A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 36
54
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 



There are many compelling reasons why this story is suspicious, least of all the demeanor of Mr Parker. I don't understand why certain individuals are obsessed with bringing this fake parent business up over and over, especially since they find it so unpalatable. The Chris Rodia thread was some of the best investigation I've ever seen on ATS, and it's gone!! That relied on evidence and people cooperating, looking for the truth. Too bad.

It seems like these types of "events" are not easy to contain any longer.




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


How is this "debunking" anything? None of what you posted is fact, it is simply your opinion. You didn't offer up a single shred of anything to support your opinion. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but just because you believe everything you wrote, does not make it fact. Just because you say none of the parents doing interviews are actors, doesn't make it true. There may very well be grieving parents, but personally, I don't believe the ones doing the interviews (and there are not many, it seems to be a select few - Red Flag) are the real grieving parents. Believe what you want, but don't try to pass it off as "debunking" anything unless you have cold hard facts to back it up.


So, we are back the the 'actors' theory. I cant believe this one is still hanging around.

There are questions that you must answer for that theory to even be plausable, and beyond that, there has not been ONE SINGLE piece of evidence to support the theory. NOT. ONE. Videos of parents acting differently than you think they should act is NOT EVIDENCE, as much as some try to pass it off as such.

So, the questions that must be answered:

1)What of the people, in that town, WHO KNOW THESE FOLKS?

Does this theory take into account that these "actors" would have had to have been planted into the community years ago, so as to be recognized as part of the community? Or is the claim that the whole town is in on it, even though there are people, myself included, who know people from the community?

2) How does it possibly make sense that some 'agency' would decide to create this event, and would decide it was a better option to use actors as opposed to creating REAL grieving parents by sending someone in to actually commit the act?

Basically, this theory comes down to the fact that there is NOTHING to debunk. To debunk a theory, there has to be some sort of evidence to back the theory. And there is not. Not one single shred.
edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


I only brought it up because it was in the original post and was supposedly one of the theories he 'debunked,' but I agree. Robbie Parker plays a very small role in how all of this doesn't add up in my mind.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


OK, I've got one for you...

The early reports of Ryan Lanza and a murder victim in Hoboken.


[Updated at 4:54 p.m. ET] We are now being told there was no body found in the Hoboken, New Jersey, home as had been previously reported.


Wow.

That is a pretty large error if you ask me. What could have possibly caused some LEO to report a dead body at some residence in Hoboken during the time period that Ryan Lanza was a suspect, and then later, "uh nevermind about that..."

I'm not willing to give them a pass on reporting fake corpses.

news.blogs.cnn.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


First of all, throwing out more questions instead of offering up any proof to back up what you're saying is not "debunking." And if you think there's nothing to debunk, why the thread and its title?

Secondly, I don't have the answers to any of this, but I'm not the one claiming to debunk anything.

As another poster already mentioned, the whole reaction of the parent thing is fairly irrelevant to me. I only brought it up because it was in your original post. I was simply stating that just because you say something, or have a belief about something, doesn't mean it's fact. Your entire first post was your opinion, not fact. I could say I know the President, unless I prove that to you, why would you believe me?

I'm not going to sit here and preach that what I say goes. You seem to think you KNOW what's true and what's not in this case, and the fact is, you don't.



edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


OK, I've got one for you...

The early reports of Ryan Lanza and a murder victim in Hoboken.


[Updated at 4:54 p.m. ET] We are now being told there was no body found in the Hoboken, New Jersey, home as had been previously reported.


Wow.

That is a pretty large error if you ask me. What could have possibly caused some LEO to report a dead body at some residence in Hoboken during the time period that Ryan Lanza was a suspect, and then later, "uh nevermind about that..."

I'm not willing to give them a pass on reporting fake corpses.

news.blogs.cnn.com...


I remember hearing that being reported, and I agree that it is suspicious. Ive said all along that there are some very strange inconsistencies in this case.

My hunch is that the reporters got the information jumbled. They did search a house in hoboken (i believe it was Ryan Lanza's place, although I could be mistaken. Nancy Lanzas house was obviously also raided, and that is where they found a dead body.

My suspicion is that they simply got it confused as to which house the body was in, as all of the info was coming from 'sources', and not directly from the police.

If that is the case, it is a prime example of how disgusting the news media in our country has become, rushing these things out before they are confirmed.

Again, though, this is just my suspicion.
edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


First of all, throwing out more questions instead of offering up any proof to back up what you're saying is not "debunking." And if you think there's nothing to debunk, why the thread and its title?

Secondly, I don't have the answers to any of this, but I'm not the one claiming to debunk anything, now am I?

As another poster already mentioned, the whole reaction of the parent thing is fairly irrelevant to me. I only brought it up because it was in your original post. I was simply stating that just because you say something, or have a believe about something, doesn't mean it's fact. Your entire first post was your opinion, not fact. I could say I know the President, unless I prove that to you, why would you believe me?

I'm not going to sit here and preach that what I say goes. You seem to think you KNOW what's true and what's no in this case, and the fact is, you don't.





So let me get this straight...you want me to somehow 'prove' that this is false? That this theory, which has not had one single shred of evidence presented in support of it other than the words of some people who watched a news conference, is untrue? How about somebody provides a single piece of evidence to back the theory, first?

And again, as I said, I, and other people, know citizens from that town. Those people know the victims, and their families. Is that not PROOF that these people are not paid actors? Or, again, are you asserting that they were planted in the town years ago?

This is not even a theory, it is utter nonsense.

you ask why the thread, and its title? Its painfully obvious, but if I need to say it again, the point it to point out the absolutely baseless, or already debunked theories, so that they will stop being used as the foundation of some of the most ridiculous 'theorizing' I have ever seen. To put them all in one place, so people can see the sheer absurdity.

Should I have worded my title slightly differently, perhaps, but that does not take away from the fact that the things I listed are, without a doubt, baseless and false.

Thus far, not one single person has been able to present one single thing to refute them. Ive said all along, if someone can prove otherwise, Ill gladly retract.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



I remember hearing that being reported, and I agree that it is suspicious. Ive said all along that there are some very strange inconsistencies in this care.


Yes, so are many people. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't read all your posts on the topic, but it seems that you have been more busy about criticizing anyone who questions the strange inconsistencies and "debunking" speculative discussions.

This is just my impression


You can help by refusing to continuously bring up the fake parent notion all by yourself. It seems like it's becoming a convenient straw man for you. Bad show lad.
edit on 27-12-2012 by Pilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Marlow
 


I think it is really great that you're questioning everything and trying to come to your own logical conclusion. But seriously... my mom's friend has been in direct contact with at least 5 of the families involved in the Sandy Hook tragedy. You can't get much more solid evidence than that. You really think he's just building caskets and donating them to imaginary children? ....no



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


As I said, your title and entire first post is misleading. Perhaps you were attempting to be sarcastic, but if that's the case, it seems like a huge waste of time and a false foundation for an entire thread.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying I KNOW anything about this. I don't know who knows who. Maybe you know people there, maybe you don't. You say you do, so whether I believe that or not should be irrelevant. Are you saying the people you know, know the people that we've seen on television giving interviews? I'm not claiming everyone or even anyone is an actor in this, let alone a whole town. Why you're throwing that assumption at me, is beyond me. I'm saying...I don't KNOW. I can't say either way. I can't say for certainty anything about this case. You can. I'm open to anything at this point.

How do you write off the local first responders not being allowed near the school? Who exactly handled the crime scene and pronounced everyone dead?

usnews.nbcnews.com...
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Thanks.
I'm all for denying ignorance and seeing through lies, but I can't believe some people seriously think this whole thing is a hoax.

WHAT?!



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


As I said, your title and entire first post is misleading. Perhaps you were attempting to be sarcastic, but if that's the case, it seems like a huge waste of time and a false foundation for an entire thread.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying I KNOW anything about this. I don't know who knows who. Maybe you know people there, maybe you don't. You say you do, so whether I believe that or not should be irrelevant. Are you saying the people you know, know the people that we've seen on television giving interviews? I'm not claiming everyone or even anyone is an actor in this, let alone a whole town. Why you're throwing that assumption at me, is beyond me. I'm saying...I don't KNOW. I can't say either way. I can't say for certainty anything about this case. You can. I'm open to anything at this point.

How do you write off the local first responders not being allowed near the school? Who exactly handled the crime scene and pronounced everyone dead?

usnews.nbcnews.com...
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)


How are they misleading? Perhaps I should have included the word 'baseless' in my title, but other than that, it says exactly what it means. These theories are FALSE. Flat out. They are shown to be untrue. DEBUNKED. Period. I'm not mincing words.

I'm not throwing any assumptions at you. Im asking questions, ones that HAVE to be if these things are to be shown true. If these people are actors, the only possible truths then are either A)They were planted years ago, showing a LONG setup for this event, or B)The whole town is in on it. Otherwise, they would be outed.

As to your question about the first responders, my answer is two-fold.
1)It seems that you, along with many others, are still missing something here. No where in this thread does it say ALL THEORIES DEBUNKED. I list a few of the ones that have been PROVEN false or have yet to have any evidence beyond the thoughts of some person behind a computer screen somewhere. Ive said it enough times in this thread that I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, but I'll say it one more time: I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN THIS EVENT.

2)It is fairly standard for the local, volunteer responders to be put on secondary units when the state takes over. I believe it is a gross misuse of 'protocol' rules to call off ANY responders, if they are the first on the scene, but it happens quite often when state police or the feds get involved in an incident.

On top of that, what that article illustrates more than anything is the sheer carnage of the situation. The triage units werent used because there werent a whole lot of 'wounded' to tend to. 3 to 11 shots.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



I remember hearing that being reported, and I agree that it is suspicious. Ive said all along that there are some very strange inconsistencies in this care.


Yes, so are many people. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't read all your posts on the topic, but it seems that you have been more busy about criticizing anyone who questions the strange inconsistencies and "debunking" speculative discussions.

This is just my impression


You can help by refusing to continuously bring up the fake parent notion all by yourself. It seems like it's becoming a convenient straw man for you. Bad show lad.
edit on 27-12-2012 by Pilot because: (no reason given)


If thats your impression, then you obviously havent been following my posts (not that I expect you to, but jumping to conclusions like this is silly).

I am not the one that keeps bringing up the fake parents. I just respond to it. If there's any others on my list that you would like to challenge, by all means, go ahead.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizenoftheworld

Originally posted by MRuss

3. I still don't understand how the kids ran past Lanza in Soto's class. Anyone ever figure this out? I'm not saying they didn't, just wondering how they did. They ended up at the end of that guys driveway in a house across the street and he took them in and called their parents. The kids said they saw their teacher dead on their way out. Not sure if it was Soto's class or someone elses.


why in earth do you want to know this? I feel sick that I even have to quote this text. Isn't this enough for you?




Fellow teacher Anne Marie Murphy, 52, also pictured, was slain as well. She was said to have been found with her arms around one of the slain children.

With Lanza cutting his murderous path through Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Soto hid her students in a classroom closet and cabinets — and put herself between them and the killer.

When Lanza entered the room, after killing 14 children in the classroom next door, she tried to steer him away by saying her students were in the auditorium.

But a handful of students, including Olivia, tried to flee. Lanza shot them.


Hearthbreaking smiles


Originally posted by MRuss


4. How did the events unfold there that day? Has a good timeline ever been revealed? Why all the secrecy?

5) Who officially called 911? Who turned on the school's intercom?


We just have to wait and see but there is no secrecy. Everyone want's to know what happened to see if in some way this can be prevented in the future. Why is it so important to know who called 911 or who turned on the school's intercom?? Instead, be happy someone called 911.


I wonder if you realize that the quote you posted...as well as the derision...don't answer the poster's question. As a matter of fact...what you posted as a refutation actually supports, or at least calls into serious question, the claim that the children escaped to anywhere, even tho it has been claimed time and time again that they had.

Keep in mind...we have no names of thse escaped children...we don't know how they got out...and it has been announced that no one will interview them.
edit on 27-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


As I said, your title and entire first post is misleading. Perhaps you were attempting to be sarcastic, but if that's the case, it seems like a huge waste of time and a false foundation for an entire thread.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying I KNOW anything about this. I don't know who knows who. Maybe you know people there, maybe you don't. You say you do, so whether I believe that or not should be irrelevant. Are you saying the people you know, know the people that we've seen on television giving interviews? I'm not claiming everyone or even anyone is an actor in this, let alone a whole town. Why you're throwing that assumption at me, is beyond me. I'm saying...I don't KNOW. I can't say either way. I can't say for certainty anything about this case. You can. I'm open to anything at this point.

How do you write off the local first responders not being allowed near the school? Who exactly handled the crime scene and pronounced everyone dead?

usnews.nbcnews.com...
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)


How are they misleading? Perhaps I should have included the word 'baseless' in my title, but other than that, it says exactly what it means. These theories are FALSE. Flat out. They are shown to be untrue. DEBUNKED. Period. I'm not mincing words.

I'm not throwing any assumptions at you. Im asking questions, ones that HAVE to be if these things are to be shown true. If these people are actors, the only possible truths then are either A)They were planted years ago, showing a LONG setup for this event, or B)The whole town is in on it. Otherwise, they would be outed.

As to your question about the first responders, my answer is two-fold.
1)It seems that you, along with many others, are still missing something here. No where in this thread does it say ALL THEORIES DEBUNKED. I list a few of the ones that have been PROVEN false or have yet to have any evidence beyond the thoughts of some person behind a computer screen somewhere. Ive said it enough times in this thread that I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, but I'll say it one more time: I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN THIS EVENT.

2)It is fairly standard for the local, volunteer responders to be put on secondary units when the state takes over. I believe it is a gross misuse of 'protocol' rules to call off ANY responders, if they are the first on the scene, but it happens quite often when state police or the feds get involved in an incident.

On top of that, what that article illustrates more than anything is the sheer carnage of the situation. The triage units werent used because there werent a whole lot of 'wounded' to tend to. 3 to 11 shots.



I could not care less about the whole "acting" theory at this point, to be honest. Why not try to debunk the things that are not so easily debunked instead of wasting time with the whole acting thing?

As for it being "standard" for the first responders to be put on "secondary units" when the state takes over.. Who were the primary medical units then? Who was it that was going to be transporting the injured to the hospitals if not the first responders? They weren't allowed anywhere near the school that had how many victims? So again, who pronounced them dead? Who checked for vitals, who went in there to try to save lives since it wasn't the local responders? Who did all of that? The state police? We know it wasn't the "local" first responders, so who did?

Is it standard for state police - responding to a mass shooting at a school - to not control traffic in any organized format? The road was not cleared for emergency vehicles to get through either way; it was completely blocked. Doesn't seem like standard operating procedure to me.

Sheer carnage which in itself is also puzzling because there were so few people who had injuries. When asked about the lack of injuries, which generally, in a mass shooting, there are many, Vance stuttered through a response at the end of this video. Perhaps being children, they were easier targets
, I don't know.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by citizenoftheworld

Originally posted by MRuss



Keep in mind...we have no names of thse escaped children....
edit on 27-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)


And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..
edit on 27-12-2012 by vkey08 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


Fair enough, I'd like to point out, though, that you are the one who brought it up. So what else on my list do you dispute? That list, afterall, is the topic of this thread, or did you miss that?

It seems pretty standard, at this point in the thread, that the members that disagree with me follow a standard pattern.
1)Call me out for not providing more evidence in the debunking of the theories.
2)back away from challenging any of the things that I have listed.
3)Bring a totally serparate unanswered question into the mix, and use it as an attempt to somehow show that I cant debunk EVERY question in this thread, even though I have admitted that from the start.

Pretty amazing how many posters in this thread have followed that EXACT pattern.

Anyway-
Every question you asked about the responders are questions that we have to wait for the full report to come out to know. As far as I know, none of that info has been released yet. While the lack of info is frustrating this far into it, it does not prove anything. And honestly, I expect the Official Report to raise even more questions, but dwelling on the things that havent been released yet doesnt prove a conspiracy.

As far as the lack of wounded, these were mostly children. It makes my heart sink even thinking about this, but can you imagine what 3 bullets does to a 6 year old? They were likely dead by the second or third shot, if not the first.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
.
It's so vague for you guys to say that you're not going to let certain posts bring down the site you've built up. Then, you threaten to delete all threads on the subject.


Then start your own damn site where you can say whatever you want. Posting someone's picture online and accusing them of molesting children without any evidence has to be libel. I don't know what responsibility the owner of a site actually has in that case but it certainly seems like the site ought to be held accountable for that.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..


I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a capital crime?

Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much is, apparently, up in the air.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by swansong19
 


What exactly do you not understand about children being minors? Maybe in Canada the news can interview children without the consent of parents but they cannot do that in America.

I can only imagine what would happen if it was allowed there would be more disgusting baseless claims from people about the way they acted.





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join