I Am Confused. Sandy Hook, The Isla Vista Killings, & Other Rampage Killings In The USA Are Conspira

originally posted by: Moresby
But there's no great need for anti-conspiracy threads. The official stories are well decimated by the government and widely believed by most of the public.

People are welcome to do it. But it's like offering coffee to people who already have coffee and have access to more whenever they want it. There seems to be a greater need to offer alternative beverages than just offering them more coffee.

A) Did you mean "disseminated" by the government?

B) At this point in the history of the internet offering "alternative beverages" without vetting just because the knee jerk assumption is that the "official story " must always be wrong generates more ignorance in the world than does the mainstream media.
Just my opinion.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Moresby
But there's no great need for anti-conspiracy threads. The official stories are well decimated by the government and widely believed by most of the public.

People are welcome to do it. But it's like offering coffee to people who already have coffee and have access to more whenever they want it. There seems to be a greater need to offer alternative beverages than just offering them more coffee.

A) Did you mean "disseminated" by the government?

Yeah, I meant disseminated. DAMN YOU AUTO CORRECT!

Though their official stories often decimate the truth.

B) At this point in the history of the internet offering "alternative beverages" without vetting just because the knee jerk assumption is that the "official story " must always be wrong generates more ignorance in the world than does the mainstream media.
Just my opinion.

Has the Internet made you more ignorant? If not, why do you assume it has that effect on others?

If, yes, that's a brave admission. Maybe you should try supplementing your Internet research with books.

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: tide88 I would be willing to bet that you would find the exact same discrepancies in the investigations of mass killings in other parts of the world, that "believers" find here in the USA.

We do find the same discrepancies in many foreign shootings. Do a search of this site for the words "Hungerford, Dunblane, Port Arthur, Erfurt, Beslan, Winnendon, Fabeltjesland, Baku, Kauhajoki, Hyvinkää, Jokela, Ridderhof Mall, or Utoya" and you will see for yourself that many of these events are scutinized.

I was scrolling through to post something similar.

Surprised it took 3 pages to find this obvious rebuttal to the OP.

originally posted by: Moresby

B) At this point in the history of the internet offering "alternative beverages" without vetting just because the knee jerk assumption is that the "official story " must always be wrong generates more ignorance in the world than does the mainstream media.
Just my opinion.

Has the Internet made you more ignorant? If not, why do you assume it has that effect on others?

I didn't say that the internet makes people more ignorant.

I said that offering unvetted alternative explanations for events simply because one believes that the official story is always wrong is generating ignorance.

The internet just gives people who are doing that a wider audience.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Moresby

B) At this point in the history of the internet offering "alternative beverages" without vetting just because the knee jerk assumption is that the "official story " must always be wrong generates more ignorance in the world than does the mainstream media.
Just my opinion.

Has the Internet made you more ignorant? If not, why do you assume it has that effect on others?

I didn't say that the internet makes people more ignorant.

I said that offering unvetted alternative explanations for events simply because one believes that the official story is always wrong is generating ignorance.

The internet just gives people who are doing that a wider audience.

So the Internet only selectively makes people ignorant on selective subjects?

Hmm ... not sure how that works.

And nothing is "unvetted" on the Internet. You can't even tell a joke without someone correcting you, giving you the history of joke telling, explaining why your version was wrong, and give you the proper version.

The MSM, the government, and any number of other sources regularly release information without proper vetting.

a reply to: Moresby

Well, not that isn't precisely true ya know. Everything is unvetted unless seriously researched to fact check. Oh, and surly no one is correcting you on jokes and puns....right?


(Okay... that was hard to keep a straight face for..but I must admit, it is one way to agree with an example. )

You have a real good point and it is getting to where you can't comment on a beautiful summer day without someone explaining how it's a passing moment of pleasure in a world of misery from climate change...while another is liable to explain how the first bozo is all wrong and really, the sky is more a shade of purple with visual illusion to fool the ignorant.

Gotta love debunking and fact checking raised to the level of a score keeping sport sometimes, eh?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Moresby

Well, not that isn't precisely true ya know. Everything is unvetted unless seriously researched to fact check. Oh, and surly no one is correcting you on jokes and puns....right?


(Okay... that was hard to keep a straight face for..but I must admit, it is one way to agree with an example.

)

You have a real good point and it is getting to where you can't comment on a beautiful summer day without someone explaining how it's a passing moment of pleasure in a world of misery from climate change...while another is liable to explain how the first bozo is all wrong and really, the sky is more a shade of purple with visual illusion to fool the ignorant.

Gotta love debunking and fact checking raised to the level of a score keeping sport sometimes, eh?

Starred!

originally posted by: DelMarvel
If you think that an alleged conspiracy that would have to involve most of the state of Connecticut as well as almost every media source in the country stands up to even slight intellectual scrutiny I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Your also going to have to agree to disagree with MANY other highly respected leaders as well...

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, and no secret is revealed." John F. Kennedy

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." -- Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the fields of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, former President of the United States

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832)

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

As a result, “we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati

a reply to: Murgatroid

And what do any of those quotes have to do with what happened at Sandy Hook or Isla Vista?

What's the logic here?

"There are conspiracies in the world therefore Sandy Hook was a hoax"?

originally posted by: Moresby
So the Internet only selectively makes people ignorant on selective subjects?

Hmm ... not sure how that works.

For the third time: the internet doesn't make anybody anything. It's just a communication tool. It's being used by some people to find salad recipes. It's being used by some people to spread unfounded conspiracy theories. It's being used by others to reinforce their confirmation bias regarding conspiracy theories.

We have access to much more information than before. That's a double edged sword. There are people USING the internet who have agendas and are spreading misinformation which results in ignorance.

originally posted by: [post=180136

And nothing is "unvetted" on the Internet.

Anyone who tries vetting anything on any of the popular conspiracy sites is immediately denounced as a "debunker" or "shill."

originally posted by: Moresby
The MSM, the government, and any number of other sources regularly release information without proper vetting.

The MSM is FAR better filtered for BS than much of what is called the "alternative media." I'm not saying it's not biased or that it doesn't have an agenda or that it's always accurate. But on a site like ATS you have to spend AT LEAST as much time checking sources as you do reading content.

I suspect that back in the early 60's, nobody knew the government was submitting ideas like Operation Northwoods. In the advent of the internet and information explosion in the last few years combined with the FOIA, people realized what the government was actually doing. So I don't see it a stretch at all to start with conspiracy and prove otherwise. The US government has done some pretty ridiculous stuff. Every war since WWII has been a farce and was commercially driven or driven by really strange people who managed to convince presidents that there was a threat when there really wasn't. Add that to the US becoming a nanny state that hands control over to the federal government without the stigma of being called 'communist', or 'socialist', or 'fascism'. It's quite obvious that the US federal government has its eye on control of the population, so there's no such thing as too much for the federal government. There's no such thing as a tragedy any more. Every one seems to be clouded in a cover-up or has so much weirdness to it that even somebody who isn't inclined to be a 'truther' is baffled by ignorant garbage that's being pushed by the government and the MSM.

And if you still aren't convinced, the MSM is controlled by the CIA. It's been shown many times over, including released information under FOIA and by testimony of CIA staffers. Knowing that, why would the CIA want to control domestic media? What more do you need to know to be permanently suspicious of the federal government?

originally posted by: DelMarvel
And what do any of those quotes have to do with what happened at Sandy Hook or Isla Vista?

Quite possibly nothing...

Sandy Hook & Isla Vista were not what I referred to.

I am not convinced one way or the other concerning Sandy Hook.

I honestly no nothing about Isla Vista as well.

But your comment speaking about the possibility of an all encompassing conspiracy.

There is NO question about that aspect, which is the only reason I responded to your post.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The MSM is FAR better filtered for BS than much of what is called the "alternative media." I'm not saying it's not biased or that it doesn't have an agenda or that it's always accurate. But on a site like ATS you have to spend AT LEAST as much time checking sources as you do reading content

If the MSM was actually filtered for BS, there would be nothing left but a blank page.

You can safely believe the exact opposite of what the "news" is telling you.

The mainstream media appears to serve multiple functions. First, to distribute information that the controlling cabal wants you to believe is real news. Secondly, to assist in the cover-up of information that has leaked out through other sources. In other words, Damage Control. Thirdly, as a weapon to assassinate the characters of those who expose the practices of the Establishment. Also, to act as a firewall to prevent information detrimental to the elite's control from reaching the public. Finally, to continue to reinforce mainstream accounts of current and historical events. The mainstream news essentially serves as a primary tool for social conditioning or mind-control.

"It is through the press and the media that the lie is penetrating through to the masses," declared Professor Marrs. The media is used as a weapon. So when you watch, read, or listen to mainstream news, ask yourself, "what will the CFR like me to believe today?"

Centralized Control of History, Media, and Academia

originally posted by: lynxpilot
I suspect that back in the early 60's, nobody knew the government was submitting ideas like Operation Northwoods. In the advent of the internet and information explosion in the last few years combined with the FOIA, people realized what the government was actually doing. So I don't see it a stretch at all to start with conspiracy and prove otherwise. The US government has done some pretty ridiculous stuff. Every war since WWII has been a farce and was commercially driven or driven by really strange people who managed to convince presidents that there was a threat when there really wasn't. Add that to the US becoming a nanny state that hands control over to the federal government without the stigma of being called 'communist', or 'socialist', or 'fascism'. It's quite obvious that the US federal government has its eye on control of the population, so there's no such thing as too much for the federal government. There's no such thing as a tragedy any more. Every one seems to be clouded in a cover-up or has so much weirdness to it that even somebody who isn't inclined to be a 'truther' is baffled by ignorant garbage that's being pushed by the government and the MSM.

And if you still aren't convinced, the MSM is controlled by the CIA. It's been shown many times over, including released information under FOIA and by testimony of CIA staffers. Knowing that, why would the CIA want to control domestic media? What more do you need to know to be permanently suspicious of the federal government?

Logical, rational, factual and well thought out.

Watch out, you're gonna give this place a good name.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Absolutely not.

then you have failed to be sufficiently clear. speak plainly, man.

I'm referring to those who claim that Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, Aurora and Isla Vista were staged hoaxes. (The topic of the thread.)

that's not the topic of the thread. nowhere in the title does it say the words "staged", or "hoax" the thread is the OP asking why we all think there are conspiracies behind certain events, and the OP's perceived bias of the americans here, to only want to talk about american conspiracies.

See, what you've written above is a big part of the problem here IMO.

same to you. you don't even know what the topic is...

On the one hand the people advocating this nonsense try to associate themselves with the credibility of more plausible and more widely accepted conspiracy theories.

On the other hand "anyone who doesn't accept the official version of events, for a given scenario" gets associated with these theories that to an objective observer appear to be the product of insane minds.

i can see that...the "nobody died" crowd, screwing up the credibility, and wearing out the welcome of the "hey, this doesn't add up, and i have proof" crowd...i hear you..

i'm just going by what you said.

a reply to: Moresby

Cheers! Haha, I agree as well ^_^

a reply to: tide88

Two BIG factors apply in these cases,
A] ammount of media coverage, and
B] tools used in the crimes.

Given the push to legitimize "Gun control", you'll see much more of the shooting issues in the US press than you will elsewhere. To quote W.R.Hurst the 'father of modern Journalism', "Misery sells" i.e. "If it bleeds , it leads". Guns supply lovely visual and sound efects for modern televised media, so the dramatic focus is there. Other countries, somewhat embarassed that universal gun control didn't work, tend to censor news clips more heavilly. This leads to the theory that there is a conspiracy to promote violent gun crime as a methood to promote control. Truthfully, it's a conspiracy to make press owners more rich than they are...