Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by RedBird
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by RedBird
The EMTs didn't even have access to the victims so the 3-11 bullets each is only if you take Dr. H. Wayne Carver at his word. Sorry but after that perfomance on camera I'm having a difficult time getting there .....
Really? I didn't find Dr. Carver's press statements suspicious at all! He struck me as flustered, overwhelmed, nervous, and perhaps in a little bit of shock. He had, after all, just finished performing medical examinations on seven young children with horrific gunshot wounds.
Gosh, considering how little evidence we have to work with, I'm glad we got anything out of the good doctor!
Like I said, we have ONE source of information. Everyone can watch and read it and conclude whatever they want. Luckily, I can do that TOO.
Incidentally, I've worked with MEs and pathologists and never once saw any of them flustered or overwhelmed or nervous or shocked. Carver is the CHIEF medical officer, not some wet behind the ears intern.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by frazzle
Psychology has everything to do with it.
It seems that if such and such doesn't react in a preconceived way, they're actors or liars.
I might be sounding like a broken record here but basing a theory around how someone act or reacts is the most stupid and absurd thing I've ever heard!
"He's an actor because he didn't act like I would if I just had my child murdered...I've never been in such a horrific situation but I know coz I'm not a sheeple"
Originally posted by bknapple32
I know about your source if its from who I think it is. Id keep it under your hat and dont make yourself look badedit on 25-12-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
"Oh" Piers Morgan really needs to go home. He's a self-appointed pseudo journalist. He's the O'reilly of CNN and the O'leary of CBC. Even in the gun debate last week, he talked over John Lott with such exaggerated pomposity it made me side with the pro-gun arguments. Considering I couldn't even hear the pro-gun arguments over his loud and obnoxious interruptions.
...the staff will have no choice but to place a temporary hold on all discussions related to the massacre.
Originally posted by RedBird
I'd just like to say that I, for one, am glad that we are back to talking about Sandy Hook, rather than talking about whether or not we ought even to be talking about Sandy Hook.
Whatever anyone thinks of each others' opinions and speculation, I for one am thrilled that we have been allowed to continue with the discussion!
Kudos to the mods for making their feelings known, dealing with the offenders, cautioning where caution was due, and then getting off the board and letting us back at it!
Thank you, Mods!
Back to the discussion at hand:
It seems that a lot of the suggestions of impropriety are being derived from the radio recordings not jiving with the "accepted" media timeline of events, or, those same recordings' suggestion that SOPs were not followed during the first response.
DarkPenguin has stated that he wants to start a separate thread regarding these things, and I personally am looking forward to reading it.
As for Dr. Carver, and the psychological profile: I don't think this is something we will be able to resolve with mere reasoned argument. There seem to be fundamental differences with how we all understand human nature and natural human responses' to stress.
All of this suggests a rather potent question:
"To what extent is social awkwardness/inappropriateness acceptable in the aftermath of a tragedy if it is the product of stress?"
Do we really expect state medical examiners to be men of super human will and fortitude, such that they can retain all the necessary dignity and solemnity required by a stressful situation? It's not as though he's president!
Originally posted by RedBirdReally? I didn't find Dr. Carver's press statements suspicious at all! He struck me as flustered, overwhelmed, nervous, and perhaps in a little bit of shock. He had, after all, just finished performing medical examinations on seven young children with horrific gunshot wounds.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by RedBird
I am just trying to be thorough. I mean it may seem like a lot but really most is depending on the first question which he seems to not want to answer for some reason. It is almost like he avoiding it.
Oh well I will just write it off for now as…… some bold statements by someone who isn’t quite ready to back them up.
He seems a bit pressed and threw out a little insult. It isn’t surprising. I will take him as credible if he decides to back up his statements later it’s not a big deal.
Sooner or later there may be a theory presented as credible.edit on 25-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Laykilla
TBH, I think we're being overly sensitive here.
It happened, sure it's sad -- but it's certainly not something that is uncommon. Where I live in FL, a guy went crazy and shot up a daycare center and killed his wife. It didn't make international news. It didn't even make national news.
People are entitled to their own opinions too. If someone happens to believe such and such was on heroine, that's his prerogative. It doesn't change anything for anyone.
I will agree that personal information sharing is a touchy subject, but at the same time -- isn't that what we do all the time with people in the spotlight?
So we can share all of Obama's personal information, or any senator.... but people involved in a massacre are off limits?
Sure there will be less than stellar people on the internet, but I mean -- denying ignorance is done through investigation, is it not?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anything that I thought was personally unacceptable in regards to Sandy Hook. Nothing that takes the community back to 2003. There has been a whole lot of discussion about it too -- I think ATS Staff needs to calm it self. If people violated the T&C suspend them, ban them -- whatever. If the T&C was not violated... then you are allowing personal opinion to override what is right.
Threatening all of ATS with a mass U2U is out of line. Saying a topic could be "Banned" of discussion is pretty draconian, and I'm sure will go over like lead balloon.
Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Originally posted by sumgai
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
You know what else is messed up that no one noticed or is currently glossing over? On the EXACT SAME DAY a man in China killed 22 children at a school and he did it with a KNIFE.
Exactly - I actually *had* heard about that story - thanks for linking it here.
People who think this whole Newtown Massacre is (going to be) about gun control are not thinking deep enough.
They will not be taking your guns (yet) - first step, is getting the populace used to armed personnel on every street corner... starting with schools and getting the sight of it 'normal' at a young age.
'Cause that's what's coming. (Especially, with our troops coming home and a jobless economy) - the 'need' has been created!
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19
But to say he is in on some grand conspiracy because he didn't act the way you think he should IS logical?
anything that remotely touhes on the truth? Like blindly accusig people of being child molestors? Or claiming these poor kids didnt die? Or saying parents who lost children are actors because they didn't react the way some think they should?
Originally posted by Bilk22
Seems anything that remotely touches upon the truth gets stricken and termed "insensitive". I guess we should just post about bigfoot and space aliens until the deed is done as now it is considered "wildly foolish" to question what's put before us by a media that has proven itself unworthy of our trust. A media, by the way, that use "our airwaves" to profit from and has enabled the disenfranchisement of the populous that's happening here in The United States of America. This is no longer a nation that has a government for the people and by the people. It's now a nation for the government to rule over the people.
ATS has built a reputation? Really? I thought those participating in the dialog brought that about by questioning what the mainstream and the government put before us?