It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 60
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:32 AM
reply to post by Starling

It is about an event that was staged in order to gain an end that would not have accomplished its goals unless a false event was enacted to gain public sympathy over a horrendous scenario.

Unfortunately, the actors were third grade and this movie production would never have earned itself an Oscar!

The general public has more intellectual discernment than you give it justice.

What goal has been accomplished? I'm not aware of any new legislation in the US since the shootings.

And why would they use third grade actors (who don't seem to have been in any other production of any sort) That seems sort of weird when they have the blockbuster producer Christopher Nolan on hand to place clues in his latest movies. Do you think they ran out of money or something. Surely the final act would have been spectacular.

And I think you'll find the general public are shocked and appalled at the vitriol shown towards grieving parents..notably 99% of ATS members are staying well clear of this, and it's only you and about 5 other posters who are supporting this are very clearly in the minority of people who believe this.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:44 AM
OMG... This is still going?

OK, here goes yet again, and this time I hope I make some semblance of sense..

1) If there were no children dead, and there were actors portraying real parents that had lost mock children, it would be a violation of the civil rights of the real parents and I would most definitely be involved in an investigation of that on an official level, that investigation is NOT going on, therefore, well, you do the math.

2) Newtown, like every other small town in this state, including the one I live in, have drills, we have drills 3 times a year for various things because like we all found out, this can happen anytime, and for any reason.

3) Newtown, like any other small town, while they drill, are still not 100% prepared for an incident of this magnitude, it takes a bit for the State Police Major Crime unit to get from Meriden to anywhere, and they have to go it alone for the first hour or so of an incident, it would overwhelm a small department and most likely even a larger one like Hartford or Danbury (I think if I remember correctly, Waterbury, New Haven and Bridgeport all have their own major crisis teams, Hartford was working on one) all in all however, Newtown wouldn't have switched to "encrypted" traffic channels in the rush to try and respond, it would be the LAST thing on their minds.. ie: the police had a lot to deal with, and you're picking on them not hitting the encrypt button, this isn't Los Angeles or NYC, it's a tiny town, granted a rich tiny town but a tiny town in rural America, we aren't all up to national infrastructure standards.. (heck around here, AT&T's landlines fail at least 3 times a day, that tell you anything?)

4) The scene was chaotic, they used the Fire Station (or tried to, it didn't really work) as a staging area, that was close enough to the school to be useful, but far enough out of the zone to be safe, what the heck is wrong with that?

5) Someone claimed that the school was the most remote out of the way school they had ever seen, in CT that's simply not true, it took me 45 minutes to find my daughters new school the first time I went over there, as it's nested way in the back of an old residential area and not marked in any way, you wouldn't know it was there without GPS of some sort, or unless you have been given really good directions.

6) Who the heck is anyone here to decide how anyone should act after they lose a child. Noone here can say with 100% certainty that they acted strange or wrong, until you go through it, you can't understand it, even I don't fully.

7) Do I think there's more to this personally and professionally, yes I do, but.. here's my but, if there is and there is an active investigation, all of this speculating clouds the waters to the point that when they do release said information people may not pay attention to it, and that is a dangerous thing in itself. These actor theories and no dead kids theories just really PO most people in this state, and yes people are talking about it all over at the stores, gas stations etc here...

8) Do i think there was more than Adam Lanza or that he was a patsy, most certainly. I do not think this little stringy kid could have pulled this off alone, there just simply is no logistical way he could have done all of this without assistance, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that he may not have been (and in my opinion which means about spit right now) he didn't do it alone, whomever his accomplice is, I hope to heck they have an idea and catch them fast so we can get back to normal in this state, whatever normal is now..

9) As for the new school, there was no "long term plan" to move Sandy Hook there. It was a gesture of niceness by Monroe to let Newtown use the school, and rename it so as to honor the children and survivors of the massacre, and I think in the end it was a nice gesture, stop trying to read into simple kindness, it happens ALL THE TIME IN NEW ENGLAND, shocker ain't it... We aren't the cold hearted jerks the rest of the country thinks we are...

In the end, it boils down to one large question. Did Adam act alone or is there another psycopath running around ready to gun down a day care in our state, and kill more people, Personally I subscribe to option two, but as I said, my opinion means NOTHING as far as this investigation goes... It is simply an opinion, one I hope will be born out in the future when the official report comes out... But of course everyone will ignore that comment, and focus on the fact that their minds are made up that this is some sort of operation to take your guns...

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by destination now

Ohhh So the 5 of us better get with the "majority," hmm? Stop talking about it because that's what "everyone's" doing, "avoiding" it. Isn't that what sheeple do? Please. I really can't believe people make statements like that on a forum like this. Unbelievable.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:20 AM
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

And I can't believe you can't answer a simple question. No where did I say "stop talking about it" I just asked a question. Do you have answers to my questions?

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by sconner755

Actually, no, that is not what was claimed. And I'm sure you read the follow-up post, but chose to ignore it, and not post another rant because you know it doesn't support your original rant. So why not explain this then:

Here's the photo: So that little girl, who they refer to in the article as "Allison Wyatt" is actually someone named Lily. The other photo that has been used, may very well be Allison Wyatt, but this photo, is not. I don't understand why that photo would have been used. This woman claims it was stolen from her Flickr account. So what on earth would be a possible explanation for this one, I wonder.

Are you saying that this mother who rallied her friends/family and pleaded to get a photo of her daughter, Lily, removed from Fb memorial pages is lying? That same photo that she wanted removed was also used here:

That photo is not of "Allison Wyatt." That child in that particular photo is someone named Lily. So the mother is lying? She hounded these memorial pages to take down the photo, and that photo was not of her child? That's what you're saying? The child in that photo is alive and well. Are you saying that child in that photo is dead?

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by destination now

First of all, I skimmed your post. Secondly, it's not my duty to respond to your questions.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by destination now

First of all, I skimmed your post. Secondly, it's not my duty to respond to your questions.

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously with an attitude like that? You are purporting theories, I am asking questions about those theories and you don't feel a need to answer a question...

That's why the majority of us here think that you're talking can't even defend what you're saying

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:52 AM

I just wanted to comment about the dress question. I have more than the average number of children and I frequently buy matching dresses for my girls and matching sweaters for my boys. So, it perfectly reasonable to me that the girl(s) in question would have the same dress. (Personally, I don't think I could be comfortable seeing my next daughter in the same outfit so soon though, but to each their own.) I"m not entirely convinced that it isn't Emilie, because of the part in the hair, but if you look closely at the noses, they aren't a perfect match. So, maybe the picture was inverted so the part looks like it is the same as Emilie's. Although, with digital photography, I think it is harder to accidentally invert a photo. I'm pretty sure you have to do it on purpose these days.


posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by destination now

You do realize that all of us who post on this topic do not share the same opinion on every aspect of this case, right? The questions you asked are not things I have ever claimed. I'm not going to answer for other people. Why would I respond to something I've never personally claimed? It's a rhetorical question.

I responded to the part of your post that was relevant to me, the part about the few people posting on the topic. I did not respond to the things that did not pertain to me. You do not have to outright say something to make it clear what was inferred. So no, you didn't say "stop talking about this;' it was inferred.

edit on 4-1-2013 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by hattie

No, it definitely is not Emilie, it is her younger sister but I do agree that parents buy identical outfits for kids. Maybe the parents let their younger daughter wear that dress because she wanted to be like her sister and at that age probably has no real understanding of what has happened and I imagine her parents would rather their daughter felt comfortable in such surroundings

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

Well I suggest you read more carefully before firing off responses that (as you claim) had nothing to do with you anyway. And it always helps to read a post properly to gain full understanding, rather than just seeing what you want to see and making incorrect statements about the post you replied to...

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:35 AM
Oh and another little question to all of those who say it was Emilie with President Obama...Where was the other sibling? At home with a babysitter?

For your theory to be correct it would take such a leap of ineptitude that "the Parkers" took the wrong child along to meet the Prez, taking their youngest, their eldest and leaving the middle child out...

That's just not feasible, whichever way you look at it.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

You do not have to outright say something to make it clear what was inferred. So no, you didn't say "stop talking about this;' it was inferred.

Seeing as you edited your post to include this, I will respond. No, I did not infer anything, I was genuinely asking a question.

The only person I've seen saying "stop posting" was someone on the infamous batman thread, directly to me, because I was challenging what was being said. Their post was quite rightly removed.

Sometimes you have to work with actual facts...I have not said at any point, do not discuss this, but that seems to be yours (and others) only point of contention and it is simply not there. I have not seen one post saying "Don't discuss this topic anymore" yet you, and others keep claiming we do! I have obviously objected to some of the crass, insensitive BS aimed directly at the parents of the dead children, but I think most civilized people would agree with that

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:00 AM
Nothing major, still ABC using Emily Parkers pic more than once when listing victims photos. Can you spot number of times Emily Parker appears in this pic , I could see 4.


posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by VimanaExplorer

She' was a very photogenic child...sadly the media does this, it's not that any of the other kids are worth any less, but in order to maximise sales, the media pick the cutest pics. Also Emilie's father speaking to the media probably puts them more into the spotlight. And of course there will be parents who are still so numb with grief that they do not want their children's images banded about all over the media

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:09 AM
Found this to be quite an apt statement in the current context of our discussion.

All breaking crimes scenes are prone to confusion and rumor. This Sandy Hook shooting in particular was rife with false reports and misunderstandings—the most glaring being the early mis-identification of the shooter by police. The most sensational details spread quickly, but the corrections to those details rarely reach as far. For many of the "believers" attempts to correct the misinformation are merely proof of the larger cover up.

Link to full article

A lot of the questionable material that has arisen out of this discussion, I believe, has roots in the early misrepresentations and chaos of the media reports on the situation. Emotions and speculations were high and a lot of people (including the newscasters) were trying to get the facts, sometimes getting their facts from mistaken sources or assumptions.

So perhaps it would be a good idea for you guys in support of a conspiracy theory to revisit your original claims, investigate them in the light of new evidence that may have come to the fold and reassess your position on them. Weed out the bad assumptions, and focus on the areas that are still in need of resolution.
edit on 4-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Added "statement" to the first sentence

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by CosmicBob

So quote Winston Churchill...A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on...

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:32 AM

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:58 AM
Someone U2Ued me a link to a video. As I have reason to believe that it is not accepted to include this particular video directly, I will only state the title of the video, I hope this will be tolerated. I thought it would best fit in this thread "A list of already debunked theories" to write my video review here.

Review of Video "Sandy Hook - The Truth (Controversial Documentary)" by subliminalproof (18:45)

00:45 "This video contains nothing but facts" (-) (they should not make such a claim as it is false what I will show later)

01:00 Children testimonies, contradictions in number of gunshots heared (++) (very good point)

03:15 Comparison Emily Parker photos (+-) (strange, but no real hard evidence, could be sister)

04:00 Robbie Parker acting/speaking (+-) (no real hard evidence, but strange nonetheless)

05:00 Contradictions in reports of weapons used (+-)
I remember Lt. Vance stated at Press Conference at 1st or 2nd day that weappons found where Bushmaster (=Assault Riffle) + 2 pistols in school + 1 shotgun in trunk of car. So there seems to be no real contradiction, only a mess up by the media (confusing Bushmaster and shotgun, using the term "rifle" for both), maybe police said 4 guns where used and media made it to 4 hand guns where used
see video of Lt. Vance press conference 00:40-01:40

08:30 police scanner recordings (++) (very good point)
"I need units in the pool, I've got bodies here. Be advised, we do have multiple weapons, INCLUDING ONE RIFLE AND SHOTGUN"
This means that a riffle and additionally a shotgun were found IN THE SCHOOL. I strongly doubt that the police officer AT THIS TIME already had looked in the trunk of the car where later a shotgun was found. This now seems to be a contradiction to what Lt. Vance said at a Press conference: Bushmaster + 2 Pistols found in the school + shotgun found in car (no mention of additional shotgun found IN SCHOOL by Lt. Vance)

08:45 moving car theory (-) is baseless, see image

10:00 Who is C. R*d*a (??) connecting plates and police scanner recordings, needs further investigation

10:40 Misinfo: "***** was registered XXX offender" (--) that was another one with the same name, bad investigation!

11:50 "All that aside, we know for a FACT the car is registered to C. R*d*a" (--)
No, we do not know this for a fact, this needs further investigation

12:00 Second shooter theory

12:15 Interview "He's sitting in the front of a police car." Why in the front? (+) good point

12:30 Footage of chasing fleeing suspect in the woods. "Notice this shed had already been searched." (+) good point

Conjecture (that R*d*a is the fleeing man) is faulty. (-)

14:00 Stolen photo of child (+-)
There's nothing suspicious here, media just grabbed photo from some Facebook RIP page which was messed up

14:30 Victoria Soto Facebook RIP page created 4 days in advance (+-)
Strange, but can be explained (page title can be changed after creation)

15:15 "Who made this page?" (+) good question which could help to resolve this issue

15:30 Contradictions in reporting (Nancy Lanca was teacher, Adam had altercation) (+)
After so much things the media told us which later were found not to be true, why should we further believe in any media stories (what Adam's barber or Nancy's boy friend allegedly told them or any other story)?

16:00 "The families were not allowed to see their childrens bodies. Instead they were provided pictures of their children's faces." (++) good point

16:50 "I got another text from CBS." (+-) not sure, could be just a slip of the tongue

17:00 nothing of relevance until the end of the video


Conclusion: The mayority of the contents of the video can be easily explained away,
however there still remain some points (those in bold) which need to be clarified.
Even if the above points (in bold) would be explaind, there are still some points raised
by scrounger in this 2 postings:

edit on 4-1-2013 by Marlow because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by PaperbackWriter

Im confused...your answer to my legitimate question is to post a youtube video about the fact that they do drills on this type of thing? If anything, that would support my thought that we were hearing a state police officer on radio, considering that it was THEY who took over the scene.

I dont quite get why people are choosing to ignore occams razor with this whole thing.

new topics

<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in