Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


Thats awesome. I have. In fact, my natural response to death is to chuckle. Its happened multiple times, without any intent from me.

Furthermore, can you give any context to why he laughed? Do you know that someone didnt just tell a joke, or try to lighten the mood before this man, who just lost a child to murder, spoke in front of millions of people?

The laugh is evidence of NOTHING.




Actually.....


Freud, of course, had an eloquent speculation on this paradox. In his 1928 investigation into humor, Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious, Freud argued that laughter was a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with the unspeakable pain of everyday life. He gives the example of a prisoner about to locked in the gallows, who says to his guard: “Well, this is a good beginning to the week”. The prisoner makes a joke because he doesn’t want to cry; his ego distracts his conscious brain from the unspeakable misery of the moment.


Laughter and Grief

Everyone grieves differently.
edit on 24-12-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Good thread. Gotta get rid of the dis-information theories quick or we'll end up with another 9/11 cluster-f$%^! Where no one takes people who question the official story seriously because for every solid argument that 9/11 was an inside job there are 10 bat-crap crazy disinformation theories so it makes all truth seekers seem crazy out of the gate.

Claimes like "No one at all died" remind me of 9/11 claims that "no planes hit the WTC towers at all". It just makes all people who question the OS look bad.

and yes I know there's no OS yet in this event, but how long do they expect till they release one? The longer it takes, the more obvious to me there are serious flaws in the "developing official story". Like more than one gunman being the biggest.

anyway nice job and keep up the good work



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is another thread that speculates that what was supposed to be Nancy's car belongs to a known felon called Christopher A Rodia: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can anyone confirm or debunk this? Obviously, the logical (and only conclusive) approach would be for someone to run a check on the plate - anyone?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Just so everyone knows, there definitely are dead bodies. My mother works with a lady whose husband is donating handmade caskets to some of the families.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Just so everyone knows, there definitely are dead bodies. My mother works with a lady whose husband is donating handmade caskets to some of the families.
I have family in the area. There is no doubt that there are dead kids.

thank you for the corroboration. Maybe if enough people come out with first hand info, people will abandon these awful theories.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Just so everyone knows, there definitely are dead bodies. My mother works with a lady whose husband is donating handmade caskets to some of the families.


That's a faulty conclusion, this has nothing to do with logic:


Handmade caskets have been donated to some of the families.
--> Therefore there must be dead bodies.

Here's another one:


Shots have been heared by witnesses.
--> Therefore there must have been a real shooting.

No, it could have been just a drill (doesn't mean it has to be a drill):
edit on 25-12-2012 by Marlow because: added another example



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marlow

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Just so everyone knows, there definitely are dead bodies. My mother works with a lady whose husband is donating handmade caskets to some of the families.


That's a faulty conclusion, this has nothing to do with logic:


Handmade caskets have been donated to some of the families.
Therefore there must be dead bodys.



Knowing people who know the deceased is as definitive of proof as you can possibly get. Period. If that doesnt satisfy you, it says that you have already made up your mind, and wont be satisfied short of seeing the bodies yourself.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That's a good start, getting rid of the ridiculous conspiracy elements allows people to focus on the more important aspects of the discrepancies regarding the case.

The only one I have a question about is this:




Claim 6)Sotos facebook page already existed: Answer: False. Even the creator of the page says flat out that it was a page that was re-appropriated to the topic after the fact.


From what I understand, the name of the facebook page can be changed later but the URL of the page stays the same after creation, that url in question has RIP in it. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
The owner of the page confirmed that the page was created for something else first, then changed when the event happened.


Where has it been confirmed that the owner of the page confessed to this? Did you hear this from another ATS member or did you personally speak to the owner of the page? Or was the admission actually posted on the page?

Also, this still does not explain the URL issue that was mentioned.

The link clearly showed as ""http://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/...."

If I change my name on FaceBook my URL remains the same.

Why would they make a URL with RIP in it before she was actually dead?

You should not state something has been factually "debunked" when in fact it hasn't. I find it ironic that you have presented misinformation as fact while posting a thread claiming to expose the lies about the incident that have been debunked.
edit on 12/25/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That's a good start, getting rid of the ridiculous conspiracy elements allows people to focus on the more important aspects of the discrepancies regarding the case.

The only one I have a question about is this:




Claim 6)Sotos facebook page already existed: Answer: False. Even the creator of the page says flat out that it was a page that was re-appropriated to the topic after the fact.


From what I understand, the name of the facebook page can be changed later but the URL of the page stays the same after creation, that url in question has RIP in it. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
The owner of the page confirmed that the page was created for something else first, then changed when the event happened.


Where has it been confirmed that the owner of the page confessed to this? Did you hear this from another ATS member or did you personally speak to the owner of the page? Or was the admission actually posted on the page?

Also, this still does not explain the URL issue that was mentioned.

The link clearly showed as ""http://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/...."

If I change my name on FaceBook my URL remains the same.

Why would they make a URL with RIP in it before she was actually dead?

You should not state something has been factually "debunked" when in fact it hasn't. I find it ironic that you have lied to us yourself while posting a thread claiming to expose the lies about the incident.


It was posted on that facebook page. There is a screenshot of it in the other thread about this specific subject (which was enough for Skeptic Overlord to move the thread to the 'ludicrous online lies' forum). You can see it in that thread, and I assume it is also still up on the webpage.

Also, one can change the URL once after the page is created.

Again, DEBUNKED.

How have I lied to myself?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Also, this still does not explain the URL issue that was mentioned.

The link clearly showed as ""http://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/...."

If I change my name on FaceBook my URL remains the same.

Why would they make a URL with RIP in it before she was actually dead?

Don't lie.

www.facebook.com...
www.google.com...,mod=17&sourceid=chrome&i e=UTF-8

p.s. it took me 5 seconds to find this out.
edit on 25-12-2012 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by vkey08
Speaking from the tiny quadruple disaster ridden state of Connecticut.

There has been no official release of information conclusively by the Connecticut State Police as of yet, ie: there is no official story only Media Speculation...



Yup. People keep invoking the "official story" and saying that it is wrong, but it hasnt even been released yet.


There are parts of the story that are "official", just not all of it has been officially announced.

The medical examiner was interviewed for everyone to see, would his statements not be official?

The amount of dead people has officially been released.

There are other portions of the story that have been officially announced as well, but in your defense, you are right when you say the whole "official story" has not been released. It may take them a while to come up with one that people will actually believe.

Now back to the medical examiner, he clearly stated that all the victims were killed by a long weapon. At that point only Adam and his mother had not been examined yet.

Federal and state authorities have officially announced that 4 handguns have been recovered in the school but no rifles. So even some "official" versions of the event being told by those who are participating in the investigation have been proven to be a lie.

Will you at least admit that they are lying to us about certain "official" parts of the story?

ETA:

I did edit my last post to change the wording to try and avoid the word lie.
edit on 12/25/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


I was unaware of that and thank you for correcting me.

To the OP I apologize about claiming the URL on a facebook page cannot be changed as I have been proven wrong and corrected.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Sitting on the sidelines watching these "arguments", I cant help but feel the conspiracy theorists have a huge amount of self importance.

The shooting event is a HUGE media event, and every single media organisation on the planet who could spare a reporter has sent one to the actual scene to actually interview actual people and see the actual evidence.
BBC, Al Jazeera, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, etc... Left wing, Right wing, Local, National, Foreign.
Huge number of journalists.

But apparently they're all stupid. Every single one of them.

Reporters on the scene are too stupid to know its a movie set.
Reporters on the scene are too stupid to know dead girls are meeting the President.
Reporters on the scene are too stupid to know there are no dead bodies at all.

...but ATS users surfing the net, are (rather conceitedly) much cleverer than they.


Reporters on the scene are too stupid to get even the most basic facts about the story correct.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The ME's statements about the guns are nowhere near official. In fact, he tried to avoid givig official statements in that conference.

Is still like to know what misinformation you think I am spreading.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The ME's statements about the guns are nowhere near official. In fact, he tried to avoid givig official statements in that conference.

Is still like to know what misinformation you think I am spreading.


Did he not say that all the victims were killed by a long weapon? Why would his statement not be official as he is "officially" participating in the investigation? Are you admitting that he lied to us?

There are some questions where he explained he cannot officially answer for certain reasons but why would he say that all the victims were killed by a long weapon if none were actually found at the scene of the shooting?

I am sorry for all the questions it's just I would like your opinion on what I have asked.

As for the misinformation I mentioned, I have been corrected about what I accused you of misinforming us on and I have also apologized to you for my error. Just so you know my apology was sincere, I can admit when I am wrong and have no problem doing so.
edit on 12/25/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: grammar



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


No worries. I appreciate the apology.

The ME's statements on the weapon used would not be official, as he would not be qualified to make that judgement. He said multiple times in the interview that his statements would be tossed out by a judge, which means they aren't considered expert statements.

We also need to wait to see what the official report says about the weapons. So far we only have speculation from media sources, which are hardly definitive. Seeing the official police report is what will tell us what questions we need to be asking.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


sandy hook was taken from the art of war with msm manipulating moral influence, using a direct attack to engage (mass killing with an assault rifle stolen by a criminal) and an indirect attack to win (assault weapons ban correlating moral influence with an indirect attack) maybe sun tzu foresaw something like this?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


No worries. I appreciate the apology.

The ME's statements on the weapon used would not be official, as he would not be qualified to make that judgement. He said multiple times in the interview that his statements would be tossed out by a judge, which means they aren't considered expert statements.

We also need to wait to see what the official report says about the weapons. So far we only have speculation from media sources, which are hardly definitive. Seeing the official police report is what will tell us what questions we need to be asking.


I disagree when you say the ME's statements would not be official and that he is not qualified to make that judgement.

He is the medical examiner and is the ONLY person who is qualified to make that judgement, if he cannot make that judgement who can?

He did say that some of his statements would be tossed out by a judge, but a judge would not toss out his statments made while under oath on a medical examination that he himself performed.

In your defense, I would also like to see the "official" police report. Regrettably, in my opinion, I believe we may never get to see this report for various reasons.

ETA:

Please let me know if you think I am derailling your thread by mentioning the ME and his interview as it was not part of your OP. If you believe it to be off topic or derailing your thread I will stop discussing this aspect of the incident.
edit on 12/25/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


sandy hook was taken from the art of war with msm manipulating moral influence, using a direct attack to engage (mass killing with an assault rifle stolen by a criminal) and an indirect attack to win (assault weapons ban correlating moral influence with an indirect attack) maybe sun tzu foresaw something like this?


Or the guy flipped out because he was mentally unstable killed his mom then killed those kids because she loved them more than him or at least he thought she did. Personally that sounds a lot more plausible than ANY conspiracy that anyone has put forth.

I haven’t read or heard a single theory put forth by anyone that has sounded remotely plausible and no one has offered a piece of evidence that supports a conspiracy without seriously stretching and twisting the facts to try to make it fit.

Sometimes you just have to face the facts some of these theory are borderline libel and in many cases just downright insulting and or despicable that people are trying to push.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


true but this just seems too convenient for barry soetero, keeping hysteria going on long enough to confuse even some of the most adept. the art of war seems to match up with the confusion, moral damage, and reaction caused by a criminal with a stolen assault weapon (or shotgun perhaps). in respect to your stance, i would say the 60 40 odds may be in your favor, but we should let time elapse before debunking something entirely






top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join