Professor claims Sandy Hook massacre 'may not have happened'
236 replies, posted
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39218486]I'm doubting his claim that security is any different than that at other high security installations... it simply isn't.[/QUOTE]
most that I'm aware of have secure, unbreachable perimeters as opposed to a white truck and a sniper rifle. I'm not saying ''ooooooh white truck, must be spooky aliens''. I'm just saying it's kind of odd and that's why people find it interesting.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218488]some people find woody allen's movies interesting. that doesn't make them mentally ill, that just makes them stupid.[/QUOTE]First of all, if you'd made the comparison to something that were a hobby and not just a topic of pure entertainment, that would work better. But even then, those fall in to specific fields, and those don't tend towards coming up with wild ideas about their subject. Those are about the study and appreciation of their subject matter.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218518]most that I'm aware of have secure, unbreachable perimeters as opposed to a white truck and a sniper rifle. I'm not saying ''ooooooh white truck, must be spooky aliens''. I'm just saying it's kind of odd and that's why people find it interesting.[/QUOTE]Considering how massive the installation is, its hard to just erect a fence and call it secure. It has to be monitored and it has to be well secured, especially for an important installation.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39218537]First of all, if you'd made the comparison to something that were a hobby and not just a topic of pure entertainment, that would work better. But even then, those fall in to specific fields, and those don't tend towards coming up with wild ideas about their subject. Those are about the study and appreciation of their subject matter.[/QUOTE]
do I really have to explain the analogy? some people are interested in things that aren't very interesting, that doesn't make them lunatics.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218416]
I don't see where that logic comes from, because if we assume they ARE responsible then their plan is working completely flawlessly at the moment.[/QUOTE]Except the "evidence" is things like photos of the same "actor" playing two different roles, or someone who's supposed to be dead taking a picture of the president. You think they'd be able to manage their secret child FEMA actors a little better.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39218537]First of all, if you'd made the comparison to something that were a hobby and not just a topic of pure entertainment, that would work better. But even then, those fall in to specific fields, and those don't tend towards coming up with wild ideas about their subject. Those are about the study and appreciation of their subject matter.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
Considering how massive the installation is, its hard to just erect a fence and call it secure. It has to be monitored and it has to be well secured, especially for an important installation.[/QUOTE]
-_- you should really stop trying to debate something with me that I don't even disagree with. you explaining why it's like that doesn't change the fact that it's unusual. people think it's weird, end of story. they're not mentally ill, they just don't have a particularly large amount of knowledge on the subject.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;39218588]Except the "evidence" is things like photos of the same "actor" playing two different roles, or someone who's supposed to be dead taking a picture of the president.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck did you even just say
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218553]do I really have to explain the analogy? some people are interested in things that aren't very interesting, that doesn't make them lunatics.[/QUOTE]Your analogy was crap. And I already addressed the rest of your post in the post you quoted. Any interest in Groom Lake as a hobby would either be based in the broader subjects of Aviation, Military (which I accidentally left out), History, or the study of conspiracy theories in the context of Sociology. Actually obsessing and making conspiracy theories over it however is neurosis.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39218610]Your analogy was crap. And I already addressed the rest of your post in the post you quoted. Any interest in Groom Lake as a hobby would either be based in the broader subjects of Aviation, Military (which I accidentally left out), History, or the study of conspiracy theories in the context of Sociology. Actually obsessing and making conspiracy theories over it however is neurosis.[/QUOTE]
you think mentioning something in a conversation is a hobby?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218634]you think mentioning something in a conversation is a hobby?[/QUOTE]You brought up the idea of people taking a particular and specific interest in a subject matter. IE: A hobby.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39203892]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.[/QUOTE]
Like, everything you just said, is offensive. You labeling him as a "lunatic conspiracy theorist" and rating my comment dumb in the same go proves your inability to debate with facts and logic and instead resort to petty name calling and snide retort. If the entire world consisted of people like you, authority would go unchecked and the world would be a much darker place. Instead of attempting to shut down an argument without considering both sides, perhaps you should do a little bit of investigative research and try to understand why someone would reach this conclusion rather than immediately dismiss it as nonfactual conspiracy theories.
It takes effort to indulge yourself in actual investigation; it takes willful ignorance to instead dismiss the argument all together without any actual perspective.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39218662]You brought up the idea of people taking a particular and specific interest in a subject matter. IE: A hobby.[/QUOTE]
uuuh, no. you said ''its just that the people that make a big deal about it and act like its genuinely something worth mentioning at any point are lunatics''. which is an extremely obtuse statement, and the only thing I've debated at all is that you don't have to be mentally ill to interest in anything. people have had conversations about far less interesting topics throughout the course of history. many of them being completely sane. and the analogy is, woody allen makes the same generic as fuck movie every 5 years and thousands of completely sane people rant and rave about how great it is, so how does your logic stand in such a society?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218590]The fuck did you even just say[/QUOTE]
Have you even been reading this thread? This guy thinks they had a bunch of actors working for the government pretending to be other people.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;39218752]Have you even been reading this thread? This guy thinks they had a bunch of actors working for the government pretending to be other people.[/QUOTE]
the professor thinks that? no I didn't read that but it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39218716]Like, everything you just said, is offensive. You labeling him as a "lunatic conspiracy theorist" and rating my comment dumb in the same go proves your inability to debate with facts and logic and instead resort to petty name calling and snide retort. If the entire world consisted of people like you, authority would go unchecked and the world would be a much darker place. Instead of attempting to shut down an argument without considering both sides, perhaps you should do a little bit of investigative research and try to understand why someone would reach this conclusion rather than immediately dismiss it as nonfactual conspiracy theories.
It takes effort to indulge yourself in actual investigation; it takes willful ignorance to instead dismiss the argument all together without any actual perspective.[/QUOTE]
Hah, you are hilarious. He is a lunatic conspiracy theorist. The claims he tried to raise, and those you tried to raise, had already been addressed previously in the thread which you apparently failed to read. He makes wild and unfounded claims about the event, as well as others, and tries to pass them off as reasonable. There is nothing to debate here, its a fool talking to himself as he walks down the road of neurosis. He isn't questioning it, he's taking tiny dubious inconsistencies in the media coverage of the event and making them out to be evidence of a grand plot. That is patently ridiculous. I've looked in to it, I've checked the details, and he is off his tit. Get over it. People like him pervert the scientific method and make a mockery of it and as someone who greatly values the scientific method, it offends me.
Also, people like me make a pretty sizeable group. People like the professor here are a tiny minority. So if the mystical authority were to make the world some Orwellian nightmare fever dream, it would have happened quite some time ago.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39218734]uuuh, no. you said ''its just that the people that make a big deal about it and act like its genuinely something worth mentioning at any point are lunatics''. which is an extremely obtuse statement, and the only thing I've debated at all is that you don't have to be mentally ill to interest in anything. people have had conversations about far less interesting topics throughout the course of history. many of them being completely sane. and the analogy is, woody allen makes the same generic as fuck movie every 5 years and thousands of completely sane people rant and rave about how great it is, so how does your logic stand in such a society?[/QUOTE]First of all, thanks for returning some of the proper context to that statement instead of cutting it short to make a convenient point. You still left a lot out, but its a bit better. Second, Woody Allen movies exist as pure entertainment and are presented with the specific purpose of being watched and enjoyed by a group of people, where as Groom Lake is not and a particular interest in it would fall in to the realm of a hobby. But to go back to my statement, that entire statement was about people making Groom Lake out to be a big deal on a grand scheme or as something of importance to the American populace as a whole particularly in connection with the ideas of government plots and the like. It is lunatic. Its neurotic. Its possessed by paranoia and fear.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39218865]Hah, you are hilarious. He is a lunatic conspiracy theorist. The claims he tried to raise, and those you tried to raise, had already been addressed previously in the thread which you apparently failed to read. He makes wild and unfounded claims about the event, as well as others, and tries to pass them off as reasonable. There is nothing to debate here, its a fool talking to himself as he walks down the road of neurosis. He isn't questioning it, he's taking tiny dubious inconsistencies in the media coverage of the event and making them out to be evidence of a grand plot. That is patently ridiculous. I've looked in to it, I've checked the details, and he is off his tit. Get over it. People like him pervert the scientific method and make a mockery of it and as someone who greatly values the scientific method, it offends me.[/QUOTE]
You claiming to value the scientific method and then stopping an investigation at it's hypothesis is an insult of it's own. I can understand your stance, but your ability to debate without being snide and offensive is poor at best. It's easy to fall in line, and difficult to venture down the path less taken. You take a risk of being called a "lunatic conspiracy theorist" simply because you had enough courage to question the events going on in the world around you, even though there are gaping inconsistencies in the story; not just ones caused by poor media coverage.
People need to ask more of these questions in today's world though, I'm afraid. If you've been paying the slightest bit of attention, our government has been the source of a lot of conspiracy recently. And if you don't think any of our departments have the capability, or even a valid motive, to conspire against the second amendment of the people, then you need to crack open a history book. Or at the very least, refute specifically the questions I asked in my first post with absolute evidence, before mocking me as though you are some omnipotent, all-knowing authority on this particular tragedy and how the departments of our government operate behind closed doors.
it really says something about the track record for these kind of things when people who theorize conspiracies are offended at being called conspiracy theorists
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39219135]it really says something about the track record for these kind of things when people who theorize conspiracies are offended at being called conspiracy theorists[/QUOTE]
When used in today's connotation it should be anything but surprising, really.
[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39219145]When used in today's connotation it should be anything but surprising, really.[/QUOTE]
where do you think that connotation came from
cause it sure ain't from all the theories that were correct
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39219179]where do you think that connotation came from
cause it sure ain't from all the theories that were correct[/QUOTE]
Deindividuation and convergence theories; found here [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology[/url]
Also, it's not that most conspiracy theories are wrong or right, but simply that it's impossible to substantiate the amount of evidence that is needed to prove them as such. This no-victory condition turns a lot of people off to asking questions and instead encourages them to continue accepting things as they are presented to them.
[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39219280]
Also, it's not that most conspiracy theories are wrong[/QUOTE]
yea it is
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39218865]Hah, you are hilarious. He is a lunatic conspiracy theorist. The claims he tried to raise, and those you tried to raise, had already been addressed previously in the thread which you apparently failed to read. He makes wild and unfounded claims about the event, as well as others, and tries to pass them off as reasonable. There is nothing to debate here, its a fool talking to himself as he walks down the road of neurosis. He isn't questioning it, he's taking tiny dubious inconsistencies in the media coverage of the event and making them out to be evidence of a grand plot. That is patently ridiculous. I've looked in to it, I've checked the details, and he is off his tit. Get over it. People like him pervert the scientific method and make a mockery of it and as someone who greatly values the scientific method, it offends me.
Also, people like me make a pretty sizeable group. People like the professor here are a tiny minority. So if the mystical authority were to make the world some Orwellian nightmare fever dream, it would have happened quite some time ago.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
First of all, thanks for returning some of the proper context to that statement instead of cutting it short to make a convenient point. You still left a lot out, but its a bit better. Second, Woody Allen movies exist as pure entertainment and are presented with the specific purpose of being watched and enjoyed by a group of people, where as Groom Lake is not and a particular interest in it would fall in to the realm of a hobby. But to go back to my statement, that entire statement was about people making Groom Lake out to be a big deal on a grand scheme or as something of importance to the American populace as a whole particularly in connection with the ideas of government plots and the like. It is lunatic. Its neurotic. Its possessed by paranoia and fear.[/QUOTE]
ooooooooh boy. if the analogy means THAT much to you, then you can just change woody allen movies to any number of uninteresting things that many people find interesting. like birds. some people just watch birds, talk about birds, research birds, live among birds.... birds aren't very interesting at all.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;39219331]yea it is[/QUOTE]
It is because you assess it as such, yes? Big banks coordinating with DHS and the FBI to shut down Occupy was also a conspiracy theory until documents were released confirming it as simply a conspiracy. The federal reserve system leaking trillions of American dollars to bail out foreign banks was also just a conspiracy theory until documents were released confirming it as simply a conspiracy.
Yet you still lack the capacity to engage in meaningful conversation regarding the conspiracy theories of today, only because we have not yet arrived to the part of the timeline where evidence may present itself to support this theory, and highlight it as merely a conspiracy.
It's also worth mentioning that I deeply hope that these theories are confirmed false. Simply indulging in the process of questioning does not mean that I [b]want[/b] there to be a conspiracy, only instead that there may be more to the picture than anyone could have realized. I sincerely hope that 20 kids didn't get shot just so the country can start engaging in conversation regarding the banning of "assault rifles," which is an argument all to it's own.
I have a conspiracy theory of my own: Most conspiracy theorists are actually government agents who make up conspiracy theories about about absolutely anything and everything bad that happens so nobody believes it when they actually do do something.
those are on like
entirely different levels
also I'm not even attempting to have a conversation and am kind of baffled as to why you're even acknowledging me tbh
See, what pisses me off about the "what's wrong with merely wanting to ask questions?" crowd is that there are plenty of people - both laymen and experts - that are willing to give them and have given them answers, but they don't accept them. And I wouldn't even mind that, except for the fact that they ask the same questions which yield the same answers over and over and over again, so it's obvious that they're trying to prove a point.
