Man offers $25,000 cash for Irrefutable Proof of Sandy Hook Shooting

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: randyvs

Why in the Hell should those parents put themselves through that sort of thing?

Tell me that. For money? I'd sooner beat the guy senseless, and I didn't lose a child...imagine, just for a moment, what they must feel like doing.

It doesn't have to be them. It can be anyone. All they have to do is prove that it happened. Not any specific detail exactly, just that there was a school shooting there.

a reply to: Phage

There are no demented people, just anti-gun false flags?

Apparently.

Couldn't possibly be some deranged psychopath killed a bunch of kids. Couldn't possibly be that.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yes. Yes.

...and the goalposts will move. This is a shell game. The little pea will always be somewhere else. I really hope no one, especially people who lost loved ones don't fall for it. I really do.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: mOjOm

Yes. Yes.

...and the goalposts will move. This is a shell game. The little pea will always be somewhere else. I really hope no one, especially people who lost loved ones don't fall for it. I really do.

Yes, I'm familiar with the tactics that need to be avoided. Still, if it was a legit 3rd person verification of the evidence and only proof of the event had to be established then moving the goal wouldn't be an issue and it should be simple for someone to prove, yes???

Seriously, as theorists and/or seekers of truth or deniers of ignorance, I can't be the only one who thinks some challenges should be met??? Especially one that should be easily provable.

a reply to: mOjOm

One twist that I don't like is that he wants the person providing the evidence to also put up equal money too.

So in other words a Dog and Pony show. Yep, I knew there was a catch. 25k is a lot. I know some people who are willing to bet that at the drop of a hat, but its usually never on any kind of crusade like this. They'd be more likely to put 25k on whether a dog #s on the sidewalk or the road.

This man is a troll, looking for attention. Either he believes his conviction and he will spend 25k to prove it, or he's full of #. The fact he's asking people who never asked to be involved in his BS to front money as well? Nope.

And lets say its "possible" its false, but also acknowledge that in turn its just as "possible" that its true. From an objective standpoint, are you going to ask people who just suffered a terrible loss to put up money, to prove their children died? Are you serious? That is from a 50.50 standpoint. Where there is enough evidence either way [which I don't believe there is]

The point is, if there was even a smidgen of a chance he is wrong, he shouldnt be asking any money, nor even bringing money into the subject.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mOjOm

If it doesn't he could still be wrong, this is true, but it would really make me wonder why nobody could prove an actual event like that happening not too long ago.

Not me.
I would wonder why anyone would give him the attention he so desperately seems to crave. I would wonder why anyone who cares would even look at his youtube channel.

Twenty-five thousand USD is why.

That could do a lot of good in a charity for Sandy Hook survivors.


ps edit - I just caught the whole reward matching stipulation. This man is weak and I hope it ends poorly for him.

a reply to: mOjOm

I understand what you're saying. On the surface, it would work that way.

But...

It's like when Holocaust Deniers challenge survivors to prove the Holocaust happened, and they will provide the judges. It's just a sick way to get their fifteen minutes of fame and exposure.

There will be a catch. There always is.

a reply to: Cuervo

This is the way do do that. Not by feeding the troll.
www.nshcf.org...

a reply to: boncho

He seems to be asking the challenger to put up his own money to avoid having to spend his own on multiple verifications for a bunch of bogus tries. Paying an independent person to verify the evidence would get expensive to do again and again. But I agree it's kinda hinkey in a way and might be some kind of con.

But I would assume anyone who would take the challenge to first get some solid agreement on what is accepted as proof and all that stuff ahead of time and in writing.

a reply to: mOjOm

But I would assume anyone who would take the challenge to first get some solid agreement on what is accepted as proof and all that stuff ahead of time and in writing.

"All that stuff."
Like respecting the privacy and loss of families? Nah, probably not that.

originally posted by: Cuervo


ps edit - I just caught the whole reward matching stipulation. This man is weak and I hope it ends poorly for him.

That's my opinion on it too.

The fact that he's kind of a jerk about it all makes me want to see him publicly admit he's wrong, lose the money and shut up about it.

a reply to: seagull

I've never heard about holocaust deniers having a challenge like that. I'm sure that really pisses some people off though.

All the more reason to shut them up though. If it was a legit challenge and they weren't going to slip out of it like a coward.

a reply to: mOjOm

It seemed like you were calling him a dumbass for the more
obvious reason. That wouldn't be a reason really. But if you
say it was for something else. I have no reson not believe you so.
I'll redact my speculations about you and apologise.

originally posted by: [post=19698636]Phage

"All that stuff."
Like respecting the privacy and loss of families? Nah, probably not that.

No, I meant like establishing the rules so that neither side can cheat their way out of it.

Look, I get it. It's an emotional subject and it's offensive. But I'm not getting emotional about it. I'm looking at it from an outsider and objectively. I'm not suggesting this to hurt anyone or anything. This is ATS and I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion. Not for the ethical debate but because the challenge of simply proving an event happened should be simple to do when it was that well known and not that long ago.

a reply to: mOjOm

Not for the ethical debate but because the challenge of simply proving an event happened should be simple to do when it was that well known and not that long ago.

Right. Like the Apollo landings. Simple to prove but no one has done so. Therefore, fake.

a reply to: randyvs

What other reason is there???

I mean, I can't even prove that his theory isn't correct. So he's not dumb for thinking it's fake exactly. Although very improbable I suppose it is possible that it was all fake. It would be one hell of a "wag the dog" but who knows in today's world.

I think he could have been a little more tactful in his approach however. He comes off like a jerk IMO. But if he ended up being right, I'd have to admit he had every right to act that way. But if wrong, it really makes him look like an ass. He could have avoided all that by simply being direct about his challenge and acting a bit more professional about it.

originally posted by: [post=19698653]Phage
Right. Like the Apollo landings. Simple to prove but no one has done so. Therefore, fake.

Are you saying that nobody can prove the Apollo landings happened??? I find that hard to believe. Maybe the average guy using youtube can't prove it, but are you saying NASA couldn't prove it either???

a reply to: seagull

..imagine, just for a moment, what they must feel like doing.

But in his mind there aren't any parents. And if it wasn't so questionable
he most likely wouldn't be doing this. He doesn't believe he's
hurting anyone if he doesn't believe there's anyone to hurt.

a reply to: mOjOm

Are you saying that nobody can prove the Apollo landings happened???

No.
I'm saying that this guy fits right in with those who demand "proof" that the landings occurred. NASA? Phfft. Everybody knows NASA lies.

originally posted by: randyvs

But in his mind there aren't any parents. And if it wasn't so questionable
he most likely wouldn't be doing this. He doesn't believe he's
hurting anyone if he doesn't believe there's anyone to hurt.

Exactly. That's a good point.

Just for a second, take him at his word. If he truly believes it never happened there is nobody to offend. He seems to really believe he's right too.

If proven wrong he might even say he's sorry for causing trouble with all of it, who knows.