A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

Originally posted by swansong19
Wow...where'd you guys all come from so suddenly?

So many censors...so many wishing to smother discussion.

There are many threads on this site that offend me. So ya know what I do...? It's a novel concept...but...I don't read them.

I notice not one of you who just appeared (as if your meeting just ended) wanted to take a shot at the caching evidence...and don't even bother kidding yourself...or trying to kid others...or deflecting by trying to scare them with your nonsensical malware BS.

You guys are resisting just a bit too hard for this to be simple moral indignation and concern for people you don't even know...who aren't being harmed in the slightest by these conversations.

There's something up...and if I know the sorts of people that frequent sites like this...they won't stop no matter where it takes them...even if that "somewhere" is right here.

The points we discussed in our "meeting" are as follows:

The claims people have made about the authenticity of the behaviour of the parents are serious claims and are tantamount to libel if are unfounded. Is there any reasonable pathway, from suggesting the parents were placed actors to perpetuate a false flag attack based on conjecture and opinion, to the truth of the matter? It serves no purpose other than to pass judgement on a situation these claimants can't even begin to fathom in terms of emotional response and behaviour and there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to perpetuate these claims.

It, in fact, does cause more harm than good, because as this is a leading site for discussing these alternative theories, many people come here to read these threads and not all of them have the appropriate critical filters in place to regard what people say as just conjecture. They then go and perpetuate the idea until it is a meme and casts a bad pall over the victims and their families, which is entirely unjustified.

Additionally, if you were a parent that had genuinely lost their child in a tragedy such as this, how would you respond to people telling you that you didn't behave as they expected and cast you as a charlatan without evidence.

I am surprised I even have to explain this on this forum which has shown reasonably more sanity in this thread when it comes to certain alleged evidence. If there was censorship here, your posts would not be showing right now.

Those offended by your, and your counterparts claims, have just as much right to voice their discontent and dissenting views as you have to post your claims.

reply to post by CosmicBob


Thanks for the clarification, Bob. No secret it's been a lil heated in here of late.

As far as "evidence"...I was certainly not speaking of a court of law...and I was not looking at this item singularly.

By "evidence"...I meant evidence that there may very well be something here to investigate. I also contend that until someone shows me that this date is indeed incorrect...the burden of proof is on the "con" side of this discussion (including moderation) to prove this entire Newtown topic is not a legitimate area of investigation/discussion.

Originally posted by CosmicBob

I will grant you, however, that if the server times are indeed accurate, it raises questions about the event, but I still hold that this was a completely unexpected event that happened without any foreknowledge of those at the school and in the immediate surrounds.

Obviously the time stamps are not accurate. They photos taken by Shannon Hicks were not uploaded before the event happened..

Is anybody really prepared to argue that kids walking out of the school with their eyes closed was photographed ahead of time and uploaded to the Newton Bee a day early? The kids, first responders, and teachers all corroborated this.

And there are hundreds of other photos and live video from Dec. 14 showing the SH events.

Would anybody like to share a reason to stage the kids walking out of the school earlier, photograph them, and publish them on the Newtown Bee website? What could the point be? Even in the most twisted and deluded conspiratorial reasoning, there is no reason to do this.


Ridiculousness Rating 10+

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by swansong19
Wow...where'd you guys all come from so suddenly?

So many censors...so many wishing to smother discussion.

There are many threads on this site that offend me. So ya know what I do...? It's a novel concept...but...I don't read them.

I notice not one of you who just appeared (as if your meeting just ended) wanted to take a shot at the caching evidence...and don't even bother kidding yourself...or trying to kid others...or deflecting by trying to scare them with your nonsensical malware BS.

You guys are resisting just a bit too hard for this to be simple moral indignation and concern for people you don't even know...who aren't being harmed in the slightest by these conversations.

There's something up...and if I know the sorts of people that frequent sites like this...they won't stop no matter where it takes them...even if that "somewhere" is right here.

The points we discussed in our "meeting" are as follows:

The claims people have made about the authenticity of the behaviour of the parents are serious claims and are tantamount to libel if are unfounded. Is there any reasonable pathway, from suggesting the parents were placed actors to perpetuate a false flag attack based on conjecture and opinion, to the truth of the matter? It serves no purpose other than to pass judgement on a situation these claimants can't even begin to fathom in terms of emotional response and behaviour and there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to perpetuate these claims.

It, in fact, does cause more harm than good, because as this is a leading site for discussing these alternative theories, many people come here to read these threads and not all of them have the appropriate critical filters in place to regard what people say as just conjecture. They then go and perpetuate the idea until it is a meme and casts a bad pall over the victims and their families, which is entirely unjustified.

Additionally, if you were a parent that had genuinely lost their child in a tragedy such as this, how would you respond to people telling you that you didn't behave as they expected and cast you as a charlatan without evidence.

I am surprised I even have to explain this on this forum which has shown reasonably more sanity in this thread when it comes to certain alleged evidence. If there was censorship here, your posts would not be showing right now.

Those offended by your, and your counterparts claims, have just as much right to voice their discontent and dissenting views as you have to post your claims.

Bob...."tantamount to libel" ? Wasn't it just you who was giving me a lesson in evidence?

Of course they're serious claims, Bob. It's a very serious situation. Any claims made pertaining to a serious situation are likely to be serious, as well. I fail to see the point.

You don't like people to take incorrect info and pass it around as the truth? So how's that campaign against television news going?

If I was a parent of one of these kids....? If...my granny had wheels she'd be a wagon.

But seriously...you want me to imagine what it's like to be one of these parents...and then you become offended when I tell you what I think.

But since you asked me...I wouldn't be contacting the media to give interviews...I wouldn't be approaching world wide cameras the same day my daughter had been brutally murdered.

That's for a start.

Furthermore...no one is telling them anything. I'm discussing this on a discussion forum (or at least trying to) with, I thought, like minded, theoretical individuals. I'm not standing outside someone's home yelling in their window.

I don't get it. I was watching an Abbott and Costello movie today. Jack and the Beanstock. While I was watching it I noticed the beanstock casting a shadow on the scenery behind it. A gap in continuity of sorts.

Am I insane or direspectful for noticing that is wasn't actually filmed outside? Or when I'm watching Kevin Spacey cry in The Usual Suspects and I notice there are no tears...and conclude he isn't really emoting...am I being stupid/disrespectful...or observant?

C'mon. Let's make a deal. You BS your friends and I'll BS mine...but let's not BS each other, ok

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by CosmicBob

I will grant you, however, that if the server times are indeed accurate, it raises questions about the event, but I still hold that this was a completely unexpected event that happened without any foreknowledge of those at the school and in the immediate surrounds.

Obviously the time stamps are not accurate. They photos taken by Shannon Hicks were not uploaded before the event happened..

Is anybody really prepared to argue that kids walking out of the school with their eyes closed was photographed ahead of time and uploaded to the Newton Bee a day early? The kids, first responders, and teachers all corroborated this.

And there are hundreds of other photos and live video from Dec. 14 showing the SH events.

Would anybody like to share a reason to stage the kids walking out of the school earlier, photograph them, and publish them on the Newtown Bee website? What could the point be? Even in the most twisted and deluded conspiratorial reasoning, there is no reason to do this.


Ridiculousness Rating 10+

I would agree with you sconner. I was just stating a way in which my claim could be falsified. It's common practice in the scientific method and as those who have read my earlier posts would know, I am a strong advocate of falsifiable claims. A way in which one could verify this is to actually go to Microsoft (who for those who may not know, run Bing) and ask them how accurate their server timestamps are, perhaps even get a demonstration. I know, it seems ludicrous to go to all that trouble, but for those who really think this is substantial evidence to support a conspiracy theory, that is one of the things they would need to do in order to get their claim to be truly undisputed.

Originally posted by sconner755Obviously the time stamps are not accurate. They photos taken by Shannon Hicks were not uploaded before the event happened..

Edit.....no one said the photos were uploaded prior to the event. One has nothing to do with the other.

In my now closed post I posed a question about 2 oddly titled photos in the Bee archive...I have since determined there was no anomaly and stated as much.

I simply couldn't so in my own thread.

Again...the photos have zero to do with when the story was on the server. The photos would have been added later.

Originally posted by CosmicBobA way in which one could verify this is to actually go to Microsoft (who for those who may not know, run Bing)

Yes.

Microsoft owns bing....they are Microsoft servers.

I was wondering if anyone would bother to point this out. Thanks, Bob.

Figure Microsoft knows anything about servers?

Originally posted by sconner755Obviously the time stamps are not accurate.

This statement of fact brought to you by absolutely nothing more than a strong belief and a closed mind.

Yet this strong belief/closed mind is not shouted down....banned...shut or deleted. It is celebrated. It is joyous and admirable to believe with no evidence. It is heroic to attack others who also wish to have their ideas and strong beliefs heard.

As I continue to plod my way through this thread...this poor, solitary lil thread...I have often been reminded of the words of Friedrich Nietzsche as they pertain to the opinon of the legitimacy of these conversations.

All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Site moderation/certain posters are definitely winning the struggle to keep this topic down...but it's not because they are right.

reply to post by swansong19


The evidence is in the thread of the posts of those who claim without a doubt that the victims and their families were actors. But that is irrelevant anyway as the point I was trying to make in that statement was that the assertions of those who believe these people faked or acted out their grief for nefarious purposes are baseless and are severely lacking in good and proper evidence. To make such a serious claim without any real evidence of such is distasteful and inconsiderate of those dealing with such a tragedy now.

I do my part, however small you may think it may be, to contest television news stories where they may be inaccurate. While I am certainly no advocate of censorship, there is something to be said for the gross neglect of due diligence when it comes to media deadlines in the name of sensationalism and ratings. Perhaps that is where the system is flawed and needs to be reviewed. Ratings are subjective and are not a valid indicator of how much integrity a media outlet shows. But now I am digressing from the point.

The question I put to you regarding placing your self in the shoes of the parents was purely a hypothetical. I simply cannot believe that you know exactly how you would react under such circumstances and there is no reliable method of predicting how anyone would react under such circumstances. Therefore, to suggest as such without evidence is abhorrent and a direct insult to those affected by the tragedy.

Which do you think is more likely here: that the parents approached the media, or that the media approached them? The media are looking for their ratings and the parents happened to be there and were quite brave for facing the media when they did. I would perhaps suggest that they were perhaps under ill advisement to do so at the time because it's clearly created a firestorm of wild assertions about their authenticity, but that is not their fault. It is the fault of insensitive people who weren't there, have no idea what the circumstances were and were far too quick to jump to conclusions. Your assertion about the parents contacting the media is patently unfounded and unjustified.

Your ability to be observant is not under question here and at no point have I nor my side of this argument suggested otherwise. The contentions I have with not only your criticisms, but everyone else here who would make the same claims, is based on utter lack of tact and respect for the victims of this tragedy until it can be absolutely, verifiably proven that this was indeed a false flag and the parties involved were not authentic. Until then, these baseless claims are incredibly disingenuous and show a total lack of sensitivity in the name of what? Getting to the truth? I sincerely doubt that. It appears to me to be more about desensitized people hellbent on selfishly asserting they are right than getting to the truth and that is, in my view, the incorrect approach.

If you think I am "BS'ing" you with my responses, then call me on it and prove it. As far as I am concerned, however, you haven't provided any evidence that I am in fact "BS'ing" here. Until then, I will continue to voice my views, dissent and even disgust where I see fit in the name of reasonable and polite debate. It is my right, just as it is yours.

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by CosmicBobA way in which one could verify this is to actually go to Microsoft (who for those who may not know, run Bing)

Yes.

Microsoft owns bing....they are Microsoft servers.

I was wondering if anyone would bother to point this out. Thanks, Bob.

Figure Microsoft knows anything about servers?

Certainly, I would say Microsoft do know a thing or two about servers. But neglecting to set an accurate timestamp would not necessarily be an indication of competence or lack thereof. It could quite simply indicate neglect.

Having worked with the servers of large corporations myself (of which I will not name here due to professional obligations) I can state with a level of confidence that this is often something that is overlooked and not particularly considered as vital unless you are dealing with high risk data, such as banks, intelligence agencies, etc. I would not necessarily expect the Bing cache servers to fall into this category and therefore am still within reason to doubt it's submission as positive evidence for a pre-meditated event as has been suggested about the SHE massacre.

Just my .02 as I have refrained from posting much of anything to these various threads. This is ATS and usually there is conjecture and speculation concerning even sensitive subjects. There are some very interesting things on this thread. I think what the problem is becoming is the wild and out of left field speculation being stated as fact and the seeming obsession with this.. particularly a few sticking points that people are pretty sure they are right on.. but arent.. and it feeds into the its gotta be a conspiracy folder. Some of what Ive seen said here just isnt right. There is a difference between speculation and evidence.. and complete irrational statements set out as fact.

As far as the behavior of the parents and the idea that it is fact that they are actors having gained momentum. Have any of you dealt with various people when there is a sudden death?? Not YOUR FAMILY.. but strangers? A large number and variety of people experiencing death of a family member? People who may be very different from you and with different life experiences and beliefs? I have. A decade in an inner city level 3 trauma center ER. People act just like this and worse and even more different. Ive seen parents, spouses, adult children laughing and carrying on in the room with their loved ones body... theyll go through the body's pockets, remove rings and jewelry.. even root through the bag of bloody clothes to look for whatever they want. Ive seen parents hysterically laugh when informed of their childs passing. Ive seen big fake productions on the waiting room floor rolling around and wailing.. then get up and be fine when no one was giving them attention. Ive seen folks not process the death and act like nothing has happened. Sometimes with those you see them return a few days/weeks to the er by ambulance and treated on a locked 7th floor behavioral health center. Ive seen a hell of a lot.. and this behavior some of you are carrying on about is mild if not NON noteworthy compared to some reactions to a sudden death. I personally find it distasteful at least and absolutely ghoulish at worst to pretend you know death, the dead, and those left behind on any real basis. Now you should keep in mind, many parents were not permitted to view their child's body after this massacre. Sometimes it isnt real inside when you cant view a body.. mainly why mothers of stillborn children are given the option to hold or photograph the baby. There is a process to grief.. and when its disrupted sometimes reactions are pretty strange to those who havent seen it before. A lot of people know how they SHOULD feel.. but dont feel right then. Specifically when the death is sudden and they cant see a body. MANY times you cant let family see the body in the ER.. and this was a massacre.Some will feel compelled to fake or shut down. You just dont know. ***You**** DONT know at all because you havent experienced it yourself in this manner and you havent been exposed to it. There are no cookie cutter acceptable ways to feel or act or express yourself when these things happen.

I dont even know if you can understand it without having seen it all yourself... but saying theyre actors as if its fact is a pretty ghoulish and ignorant in the correct usage of that term. Youre basing assumptions on ignorance... these are not facts.

20 children dead. How many parents behaved in an unacceptable way to you and now that means theyre all actors and/or there are no dead children. This strains the most thread bare "fact gathering investigation" Ive ever seen on ats and Ive been here since 07.. this is my 2nd account. I dont want to bash you .. I want you to take what Ive said and at the very least consider it before carrying on with this line of stating "facts" that are lacking in being anywhere remotely factual.

reply to post by Advantage


A coherent and well put response. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks Advantage.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Well, yes there is. If there were no "norms" of behavior to use as a guideline, then there would be difficulty
in diagnosing mental issues, police investigative tactics, for starters.
How a person acts is quite on the minds of many people all the time about each other.
You yourself make judgement calls all the time based on the way a person acts.

How a person reacts or doesn't, positively or negatively, is and always has been the sound basis for determining
among other things whether or not a person is lying, a sociopath, deception, truthfulness, etc.

You don't have to be a professional though to have attained a working understanding of normal, common
human behavior.
There might be nothing to raise an alarm about if one person does not react with standard emotions normally
associated with the death of a child in tragic circumstances, But, if none you are presented with do, then
there is a reason to ask why.

Genuine emotions are hard to fake. But, there are actors who are well paid for their ability to immulate them.
But, when you are seeing them, you know they are acting because of the context of it being a movie, etc.
There is a difference in real life.
There is even a set standard for the stages of grief that is widely accepted.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is not possible for all these people to have moved to the last phase of "acceptance" and being fine and at peace
with the situation in all of a few days.
It is collectively anomalous behavior.
Or they are acting in a role.

These are the deductions every person makes when dealing with another in sensitive situations.
In your own mind, come up with scenarios you have personally dealt with when you questioned how another
person acts. Be it your spouse, or s.o., your child, your parents, your friends and realize you make a lot of determinations to veracity and truthfulness and sincerety based on this.

This thread is a shame for ATS.

Pure disinfo.

reply to post by sconner755


Actually I checked the photograph of the children being led out single file through the parking against an overhead shot from the day of the shootings.

Guess what? The cars match up. That photo was taken on 12/14/2012

reply to post by Pilot


And I noticed in the photos where they post family members looking for their kids, there are no leaves. That's why the leaves on the trees in that one photo of children walking in a line stands out so much. It doesn't mesh with the others. Also, I'm surprised they let the parents so close (they're right near the line of children), considering that was an active investigative zone. Wouldn't they have some sort of tape put up blocking that particular area? Nope. Parents and whoever were allowed right up front. Weird.

reply to post by swansong19


I noticed that, too. Personally, I don't think there's any point in responding to any of them. They all repeat the same ole lines, and don't offer anything in regards to anything being talked about. They basically come in to insult and derail the conversation with personal attacks. Best to not give them what they want, in my opinion.

Edit: I just finished reading through all of the attacks. Do you know of any unbiased forum to post about this subject? Because it's certainly not here.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Not really proof of anything. At my place of employment, we all park in the same spots - every day. The cars would match up in April, the same as they do in September. If you're referring to ALL vehicles in the parking lot/driveway vicinity, not just ones in parking spots, then that'd be convincing.