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: 13
54
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by RedBird

Originally posted by happykat39

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.


I beg your unbelievable pardon?

The 'ethical' quality of the discussion?

ATS is a web-site where any and all of the following topics are routinely open for discussion:

- Racial theories of intelligence
- Holocaust denial
- That some races may not be human
- The summary execution of individuals in positions of power
- Claims that some (NAMED!) individuals are not really human (Do reptilian aliens have human rights?)
- The violent overthrow of a perceived oppressive government
- Violence against law enforcement officials
- Advocating for voluntary human extinction
- Advocating for eugenics
- Anti-vaccine discussions
- Encouraging schizophrenics not to take their medication

All of that is A-OK.

You can say that the mass-murder of 6-million Jews never took place, and no one will bat an eye. But if you say that 20 children didn't really die two weeks ago, you've gone too far.

You can say that the Catholic Church or the Illuminati perform ritual child abuse and blood sacrifice, and no one will blink, but if you suggest that one individual appears "creepy" around children, you've gone too far.

You can say that George W Bush is really a blood-drinking reptilian alien who personally ordered the ritual murder of thousands of Iraqi children, but if you suggest that a private citizen may have been involved in the commission of a crime, you've gone too far.


Slander and libel are criminal offenses, and should of course be of serious concern to the Mods and Staff at ATS. But that is an issue of practical reality, not abstract justice. Ethically, there is no meaningful difference between accusing a public figure of nefarious deeds and accusing a private citizen. The only difference is that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth II are not likely to sue ATS if someone calls them lizards.

So, yes, I get it. The Mods and Owners needs to watch their butts. Fine.

But get off your high horse and stop pretending its some issue of moral rectitude and ethical uprightness when it's not.


The bloody hypocrisy I am seeing around here lately makes me sick to my stomach. A few kids get shot, and all of a sudden we're all about 'ethical' discussion.

I don't know what it is, but something about tragedy seems to bring out the moral self-righteousness of people.

You're the same schmucks you all were in October. So am I.

-R


When I quoted Skeptic Overlord's post in mine some of his got left outside of the quote tags. I didn't catch it until it was beyond the allowable time to edit it.

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


My response started with this...
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".


So I suggest that if you have a problem with the text you are quoting you take it up with the site owner, Skeptic Overlord, instead of me. Or will you be afraid to be that rude to him like you were to me?
edit on 25-12-2012 by happykat39 because: clarified a point




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


So censor the libelous statements!

But don't censor peoples' self-righteous 'true belief' unless it IS libelous.

I mean, Jesus Christ! If you were to delete every post of someone stating opinion as 'Fact', half this bloody website would vanish.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


No you shouldn't, but if ATS was owned by yourself then you could say whatever you want. I doubt very much that those screaming censorship of their theories and so sure of their wild accusations would drop their avatar and handle and go mainstream with them.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

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.


That's called reality though.

No amount of legislation will stop any of that. Crazy people are crazy, people with ill intent, will have ill intent. Take away guns, open up home made explosives. What's next, requiring a license to purchase drain-o?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


You failed to mention; a good investigator doesn't solely extrapolate information off the net either!


I wish this would stop. This is not a 9-11 event with a bevvy full of unanswered questions. This is a small town tragedy courtesy of a very disturbed individual. And much to the chagrin of the skeptics, they DO exist.

But some people I guess, just need to keep spinning and spinning until they co-create an entirely different reality far from what truly (and simply) happened.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


We aren't talking the moon landings were fake here. This is a highly charged, unprecedented, emotional situation very different from the rest of the tosh talked about across these boards.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



mourning the death of 27 people, people whom you don't know, by insinuating that guns owners are crazy.

It seems a little disingenuous when you are using your time of mourning to demonize others. But if you say so.
edit on 25-12-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


Sorry, I found your original quote delineations confusing. If those were Skeptic's words, and not yours, so be it -- But I was speaking to the issue, not to the speaker, so it does not matter very much in any event.

Mr. Overlord is, of course, quite welcome to come and chastise me himself if he deems it warranted. However, I will politely suggest that you not attempt to intimidate me by invoking the specter of the Boss. It won't work.

With regards to my rudeness: yes, I suppose you're right; technically I called you a 'schmuck'. Though, strictly speaking, I called everyone a schmuck -- including myself -- so your taking of personal offense is rather more comical than solemn.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by RedBird
 


We aren't talking the moon landings were fake here. This is a highly charged, unprecedented, emotional situation very different from the rest of the tosh talked about across these boards.


I would argue that the emotional context makes no practical difference to what ought and ought not be allowed to be discussed.

And yes, of course, the owners are quite well within their rights to limit speech however they want. I don't deny that for a moment.

However, I WILL continue (as often and as loudly as necessary) to encourage them to allow as much and as varied of speech as is legally and practically possible, as I believe that is the best way to preserve this site's purpose as a haven for alternative thought, investigation, and discussion.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by RedBird
 


We aren't talking the moon landings were fake here. This is a highly charged, unprecedented, emotional situation very different from the rest of the tosh talked about across these boards.


I'm pretty sure the accomplishments of the people participating in the space race including the astronauts are likely to feel quite emotional about people casting aspersions on their work. Or do the feelings of those people not matter to you? Oh, the shame.

Should we determine what's acceptable by the number of people offended?
edit on 25-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
There is no such thing as censorship on a privately owned board. Sure, they could have a policy that states they try to let folks speak their mind, and limit censorship - but they are hardly beholden to such comments. They can do as they please. Considering that ATS has shown up quite recently in news stories, I don't blame them for saying something. The posts in this one thread are enough to get lawyers on the phone. Would you want to be a party to such a thing? I wouldn't. While I agree that perhaps some of their comments were a veil to stop defamation in such a sensitive case, I do believe they are sincere to some degree about their abhorrence in regards to the lack of tact, decency and forethought by many posters.

They built this house - can't blame them for trying to keep idiots from pulling it down. And by idiots, I mean people who would without thought, risk their own butts by making unfounded comments about specific individuals without any actual research of their own beyond youtube or blogs.

I spend a lot of time in the UFO forum, but even as a believer in UFO activity, I can only shake my head and wish that half the posters on that board would just keep their mouths shut, instead of pulling the topic into the sewer, where it resides over much of the Internet. I'd rather have a haven here to read and post my thoughts in - not another garbage heap to roll around in. I can get that anywhere on the Internet.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by swansong19
 





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.


It's best to keep an open mind. If you believe a theory, then search for information regarding it. The OS hasn't been released, so all we have to dwell on is speculation.

I'm considering all the details before I choose my position. I find it odd the MSM is no longer covering details to the crime, as they did with Cho and Holmes. The MSM was like ATS in providing details for those two crimes.

There's too many red flags up to justify that the OS will answer all our questions.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Laykilla
 


You failed to mention; a good investigator doesn't solely extrapolate information off the net either!


I wish this would stop. This is not a 9-11 event with a bevvy full of unanswered questions. This is a small town tragedy courtesy of a very disturbed individual. And much to the chagrin of the skeptics, they DO exist.

But some people I guess, just need to keep spinning and spinning until they co-create an entirely different reality far from what truly (and simply) happened.


Be that as it may, it's 2013 in a few days, you'd be silly to not use the internet as a primary source of information about people either.

This is a 9-11 event, it's the same thing. It's an act of terror that could have very serious political motivations behind it.

The simple fact that the father of the killer was set to testify in an international banking case is enough right there to pull up red flags.

Combine that with Obama's very open pact to implement gun control "under the radar" and you have plenty reason to assume suspicion.

Add that to the non-sensible reporting and you have a very possible and plausible conspiracy.

Any good investigator would see that in an instant. Especially since James Holmes' dad was set to testify in the same case.

Now we have connection between batman and sandy hook.

There is still not motive for the killer to do what he did. But there is motive for the government and the defendants in the international banking case.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 





This is a highly charged, unprecedented, emotional situation


First time a 20 year old kid took a bunch of guns into a school by himself, and killed a bunch of other kids. He wasn't even old enough to buy beer. I have so many problems with that.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
There is no such thing as censorship on a privately owned board. Sure, they could have a policy that states they try to let folks speak their mind, and limit censorship - but they are hardly beholden to such comments.


I consider it my personal philosophical obligation to try and hold the owners to their policy of allowing free expression. They can, of course, do whatever they want.

I think they should let people say whatever they want -- but I'm a free-speech purist.

That's the only reason I am in this thread right now battling it out in the bloody trenches. I don't give a damn about Sandy Hook, or any of this conspiracy nonsense. I think it's all shadows and self-deception.

BUT -- I want ATS to be a place where people are free to make these kinds of claims, and to discuss them without fear of censorship or oppression.

So, for as long as people continue to argue in favor of censoring Sandy Hook discussions, I will continue to debate with them and argue in favor of letting people say whatever the flying fancy frank they want!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19

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.



I understand what you say, but we are not yet at the stage of an 'official' story, that is what makes this whole speculation so ugly. the only hard facts so far seem to have come from the coroner, apart from the police identitification of the person responsible.


edit on 25-12-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Here's a hunch...

Laykilla=Ladyk74


The similarities are erie!!!!!! OMG were on to something. Where does it end?? The K in ladyk HAS to stand for killa in this other name. It must be the same poster!!!

See how easy it is? With no evidence? I have just condemned someone because of circumstance. Of course I dont believe it. But this is the level of 'journalism' it degraded to.

The you in this is those who contributed to the disgust SO is talking about


TO BE CLEAR

SO is not demanding that people NOT talk about Sandy Hook.. But he is reminding our community that he allowed it to go on, he gave you the freedom to discuss it. And you took that offering from him, and pissed all over it. You degraded to breaking cardinal sins of ATS. You incorporated personal information from innocent civilians who's only fault was being involved indirectly in the mass murder of women and children. Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, not a mob online thinking they are going to break some case and their names will be in the spotlight for finding out 'the truth' You not only posted personal information of innocent civilians, but you resorted to calling this person some of the most heinous things you could call a person. And I would know, I was sexually attacked as a child... But I don't just call someone a pedophile just because.

Because I know what that assault means. I know what it implies. Ever stop to think that what if this caught on? What if SO didnt step in? This man's family google's him for a holiday joke, and then they see this, a community calling their relative a pedophile. With not so much as an iota of truth.


So you all want to know why the crackdown has come? Because you all were given a chance to be civil with this topic. The second it went from asking questions to putting together a minute by minute synopsis integrating ''alleged father'' ''faking tears'' ''crazy doctor is in on it'' ''those children never died'' '''look that girl is alive'', you all took that chance SO and the staff gave you and spit on it.
edit on 25-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


Any good investigator would know that they're referencing a Sorcha Faal hoax.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by swansong19

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.

I understand what you say, but we are not yet at the stage of an 'official' story, that is what makes this whole speculation so ugly. the only hard facts so far seem to have come from the coroner, apart from the police identitification of the person responsible.












If there is no "OS" then speculation is free to run rampant.

Period.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well, now that SO has stepped in here, and made his warning (which, as I have said in another thread, I truly appreciate), let's try to swing this back around to the topic.

I have proposed a list of debunked sandy hook theories. If anyone has more to add, or wants to refute what I have posted, by all means, please do.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join