Professor claims Sandy Hook massacre 'may not have happened' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Av7A;39181093]How dare you guys feed this obvious conspiracy theorist. Look at the grief. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlbMKlK-SIA[/media] Now look at it again with out the cut. (Excuse the bias title of the video) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFghciyKDiA[/media] Is that not really odd? Questionable? Now you may argue he was an attorney or someone they knew who could talk about the story and the parents grief for them- but he starts off by saying he is the father and he lost his son. I hate to have to add to this, but seeing people just throw all question out the window is frustrating to watch. There is legitimately something wrong with this over all story. Be it snippets of interviews or just inconsistencies like the fire arms used. It doesn't feel "complete" [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZQ3hPcxdQA]Or even this guy[/url][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alp64daGTSo]; he is just weird.[/url] He has a few inconsistencies, but even with those forgiven he says some weird statements like "It was that-(Reporter says the name) It was that very pretty twenty seven year old teacher" That to me is just so out of place. In my mind, I have set this guy aside in my head and just labelled him as probably a bit crazy- but hes a psychiatrist. He deals with mental health. Then there is the two arrests, and only one man is charged. The second man was the man seen running through the forest with police on his tail. Why was he running? Why isn't he being talked about? No News cooperation are talking about him- I'd like to think its out of privacy if he wasn't associated to the shooting. But that feels like a stretch, we know what the media does, and they do not care who's lives they ruin in the pursuit of a story. For instance, look at that poor kid on Facebook who shared the name of the shooter; they kept showing pictures of him and saying he murdered these kids long after he was making posts on his Facebook and twitter about not being the person. I didn't even think about this shooting and the parts of it until I watched a video last night ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_b9hh2lp3I]Here[/url]) showcasing the odd behaviours of the people involved as well as all the inconsistencies of the information. As well yes, that video is packed full of conspiracy bullshit- namely the "This isn't what grief looks like" argument. But even this video and its parts have enough to make me ask questions. I think you guys should ask the questions too; actually view the content of the arguments.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent-process_theory[/url] basic psychology bro both of the funerals I've been to have involved me crying during the funeral service and laughing and telling jokes in between.

Blatantly staged. It's an excuse for the government to remove guns from the nation. They argue guns are uneeded, but guns have helped more than hindered. It's just reported more when guns are used negatively. Who knows why the gov. want guns gone, but I would theorize they could then take a totalitarian turn once the populace were unarmed as there would be nothing anyone could do.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;39197221]Blatantly staged. It's an excuse for the government to remove guns from the nation. They argue guns are uneeded, but guns have helped more than hindered. It's just reported more when guns are used negatively. Who knows why the gov. want guns gone, but I would theorize they could then take a totalitarian turn once the populace were unarmed as there would be nothing anyone could do.[/QUOTE] because the $700,000,000,000/year military isn't already enough to win that battle lol [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39188298][url]http://www.henrymakow.com/is-this-deceased-emilie-parker.html[/url] [url]http://usahitman.com/apwdepfv/[/url] not fantastic sources and probably grasping at straws with the freemason stuff but you can't really argue with the pictures.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://metabunk.org/threads/1054-Debunked-Emily-Parker-Still-Alive-after-Sandy-Hook"]boop[/URL]

[QUOTE=Glitchman;39180168]The most simple answer is probably the actual answer, which is a guy went nuts and shot a bunch of people. The amount of resources it takes to stage something like this, or 9/11, has tons of factors that have to work out just to make it seem like the event wasn't staged at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't question facts presented to us, but you can't just assume everything is a crazy conspiracy. You have to trust probability.[/QUOTE] it doesnt take a lot of resources to stage something like this, just sayin

[QUOTE=Keys;39193807]Because there is likely going to be a massive spout of hysteria and civil unrest in the coming future for at least the United States. What better way to ensure your continuation of power than to remove weapons from the civilian hands. And what better way to do that than to fool the public into believing weapons are the root of all evil. Instead of trying to forcefully take the weapons from them, so they cannot shoot you, you simply scare them into giving them to you themselves.[/quote] source: infowars [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;39197221]Blatantly staged. It's an excuse for the government to remove guns from the nation. They argue guns are uneeded, but guns have helped more than hindered. It's just reported more when guns are used negatively. Who knows why the gov. want guns gone, but I would theorize they could then take a totalitarian turn once the populace were unarmed as there would be nothing anyone could do.[/QUOTE] source???

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39197109][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent-process_theory[/url] basic psychology bro both of the funerals I've been to have involved me crying during the funeral service and laughing and telling jokes in between.[/QUOTE] Shh, don't say the "p" word around paranoid schizophrenics.

[QUOTE=prooboo;39181733]Why is facepunch so liberal about everything but gun control?[/QUOTE] I've always found it strange that gun control was considered a liberal thing and not a conservative one. Many liberals want to open up drugs to some extent, and some even think prostitution should be allowed as well, but guns? NOPE. Then there are things like video game violence, where some people from each group want to ban it, while others don't. I guess what it boils down to is that left-right is too simple, and that a more 2-dimensional range is needed (like this one: [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Political_chart.svg"]2-dimensional political spectrum[/URL] - up-down denotes social policy, while left-right denotes more of the economic policy). I don't know, it's all very confusing. I suppose what it's really about is control: left-leaning politicians generally want more government control, not less, (even though they seek to open up other potentially dangerous situations) and weed and prostitutes don't pose any real threat to that... but guns (and more importantly, their owners) do. Police should defend people's homes, not armed home owners. Animal Control should remove pests from farms, not the farmers themselves. Hunters should get their food the same place everyone else does and not be out there getting their own food. This is the mentality that seems to follow gun control in the left. Personally, I am Canadian, and I have nothing but respect for our healthcare system, for allowing gay marriage and abortion, for religious freedom, for reasonable immigration, and hell, I think we would probably benefit from legalizing weed and prostitution in the long run. I am definitely more socially left than right. But gun control? I don't see the point. I don't understand why everyone wants the government to look after all of our needs... I like having it as an option, but given the choice, there are some things I prefer to take care of myself. Example: recently, the government has been banning all kinds of foods in schools, even colleges and universities. I couldn't get fries at my own college. I'm 24 years old. I think I can be an adult about it and decide for myself whether or not I should eat fries. But nope, government decided that one for me. There is a long list of other things they have decided for me, and despite my left leanings I have a hard time reconciling any of it. On one hand I'm glad there are people looking out for me, but on the other I feel like I'm being treated like a baby who can't think for myself, and that kind of shit is exactly the reason I left the church and religion behind.

I remember when the shooting first happened and news reporters were talking about a second shooter being put in to custody and nothing has been said since then? They could at least say they had the wrong information but zip since then.

Well if it was on gun control the economy is helped by the fact of panic buying of ammo and guns.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;39200721]I remember when the shooting first happened and news reporters were talking about a second shooter being put in to custody and nothing has been said since then? They could at least say they had the wrong information but zip since then.[/QUOTE] I did hear a little bit about the second guy, who was his brother and they quickly found out he had nothing to do with it. I saw it on CNN but they hit it quick and got the fuck out of there. Admitting their mistakes is not something they do often or with any grace.

Well, the government did crash two planes into the World Trade Center, so we know they're capable of doing anything evil.

the amount of bureaucracy required to stage this would ensure someone would leak This isn't like when a commanding officer in the military orders his deployed troops to massacre a village and cover it up, because that can be done without permission/bureaucracy. The amount of effort to stage this would require so many various departments/agencies there is no way you would get them all to agree to it.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39201394]the amount of bureaucracy required to stage this would ensure someone would leak This isn't like when a commanding officer in the military orders his deployed troops to massacre a village and cover it up, because that can be done without permission/bureaucracy. The amount of effort to stage this would require so many various departments/agencies there is no way you would get them all to agree to it.[/QUOTE]A Commanding officer in the military did order his soldiers to massacre a village once. And it got out with a serious back lash. To paraphrase Penn and Teller, our government couldn't cover up a break in to the DNC Headquarters from two reporters.

[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;39182755][img]http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/james-holmes1.jpg[/img] More fuel to the conspiracy fire! What do you guys think about this? If the pics were better quality, I'd be convinced but now it's not too easy to tell if they are the same person or if they just look alike.[/QUOTE] Well are you also saying that the cinema massacre is also lies from Government to?

I don't think this professor is really a professor. I mean, if he is, why have I never seen his degree?

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39178449]with most conspiracy theorists circular reasoning, you can instantly attack anything you feel like "I don't believe WW2 happened, there isn't enough proof" "I don't believe gravity happened, there isn't enough proof"[/QUOTE] you're probably the least intelligent human. I'm willing to be millions of pogs.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39202822]you're probably the least intelligent human. I'm willing to be millions of pogs.[/QUOTE] why he's right lol the guy just ignores any proof and if there's any he can't ignore "the government did it" have you ever even seen a conspiracy theory before lol

Can't you guys just give up your firearms already so that your government doesn't have to keep killing innocent civilians?? [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] You're all MURDERERS

This professor raises some pretty good questions, and there are definitely inconsistencies in the story, not just based on how the media reported it, but on what was effectively caught on camera. How did all of the children get shot by an assault rifle that was recovered after the shooting from the trunk of the shooters car, is a perfectly acceptable question. Why is the supposed father of a shooting victim so nonchalant before the cameras are on him and why does he have to force himself to cry to give his speech? It should never be discouraged to ask questions, especially on something as important as a tragic event that is currently being used as a crutch to ban "assault rifles" here in America, which would be the only weapon truly effective in fighting a tyrannical government here in the states. I don't understand in the slightest how some of you can complain that there's not enough evidence to support a theory, and then in the same paragraph, assert with that same lack of evidence your own conclusions. One more question. What does the professor have to gain from asking these tough questions publicly?

Like, everything you just brought up was already addressed earlier in the thread. The professor is just a lunatic conspiracy theorist the same as every single other one of them.

Where is the source? I can't even find it on Google just more news sites quoting each other. I think I found it, from his blog presumably [url]http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/12/24/the-sandy-hook-massacre-unanswered-questions-and-missing-information/[/url] People should at least read it before forming a final opinion.

[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39203652]This professor raises some pretty good questions[/QUOTE] Questions such as, " What kind of sorry state is our mental health system in that people actually believe this shit makes sense."

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39196897] [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] "why there were no photos of a mass evacuation of the school." [URL="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=sandy+hook+victim+family&oq=sandy+hook+victim+family&gs_l=news-cc.3...478.2187.0.2284.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac.1."]srsly what[/URL] [b]All I see are memorials TO the family. Nothing about the families themselves. Just saying, if you're going to prove something- Don't just do a 5 second search and post your results.[/b] [/QUOTE] ---- [QUOTE=Venezuelan;39197109][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent-process_theory[/url] basic psychology bro both of the funerals I've been to have involved me crying during the funeral service and laughing and telling jokes in between.[/QUOTE] Yeah dude, I guess. I just see too much "happy" in the initial few seconds of him being on film. It just seems fake, but then i'm looking for it so I guess its like they say.. "If you're looking for it, you're bound to find it." But its also like I said, when my family lost my cousin last year we were all pretty devastated. We were joking lightheartedly about memories and events in life, but nothing as hard as full on robust laughing like he was doing. And his shift from happy to sad was so sudden. I don't remember seeing any of that at my funeral. Again, light-hearted jokes, but everyone still had burden in their face. He doesn't initially, and the breathing to control himself. Just seems a little off, that's all i'm saying. TBH I don't know what to think, but I'm willing to give all options an even chance. The Gov't (if they're as evil as the conspiracists(?) say. And more so the people who operate the Gov't more than the Gov't itself...) has plenty of reason to stage this sort of stuff. Subtle manipulation to keep a distinct few in power and the wool pulled over the eyes of many- Many who often take what is given to them at face value, instead of seriously contemplating the details and the world around them.

[QUOTE=Keys;39204094]---- Yeah dude, I guess. I just see too much "happy" in the initial few seconds of him being on film. It just seems fake, but then i'm looking for it so I guess its like they say.. "If you're looking for it, you're bound to find it." But its also like I said, when my family lost my cousin last year we were all pretty devastated. We were joking lightheartedly about memories and events in life, but nothing as hard as full on robust laughing like he was doing. And his shift from happy to sad was so sudden. I don't remember seeing any of that at my funeral. Again, light-hearted jokes, but everyone still had burden in their face. He doesn't initially, and the breathing to control himself. Just seems a little off, that's all i'm saying. TBH I don't know what to think, but I'm willing to give all options an even chance. The Gov't (if they're as evil as the conspiracists(?) say. And more so the people who operate the Gov't more than the Gov't itself...) has plenty of reason to stage this sort of stuff. Subtle manipulation to keep a distinct few in power and the wool pulled over the eyes of many- Many who often take what is given to them at face value, instead of seriously contemplating the details and the world around them.[/QUOTE] Nobody's questioning the possible motivations, we're questing how the government could be both so insanely powerful that they can convince hundreds of actors, including children, to fake national tragedy and never say a word, and yet somehow was so incompetent they sent a "dead" actor to do a photo shoot with the president. If this was a fictional story, it would be critically panned for being too unrealistic to suspend disbelief. Not to mention that they would have gone the infinitely easier route of actually having someone shoot up the school for them. Like I said earlier, if you believe this, you ought to believe pretty much every single other conspiracy theory since most of them make more sense than this one.

[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39203652]This professor raises some pretty good questions, and there are definitely inconsistencies in the story, not just based on how the media reported it, but on what was effectively caught on camera. How did all of the children get shot by an assault rifle that was recovered after the shooting from the trunk of the shooters car, is a perfectly acceptable question. Why is the supposed father of a shooting victim so nonchalant before the cameras are on him and why does he have to force himself to cry to give his speech? It should never be discouraged to ask questions, especially on something as important as a tragic event that is currently being used as a crutch to ban "assault rifles" here in America, which would be the only weapon truly effective in fighting a tyrannical government here in the states. I don't understand in the slightest how some of you can complain that there's not enough evidence to support a theory, and then in the same paragraph, assert with that same lack of evidence your own conclusions. One more question. What does the professor have to gain from asking these tough questions publicly?[/QUOTE] Assuming that our government is powerful, I think that they wouldn't handle the incident in a sloppy manner. Why would you leave the the AR15 in the car instead of school? Why would they bother hiring bad and similar actors when they are powerful enough to have multiple amounts of people? The government isn't known for conducting anything last minute.

[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39203652]It should never be discouraged to ask questions, especially on something as important as a tragic event that is currently being used as a crutch to ban "assault rifles" here in America, which would be the only weapon truly effective in fighting a tyrannical government here in the states. I don't understand in the slightest how some of you can complain that there's not enough evidence to support a theory, and then in the same paragraph, assert with that same lack of evidence your own conclusions. [/QUOTE] I'd like to posit that the primary reason the government doesn't get shit done is because of the rest of the government, not the people. A tyrannical rule over the average citizens wouldn't really help much.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39202861]why he's right lol the guy just ignores any proof and if there's any he can't ignore "the government did it" have you ever even seen a conspiracy theory before lol[/QUOTE] maybe you should have actually read the article and not just the headline. it's pretty clear what the guy is trying to say. he's not suggesting that those 28 dead people don't exist, he's suggesting that some kid didn't just lose it and kill 28 people and himself for no reason. numerous noteworthy people have theorized and even claimed that the U.S government uses mentally ill people to strike fear in society. brainwashing them in mental health facilities and such. fear is a commodity for them. something like the sandy hook shooting only benefits them, whether or not they had anything to do with it. keep blindly believing everything the government tells you and the U.S will be city 17 in a decade.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39210361]maybe you should have actually read the article and not just the headline. it's pretty clear what the guy is trying to say. he's not suggesting that those 28 dead people don't exist, he's suggesting that some kid didn't just lose it and kill 28 people and himself for no reason. numerous noteworthy people have theorized and even claimed that the U.S government uses mentally ill people to strike fear in society. brainwashing them in mental health facilities and such. fear is a commodity for them. something like the sandy hook shooting only benefits them, whether or not they had anything to do with it. keep blindly believing everything the government tells you and the U.S will be city 17 in a decade.[/QUOTE] I did read the article, he's still an idiot and so are you. also city 17? much closer to Oceania

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39210361]keep blindly believing everything the government tells you and the U.S will be city 17 in a decade.[/QUOTE] i dont think the united states will become a generic former soviet republic ruled by aliens

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39210850]I did read the article, he's still an idiot and so are you. also city 17? much closer to Oceania[/QUOTE] I love sharing a planet with cowardly little insects that are too fragile to open their eyes for a split second and look at the world around them.