Sandy hook "hoax"?

[Fletch_Lives59]

That is CLEARLY a shotgun. Conspiracy EPIC FAIL.

And BTW. That video is one of the most moronic things I have ever wasted time watching. You have to be one STUPID **** to buy the crap they are shoveling.

I made it about 7 mins before I started to drool on myself...LOL

[Predicto]

epic post

[No_Pressure]

I watched the video, do not believe that this is a conspiracy. I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, and I've never really been interested enough to look into the mess surrounding JFK's assassination.

Both sides of these sort of things disturb me greatly however. Whenever something like this is even talked about, there are always people who are all too willing to believe "facts" and conspiracy assumptions at face value, because they want to believe and they want there to have been a conspiracy. I'll let others try to figure out why one would actually want there to be a conspiracy: an inability to cope with an imperfect and disgusting reality, a massive distrust of the government, media, and authority, etc.

The other side is the people who are incapable of entertaining any alternative to the line of thought and fact which they have come to believe. They will admit our government is not benevolent, and has undoubtedly performed plenty of false-flag type operations which go far beyond the ones we are sure happened, such as the Gulf of Tonkin which enabled heavier involvement in Vietnam. There is an inability there to even discuss or review opposing arguments or viewpoints, dismissing anything which isn't the known truth as an idiotic pile of lies, without even examining just how idiotic the lie pile is. I think some of these people are afraid that if they take a look, they're going to find something disturbing, which isn't necessarily the case if you go at something even-keel, which thankfully is what many of the posters on this forum have done, which helps reassure my faith in humanity just a little.

Things such as this video aren't something to be hated, feared, or celebrated. The existence of this video isn't inherently idiotic and moronic. Posing questions or an alternative view, crazy and conspiracy driven though it may be, is a necessary thing, just like blindly dismissing the video without watching it is as idiotic as blindly believing it after watching it. If you're going to dismiss it, this is how to do it since I watched it and it isn't very convincing.

Thoughts on the video:

The facebook things are inconclusive. Pictures of pages which were taken down mean nothing. Even an amateur photoshop user such as myself could add convincing time stamps to pictures to use as evidence to support my view. I'm not saying that is or isn't what the person from this video has done, but I have no way of knowing. The donation pages and facebook pages when searched for are either not to be found or have the correct dates. A conspiracy theorist will say "of course the dates are correct now, they realized their mistake!". Personally, I seriously doubt that an organization planning a massive conspiracy where they're looking at fooling the entire world and keeping all sorts of loose ends tied up (literally hundreds or thousands of people) would make the mistake of putting a time stamp on an independent donation page, or at least an incorrect time stamp, and I doubt that they would be stupid enough to create false facebook pages slightly before or during the shooting. The true evidence is pictures of something which the video admits no longer exists for examination. This isn't evidence at all in that case.

The guy at his house telling his story of little kids: (Gene Rosen was it?)

I actually watched this from the break room at work while on my lunch break that day, and the guy's story didn't sit right with me from the beginning. There was a bus driver with 4 or 5 kids from the school out in front of this guy's house trying to calm down the children, and some random guy comes walking down his driveway so the bus driver leaves the kids with him? What universe is that? I think we all know bus drivers are responsible for the children under their supervision, just like a teacher, and there is a very slim chance that one would abandon children on a whim following some chaos, assuming he/she didn't know exactly what happened just yet, especially when you consider the children were turned over to a complete stranger and taken into his house. Is it possible? Well sure, lots of things are possible, but it is highly improbable. When the guy re-tells the story as noted in the video, it has changed. It was just some man, not a bus driver, and it is strange that the interactions between himself and this man are not noted. Again, I feel that most people, tasked with safely guiding 4-5 terrified children fleeing some sort of disaster, would not merely abandon them to the first person who came up to them and started asking questions.

-The story doesn't make much sense, at least how it begins. All the stuff afterwards of the kids playing with stuffed animals and saying things about their teacher being dead or whatever is inconsequential.

-We can assume a number of realities here:

1. The story happened exactly as he said it did. Some adult, who he may have assumed to be a bus driver, but who was not necessarily one, had a pack of kids fleeing a shooting, and dropped them off with this guy for whatever reason, never to be heard from again.

2. The facts of how the kids got there are being blurred or mistaken by the man telling the story, as can often happen in traumatic events. Perhaps he had a whole conversation with the other adult in question and he doesn't remember those details since the mind in strange scenarios or under duress can easily erase events, facts, etc.

3. This man is lying for his 15 minutes of fame during this news story. The shooting happened exactly as we hear it did, and this guy was uninvolved, but he wanted to say something so he told journalists this fantastic story to get himself on the news.

4. This man is telling a false story, but has been instructed/hired to do so by a government and media which is trying to evoke an emotional response within our populace to drum up popular support for stricter gun control legislation as an extension of a complex plan to disarm the American populace.

I think it is highly likely that this event falls in the 2-3 range, perhaps 1, and most likely not 4. Maybe it happened just like he said, but as we know from his various accounts of the story, his story has changed. This does not mean he is making the whole thing up, and it could have happened for a number of valid reasons.

Then there is the question of the people who are smiling, acting oddly, etc.

I laughed a lot, nervously at my grandfather's funeral, and had erratic emotions all day. Someone could have joked with me and I'd have smiles and laughed more than I normally ever would have, and then 3 seconds later I could be on the verge of crying my eyes out. Grief is a complicated thing which each person deals with differently and I think it is difficult to pass judgment on someone and label them frauds, actors, and insinuate a family or victim was made up simply because A. The girl's father smirked before giving a press conference, and B. A couple who did an interview with Anderson Cooper laughed/smiled during the interview (what about, we don't know because the conspiracy video conveniently didn't have the audio for this, for all we know they were recounting fond memories of their lost child and it brought smiles to their faces).

The little girl who was supposed to be dead appearing in a photograph with Obama is interesting, but I honestly had a hard time finding information on which child was supposed to be deceased, if the family portrait was properly labeled in the conspiracy video, and if it was the same child pictured with president Obama. Again, I have a hard time believing that the government would be smart enough to pull off this grand hoax, coordinating all these hundreds or thousands of people to get on board and keep a big lie to themselves, and then they turn around and put a girl who is supposed to be dead right on out there with the president, and only realize their mistake afterwards. Perhaps it isn't evidence enough that "nobody could be this incompetent" since our government can be pretty freaking incompetent, but it is astronomically unlikely that if this was a ruse, they would make so many glaring mistakes. The chances are better that this video is going on misinformation or trying to present misinformation itself.

Then there was the medical examiner and the gun in the trunk. First off, this guy was the most bizarre when it comes to people interviewed for the Sandy Hook shooting. He of course tells us in the video that he's sure the deaths came from a rifle, but he can't say what the specific round of ammunition involved was. In other words, he's telling us nothing but his opinion, which as a medical professional most would feel is fairly reliable, especially a medical examiner. Perhaps he improperly identified the bullet holes. A medical examiner saying that he thinks the wounds were mainly from a rifle does not mean that they actually were. Mistakes can be made. In the conspiracy video when the question is posed about the rifle being found in a trunk and not actually used inside, we get edited together clips of the medical examiner behaving strangely. We don't get the actual response to this question, and it probably went something like this "I was not aware of that fact, and it is possible that I improperly identified the caliber of weapon in this case". At any rate, yes the medical examiner behaves in an odd manner. It would be strange if he didn't after examining a school full of dead children and teachers.

Many of the early reports of things which are used to point to a conspiracy are typical of videos of this nature. The media and everyone else has very little to go on and they report hearsay just to hear themselves talk and pretend like they know anything at all. It's a ratings thing, like when all they know is that the shooter in some random shooting was wearing a hawaiian shirt, so they bring in an expert to psycho-analyze for 15 minutes on air what that means, and then it turns out the hawaiian shirt report was false and the guy was wearing a blue t-shirt. Was it intentional manipulation and distortion by the media to talk about hawaiian shirts and their meaning in terms of a murderer's state of mind for 15 minutes when it was merely an unconfirmed rumor that turned out to be false? No. It's ****ty journalism and sensationalist media. Neither of these things are new, and we shouldn't read into them very much. The kindergarten teacher/school nurse thing is likely some weirdo who posed as the school nurse to get on television, or who thought they were talking about something else. The guy in the police car, and chase through the woods could have been the cops following up on suspicious looking people in the area and doing due diligence to make sure that potential accomplices did not escape.

The gun in the car, 4 guns, mis-reported number of guns, report of a 2nd shooter, guys getting chased down and arrested, low number of non-fatal casualties compared to other shootings of this type could all be explained without a conspiracy theory. The 4 hand guns were Lanza's mom's as was the rifle, and the media just didn't find out she had so many guns for a while because, you know, it's impossible to find out facts like that quickly. Perhaps Lanza was a better marksman than the video gives him credit for being. Perhaps terrified children are an easy target, I wouldn't really know.

-------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, the video clearly has an agenda and brings up intriguing questions at face value which have explanations other than "it's a conspiracy!" under examination. Just because something can't easily be explained or is inconsistent, that doesn't prove deception has occurred.

My very last point in this long-winded post is this:

Conspiracies to disarm the American population are founded on idiotic logic. Let me explain:

We have more guns than people in this country, and even normal, law abiding citizens with whom I am acquainted have 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 20 guns. Personally, I own something like 8 weapons at this point, most of which are part of a historical collection which I use in target shooting from time to time for my own recreation.

1. We already have the guns. New laws won't take our guns away. Even if they pass a law saying you can't own guns and destroying the 2nd amendment, what is the government going to do? Go door to door with the 300 million people in this country and ask them to please turn over their firearms? That's a good way to get a lot of people killed and is totally unrealistic.

2. Fearing laws limiting the acquisition of guns undermines a core argument of gun advocates. I've heard 10,000 times how making guns illegal does nothing, and criminals can get guns no matter what if they really want to. I believe this is fundamentally true. Think of guns like drugs. When you make drugs, especially popular ones such as marijuana, illegal, suddenly hardened criminals are the only ones with weed, right? Well, they're the only ones selling it for the most part, but if my high school and college peers are any example, it was actually quite easy for generally law-abiding folks to get their hands on something illegal. With hundreds of millions of guns in America, law abiding citizens would be able to own, sell, and buy guns under the government's nose as they currently do, and there is basically nothing the government could do to stop it (just like with drugs).

3. The preservation of the 2nd amendment is meaningless anyway. If the government wanted to take over its populace by force, it would. If bands of American citizens wanted to revolt against a suddenly tyrannical government, they wouldn't stand a chance, even with their guns. I'd like to know how a group of fellow Pennsylvanians armed with hunting rifles, shotguns, and perhaps the odd Mosin-Nagant/M1-Garand would fare against the Pennsylvania National Guard and their armored personnel carriers. Probably not too well. Substitute drones, satellites, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, missiles, grenades, and any other equipment of our modern military and it's pretty obvious that citizens do not pose much of a threat to the government. Whether soldiers will fire on rebellious civilians, and how many Americans- divided as we are, would mobilize and put their lives on the line for something they believe in is an interesting question. My bet is that not many would join the cause, the military would fire on them defensively because they would essentially be domestic terrorists, and no, we the people wouldn't stand much of a chance.

The 2nd amendment isn't a check to government power. It isn't the last line of defense keeping the government from enslaving our nation. Without guns, we're not going to be crushed under the heel of comrade Obama and the Red Army. "Hitler and Staaaalin took thuh guns awayyeee!" yeah, and basically so did Britain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Austria, and dozens of other peaceful, democratic societies on the planet, and they did it without enslaving their respective populations. Incredible.

The point is, regardless of if you agree with me, the government likely isn't all that interested in gun control because:

A. It's impossible, just like winning the war on drugs.

and

B. A disarmed populace doesn't really benefit them, since they could take control today if they actually leaned that direction, but they don't.

So why are they pushing gun control laws following things such as Sandy Hook? Because they're ****ing politicians everybody. They pander to the sentiments of their constituents. The knee jerk reaction to shooting after shooting is going to be "BAN THE GUNS!" because, just like idiots believe that making marijuana illegal will mean nobody will smoke, sell, buy, steal, or kill for the drug, idiots believe that making guns illegal will actually stop shootings from happening. Politicians just jump on whatever is popular and likely to keep them in office longer. If their constituents believe in banning guns, so does the politician. If their constituents believe in gun ownership/the 2nd amendment, so does the politician. Again, I would have hoped we had all of this figured out by now, but apparently we do not.

[MattFancy]

Sarcasm fail dude. I understand that Google estimation of dates is approximate.

Sarcasm meter is broken today lol

[Mad Mike]

it isn't very convincing.

Call it like it is... Say it with me. Say it loud and say it proud...

That video is STUPID.

And if you want to apply logic, I say to you that there is no benefit to human kind to promote stupidity by giving credibility to morons who promote moronic ideas.

[Wrong Direction]

19 pages. Capped off by No_Pressure's 16,293 characters (no spaces) according to MS Word.

And Mr. Drummond died. Damn.

[No_Pressure]

Call it like it is... Say it with me. Say it loud and say it proud...

That video is STUPID.

And if you want to apply logic, I say to you that there is no benefit to human kind to promote stupidity by giving credibility to morons who promote moronic ideas.

I believe that if we are to assume that most people are reasonable and perhaps even mildly intelligent, the best way to discredit an idiotic idea or point of view is by explaining exactly why it is idiotic, rather than dismissing it altogether. An outright dismissal of something like this, even when you know the thing in question is unbelievably stupid and riddled with more holes than swiss cheese, actually serves to validate the believers in their sacred position as enlightened fact finders, since the scared and less open-minded "sheeple" as they like to say are unwilling to fairly look at the facts.

Obviously one could assume that someone would notice another who is saying "this is so unbelievably idiotic I'm not even going to waste my time watching it or explaining why it's stupid" and say to themselves "Wow, John is a smart guy and if he sees how ****ing dumb this thing is, it certainly must be, and it holds no credence with me"

I believe it goes more like this: John says: "this is so unbelievably idiotic I'm not even going to waste my time watching it or explaining why it's stupid"

The man looking on says "Wow, John must be afraid of finding out he's wrong or that this video asks valid questions, because he seems too afraid to even give it a chance to be wrong"

In other words, you say that it's bad to even give videos like this the credit of watching it, I say it's bad to give people who believe this stuff the impression that you're afraid and unwilling to watch it and explain why it's garbage.

[Predicto]

I believe that if we are to assume that most people are reasonable and perhaps even mildly intelligent, the best way to discredit an idiotic idea or point of view is by explaining exactly why it is idiotic, rather than dismissing it altogether. An outright dismissal of something like this, even when you know the thing in question is unbelievably stupid and riddled with more holes than swiss cheese, actually serves to validate the believers in their sacred position as enlightened fact finders, since the scared and less open-minded "sheeple" as they like to say are unwilling to fairly look at the facts..

Why should we cater to mindless speculation and ridiculous drawing of inferences like you have just done in post 278? It never ends. It's like an incredibly aggravating game of Whack-A-Mole.

[JimboDaMan]

I believe that if we are to assume that most people are reasonable and perhaps even mildly intelligent, the best way to discredit an idiotic idea or point of view is by explaining exactly why it is idiotic, rather than dismissing it altogether. An outright dismissal of something like this, even when you know the thing in question is unbelievably stupid and riddled with more holes than swiss cheese, actually serves to validate the believers in their sacred position as enlightened fact finders, since the scared and less open-minded "sheeple" as they like to say are unwilling to fairly look at the facts.

Obviously one could assume that someone would notice another who is saying "this is so unbelievably idiotic I'm not even going to waste my time watching it or explaining why it's stupid" and say to themselves "Wow, John is a smart guy and if he sees how ****ing dumb this thing is, it certainly must be, and it holds no credence with me"

I believe it goes more like this: John says: "this is so unbelievably idiotic I'm not even going to waste my time watching it or explaining why it's stupid"

The man looking on says "Wow, John must be afraid of finding out he's wrong or that this video asks valid questions, because he seems too afraid to even give it a chance to be wrong"

In other words, you say that it's bad to even give videos like this the credit of watching it, I say it's bad to give people who believe this stuff the impression that you're afraid and unwilling to watch it and explain why it's garbage.

n_p, you have an admirable faith in the ultimate rationality of your fellow man, one that I sadly am wholly lacking. I think there's a large percentage of conspiracy fans (and yes, they are "fans") who's belief is utterly impervious to your attempt at dissecting the issue. You are doomed from the start, the instant you say the "facebook things are inconclusive". That alone is sufficient to keep many a critical-thinking patriot warm these long winter months. It's not proof-positive of an enormous gubmint conspiracy, but it's proof enough.

[Jumbo]

I can go along with much of all that, No Pressure, but I pulled a few paragraphs that I think are less acceptable. The first two (quoted below) for drawing a sense of false equivalency by arguing there's "one side" that I'd contend doesn't exist in any meaningful degree in reality, whereas the "other side" is all too visible all too often.

Both sides of these sort of things disturb me greatly however. Whenever something like this is even talked about, there are always people who are all too willing to believe "facts" and conspiracy assumptions at face value, because they want to believe and they want there to have been a conspiracy. I'll let others try to figure out why one would actually want there to be a conspiracy: an inability to cope with an imperfect and disgusting reality, a massive distrust of the government, media, and authority, etc.

The other side is the people who are incapable of entertaining any alternative to the line of thought and fact which they have come to believe. They will admit our government is not benevolent, and has undoubtedly performed plenty of false-flag type operations which go far beyond the ones we are sure happened, such as the Gulf of Tonkin which enabled heavier involvement in Vietnam. There is an inability there to even discuss or review opposing arguments or viewpoints, dismissing anything which isn't the known truth as an idiotic pile of lies, without even examining just how idiotic the lie pile is. I think some of these people are afraid that if they take a look, they're going to find something disturbing, which isn't necessarily the case if you go at something even-keel.

You can have intelligent skepticism and critical thinking in near-instant rejection as commonly attached to such matters, whereas gullibility, paranoia, and suspension (or low ability level) of critical thinking is never properly qualified as equal to "intelligent thinking" in any typical use of the term.

These (most popular conspiracy theories) are not usually cases of "two extremes being much alike." That's a false claim. There's a burden to be able to identify whether a contention even meets basic criteria of being reasonably valid. "The Illuminati (specifically "them") run the White House", for instance, is something so stupid you can't reasonably, intelligently defend any form of credibility extended to it. Period. You can only do that if you're stupid.

You can have a very different conversation about how various powerful people and groups influence the administration, but even then you can't segue from that into any implied allowance for the "Illuminati" deal being anything other than stupid.

The next (below) draws false equivalency again, is also poorly formed and inaccurate in initial premise and then continues in that vein--

Things such as this video aren't something to be hated, feared, or celebrated. The existence of this video isn't inherently idiotic and moronic. Posing questions or an alternative view, crazy and conspiracy driven though it may be, is a necessary thing, just like blindly dismissing the video without watching it is as idiotic as blindly believing it after watching it. If you're going to dismiss it, this is how to do it since I watched it and it isn't very convincing.

Such videos are pretty much "hated" for self-indulgent and willful stupidity, quite properly, not feared (again, in any meaningful degree in terms of "number of people to whom it may apply). Their existence and defense is moronic AND idiotic (more on you as a poster on such issues and that, later). Posing stupid questions (like a conspiracy or hoax here) is never necessary or helpful or intelligently defensible.

Again, intelligent people are not "blindly" dismissing some matter that to them, as intelligent people, is obviously ridiculous from the start. If others either lack the native intelligence, or the emotional/psychological stability (I'll get to that later, too) to discern such, that's on them. And yes, an "intelligent person" can be wrong in a circumstance.

The very posing of a question like "Sandy Hook hoax?" should send of all the required alarm bells to an intelligent person (other than the intelligent but "mentally-unbalanced in some matters to some degree" person) just like "Illuminati run the White House." Implying these propositions in your paragraphs actually fits much of what's been really called under examination here, in what's actually been posted (as opposed to what some people may be "hearing" or misreading in their head), is projection, and is about the projector.

For all the "reasonable sounding" parts of your post, you are doing somewhat (being nice) of a rinse and repeat of what's already been described repeatedly---one who mixes (in your case, less extreme than others) some reality with still some notable degree deal of distorted perception and fuzzy thinking.

I made comment I would get back to your general posting on such matters (mainly what I would call "gun stuff") and, having been around gun nuts and "gun culture" to varying (usually significant) extents all my life (and really liking them myself), I have come to regard you as one of the reasonable-sounding-but-still-"out there" gun guys :pfft: who controls it and avoids coming off as some nutjob or "extremist."

Keep up the effort to reason. I will try, too.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 12:43 PM ----------

19 pages. Capped off by No_Pressure's 16,293 characters (no spaces) according to MS Word.

.

The tailgate has a history as long as its existence in having fun with "conspiracy" topics.

[Bang]

All you need to hear is

"the Gov't did it to.."

or "the gov't faked it to.."

Stop... and ask one simple question.

How many need to know?

You can easily discredit a conspiracy without hearing all of the ****amamie 'evidence'.

Conspiracies are ridiculously flimsy most of the time. Unfortunately, those who think it's possible make excuses fro the gigantic holes, rather than seeing them for the holes that sink the ship.

~BAng

[The Evil Genius]

The tailgate has a history as long as its existence in having fun with "conspiracy" topics.

Especially the ones about more important things, like Lost.

[No_Pressure]

You can have intelligent skepticism and critical thinking in near-instant rejection as commonly attached to such matters, whereas gullibility, paranoia, and suspension (or low ability level) of critical thinking is never properly qualified as equal to "intelligent thinking" in any typical use of the term.

These (most popular conspiracy theories) are not usually cases of "two extremes being much alike." That's a false claim. There's a burden to be able to identify whether a contention even meets basic criteria of being reasonably valid. "The Illuminati (specifically "them") run the White House", for instance, is something so stupid you can't reasonably, intelligently defend any form of credibility extended to it. Period. You can only do that if you're stupid.

Indeed, to believe a conspiracy- unsubstantiated and paranoia driven grand schemes of people who are "out to get you" you have to lack the typical intelligent reasoning that one should have in order to dismiss this as a load of crackpot garbage. You're correct. Perhaps I did a disservice by implying that they are equally dumb. I still think that any intelligent person who ignores looking at the stupidity is also doing a disservice, if not for the fact that monitoring such idiocy on a somewhat regular basis is a good way to remind ones self of the dangers which lurk in humanity around us, then for the fact that at various points in history entire populaces have been deceived by other groups, and if you don't take the brief 20 seconds it takes to confirm that this is yet another collection of crazy people spouting nonsense with the major events such as this, it is possible that one day something that actually has valid information will pass you by. Yes, in this case "Sandy Hook Hoax?" as a thread title really tells you all you need to know, and even 20 seconds of a video may be a complete waste of your time. I still think it's important to tell idiots why they're being idiots, whether you're playing whack-a-mole as predicto put it or not.

You can have a very different conversation about how various powerful people and groups influence the administration, but even then you can't segue from that into any implied allowance for the "Illuminati" deal being anything other than stupid.

We know illuminati conspiracies are a pile of crap, this current one is brand new. Sure the thread title screamed "crap alert!" in my brain, but I still gave the opposing crap argument the benefit of the doubt. It made it easier to explain why all the things they believe are crap. I majored in history, I have worked for a long time now to destroy pre-conceptions and favoritism of one belief until the body of research has allowed me to draw well supported conclusions. It's how I operate with things I face. Sure, there will always be pre-conceptions. I didn't need to read about how the Russian government fabricated the one world government Jewish conspiracies in about 1906 to know that the entire thing was full of ****. It just gave total validation to those feelings when I read up on the matter while plowing through Russian/Soviet historical discussions. In my experience you don't discredit something just by saying it's stupid. My last research paper required something like 25 sources and 90 citations to support that something was right or wrong, true or false, etc. Even if you don't have statistics and evidence to draw upon, logical reasoning and strong arguments can suffice in informal discussions. I don't think that it's wrong to say that this is something that should be discussed, and that the obvious conclusion that anyone with a brain will arrive at is that this conspiracy theory is retarded.

Such videos are pretty much "hated" for self-indulgent and willful stupidity, quite properly, not feared (again, in any meaningful degree in terms of "number of people to whom it may apply.' it's existence and defense is moronic AND idiotic (mote on you as a poster on such issues and that, later). Posing stupid questions (like a conspiracy or hoax here) is never necessary are helpful or intelligently defensible.

I think it's better to have things like this which allow the idiots to readily identify themselves to everyone else. I'd rather know who the morons are up front than sift through a person who is trying to hide how stupid they are.

For all the "reasonable sounding" parts of your post, you are doing somewhat (being nice) of a rinse and repeat of what's already been described repeatedly---one who mixes (in your case, less extreme than others) some reality with still some notable degree deal of distorted perception and fuzzy thinking.

Where did I say in my post that any part of this conspiracy theory is true? I'm pretty sure everything I said was about how the "evidence" in that video doesn't show that there is some grand conspiracy going on. It's a collection of confused, ratings driven media idiocies, a guy who couldn't get his story straight but isn't necessarily wrong, websites which were used as evidence that do not exist in the form in which they were pictured and likely doctored to appear as, ridicule for people who aren't grieving the way someone expects them to- whatever the hell that is, a medical examiner whose interview was chopped up and edited like crazy to give the appearance that he was not answering questions and behaving suspiciously when it was quite the opposite, and other wild unsubstantiated crap. If you want to imply that I'm somehow trying to hide the fact that I actually believe this crap, go right ahead, you did the same thing with whatever you think I believe about guns/gun control. I can't change whatever your perception of me is but for the record, this conspiracy theory is a bunch of insane bull**** and you have to be an idiot to believe it. Gun control is meh, I don't think it would serve much of a positive purpose, but I don't exactly fear that the government is coming to get me or that I need to own guns because it's the only thing staving off a comm-a-nist takeover. I have guns for the same reason I have 3 German helmets, 2 American helmets, zeiss field glasses from an artillery spotter, a few MG42 barrel carrying cases, and numerous other pieces of militaria which were carried by the Americans, British, Germans, Russians, Japanese, etc. during WW2. I have a shotgun because it's fun to watch clay pigeons explode in the air, and every year my friends and family have a tournament where we pass around a trophy to the winner.

I guess it doesn't matter since you've already made up your mind, but whatever dude.

I made comment I would get back to your general posting on such matters (mainly what I would call 'gun stuff") and having been around gun nuts and "gun culture" to varying (usually significant) extents all my life (and really liking them myself) I have come to regard you as one of the reasonable-sounding-but-still-"out there" gun guys :pfft: who "controls it" <where's me damn grin smiley> and avoids coming off as some nutjob or "extremist." Keep up the effort to reason. I will try, too.

As I said above, I'm not nutty about it, I know lots of ****ing nutjobs and they make me uncomfortable to say the least. I have a collection of WW2 rifles, a shotgun, and a couple of others. I'm not concerned with using guns against the evil government who is coming to take them away, I like the bulk of my collection because I can tell you where it was made, where it was likely sent in combat, what the markings and numbers mean, they're pitted and marked with the signs of combat from an era which is of incredible interest to me. You know how many times I fired these things last year? It was fewer than I could count on one hand, an all time low. I sold a couple of the non-historic ones that I had bought for fun in years past because I had no use for them and they were collecting dust. I have a shotgun because I discovered skeet shooting is extremely fun. If a law is passed tomorrow saying that the 2nd amendment is no longer valid and the state passes a law banning the ownership of all firearms you know what I'm going to do? Keep these things locked up in a cabinet forever. If someone were to try and collect them from me (which would never ever happen) I'd ask for fair compensation and that the WW2 ones get sent somewhere where they won't be destroyed because they're pieces of history and I'm like Indiana Jones when it comes to that "IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!" and such.

Oh and saying I'm probably someone who "controls it" and is just good at hiding that I'm some crazy gun nut is making the same types of assumptions idiots who believe in conspiracy theories are making. You're reading something that isn't there and is beyond what I'm actually saying and what the truth is. Stop seeing things that aren't there, and believing I'm a certain type of person based off a feeling you have.

[Jumbo]

NP, without challenging some of the more tempting elements of your response <I really miss my grin smiley > and I always love a heartfelt "whatever, dude" :pfft:, but I think you did read some of my commentary as being harsher towards your posting than meant, and that's fine.

BTW, I think, your remark seeing things that aren't there (and projection is only one form of that) is always a good thing for anyone to consider and is often a player in communication.

If it helps, I don't think you're some nut (if I didn't state that clearly enough). My remark on control was in the same spirit I control some my strongly held leanings (meaning making overstatements in a serious tone due to some passing emotional element). I still sometimes miss that goal.

However, I am not entirely sold on your overall stability. :pfft:

<kidding>

:no:

:yes:

:no:

:yes:

:no:

:yes:

[No_Pressure]

NP, you read some of my stuff as being harsher towards you than meant, but no problem.

It read with the tone that you think I actually believe these crackpot morons to some extent, and that you think I'm also a closet gun nut who is trying to present himself as something else. What exactly should I have read that as if you don't mind my asking?

[Jumbo]

It read with the tone that you think I actually believe these crackpot morons to some extent, and that you think I'm also a closet gun nut who is trying to present himself as something else. What exactly should I have read that as if you don't mind my asking?

See edited reply, above, and I have to go back to the paying gig (where "feelings" are such a big factor).

[DjTj]

And now starting in center field for your Washington Nationals ... Denard Span! :doh:

@thisisdspan

I was watching some controversial stuff on YouTube about the sandy hooks thing today! It really makes u think and wonder

http://deadspin.com/5976532/those-goddamn-sandy-hook-truthers-got-their-hooks-in-denard-span

https://twitter.com/thisisdspan/status/291634671190695936

@thisisdspan

All I said was that watching the stuff made u wonder and think.. That is all.

https://twitter.com/thisisdspan/status/291646898236952576

@thisisdspan

The negatives about twitter... Smh.

https://twitter.com/thisisdspan/status/291648025934307330

@thisisdspan

Well so much for an innocent comment. I'm gonna enjoy the rest of my day! #youdontknowme

https://twitter.com/thisisdspan/status/291649770546675714

@thisisdspan

For the record if I truly offended anybody, I AM TRULY SORRY! I'm not in the business of hurting people. I'm ok twitter to have a good time

https://twitter.com/thisisdspan/status/291655905173458946

[No_Pressure]

See edited reply, above, and I have to go back to the paying gig (where "feelings" are such a big factor).

What, and I'm supposed to take this crap from some guy who probably thinks we actually landed on the moon?!?!?

:nana:

[s0crates]

All you need to hear is

"the Gov't did it to.."

or "the gov't faked it to.."

Stop... and ask one simple question.

How many need to know?

While I agree that this video and the theory the government was involved in Sandy Hook is very flimsy, I disagree with this line of reasoning.

To simply reject all "conspiracy theories" a priori based on this assumption that too many people would know and somebody would talk is fallacious.

There are several reasons for this:

-Governments can and do keep big secrets. How many needed to know about the Manhatten project? Yet it was successfully kept a secret via compartmentalization and distribution of information on a "need to know" basis. Government and intelligence does this sort of thing with state secrets all the time. A more accurate question would be: Who needs to know what?

-There is usually very strong incentive not to blow the whistle on cover-ups and state secrets (whether it be threats to career, credibility, family, criminal prosecution, etc).

-Some people actually do emerge from the woodwork and blow the whistle on cover-ups anyway, with varying degrees of success.

None of this is to defend the outlandish Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, it is simply to say that this method of dismissing all conspiracy theories based on the a priori assumption that somebody would talk is fundamentally flawed.

EDIT: Just to make myself very clear: I can (and in this case do) agree with somebody's conclusion while also disagreeing with the logic they used to arrive at it.

[KDawg]

And now starting in center field for your Washington Nationals ... Denard Span! :doh:

He did say it made him think and wonder. I don't think that's worth getting too riled up about. I like the way he handled the responses as well. He's a good guy to have representing the Nationals. If he believed it, then maybe he isn't all that bright, but that doesn't mean he's not a good guy, just gullible. But we don't know if he believed it, people read entirely too much into things

[Bang]

While I agree that this video and the theory the government was involved in Sandy Hook is very flimsy, I disagree with this line of reasoning.

To simply reject all "conspiracy theories" a priori based on this assumption that too many people would know and somebody would talk is fallacious.

There are several reasons for this:

-Governments can and do keep big secrets. How many needed to know about the Manhatten project? Yet it was successfully kept a secret via compartmentalization and distribution of information on a "need to know" basis. Government and intelligence does this sort of thing with state secrets all the time. A more accurate question would be: Who needs to know what?

-There is usually very strong incentive not to blow the whistle on cover-ups and state secrets (whether it be threats to career, credibility, family, criminal prosecution, etc).

-Some people actually do emerge from the woodwork and blow the whistle on cover-ups anyway, with varying degrees of success.

None of this is to defend the outlandish Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, it is simply to say that this method of dismissing all conspiracy theories based on the a priori assumption that somebody would talk is fundamentally flawed.

Well, i know governments can keep big secrets, and something like the Manhattan project was a military project during wartime.. and the best way to pull off the project was for no one to know about it. Everyone involved was fully on board on the agenda, which was to defeat Japan.

As far as conspiracies go, keeping people in the dark is a LOT easier than a big highly visible plot like the massacre of a kindergarten class.

To do this, your onion layer method of security gets harder to manage, because there's a lot more people who need to be involved directly.

Which exponentially increases your chances that someone gets squeamish.

Not everyone involved in this particular type of plot (or a 9/11 plot, or any other of the loon plots that we've been bombarded with) can be a special forces person or government agent. there will have to be some cooperation from locals.

Trying to melt Castro's mustache, surreptitious overthrows, these shadow ops are different.. shadowy things can be kept secret.. the number of involved can be completely controlled.

Not so in something like this. Knowing we've likely done awful things elsewhere, this is home soil. Plausible deniability is not enough to try this.

the second question asked is risk / gain.

If the gov't (assume:" high level secret cabal headed by the President" ) did this, they gain the CHANCE to bring up legislation against some forms of guns. They possibly change some minds and gain support for a gun control bill. This is what we're told.

the risk: going down as one of history's greatest monsters if one person can't keep their yap shut.

Which brings question 3:

No matter how much we like to pretend otherwise,, are they really THAT stupid?

Of course not.

~Bang

[zoony]

Wow.

265+ posts in this thread; many of which are going in circles with "I'm just asking an honest question" to "here's the answer to your question, with links, dumbass" to "I'm just asking the EXACT SAME honest, patriotic question." Un-****ing-believable.

Perusing through this thread on a work break was a serious mistake on my part because the common sense and logical discernment that has failed to be employed on the part of so many posters in here is not only exasperating, but very concerning, to be completely honest.

Here's the deal, if you have failed to grasp the correct, hoax-refuting answers so kindly given to you by Bang, Corcaigh, Predicto, Dan, Jumbo and other kind posters in this thread who clearly have a much higher patience threshold than do I (bless your hearts guys, seriously, I don't know how you do it), you can place yourself in the "dumbass" column. Period. Stop saying anyone is "jumping" on you or throwing vitriolic posts your way or not allowing you to have a say in this debate. This is NOT even a debate, it's pure stupidity being batted down left and right by the Mother Teresa-patience level containing posters of this board

There ARE actually several intelligent discussions that can be had in relation to this topic, the most prominent of which probably being accuracy of news reporting during the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. Another side topic could be the level of immorality displayed by many of those in government (which no poster in here is refuting, but to jump from that fact and automatically apply it to this tragedy is again, "dumbassry"). Unfortunately, I have seen very few posts in this thread attempting to broach those subjects in even a minimally intelligent way.

.

:flowers:

[s0crates]

I appreciate the response Bang, and I do not disagree with much of it. It was the post I was replying to that I disagreed with.

The earlier post seemed to rule out black ops a priori, however now that you have amended/clarified you view to allow for the possibility of shadowy covert ops, I no longer have much to disagree with.

[Jumbo]

We're now well into the phase where people will not only arrive late to the thread and not read it all, but often won't even read the last few pages, and thus we will simply engage in that hoary tradition of looping/repeating the same points and counterpoints on several different themes.

With that, and since I'm needed to help consult on the script for reactions to our "finding of actual proof of extraterrestrial life" during our planned "2020 mars landing", we'll put this one to bed.

[zoony]

We're now well into the phase where people will not only arrive late to the thread and not read it all, but often won't even read the last few pages, and thus we will simply engage in that hoary tradition of looping/repeating the same points and counterpoints on several different themes.

With that, and since I'm needed to help consult on the script for reactions to our "finding of actual proof of extraterrestrial life" during our planned "2020 mars landing", we'll put this one to bed.

Illuminati censorship!

Lets reopen this. Some people just have questions, that's all. Including me. I have a question. Why was the Facebook memorial set up before the shooting?