Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, this. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there is no one coming forward who was close to the event (and there has to be 1000's of people - when you count the first responders through to the families of kids that attend the school, to townspeople and interns in the media offices) to corroborate in ANY WAY that a fraud of massive and disgusting proportions has been foisted on the American public.
This is circular reasoning, that falsely believes that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. More inanely .. you apparently believe that people engaged in criminal activity ... which fraud is ... would for some strange reason that you have failed to explain, would naturally confess. I think that is a silly argument, regardless of how many people are involved. Would you expect the chances to increase that a criminal would confess to robbing the bank just because there were a total of 100 or 1000 robbers involved in the robbery, rather than one of two? Why would you expect people engaged in criminal activity to come forward and admit their participation? That makes no sense, if you'd simply THINK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
For this conspiracy to work, you would have to find 20 sets of parents who had children in the same classroom be willing to have their own children killed or have the murder of their children be used in order to perpetuate a scam for some higher purpose.
First, your entire argument relies on the assumption that there were real victims and real families of victims. Without that assumption, you have no argument at all. Problem with this is, there is no hard evidence that proves that to be true ... in fact, of the limited number of alleged victims parents that have agreed to be interviewed, none of them have appeared overly credible, while some have shown to be extremely suspect, such as Robbie Parker, who's alleged daughter Emilie is said to have been murdered. His behavior is what you ought to consider atrocious, not people questioning Mr. Smiles and Laughter, who delivers a prepared written statement to the press about his daughter, the day after her alleged murder .. and even worse than that, the man who created a memorial page accepting donations on the very same day of the alleged murder!! What legitimate parent who's child was actually brutally murdered would think ... hmmm ... maybe I should create a memorial web page today that can accept financial donations? Does this appear to be the actions of a distraught and grieving father? I don't think so. OF course, we also have Emilie's aunt who, remarking to the press said Emilie was an inspiration to her big sisters? Big sisters? Emilie's two sisters are younger, not older. Just a slip of the tongue you say? Just confused due to the stress of the moment? Well, that doesn't explain dad's smiles and laughter just seconds before he shifted into the distraught grieving dad routine for his press conference which he read from a prepared statement. And it doesn't explain the two photoshopped family portraits of the lovely Parker family ... which has Emilie conveniently situated to the perimeter of the shots, which would be an easier task for adding her in to an existing photo of Mom, Dad, and the two sisters who are huddled together, with Emilie off to one side.
Your belief that for a conspiracy to work would require 20 sets of parents .... blah, blah, blah, but there were 26 alleged victims, not just 20, and one might think that the 6 adults also have families too, right? Well, tell me .... and the list below is provided for your assignment ... tell us of those 26 families, how many have actually given interviews? The answer is, the vast majority have granted no interviews, so you don't even have a face to associate with most of the name on that list. You have a list of names ... that's it.
The reality is, and this is the complete reverse of your form of backward logic, I don't need to prove that all 26 alleged victims are phony ... all I need to do is prove ONE is. Then we must assume the rest are too. That's how REAL LOGIC works .... you do not need to prove every claim is a lie ... just one fraudulent claim ... and the entire story then falls apart COMPLETELY.
Here's your list of victims .... now show me some irrefutable evidence that any of them actually existed, and or were actually murdered on December 14th. Just so you understand, I don't consider media and authorities unsubstantiated claims as constituting hard evidence.
Charlotte Bacon, 6, Daniel Barden, 7, Olivia Engel, 6, Josephine Gay, 7, Ana Marquez-Greene, 6, Dylan Hockley, 6, Madeline Hsu, 6, Catherine Hubbard, 6, Chase Kowalski, 7, Jesse Lewis, 6, James Mattioli, 6, Grace McDonnell, 7, Emilie Parker, 6, Jack Pinto, 6, Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6, Jessica Rekos, 6, Avielle Richman, 6, Benjamin Wheeler, 6., Allison Wyatt, 6
Mary Sherlach, 56, Victoria Soto, 27, Dawn Hocksprung, 47,Rachel Davino, 29, Anne Marie Murphy, 52. Lauren Russeau, 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Inconsistencies aside (because inconsistencies in themselves do not explain why people would be willing to do this), it is not plausible to me for ONE second that you could get 20 random families who's only commonality is to have their children share a classroom be in on it.
You cannot set the inconsistencies aside ... nor can you dismiss them for lack of a reason for why they exist. You don't need to know WHY someone might lie in order to realize that they did. This is another glaring example of totally failed logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
I do not believe that 20 families of small children would be willing to sacrifice either their children or the memory of their children in order to facilitate a discussion or change of policy on gun control.
What about 20 sets of actors, pretending that 20 random photos taken from a missing child data base are their beloved children? Does that possibility not change your entire argument to irrelevance? Why, yes, it would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
When the parents themselves come out and refute the official story in any way, then you might persuade me that there's something worth looking into. As it stands, I only see a bunch of parents who have arranged their little kid's funerals (because those kids existed, don't try and tell me they did not) and now have to suffer the worst kind of additional insult to injury that are these conspiracy theories.
Oh, brilliant .... when the perpetrators confess, you'll consider it?
Pure crap .... that's all that this snopes piece is ..... pure, unsophisticated double talk, for an unsophisticated crowd of non-thinkers.
For example, and I'll have to paraphrase since you actually cannot cut and paste text from snopes, they claim that the car Adam Lanza drove to the scene of the crime, which was subsequently identified as registered to a Christopher Rodia, was just a simple mix up, because Rodia was actually involved in a separate traffic stop precisely at the same exact moment that the Police at Sandy Hook elementary radioed in the license plate of the black honda that Lanza drove to the school. They go on to claim that the black honda is actually registered to a "relative" of Adam Lanza, and not Christopher Rodia, though they don't actually bother to say who this "relative" is, which at a minimum, is very lazy journalism, but in reality, it's just pure manure. They continue by saying that Christopher Rodia has no connection to the crime or the car, and that he was driving another car in another town at the time.
I have a problem with that, and so should anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size. First, the audio of the exchange of information is clear, and the dispatch person recites back the license plate number along with naming Rodia as the registered owner, and you can hear the plate number called out as you look at a picture of the car with the plate number clearly readable. There was no confusion, but there is a clear attempt to create confusion, by Snopes.
Furthermore, aside the unlikely event of this crosstalk confusion with receiving information from another traffic stop at precisely the same moment in time that the Sandy Hook request was issued, becomes that much less believable considering the claim that Rodia was driving another car in another town at the time of the Sandy Hook event. So now we must also believe that the Police in two separate towns share the same Police frequency, and must sift through each other's radio traffic? Or we must do as you do, and ignore these little minor inconveniences to the official story, and believe it anyway. But, just how absurd must absurd get before some of you people have a bit of electrical activity occurring between your ears? Well, one previous poster said it best ... he'll believe there is a conspiracy as soon as the conspirators come forward and confess! Sadly, I think some of you people wouldn't even consider a confession as good evidence.
There are several other examples of equally absurd debunking failures in this Snopes piece, but then again, this crap is only geared toward the dim bulbs that believed the official story to begin with, so I guess they figure it doesn't really need to pass any big tests of credibility, considering the target audience.
But just out of morbid curiosity ... let me ask you ... did you even bother to read this tripe? Or are you simply thick enough to actually read it and believe it too?
yeah sorry, we have a concept of innocent before guilty in this country. Sorry that this is foreign to you.
Too bad you won't apply that same standard to the infamous Adam Lanza, or his mother that you all immediately began crucifying as a prepper and a gun nut!
Pure crap .... that's all that this snopes piece is ..... pure, unsophisticated double talk, for an unsophisticated crowd of non-thinkers.
For example, and I'll have to paraphrase since you actually cannot cut and paste text from snopes, they claim that the car Adam Lanza drove to the scene of the crime, which was subsequently identified as registered to a Christopher Rodia, was just a simple mix up, because Rodia was actually involved in a separate traffic stop precisely at the same exact moment that the Police at Sandy Hook elementary radioed in the license plate of the black honda that Lanza drove to the school. They go on to claim that the black honda is actually registered to a "relative" of Adam Lanza, and not Christopher Rodia, though they don't actually bother to say who this "relative" is, which at a minimum, is very lazy journalism, but in reality, it's just pure manure. They continue by saying that Christopher Rodia has no connection to the crime or the car, and that he was driving another car in another town at the time.
I have a problem with that, and so should anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size. First, the audio of the exchange of information is clear, and the dispatch person recites back the license plate number along with naming Rodia as the registered owner, and you can hear the plate number called out as you look at a picture of the car with the plate number clearly readable. There was no confusion, but there is a clear attempt to create confusion, by Snopes.
Furthermore, aside the unlikely event of this crosstalk confusion with receiving information from another traffic stop at precisely the same moment in time that the Sandy Hook request was issued, becomes that much less believable considering the claim that Rodia was driving another car in another town at the time of the Sandy Hook event. So now we must also believe that the Police in two separate towns share the same Police frequency, and must sift through each other's radio traffic? Or we must do as you do, and ignore these little minor inconveniences to the official story, and believe it anyway. But, just how absurd must absurd get before some of you people have a bit of electrical activity occurring between your ears? Well, one previous poster said it best ... he'll believe there is a conspiracy as soon as the conspirators come forward and confess! Sadly, I think some of you people wouldn't even consider a confession as good evidence.
There are several other examples of equally absurd debunking failures in this Snopes piece, but then again, this crap is only geared toward the dim bulbs that believed the official story to begin with, so I guess they figure it doesn't really need to pass any big tests of credibility, considering the target audience.
But just out of morbid curiosity ... let me ask you ... did you even bother to read this tripe? Or are you simply thick enough to actually read it and believe it too?
Too bad you won't apply that same standard to the infamous Adam Lanza, or his mother that you all immediately began crucifying as a prepper and a gun nut!
Infamous? He isn't infamous. He was a deeply troubled young man. who should have been in a hospital.
The reality is, and this is the complete reverse of your form of backward logic, I don't need to prove that all 26 alleged victims are phony ... all I need to do is prove ONE is. Then we must assume the rest are too. That's how REAL LOGIC works .... you do not need to prove every claim is a lie ... just one fraudulent claim ... and the entire story then falls apart COMPLETELY.
Here's your list of victims .... now show me some irrefutable evidence that any of them actually existed, and or were actually murdered on December 14th. Just so you understand, I don't consider media and authorities unsubstantiated claims as constituting hard evidence.
Charlotte Bacon, 6, Daniel Barden, 7, Olivia Engel, 6, Josephine Gay, 7, Ana Marquez-Greene, 6, Dylan Hockley, 6, Madeline Hsu, 6, Catherine Hubbard, 6, Chase Kowalski, 7, Jesse Lewis, 6, James Mattioli, 6, Grace McDonnell, 7, Emilie Parker, 6, Jack Pinto, 6, Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6, Jessica Rekos, 6, Avielle Richman, 6, Benjamin Wheeler, 6., Allison Wyatt, 6
Mary Sherlach, 56, Victoria Soto, 27, Dawn Hocksprung, 47,Rachel Davino, 29, Anne Marie Murphy, 52. Lauren Russeau, 30
Birth certificates. Death certificates. The many many people who knew the victims. I mean the 52 year old alone had an existence for 52 years. You can't just create these "fake" victims out of thin air. These people, the children and the murdered teachers, existed, and I think it's atrocious and freakish that you question their very existence. What are you going to say about Adam Lanza? He too didn't exist? There are teachers who taught him, former classmates who knew him, ---and you are trying to suggest he too never existed? All those people who say they knew him are lying? All the people who used to work with Lanza's mother are lying?
Birth certificates. Death certificates. The many many people who knew the victims. I mean the 52 year old alone had an existence for 52 years. You can't just create these "fake" victims out of thin air. These people, the children and the murdered teachers, existed, and I think it's atrocious and freakish that you question their very existence. What are you going to say about Adam Lanza? He too didn't exist? There are teachers who taught him, former classmates who knew him, ---and you are trying to suggest he too never existed? All those people who say they knew him are lying? All the people who used to work with Lanza's mother are lying?
Yes they want you to believe that over 100 people involved (don't forget the paramedics, the police, the firefighters/first responders, and the city's leaders) along with the victims, their families, and their extended families and friends, were in on this "conspiracy".
It took 2 people to expose Watergate, at a time when there was no such thing as the internet.
It's the same BS thinking that 9/11 truthers believed in. They honestly think that over 10,000 people (that is the number of people that would have been needed to pull off what happened on 9/11) would keep silent after witnessing 3000 people die.
Also this idea that people aren't expressing their grief properly comes from watching too much TV. You can always tell when you're watching a soap opera, or a movie, because people are acting hysterical with grief. It seems like when they show real victims of horrible events, or real relatives of murder victims, they are hardly ever acting like that, most people are actually quite self-contained, at least in front of news cameras. In fact the few times I've seen someone on the news be all histrionic with grief, it's often instances like Susan Smith, who murdered her children--- they're acting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
