rely on a bunch of guesswork. All their "hunches" are based on factual information, which is my point. They don't go off on a tangent. Sounds like you are just trying to split hairs here with the definition.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaykillaYou're nuts. Without speculation you can't find evidence to forensically test in most incidents that aren't as straight forward as "He left finger prints."


Something most people fail to realize is that forensic criminal investigation is not an exact science with standardized methods and formulas.

Krist, not all that long ago (relatively) a guy was released from jail becuase his fingerprint match was almost identical with another man.

Even fingerprint analysis is more an art than a science.
edit on 25-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join