Father Victim of Sandy Hook - Actor?

[yast]

Nervous laughter is one of the most common reactions that people exhibit in extreme situations. Quit fucking reaching.

.... I felt like I was in a video game or something because the shock was so surreal. What seems more likely?

A. A distraught father is experiencing emotional shock.
....

Just for the records let's keep in mind that that video was shoot on the next day after the killing. Maybe he was on drugs, maybe it was his step-child and he is a cold bastard.
If my child would have be killed in such massacre, i would not be on tv, but we are all different.

The real conspiracy is in the governments prepared reaction to the event - they've been eager to use a tragedy to restrict gun rights for a long time and this was the perfect opportunity. Senator Feinstein had a 1200 page bill gun control bill ready the next day. Isn't that bad enough?

Fair enough, I think we agree in principal it's mostly a semantic difference. I would argue the criminal element is them fucking with our constitutional rights as a result of the tragedy. Technically, government officials that violate the Constitution have committed a crime. It may not play like that in real life, but according to the law it does.

Spot on, not much to add. And MSM propaganda machine has done its part to brainwash the general public to not even question the actions of their government. IMO, its absolutely immoral for the gov to use such tragedy to push their own agenda, but then again i don't expect otherwise from them.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow"]Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste - YouTube[/ame]

con·spir·a·cy

/kənˈspirəsē/
Noun

• A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
• The action of plotting or conspiring.

As far as i am concerned, every government is unlawful, harmful and does plan in secrecy; and as such is a conspiracy.

 

[yast]

Errr...

Changing a constitution is actually a process that can be done in most democratic countries on earth.

The rules and regulations regarding this are more strict than in case of other laws, but there is no "crime" in doing so. (If everything follows those regulationd and processes)

::emp::

Exactly.
But who makes the regulation and establishes the process ?
Look how it went for us in europe with the introduction of the euro.
How many citizen did they let vote on the issue ? How many countries ? You know the answer.
Normally in most democratic countries on earth to change the constitution the citizens would have to vote, all of them, not only the elite.

 

[emp]

Exactly.
But who makes the regulation and establishes the process ?
Look how it went for us in europe with the introduction of the euro.
How many citizen did they let vote on the issue ? How many countries ? You know the answer.
Normally in most democratic countries on earth to change the constitution the citizens would have to vote, all of them, not only the elite.

That is just plain wrong.

Most democracies nowadays are what we call "representative democracy"
Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The way a constitution can be changed is normally set up straight with or even within the constitution.

Rules / regulations for this vary according to country. A direct vote does not need to apply.

Germany:
No direct voting

Process
Article 79 states the Basic Law may be amended by an absolute two-thirds majority of the Bundestag along with a simple two-thirds majority of the Bundesrat, excluding amendment of those areas defined by the eternity clause.[6]
Source: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Italy:
No direct vote

In order to make it virtually impossible to replace with a dictatorial regime, it is difficult to modify the Constitution; to do so (under Article 138) requires two readings in each House of Parliament and, if the second of these are carried with a simple majority (i.e. 50%+1) rather than two-thirds, a referendum.
Source: Constitution of Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US:
Guess what?

Changing the "fundamental law" is a two-part process of three steps: amendments are proposed then they must be ratified by the states. An Amendment can be proposed one of two ways. Both ways have two steps. It can be proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states. Or on demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress could call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment, then to be ratified by the states.

::emp::

 

[yast]

That is just plain wrong.

Most democracies nowadays are what we call "representative democracy"
Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The way a constitution can be changed is normally set up straight with or even within the constitution.

Rules / regulations for this vary according to country. A direct vote does not need to apply.

Germany:
No direct voting


Italy:
No direct vote


The US:
Guess what?

::emp::

I may have explained myself bad.
i am aware what a representative democracy is, and i know it's not a direct vote in most countries.
My arguing is that if those who represent us would have acted in the will of those who they represent, there would be no euro, and a lot of other shit.
I think i don't need to explain to a intelligent person like you that we live in a fucked up time, that laws per se don't mean much anymore to those in power.

 

[SeoReborn]

I can have a theory that the shootings really took place in Japan, but that doesn't mean that it would be an equal theory in regards to the chances of it or in regards to the evidence for it.

Its already well understood in psychology and among a lot of the public that when people go through extremely tragic events that they can act in a variety of ways, many of which might seem irrational. "Irrational" behavior could be defined as someone acting in a mentally disturbed type of way. When someone has their child killed, a mental disturbance of some sort is exactly what we would expect.

Also keep in mind that when a tragedy like this happens, crisis response teams sweep in and make sure everyone effected has access to high doses of medication of the type that tries to increase "happy feelings" in the brain.

Making up one's mind in agreement with the alternative "theory", would imply somehow knowing for sure that a person who just had their kid killed cannot act in a certain way and just suppose to act like in the movies or whatever. When one make claims like this, don't be surprised if people ask questions or point out potential holes in it.

Comparing this to the theory of this shooting really took place in Japan is extreme. Reread the thread, where did I make a claim? I have no issues with people asking questions or pointing out any holes or anything (though it seems there are some who have an issue with the question of whether he looks fake or not in the video, in the same effect as Piers Morgan standing over the graves of dead children in his arguments). What I have an issue with is this thing about burden of proof. To me the burden of proof is on someone if he makes a claim and wants to convince people of it also.

 

[zimok]

Maybe this will help clear some discrepancies, taken from reddit.

Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go: First off the guy that created this video is Alex Jones. He is a paranoid nutjob, as was pretty evident by his CNN interview - seriously skip to 3 minutes in and tell me this guy is sane. Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...


Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y6C2YmOLWnM

He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.


Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: Newtown shooter's guns: What we know - CNN.com


Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r61PvN4U3x0


Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.


Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTaC580hfPo It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. http://i.imgur.com/iSuf4.jpg


Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: Connecticut school shooting: 27 dead in school shooting - Associated Press - POLITICO.com Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.


Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook, listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well shit, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.


Other stuff: The guy that made this video clearly has his own agenda, which is why he keeps bringing up 9/11 and the London bombings. Any time a large, tragic event occurs, he does his best to take media out of context and create his own crazy conspiracy driven narrative for the events that took place. If you are skeptical of this video, you should be. It's crap.

 

[dchuk]

Comparing this to the theory of this shooting really took place in Japan is extreme. Reread the thread, where did I make a claim? I have no issues with people asking questions or pointing out any holes or anything (though it seems there are some who have an issue with the question of whether he looks fake or not in the video, in the same effect as Piers Morgan standing over the graves of dead children in his arguments). What I have an issue with is this thing about burden of proof. To me the burden of proof is on someone if he makes a claim and wants to convince people of it also.

By asking others if you think there's something fishy about the guys demeanor, you're implying that you think he is a fake. At that point, it's on you to provide supporting evidence to back up your theory. Everyone criticizing your theory is taking the video at face value and does not need to provide supporting evidence as they are not making any assertions that contradict the stated purpose of the video.

 

[Moxie]

Comparing this to the theory of this shooting really took place in Japan is extreme. Reread the thread, where did I make a claim? I have no issues with people asking questions or pointing out any holes or anything (though it seems there are some who have an issue with the question of whether he looks fake or not in the video, in the same effect as Piers Morgan standing over the graves of dead children in his arguments). What I have an issue with is this thing about burden of proof. To me the burden of proof is on someone if he makes a claim and wants to convince people of it also.

You said "He looks fake to me" and referred to people making up their minds.

If a smoker gets diagnosed with lung cancer and someone says "It looks to me like the smoking had nothing to do with the cancer." - this type of statement will naturally prompt more questioning than with the people who assume that the smoking contributed to causing it. It's already understood why people in society think that smoking can cause cancer. Nobody can technically 100% prove over a message board that smoking increases lung cancer risk, and most people have never done direct research in a lab in regards to that.

Unless we are talking about things like straight mathematics, people can always play games where they point out that nothing is proven. We can allege that 90% of wickedfire users are government agents and there would then be no way for them to prove that they are not. So after that all that is left is a discussion of why it would be likely that they are or are not, but again in that case the position advocating why it is likely that they are not is already going to be understood.

 

[Andrey]

Comparing this to the theory of this shooting really took place in Japan is extreme. Reread the thread, where did I make a claim? I have no issues with people asking questions or pointing out any holes or anything (though it seems there are some who have an issue with the question of whether he looks fake or not in the video, in the same effect as Piers Morgan standing over the graves of dead children in his arguments). What I have an issue with is this thing about burden of proof. To me the burden of proof is on someone if he makes a claim and wants to convince people of it also.

I applaud you for maintaining composure throughout a thread. Well done sir! :thumbsup:

Peasants gonna peasant! What can you do? I guess slowly but surely one by one they will become less and less gullible. As they see that their view of the world keeps on bringing them suffering.

 

[Andrey]

You said "He looks fake to me" and referred to people making up their minds.

If a smoker gets diagnosed with lung cancer and someone says "It looks to me like the smoking had nothing to do with the cancer." - this type of statement will naturally prompt more questioning than with the people who assume that the smoking contributed to causing it. It's already understood why people in society think that smoking can cause cancer. Nobody can technically 100% prove over a message board that smoking increases lung cancer risk, and most people have never done direct research in a lab in regards to that.

Unless we are talking about things like straight mathematics, people can always play games where they point out that nothing is proven. We can allege that 90% of wickedfire users are government agents and there would then be no way for them to prove that they are not. So after that all that is left is a discussion of why it would be likely that they are or are not, but again in that case the position advocating why it is likely that they are not is already going to be understood.

Have you ever tried any psychedelics?

 

[Moxie]

I applaud you for maintaining composure throughout a thread. Well done sir! :thumbsup:

Peasants gonna peasant! What can you do? I guess slowly but surely one by one they will become less and less gullible. As they see that their view of the world keeps on bringing them suffering.

Having a child taken away from you is about as bad as suffering can get. If there would be any time to tread lightly in jumping to conclusions it would be in regards to people potentially going through that. As I said, police will always consider parents as murder suspects, but being suspicious is completely different than being judgemental in a Salem witch trial type of way - which is the type of attitude that can increase the amount of suffering that goes on in the world.

There is a logical explanation for why parents might laugh and such after their child dies, and people in here have explained that in a "composed" way. Calling people peasants or gullible for pointing that out seems obnoxious, and obnoxiousness is another type of attitude that can contribute to suffering.

Myself and this forum in general is probably more open to conspiracy theories than the public, but not everything can be a conspiracy.


The Boy Who Cried Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you ever tried any psychedelics?

No, not unless Nyquil counts. :rainfro:

 

[Andrey]

Having a child taken away from you is about as bad as suffering can get. If there would be any time to tread lightly in jumping to conclusions it would be in regards to people potentially going through that. As I said, police will always consider parents as murder suspects, but being suspicious is completely different than being judgemental in a Salem witch trial type of way - which is the type of attitude that can increase the amount of suffering that goes on in the world.

There is a logical explanation for why parents might laugh and such after their child dies, and people in here have explained that in a "composed" way. Calling people peasants or gullible for pointing that out seems obnoxious, and obnoxiousness is another type of attitude that can contribute to suffering.

Myself and this forum in general is probably more open to conspiracy theories than the public, but not everything can be a conspiracy.


The Boy Who Cried Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, not unless Nyquil counts. :rainfro:

Okay I will be more polite, but you better try some, k? :rainfro:

Can be helpful to see clearly through illusory nature of everything.

 

[hellblazer]

Do you think it is more likely that the government hired a hitman to help perpetrate the massacre of 26 people including 18 children OR that it was the work of a disturbed young person in a time of crisis?

I don't think "the government" did anything.

There is a criminal gang behind Obama that is currently infesting the government.

Could they have orchestrated Sandy Hook and possibly Aurora using incredibly simple tactics? Obviously.

The timing is too suspicious, including the fact that Newtown resulted in the deaths of children(maximum sympathy factor), by an AR-15(just happens to be the "assault weapon" they're trying to ban), during Obama's second term, a time when the election is over and their most radical actions yet will occur.

And now we learn that the criminal gang just passed 23 royal decrees, along with Napolitano and Holder "expanding and coordinating" Lord knows what, a direct assault on gun rights that I predicted was coming the very day that Newtown happened here, here, here, etc...

The similarity is that Beslan was a false flag which used dead children, and this is a false flag that uses children. Beslan was used to go to war, this will be used to go to war against gun-owners.

They will try to exploit people's grief to fuel their Nazi-like push to shut down gun ownership.

Why didn't I predict that they would commence their assault on gun rights after Aurora? Or after the shopping mall shooting? Because they're so damn predictable.

There is a criminal communist gang that has taken over America, whose face is Obama, whose agenda is foreign and is the very destruction of the United States as we have known it. In addition to the disarming of law-abiding American citizens, they will also destroy the U.S. military's nuclear weapons and decimate the armed forces. And I doubt anyone will stop them.

 

[sweeppicker]

Bunch of tards here believing the goverment did it. Prove it. You conspiracy theorists crack me up.

 

[Dark Cognitive]

No hate man... But do your own research. Time = Money. I hate these debate threads (time suck), yet I'm always tempted to drop a post or two.. I'm not talking about reports, take a look at the hard evidence. It's out there, go find it if you really care, asking for it is the same as getting your information from the news on TV... Because at some point you have to research yourself. No offense, just making my last post in the thread..

Too much faggot.


"Hard evidence"

Like??? ..... please explain to me the evidence you have gathered that doesn't come from a media source.... i'd love to hear it. Maybe you were there when the event took place, and we can wallow in your "anecdotes" of "fact".


Care to explain yourself?, or must we suffer your inane teenage ramblings of conspiracy and pre-pubescent angst? (Don't worry, we've all been there, you've got a 99% chance of growing out of it).


Here's an anectdote!. I personally know a british guy (his wife is American) who's kid got shot in the face at sandy hook.

His kid isnt there anymore. His child, has ceased to exist.

Maybe he's just lying to me, and his - and his wifes entire family, though, Maybe his kid is "hiding in his basement" and the funeral was 'just for the lulz'...... what a happy event that was.


Maybe his eyes are black from desperation because the US gov told him to use shoe polish on his eyes to make it seem more real...............











........................... or maybe his child got shot in the face.

 

[sweeppicker]

You guys are drinking the Alex Jones kool-aid.

 

[Sharksfan]

What's funny is that Clinton couldn't keep one blowjob with no witnesses in the Oval Office secret, yet people actually think that the government can keep a large conspiracy secret.

It's not remotely close to possible. And for further proof, look at Obama's gun proposals today. They are pretty modest and tame compared to what is possible (like drafting a new amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment). If they were going to go false flag they wouldn't go half-ass on the results.

Furthermore, history has proven that anything that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth is pure dog shit.

 

[-joe-]

What's funny is that Clinton couldn't keep one blowjob with no witnesses in the Oval Office secret, yet people actually think that the government can keep a large conspiracy secret.

It's not remotely close to possible. And for further proof, look at Obama's gun proposals today. They are pretty modest and tame compared to what is possible (like drafting a new amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment). If they were going to go false flag they wouldn't go half-ass on the results.

Furthermore, history has proven that anything that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth is pure dog shit.

Surely by that logic, they wouldn't be able to keep secret military tech secret?

 

[emp]

Different level.

Military Tech, especially modern tech, you need to know every detail to make it useful

e.g. Patriot missiles, Stealth bombers, etc, etc..

Things like shootings or blowjobs, you just need to know who did it.

::emp::

 

[-joe-]

Different level.

Military Tech, especially modern tech, you need to know every detail to make it useful

e.g. Patriot missiles, Stealth bombers, etc, etc..

Things like shootings or blowjobs, you just need to know who did it.

::emp::

Depends, there's certain stuff that they don't even want anyone to know they have. For example, with the US' first jet aircraft, even despite other countries having jets, the test pilot wore a gorilla suit with a cigar in his mouth, to ensure any witnesses wouldn't be believed.

Jack Woolams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's plenty of other stuff like that, where even a picture of the outside of a plane would be very detrimental to the military.