Tenured prof at FAU claims Sandy Hook shooting may not have happened

[oragator1]

I feel bad for those of you in the state paying this man's salary.
And is there ANY event now that doesn't have a conspiracy theory attached to it? Any at all?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259104/Newtown-shooting-Conspiracy-theory-professor-says-Sandy-Hook-shooting-happened.html

[gatorman_07732]

He should be committed because he could be the next nutjob. Is it my eyes or is that a bad rug on his head?

[MichiGator2002]

Conspiracism is an interesting pathology. Personally, I think it belongs with the anxiety disorders.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's certainly more than possible that it didn't happen the way we've been told it did. Naturally, the government and media controlled both the narrative and the investigation.

I've got ocean front property in Arizona for anyone who blindly believes anything the government and media says about any important event with national policy implications involved.

[MichiGator2002]

I blame the Zionist entity.

[ChartsandGrafs]

There's no such thing as Zionism.

The TV said so.

[fredsanford]

If Beck or Limbaugh proposed the same thing, the righties here would believe it without question.

[gatorman_07732]

If Beck or Limbaugh proposed the same thing, the righties here would believe it without question.

This says more about you than anything else

[orangeblueorangeblue]

False flag! Literally everything is a false flag!

[ChartsandGrafs]

False flag! Literally everything is a false flag!

Nothing's a false flag! Literally nothing is a false flag! The government and people on TV never lie or cover anything up! They would have said so!

LOL!

[AmericaFirst]

I feel bad for those of you in the state paying this man's salary.
And is there ANY event now that doesn't have a conspiracy theory attached to it? Any at all?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259104/Newtown-shooting-Conspiracy-theory-professor-says-Sandy-Hook-shooting-happened.html



He's not the only one. Go on YouTube and there's a bunch of videos with questions surrounding it. Most are questioning why more parents aren't asking questions surrounding the killer, why the few that have spoken are all pro-gun control, how the police actually got the weapons wrong IE: said it was a rifle when it was supposedly a handgun, and no reported autopsy on the killer.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Nothing's a false flag! Literally nothing is a false flag! The government and people on TV never lie or cover anything up! They would have said so!

LOL!

But see, I don't believe this. I would just want, you know, proof or knowledge before saying something about a subject I have no idea about. Join the club!

[AmericaFirst]

False flag! Literally everything is a false flag!




Not everything but many are. Read up on Operation Northwoods for an example of our government trying to pass one off on us. They wanted war with Cuba and CIA agents were going to pose as Cuban terrorists in America in order to get the people to back a war against Cuba. Good thing JFK put an end to it.


The Israelis have been killing their own people for years with false flag operations and ours as well. The attack on the USS Liberty is one of the most infamous when it comes to false flag operations. The Israelis will do it again too if they think they can get us to go fight their war against Iran.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[orangeblueorangeblue]

See above. There's more than that.

[PIMking]

I'm so damn tired of the anti gun crowd with their stupid signs that are full of wrong information like the gun show loophole one and the idiot with ban assault weapons and high cap clips...

modern guns like the ar15 don't use clips, and it's not an assault weapon for christs sake.

I was told by an old man when I was young who told me "if you're going to hate something you better know why it is exactly why you hate it" Just as these idiots who spout off about guns have an irrational fear about them or don't know a damn thing about em.

/rant

[ChartsandGrafs]

But see, I don't believe this. I would just want, you know, proof or knowledge before saying something about a subject I have no idea about. Join the club!

But see, I don't either. You'll note up above in my first post that I only suggested it's possible that things didn't happen as we've been told. I don't see how you could disagree with that, either. Sometimes there's more to the story and sometimes there isn't. We really don't know.

I find the story fishy. You don't. Calm down about it. This is a message board, not life and death.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Aha, "calm down."

[ChartsandGrafs]

Aha, "calm down."

Just out of curiosity, why are you so obviously sensitive about the mere mention of the possibility that this shooting could have been a setup to pursue a desired political goal? In relative terms, it's a pretty harmless suggestion. Nobody has to agree or accept it. People can choose to ignore the comment and discuss it as they choose.

So why does it bother you? Be honest.

[PIMking]

It's not like we didn't have guns used in a bad way to get their desired political goal before.... F&F

[108]

if they could bring down the towers and kill 3000 Americans, whats a few kids right :huh:

[PIMking]

if they could bring down the towers and kill 3000 Americans, whats a few kids right :huh:

How about a government backed Planned Parenthood killing off more than 300k kids last year?

[rivergator]

Just out of curiosity, why are you so obviously sensitive about the mere mention of the possibility that this shooting could have been a setup to pursue a desired political goal? In relative terms, it's a pretty harmless suggestion. Nobody has to agree or accept it. People can choose to ignore the comment and discuss it as they choose.

So why does it bother you? Be honest.

because it's really, really stupid and offensive?

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's not like we didn't have guns used in a bad way to get their desired political goal before.... F&F

That's a pretty good point, which I had forgotten about.

There's only two rational explanations for something so totally criminal as Fast and Furious:

A. (mainline theory) The government knowingly put thousands of weapons in the hands of some of the worst, most violent criminals in Mexico, mostly along the border, in the hope that it would generate gun violence that would spill across the border, as drug cartel violence often does. This, in part, would serve as some of the ammunition needed for the political establishment to begin chipping away at the Second Amendment.

B. (alternative theory) The phoney War on (some) Drugs represents big business for our federal and state governments, as all wars do. Billions of dollars are involved, with lobby money and kickbacks going all the way up the political food chain to Washington. Not only that, but the drug war serves as an excuse for the National Security State and Prison-Industrial Complex to expand and get Americans accustomed to the coming police state. With this in mind, Fast and Furious might have been the government's attempt to arm one of the largest competing cartels with enough guns that it could crush competition from other, smaller cartels. A drug cartel monopoly would obviously drive drug prices up, expand the pool of dirty kickback money being spun off, and make the operation more manageable and consolidated.

Since the government's cover story for Fast and Furious was so obviously ridiculous, both of the above theories have to be given consideration. Either way you look at it, there had to be a desired political goal involved and the motivation to illegally pursue it, even if it meant dead, innocent Americans would be the result.

I don't see why Sandy Hook should be any different.

[ChartsandGrafs]

because it's really, really stupid and offensive?

I'm not following. Can you explain this viewpoint to me? Why would you be offended by my thinking outside the box and questioning the official story?

It's not like I am calling your mother names or something.

[108]

How about a government backed Planned Parenthood killing off more than 300k kids last year?

and then the million or so Iraqi civilians

never ends does it :cry:

though to be fair to PP, only 1/3rd of its funding comes from the Government, with none of it allowed to go to abortion services

[rivergator]

I'm not following. Can you explain this viewpoint to me? Why would you be offended by my thinking outside the box and questioning the official story?

It's not like I am calling your mother names or something.

I think it's already been pointed out that you would normally need some evidence. So thinking it's possible without any evidence is fairly stupid. The offensive part comes taking a tragedy like this where so many children died and using for really stupid conspiracy fears.

[co_gator89]

Not everything but many are. Read up on Operation Northwoods for an example of our government trying to pass one off on us. They wanted war with Cuba and CIA agents were going to pose as Cuban terrorists in America in order to get the people to back a war against Cuba. Good thing JFK put an end to it.


The Israelis have been killing their own people for years with false flag operations and ours as well. The attack on the USS Liberty is one of the most infamous when it comes to false flag operations. The Israelis will do it again too if they think they can get us to go fight their war against Iran.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

This. Also take some time to google "nurse nayirah" while you get the chance.

Never mind I'll do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah

Have a read.

[JerseyGator01]

The liberal media does seem to cover some tragedies a lot more than others. See Fort Hood.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I think it's already been pointed out that you would normally need some evidence. So thinking it's possible without any evidence is fairly stupid. The offensive part comes taking a tragedy like this where so many children died and using for really stupid conspiracy fears.

Very well. What evidence do you have that the official story is correct? I have to assume that you believe the official story is correct, so what evidence is the belief based on? I'm talking pictures, video, and audio from both inside and outside the building.

I've looked into it and have found that the evidence that has been released to the public so far is pretty thin. Much of it comes down to, "it's true because the government says so", which I don't find very convincing.

So, evidence, what have you got?

[ChartsandGrafs]

if they could bring down the towers and kill 3000 Americans, whats a few kids right :huh:

Exactly. A Sandy Hook PSYOP/false flag would be nothing for the U.S. government to set up. All they would need is an already mentally disturbed person, a bunch of exotic psychotropic drugs, the employment of some MK-ULTRA mind control techniques, and a few undercover FBI agents/handlers to supply him with or assist him in getting some guns and putting him in place for the attack. If he survives the attack, all you have to do is pump him so full of drugs that he won't be able to remember anything that happened or intelligently answer any questions about why he did what he did. Try him, convict him, and put him in prison. Make him completely inaccessible to the media and keep pumping him full of drugs. Piece of cake.

No fuss, no muss, and no non-government witnesses. Simply rinse and repeat until the American people are begging for a "War on (non-government) Assault Rifles".

[gatorev12]

Exactly. A Sandy Hook PSYOP/false flag would be nothing for the U.S. government to set up. All they would need is an already mentally disturbed person, a bunch of exotic psychotropic drugs, the employment of some MK-ULTRA mind control techniques, and a few undercover FBI agents/handlers to supply him with or assist him in getting some guns and putting him in place for the attack. If he survives the attack, all you have to do is pump him so full of drugs that he won't be able to remember anything that happened or intelligently answer any questions about why he did what he did. Try him, convict him, and put him in prison. Make him completely inaccessible to the media and keep pumping him full of drugs. Piece of cake.

No fuss, no muss, and no non-government witnesses. Simply rinse and repeat until the American people are begging for a "War on (non-government) Assault Rifles".

I honestly hope you seek help some day. This level of delusion is disturbing.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I honestly hope you seek help some day. This level of delusion is disturbing.

You're right. I really need to start watching more TV again. Maybe worship the government some, too. Then I'll have it all figured it out. I just need to stop thinking for myself.

Kind of like you.

[cocodrilo]

What suggests to me that the Sandy Hook killer was not programmed by the government is that he committed suicide. Certainly troubled minds can be programmed to kill as "lone nuts" (e.g. Sirhan, Bremer, Chapman, Hinckley), but not to kill themselves. (Muslim suicide bombers are different. America's "lone nuts" are not religious nuts, and they wouldn't go for that 72-virgin crap.)

That said, how do we know that the Sandy Hook killer committed suicide? Because the government says so.

Now the Aurora theater shooter would certainly fit the profile of a programmed lone nut. He waited around calm, cool, and collected till they came and cuffed him. And all the Batman stuff sounds like just the kind of stuff that the programmers come up with as the killer's "motive." (We were told that Sirhan was upset about some jets being sold to Israel, so "RFK," he wrote over and over as if hypnotically programmed, "must die." And there's Hinckley "shooting Reagan" to "impress Jodie Foster." Whoever came up with that probably got a gold medal.)

[gatorev12]

You're right. I really need to start watching more TV again. Maybe worship the government some, too. Then I'll have it all figured it out. I just need to stop thinking for myself.

Kind of like you.

You know, in that infamous "name and shame" thread for warnings and bannings, I distinctly remember your tag was "adding nothing to the forum."

With all due respect to the mods, that might be selling you a little short though. Your vivid little fantasies are as entertaining as my 3 year old cousin's diatribes on galactic spaceships.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What suggests to me that the Sandy Hook killer was not programmed by the government is that he committed suicide. Certainly troubled minds can be programmed to kill as "lone nuts" (e.g. Sirhan, Bremer, Chapman, Hinckley), but not to kill themselves.

If you can program a person through hypnosis, drugs, ritual abuse, and their resulting development of dissociative identity disorder (split personality) to kill others, why wouldn't you be able to program a person to kill themselves? It's not like a person induced into such a mental state has a whole lot of control over what he's doing/being programmed to do.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You know, in that infamous "name and shame" thread for warnings and bannings, I distinctly remember your tag was "adding nothing to the forum."

With all due respect to the mods, that might be selling you a little short though. Your vivid little fantasies are as entertaining as my 3 year old cousin's diatribes on galactic spaceships.

Cool story, man. Really.

Run along now.

[Spurffelbow833]

If you can program a person through hypnosis, drugs, ritual abuse, and their resulting development of dissociative identity disorder (split personality) to kill others, why wouldn't you be able to program a person to kill themselves? It's not like a person induced into such a mental state has a whole lot of control over what he's doing/being programmed to do.

Why did Oswald get taken out after the job was done? He's rather unique in that respect now that you mention it. Usually, the lone nuts are allowed to live.

[cocodrilo]

If you can program a person through hypnosis, drugs, ritual abuse, and their resulting development of dissociative identity disorder (split personality) to kill others, why wouldn't you be able to program a person to kill themselves? It's not like a person induced into such a mental state has a whole lot of control over what he's doing/being programmed to do.

I suppose it's conceivable to program someone to commit suicide, but I wouldn't depend on it. I would depend on the programming to keep the patsy oblivious as to why he really did what he did. To this day Sirhan, for example, is apparently unaware that he was programmed. He doesn't remember shooting at RFK.

Oswald (a patsy but apparently not hypnotically programmed, he was consciously a government operative) was eliminated because he got himself arrested and could not be allowed to talk. He was probably supposed to be eliminated at a later time, while on his way to Cuba (part of a false-flag operation to blame the assassination on Castro).

[wygator]

FAU? This guy obviously stayed out in the sun too long.

The Jack Ruby event is still the most remarkable moment in a whole
sequence of remarkable moments during the Kennedy assassination.

[Spurffelbow833]

Still the greatest photoshop ever.

http://www.whalenworld.com/images/Oswald.jpg

[WESGATORS]

He's a professor. Has anybody considered that his comments are intended to invoke critical thinking in his students as it pertains to the subject matter he is teaching them?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gatorev12]

He's a professor. Has anybody considered that his comments are intended to invoke critical thinking in his students as it pertains to the subject matter he is teaching them?


I suspect that'll be his defense later on--but it's likely a dishonest one. Remember, FAU is pointing out to everyone he made these comments on his own website--a blog he uses to peddle his conspiracy nonsense--NOT in an academic forum.

Tragic events almost always have a "confirmation bias" in them. That is: initial reports are often confused and contain false information (having an eyewitness insist the car was blue when it was really black). Not because the eyewitnesses are lying or there's some mass conspiracy afoot, but because tragic events often overwhelm our brain's ability to process data effectively in real time.

Critical thinking is an excellent gift and should be encouraged...but, like anything, it can be abused. This is an excellent example.

[Row6]

Still the greatest photoshop ever.

http://www.whalenworld.com/images/Oswald.jpg

+1

[ChartsandGrafs]

Tragic events almost always have a "confirmation bias" in them. That is: initial reports are often confused and contain false information (having an eyewitness insist the car was blue when it was really black). Not because the eyewitnesses are lying or there's some mass conspiracy afoot, but because tragic events often overwhelm our brain's ability to process data effectively in real time.

No, that's not what confirmation bias is. You're misusing the term.

From Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Critical thinking is an excellent gift and should be encouraged...but, like anything, it can be abused. This is an excellent example.

What delicious ironing.

[gatorev12]

[QUOTE=ChartsandGrafs;6305046]No, that's not what confirmation bias is. You're misusing the term.


Apologies--you're right, I didn't use the term correctly. I had it in there as part of showing the professor's selective timeline showing his confirmation bias, but reworded it and didn't change that in there.

What delicious ironing.


"Ironing" is a process by which one irons or presses an article of clothing. Looks like you're not immune to errors either.

(and fyi: I'm aware you did that on purpose).

Over-questioning something *can* be unproductive and potentially harmful too. If not to the questioner directly, than to others. If you applied critical thinking to that statement, you probably wouldn't be questioning it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[AustinGator1]

So where is the thread from our conspiracy guessers claiming Obama really didn't win the election?? I guess Mickey Mouse won afterall and the government is just not telling us. I think this should be shouted to the hilltops constantly until someone comes up with proof that is acceptable to the conspiracy guessers (that will never happen) that Mickey Mouse didn't really win.

I just love conspiracy guessers.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Apologies--you're right, I didn't use the term correctly. I had it in there as part of showing the professor's selective timeline showing his confirmation bias, but reworded it and didn't change that in there.

Wow, look at you gracefully accepting a correction from me, of all people, without excuse.

Maybe there's hope for you still!

Over-questioning something *can* be unproductive and potentially harmful too.

I see no reason to accept this claim as true.

If not to the questioner directly, than to others. If you applied critical thinking to that statement, you probably wouldn't be questioning it, but I'm not holding my breath.

There's obviously no basis for this. Just admit it, you don't like people questioning the "reality" you accept. It's an affront to people like you. You must control the narrative.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I just love conspiracy guessers.

Just as I love people who "guess" that the habitually corrupt, always lying U.S. government told them the truth about 9/11.

LOL. True Believer talk.

[gatorev12]

Wow, look at you gracefully accepting a correction from me, of all people, without excuse.

Maybe there's hope for you still!

Unlike you, when I'm confronted with an obviously inaccurate statement by factual evidence, I happily admit I'm wrong. No one's perfect and I certainly never claim to be.

It's called "integrity"--something I've yet to see you demonstrate.

I see no reason to accept this claim as true.


Of course not. See above.

There's obviously no basis for this. Just admit it, you don't like people questioning the "reality" you accept. It's an affront to people like you. You must control the narrative.


Oh? Call up some of the victims of 9/11 and ask them how they feel about getting harassed by 9-11 "truthers" for doing nothing more than reporting what they saw. Ask ANY of the parents of the Sandy Hook tragedy how this ignorant jackass of a professor's comments make them feel and see how they respond. I'll bet money that they probably don't like it--and are extremely offended by it. So yes, there is absolutely a basis for saying that excessive "questioning" (like most inane conspiracy theorists try and justify their vacuous existence) is pointless and affects others.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Oh? Call up some of the victims of 9/11 and ask them how they feel about getting harassed by 9-11 "truthers" for doing nothing more than reporting what they saw. Ask ANY of the parents of the Sandy Hook tragedy how this ignorant jackass of a professor's comments make them feel and see how they respond. I'll bet money that they probably don't like it--and are extremely offended by it. So yes, there is absolutely a basis for saying that excessive "questioning" (like most inane conspiracy theorists try and justify their vacuous existence) is pointless and affects others.

On the contrary, the opposite is true. Families of the 9/11 victims basically started the "truth movement". From the very beginning, it's been the families of 9/11 victims that have been pressing the government for the truth about what happened. In fact, an entire documentary was made about this.

Watch and learn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsKfM_LDUc

Anyway, I don't care if people are "offended" by my questions. I'm offended that they are offended. The people who try to shut down discussion about important events that are in question are the truly offensive ones.

[gatorev12]

^so ALL the victims of 9-11 are "truthers"? Is *that* what you're claiming?

Because I can certainly poke holes in that pretty obviously untruthful statement all day long.

Nice avoiding of everything else. How do you think the Sandy Hook victims feel? Would you ever care to ask them face to face?

(fyi: we already know that you wouldn't, just seeing if you have the integrity to admit it)

[AustinGator1]

Just as I love people who "guess" that the habitually corrupt, always lying U.S. government told them the truth about 9/11.

LOL. True Believer talk.

So then you agree that Mickey Mouse really won the election?

[ChartsandGrafs]

^so ALL the victims of 9-11 are "truthers"? Is *that* what you're claiming?

Because I can certainly poke holes in that pretty obviously untruthful statement all day long.

LOL, straw man alert.

Where did you see me make that exact statement?

Nice avoiding of everything else. How do you think the Sandy Hook victims feel? Would you ever care to ask them face to face?

(fyi: we already know that you wouldn't, just seeing if you have the integrity to admit it)

There was no avoidance, you simply missed the point. Their feelings aren't relevant to the discussion nor do they have any bearing on the accuracy of the story we've been fed. This "feelings" tangent is nothing more than a blatant misdirect.

The bottom line is, you don't like people questioning the Holy Church of Government. I set you off the same way an atheist sets off the religious.

[gatorev12]

There was no avoidance, you simply missed the point. Their feelings aren't relevant to the discussion nor do they have any bearing on the accuracy of the story we've been fed. This "feelings" tangent is nothing more than a blatant misdirect.

The bottom line is, you don't like people questioning the Holy Church of Government. I set you off the same way an atheist sets off the religious.

It takes a callous and miserable person to spit in the faces of parents who've lost their children in such a tragic manner and to not even acknowledge that their feelings and desire to grieve is relevant.

Bottom line is: the government had absolutely nothing to do with this. I realize anyone who disagrees with your opinion is labeled a "government apologist" regardless if the topic even has to do with government or not, such is the state of your deluded reality.

[gatorev12]

So then you agree that Mickey Mouse really won the election?

He's a Donald Duck apologist, so good luck getting him to concede this.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It takes a callous and miserable person to spit in the faces of parents who've lost their children in such a tragic manner and to not even acknowledge that their feelings and desire to grieve is relevant.

Then why do you do it? Trying to stifle and shut down discussion by using, without their permission, the families of the victims is the height of callousness.

Bottom line is: the government had absolutely nothing to do with this.

You don't know this. Wishful thinking is not a proper replacement for factual information.

I realize anyone who disagrees with your opinion is labeled a "government apologist" regardless if the topic even has to do with government or not, such is the state of your deluded reality.

Yeah, but in your case it fits.

[gatorev12]

Then why do you do it? Trying to stifle and shut down discussion by using, without their permission, the families of the victims is the height of callousness.


Perhaps because I don't really like ignorant, insensitive (insert word of choice here) piling absolute bullsh*t on top of their grief? Because people shouldn't let ignorance and inane theories cloud the truth?

You don't know this. Wishful thinking is not a proper replacement for factual information.


Not a single shred of evidence supports any other conclusion outside of the fact that 1 (one) psychotic individual killed his mother, stole her guns, and then shot up a school afterwards.

Period. End of story.

Come up with a SINGLE fact to show otherwise and then maybe you can peddle your BS--but until you can demonstrate even that scintilla of proof, all you're doing is talking out of your azz and engaging in wishful thinking of your own. Except such wishful thinking in this case is entirely despicable and deplorable. I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself, but narcissists and attention-seekers are usually incapable of being self-critical.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Not a single shred of evidence supports any other conclusion outside of the fact that 1 (one) psychotic individual killed his mother, stole her guns, and then shot up a school afterwards.

Period. End of story.

No, not really. The only evidence you've got to support the official story is *what you've been allowed to see*, which really isn't much at all. Belief in the official story comes down to, "the police and government say it happened this way, therefore it did, because they wouldn't lie or cover anything up". It's a religious belief not based on actual evidence, but hope, faith, and desire.

Point rejected.

Come up with a SINGLE fact to show otherwise and then maybe you can peddle your BS--but until you can demonstrate even that scintilla of proof, all you're doing is talking out of your azz and engaging in wishful thinking of your own. Except such wishful thinking in this case is entirely despicable and deplorable. I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself, but narcissists and attention-seekers are usually incapable of being self-critical.

It's not my responsibility to prove otherwise. I'm just an observer. The responsibility belongs to people like you and those in government to prove that the official story is correct. After all, it's your story. You want it to be official and beyond reproach. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

So, where's your evidence. How have you gone about determining that the government wasn't involved?

[gatorev12]

No, not really. The only evidence you've got to support the official story is *what you've been allowed to see*, which really isn't much at all. Belief in the official story comes down to, "the police and government say it happened this way, therefore it did, because they wouldn't lie or cover anything up". It's a religious belief not based on actual evidence, but hope, faith, and desire.

Point rejected.

It's not my responsibility to prove otherwise. I'm just an observer. The responsibility belongs to people like you and those in government to prove that the official story is correct. After all, it's your story. You want it to be official and beyond reproach. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

So, where's your evidence. How have you gone about determining that the government wasn't involved?

You could have really saved yourself some typing (if you had a shred of integrity or honesty) and said: nope, I have nothing--but I don't think anyone will be surprised at this latest BS from you.

Questioning for the sake of questioning--and without any basis for such questioning--is pointless and an exercise in futility. The only reason anyone would demand such things of others without any factual basis is because they're an attention-seeking narcissist with no purpose or meaning in their lives.

If I stated on here (despite never meeting you in person) that you're a filthy, disgusting individual with no sense of personal hygiene and who never washes their clothes and demand you prove me wrong by taking out every item of clothing in your closet and dropping it off at the cleaners if I were to believe that you were actually clean--would you do it? Honest question there. Don't worry--I suspect you'll ignore it because you're incapable of reading beyond 3-4 paragraphs (your words in another thread) and probably didn't read this far.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Questioning for the sake of questioning--and without any basis for such questioning--is pointless and an exercise in futility. The only reason anyone would demand such things of others without any factual basis is because they're an attention-seeking narcissist with no purpose or meaning in their lives.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. If my questions are so pointless and meaningless, why do you spend so much time and energy throwing up static against them? Besides, it's never worked for you before. Why do you think it will work now?

Go easy on the government worship, man. It's driving you batty.

[gatorev12]

Methinks thou doth protest too much. If my questions are so pointless and meaningless, why do you spend so much time and energy throwing up static against them? Besides, it's never worked for you before. Why do you think it will work now?

Go easy on the government worship, man. It's driving you batty.

Oh, I've long since reached the conclusion that you add "nothing to the forum" and that you're too hopeless to actually respond substantively to serious topics. But that doesn't mean you aren't entertaining in a childish sort of way. Kids really do say the darnedest things!

Thanks for proving me right on the other thing too by the way. Either you don't reach past 3 paragraphs or you don't wash your clothes. Pretty amusing, either way.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Oh, I've long since reached the conclusion that you add "nothing to the forum" and that you're too hopeless to actually respond substantively to serious topics.

LOL, says the guy who's trolling the thread. I'm actually focusing on the topic of the thread, while you're focusing on me. Remember, address the argument, not the poster.

Have some dignity, man. You're behaving like an owned man in this thread.

[gatorplank]

I'm not following. Can you explain this viewpoint to me? Why would you be offended by my thinking outside the box and questioning the official story?

It's not like I am calling your mother names or something.

Well you are not calling his mother names, but you did kind of spit on his golden calf, the mother state, by insinuating that the mother state might just be corrupt down to the very rotten core.

You'd probably get a similar result if you started picking on Mary in front of a Catholic or picking on Mohammed in front of a Muslim.

[outbackjack]

Who knows? But IF the words Sandy Hook and Aurora are noticeably seen in Batman Dark Knight Rises...........which many claim that they are and point to the exact moment, well that's awfully perplexing.

[Emmitto]

Who knows? But IF the words Sandy Hook and Aurora are noticeably seen in Batman Dark Knight Rises...........which many claim that they are and point to the exact moment, well that's awfully perplexing.

It's noted that you used a big IF there, appropriately. If they don't both appear in TDKR, but let's say there's a different movie with one of them in it, would it be more, less, or equally perplexing?

[gatorev12]

Well you are not calling his mother names, but you did kind of spit on his golden calf, the mother state, by insinuating that the mother state might just be corrupt down to the very rotten core.

You'd probably get a similar result if you started picking on Mary in front of a Catholic or picking on Mohammed in front of a Muslim.

Where does this ridiculous argument come from, honestly?

I don't worship "the state"--I'm a practicing Catholic and blast the government all the time on these boards (along with most others). The government frequently is dishonest and/or misleading and I've no doubt MANY individuals at all levels of government (everyone from politicians to regular civil service workers) have engaged in *some* level of corruption at one point or another (even if it's something as minor or basic as gaming the system for extra benefits or hooking up friends/buddies with jobs/contracts).

Everything stated above is a fact/reality and there's ample evidence to prove that.

What there is NO evidence of is that there was corruption and/or lying going on in regards to the shooting at Sandy Hook. The evidence is pretty clear from the survivors of the tragedy (keep in mind, there were dozens of survivors and witnesses on the scene) that there *was* only one shooter, all the guns were recovered and matched the guns his mother owned, all the bullets were ones either he purchased or his mother did, and it's pretty clear by people who knew him (including his own family, relatives, and acquaintances) that he was an awkward loner.

If you can't come up with a SINGLE piece of evidence to contradict that, then it's probably a better idea to STFU. Not to stifle any free thought--to prevent yourself from looking like a complete and utter jackass. Idle speculation by nonsensical and inane "questions" with no supporting facts is wasted energy for everyone involved.

Being deliberately offensive for no other purpose than to gain attention is just plain childish and I have absolutely no problems calling a spade a spade on that one. If you started a thread asking for prayers for your mom because she was in a car accident and some a-hole comes in there wanting to "ask questions" about how many sexual partners she had in college to proffer a ridiculous theory about a jilted ex-bf coming back to deliberately cause the crash, I'm sure you'd react pretty negatively.

[gatorev12]

LOL, says the guy who's trolling the thread. I'm actually focusing on the topic of the thread, while you're focusing on me. Remember, address the argument, not the poster.


That's funny, you'd almost think that you'd forgotten your ban for trolling.

I have addressed the argument. YOU have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or proof to support your claims--saying that's my job.

To which I've responded by asking you a bunch of nonsensical questions demanding you "prove me wrong, that's your job, I'm just an observer"--exactly what you've done in this thread and in others. I noticed you were ignoring most of them--which is precisely the reaction most people have when you allege something without proof or evidence and are trying to deliberately troll.

So if you don't like your own arguments/tactics used against you, I'd suggest being more honest when posting or reconsidering your posting style of "questions" without "facts"

[ChartsandGrafs]

That's funny, you'd almost think that you'd forgotten your ban for trolling.



LOL, that was just the cover story you were given.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What there is NO evidence of is that there was corruption and/or lying going on in regards to the shooting at Sandy Hook.

LOL, of course there's no evidence. Government agencies controlled the investigation. If it was a false flag PSYOP, they're not going to allow the public to know about it. They would only release evidence supporting their cover story.

The evidence is pretty clear from the survivors of the tragedy (keep in mind, there were dozens of survivors and witnesses on the scene) that there *was* only one shooter, all the guns were recovered and matched the guns his mother owned, all the bullets were ones either he purchased or his mother did, and it's pretty clear by people who knew him (including his own family, relatives, and acquaintances) that he was an awkward loner.

I recall that you used to claim in the old 9/11 threads that the eyewitnesses at the World Trade Center who claimed to hear and witness explosions coming from underneath the lobby of the World Trade Center were mistaken. You used to say that they weren't credible and couldn't possibly know how to accurately identify what they witnessed as explosions. You even said this about the firemen who were there.

Well, I guess the same would apply here, wouldn't it? The witnesses and survivors at Sandy Hook were badly traumatized that day. Many of them were running for their lives, hiding in closets, covering their faces, and crying. As such, I don't think they are credible witnesses. They certainly wouldn't have been able to identify if the shooter had been programmed using MK-ULTRA techniques by government jackals. After all, an MK-ULTRA mind controlled assassin would look just like any crazy person on a lot of drugs. How would they know the difference? They wouldn't.

Point rejected.

If you can't come up with a SINGLE piece of evidence to contradict that, then it's probably a better idea to STFU.

LOL, there's nothing to contradict. You have no evidence. Your official story is entirely dependent on, "because the government said so", and that's not going to work here.

The word of your Government Gods does NOT constitute evidence.

Not to stifle any free thought--to prevent yourself from looking like a complete and utter jackass. Idle speculation by nonsensical and inane "questions" with no supporting facts is wasted energy for everyone involved.

You should know. After all, you're idly speculating that the government told the truth about what happened and carried out a thorough and credible investigation. The reality is, you don't know if that actually happened. You think you do, but you really don't.

Being deliberately offensive for no other purpose than to gain attention is just plain childish and I have absolutely no problems calling a spade a spade on that one. If you started a thread asking for prayers for your mom because she was in a car accident and some a-hole comes in there wanting to "ask questions" about how many sexual partners she had in college to proffer a ridiculous theory about a jilted ex-bf coming back to deliberately cause the crash, I'm sure you'd react pretty negatively.

That's great and all, but nobody in this thread is affiliated with Sandy Hook. Nobody in this thread is a family member of any of the victims. As such, your playing of the "insensitive to the victims" card is just pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Admit it, you're trying to stifle discussion. There's no other possible explanation for your behavior here. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

[rivergator]

There's really no sense in arguing with people who claim that everything, no matter how witnessed or documented, is misinformation created by the govt/media conspiracy. Their argument requires no evidence, no analysis, just a constant repetition of their base belief.
Of course, it's hard to say if it is really a belief, or just something to say to get a reaction on a message board.

[DowntownGator]

http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/01/sandy-hook-the-illusion-of-tragedy/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

Say what you want, but this guy lying about his daughter being killed at Sandy Hook and then getting congratulated by Obama for it is outrageous (also, why are they all laughing and joking and all smiles in the midst of this a tragedy where so many innocents were killed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eHv_RhVgfUQ#!

[rivergator]

nm

[PSGator66]

He should be fired immediately and lose his teachin certificate!

[llm85]

If Beck or Limbaugh proposed the same thing, the righties here would believe it without question.

Someone has finally jumped the shark. :whistle:

[gatorev12]

There's really no sense in arguing with people who claim that everything, no matter how witnessed or documented, is misinformation created by the govt/media conspiracy. Their argument requires no evidence, no analysis, just a constant repetition of their base belief.
Of course, it's hard to say if it is really a belief, or just something to say to get a reaction on a message board.

Ironically enough, in a lot of these instances, the people who do shoot up schools and other public areas spend a lot of time reading conspiracy theory websites and getting themselves worked up in a frenzy against "society" and how "people won't listen/understand." It gives themselves comfort for their loneliness and, in some instances, gives them a purpose too: to get revenge and "make" society understand them and their views.

I'm sure the vast majority of internet conspiracy theorists are really just attention-seeking narcissists--but hard to deny that many of them get their minds warped in utter nonsense and lose track of reality, enabling them to do such horrific acts.

[rivergator]

http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/01/sandy-hook-the-illusion-of-tragedy/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

Say what you want, but this guy lying about his daughter being killed at Sandy Hook and then getting congratulated by Obama for it is outrageous (also, why are they all laughing and joking and all smiles in the midst of this a tragedy where so many innocents were killed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eHv_RhVgfUQ#!

People are really claiming that one of the little girls who was killed really wasn't?

[92gator]

As wacked out as this prof's theory is....it actually makes more sense than what actually happened.

...or what was reported to have happened, anyway.

As Mark Twain famously quipped: "Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction...because fiction has to make sense.

[92gator]

@ charts:

We're the child witnesses in on the conspiracy?

[WESGATORS]

I suspect that'll be his defense later on--but it's likely a dishonest one. Remember, FAU is pointing out to everyone he made these comments on his own website--a blog he uses to peddle his conspiracy nonsense--NOT in an academic forum.

I don't think one can reasonably assume that they are indisputably separate. It's not like a professor assumes two mutually exclusive roles that cannot be tied together (in-character as a professor, out-of-character off the clock). If you post something that your students have access to, then it is reasonable assume that that is potentially relevant to your role as an instructor. We've seen in the past teachers get penalized for posting derogatory comments (even generically) about their students and get penalized for it. So we know there is at least some expectation of carry-over between the two roles.

Critical thinking is an excellent gift and should be encouraged...but, like anything, it can be abused. This is an excellent example.

The term "abuse" implies damage. There is no damage here.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gatorev12]

I don't think one can reasonably assume that they are indisputably separate. It's not like a professor assumes two mutually exclusive roles that cannot be tied together (in-character as a professor, out-of-character off the clock). If you post something that your students have access to, then it is reasonable assume that that is potentially relevant to your role as an instructor. We've seen in the past teachers get penalized for posting derogatory comments (even generically) about their students and get penalized for it. So we know there is at least some expectation of carry-over between the two roles.


Fair enough--there will always be some carry-over between the roles of university professor and private blogger...but I think you can recognize that the guy did it in a non-academic forum for a reason.


The term "abuse" implies damage. There is no damage here.


Not to you or I personally--but don't you think it's damaging to the victims of this tragedy and their families?

Don't we as a society have a duty to give an accurate accounting of events for future generations? And that clouding the truth with fantastical and completely unproven allegations could potentially be damaging to history later on?

I posted a hypothetical on here earlier--and one that, as a mod, would be partly your decision to adjudicate by the rules of the site: say a person comes on here asking for prayers for their mother who was in a car accident. Another poster wanders into the thread asking the OP about the mother's sexual history--telling the OP not to "believe the crash report--it was written by a police officer and the government ALWAYS lies. This is probably done by an ex-lover of hers." What would you do: let the guy continue to ask question after question about the mother's sexual history--or delete the posts and/or ban the "questioning" poster?

[cocodrilo]

Who knows? But IF the words Sandy Hook and Aurora are noticeably seen in Batman Dark Knight Rises...........which many claim that they are and point to the exact moment, well that's awfully perplexing.

I've heard nothing about this. Who are the "many" who claim this? Where? As for the movie, it exists both on film and in script form. "Sandy Hook" and "Aurora" are either in it or they aren't. If they are, I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more notice than your mention here on this forum.

[cocodrilo]

A web search brought up several links, such as this one, which refers to a map ("Sandy Hook" as a "Strike Zone") and a sign ("Aurora") in the movie.

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/18/sandy_hook_labeled_strike_zone_in_d.php

[Emmitto]

A web search brought up several links, such as this one, which refers to a map ("Sandy Hook" as a "Strike Zone") and a sign ("Aurora") in the movie.

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/18/sandy_hook_labeled_strike_zone_in_d.php

Sandy Hook is indeed in TBKR. 1:58:45 of the Blu-ray. Sandy Hook (one of many) is a NJ peninsula that exists just south of NYC, close to Staten Island.

The Aurora Corporate Complex appears in Skyfall, I haven't rewatched to get the exact time. It is a shot of the Shanghai skyline at night as it exists now. The Aurora building was finished in 2003. The Skyline trailer with this shot ran before TDKR at least some of the time, I'm not sure if trailers change.

So, "brazen" Illuminati boasting of unfolding societal manipulation and subjugation? Or mere coincidence that the paranoid seek out and offer as "proof"?

As a kicker, recall that the super-villain in TDKR was Bane.

[cocodrilo]

As a kicker, recall that the super-villain in TDKR was Bane.

Meaning what? I don't get your point.

It is coincidence upon coincidence when "Sandy Hook" is shown not only as Sandy Hook but with the big bold words "Strike Zone."

How common is the word Aurora to make it just another coincidence? I had to look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means.

These may indeed be coincidences. Pretty chilling ones to me.

[Emmitto]

Meaning what? I don't get your point.

It is coincidence upon coincidence when "Sandy Hook" is shown not only as Sandy Hook but with the big bold words "Strike Zone."

How common is the word Aurora to make it just another coincidence? I had to look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means.

These may indeed be coincidences. Pretty chilling ones to me.

The point, to some, is that Bane is eerily similar to Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's former/current/whatever business interest. Whether that would be an indictment or an endorsement is up for debate.

And yes, it says "Strike Zone 1." Again, if indeed a message, what is it? I guess Aurora was not strike zone 1, as Sandy Hook would appear to be the second wave in this connected puzzle. Or they are unrelated, Aurora being regular old, unsanctioned evil, and Sandy Hook is the "real" start. Or it's intentionally misleading, although that seems a strange way to be cleverly brazen. Or, a production designer picked Sandy Hook off a real map of NYC and its closest surroundings as they created Gotham in a loose image of the existing NYC. Or, whatever else the imagination can conjur up.

I don't know, quantitatively, how common the word "aurora" is, although I tend to think of it as not uncommon. There was a car with that name, celestial bodies of course, multiple US cities (Iowa, Illinois, others), Google reveals multiple companies with that name, and evidently it's even a popular name for American babies:

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Aurora

And also yes, if a coincidence, then it is chilling. Those are the only coincidences of interest. We generally don't notice the unexceptional ones.

[cocodrilo]

The point, to some, is that Bane is eerily similar to Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's former/current/whatever business interest. Whether that would be an indictment or an endorsement is up for debate.

Thanks. Somehow I didn't associate Mitt Romney with Aurora and Sandy Hook.

[Emmitto]

Thanks. Somehow I didn't associate Mitt Romney with Aurora and Sandy Hook.

Neither do I. And as far as I know they are separate "theories", just threw it out there to illustrate that the movie-as-message (and TDKR specifically) is fertile ground for this endeavor.

I also don't associate the other stuff. But I am intrigued by conspiracy and I like movies. I don't doubt, as Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory (!!) discovered, that some of these ideas aren't simply paranoia.. But most likely are.

[wgbgator]

Why does no one ever pick apart indie movies for conspiracies? Just mega-blockbusters that everyone has seen. I know if I were in the NWO, I'd be putting stuff in movies that gross like $10 million domestically and were made by the Duplass brothers. And I'd make it totally obvious, just to mess with people.

[cocodrilo]

Sandy Hook is indeed in TBKR. 1:58:45 of the Blu-ray.

Do you know at one time in the movie the word "Aurora" appears? The next question would be at what time the shooting started.

If the shooting started immediately or very soon after, the word "coincidence" becomes very strained.

[ChartsandGrafs]

There's really no sense in arguing with people who claim that everything, no matter how witnessed or documented, is misinformation created by the govt/media conspiracy.

People witnessed suspicious explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11. There are dozens of videos of them giving interviews speaking about massive blasts that are totally inconsistent with the official story. They simply don't fit. Some of these interviews were given by firemen who've seen a fire or two. People at the bottom of the World Trade Center on 9/11 spoke about explosions blowing them upward from basement/subway levels.

If you don't believe me, take the time to watch the string of interviews in the following video, starting at 20:30 and lasting until 28:30 or so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTx5R67slS0

Are these witnesses credible? Is it possible there were explosives inside and under the building to insure total structural failure? Are you going to allow them to alter your worship of the official story?

Their argument requires no evidence, no analysis, just a constant repetition of their base belief.

Tell me, what evidence or analysis does your argument, "the government told the truth, the government told the truth, they just did" require? Who conducted the investigation? Government agencies. Therefore, belief in the official story, just as with 9/11, is entirely dependent on trust in the government.

Now I ask, why would anyone trust the U.S. government? You have to be insane to trust the U.S. government, considering all of its many crimes over the years.

Of course, it's hard to say if it is really a belief, or just something to say to get a reaction on a message board.

Do you honestly believe that your belief in government truth is any different than my belief in government dishonesty? There's absolutely no difference.

[gatorev12]

A common justification (if you can even call it that) most of the lunatic conspiracy theorists use is: "do you trust the government?? No? Exactly--then they must be lying."

Usually, they say this when asked for evidence to substantiate their claims and try and flip the burden of proof around. Which is lazy and intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Just because your parents lied to you about Santa Claus for the first 10 or so years of your life doesn't mean they're lying to you when they say that taking out a car loan at 38% interest is a bad idea.

While I've no doubt the government either openly lies or misleads to the public on various things--unless they do it 100%, every single time on every single topic, then this line of logic is a complete non-starter. Anchorman said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M

[ChartsandGrafs]

A common justification (if you can even call it that) most of the lunatic conspiracy theorists use is: "do you trust the government?? No? Exactly--then they must be lying."

Usually, they say this when asked for evidence to substantiate their claims and try and flip the burden of proof around. Which is lazy and intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Just because your parents lied to you about Santa Claus for the first 10 or so years of your life doesn't mean they're lying to you when they say that taking out a car loan at 38% interest is a bad idea.

While I've no doubt the government either openly lies or misleads to the public on various things--unless they do it 100%, every single time on every single topic, then this line of logic is a complete non-starter.

OK, so you admit the government sometimes lies. Well, I admit the government sometimes tells the truth.

My question to you is, how can you tell the difference? If the government conducts an investigation and declares that "x happened" and provides a frame of evidence that seems to confirm that x happened, how can you determine whether or not they are telling the truth and releasing all of the evidence?

Here are things we know about the U.S. government:

- We know the government lies.
- We know the government is vulnerable to corruption.
- We know the government tries to cover stuff up so it can control the narrative.
- We know the government is scandalous.
- We know the government has planned false flag operations.
- We know the government has the capability to carry out false flag operations, otherwise they wouldn't bother to plan them.
- We know the government does have the ability to sometimes maintain secrecy, even for a period of decades.
- We know the government has legal methods for concealing the truth, via executive and state secrets privileges.
- We know the media often carries the water for government, and peddles their war and economic propaganda.

So, with these things in mind, how can you tell the difference between government truth and government lies?

[MichiGator2002]

I have no idea what people have gotten into that fall for this "Bane"/"Bain" horsesqueeze, unless it has just turned into a way to troll conspiracists. Bane, as he is portrayed in the film, has multiple scenes that, but for his breathing mask, could have been primetime speaking slots at the DNC convention. He is basically the head of Occupy Gotham. That, much more than any shooting, probably explains why the press sort of ignored the film itself or spoke of it being "confusing" or somehow off key.

[Emmitto]

Do you know at one time in the movie the word "Aurora" appears? The next question would be at what time the shooting started.

If the shooting started immediately or very soon after, the word "coincidence" becomes very strained.

It isn't in TDKR, at least not that I can see. It's in the latest James Bond movie Skyfall. Sorry, I don't know the time. It also appeared in the Skyfall super trailer that was purportedly shown before TDKR. 40 second mark, it's the building with the red neon lettering:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgZvg3cggE&feature=relmfu

When this trailer ran (and even if, although this part I have little trouble believing) and if it was followed by others before TDKR started, I don't know. If the reels are uniform I guess one could find out. The shooting is generally reported to have started about 20-30 minutes into TDKR. This report says 12:38:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577538292604705890.html

It was a midnight showing. So a few trailers would take 10-15 minutes, then the movie starts. So if this was the trigger, it appears to have been of the delayed variety.

[wgbgator]

I have no idea what people have gotten into that fall for this "Bane"/"Bain" horsesqueeze, unless it has just turned into a way to troll conspiracists. Bane, as he is portrayed in the film, has multiple scenes that, but for his breathing mask, could have been primetime speaking slots at the DNC convention. He is basically the head of Occupy Gotham. That, much more than any shooting, probably explains why the press sort of ignored the film itself or spoke of it being "confusing" or somehow off key.

I've seen people write this and withheld judgement, but I watched the movie recently and he mostly just mentioned vague things about "the people" and "liberating" them, somehow. I didnt see any real ideology on display by Bane or the movie in general, just catch phrases and a non-sensical vaguely anarchistic scheme to blow things up. Maybe that's what you saw with OWS, but I think there was something a bit deeper intellectually, even if you opposed it.

[wgbgator]

Now, if Taft Union was in the movie too I may go full conspiracist ....

[Emmitto]

I have no idea what people have gotten into that fall for this "Bane"/"Bain" horsesqueeze, unless it has just turned into a way to troll conspiracists. Bane, as he is portrayed in the film, has multiple scenes that, but for his breathing mask, could have been primetime speaking slots at the DNC convention. He is basically the head of Occupy Gotham. That, much more than any shooting, probably explains why the press sort of ignored the film itself or spoke of it being "confusing" or somehow off key.

Huh? Ignored or spoke of it being off key? It's 87% favorable from almost 300 critics on Rottentomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/mobile/m/the_dark_knight/

Mountain Dew and Nokia partnered to show about a million ads for it, even showing up on
Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s car. And it was a trailer for practically every non-comedy at theaters for a year. It was inescapable. Luckily I like the trilogy, but if I hadn't I would've wanted to destroy my television in the months leading up to it. It certainly wasn't ignored, and most of the media attention was either their own marketing or favorable reviews.

[WESGATORS]

Fair enough--there will always be some carry-over between the roles of university professor and private blogger...but I think you can recognize that the guy did it in a non-academic forum for a reason.

Well, clearly he has more control over the content. He probably knew it would be controversial and did not want to have to take it down.

Not to you or I personally--but don't you think it's damaging to the victims of this tragedy and their families?

Too many people in our society get offended on behalf of other people. Whenever I've had difficult situations to deal with in my life, the last thing on my mind is what some blogger posts who's 2,000 miles away from the situation. I can't imagine anybody involved in this tragedy is even remotely interested in the idea that someone suggested something fishy may have happened on that day that constitutes some sort of conspiracy.

Don't we as a society have a duty to give an accurate accounting of events for future generations? And that clouding the truth with fantastical and completely unproven allegations could potentially be damaging to history later on?

There's a difference between challenging ideas with more accurate information and being offended by something. I support a rational debate of challenging ideas; if his ideas are ludicrous, they should be easily defeated. When these exchanges occur, it reinforces the truth.

I posted a hypothetical on here earlier--and one that, as a mod, would be partly your decision to adjudicate by the rules of the site: say a person comes on here asking for prayers for their mother who was in a car accident. Another poster wanders into the thread asking the OP about the mother's sexual history--telling the OP not to "believe the crash report--it was written by a police officer and the government ALWAYS lies. This is probably done by an ex-lover of hers." What would you do: let the guy continue to ask question after question about the mother's sexual history--or delete the posts and/or ban the "questioning" poster?

I'm not a mod on this board, but I would say the difference here is that posters are not allowed to attack one another, and this would very clearly come off as an attack. I would have a completely different opinion of this faculty if he was actually reaching out to the Sandy Hook victims and asking them if their child/relative/friend had many instances of poor behavior before the event occurred. I think the analogy is a bit of a stretch.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[DeanMeadGator]

Conspiracism is an interesting pathology. Personally, I think it belongs with the anxiety disorders.

:laugh:You mean there was not another shooter on the grassy knoll??:laugh:

[bluelang]

At least the conspiracy nuts have finally shut the **** up about Benghazi.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm undecided on the whole Hollywood movie/predictive programming conspiracy. To believe that this is true, you'd have to also believe that there is some kind of executive overlap or close, cooperative connection between the media and the Pentagon.

The question is, how connected is Hollywood to the Military-Industrial Complex? Is it closer than the average person suspects?

[gatorev12]

OK, so you admit the government sometimes lies. Well, I admit the government sometimes tells the truth.


I've always admitted the government lies, that isn't anything new. I'm SHOCKED you'd admit this--because your sole rationalization about not needing any evidence to substantiate any of your allegations is inevitably "the government lies."

Great. That's established and a given. Your parents have lied to you about things great and small from the time you were born until you were likely in your 20s. Heck, they could be lying to you now about something they don't want to tell you. Does that mean EVERYTHING they tell you that affects your life is wrong?

Again, no. You'd need some proof that they were lying to you in the present because their lies to you about Santa Claus in no way, shape, or form is relevant to whatever current topic you're discussing with them.

If you have no proof, then there's nothing to substantiate your allegation. Whether we're talking about the government lying or you talking to your parents.

My question to you is, how can you tell the difference? If the government conducts an investigation and declares that "x happened" and provides a frame of evidence that seems to confirm that x happened, how can you determine whether or not they are telling the truth and releasing all of the evidence?


Any rational matrix one might care to use? Call it "critical thinking" "the scientific method" "preponderance of the evidence" or "Occum's Razor" or simply "it's more likely."

With regards to Sandy Hook, you have yet to furnish a SINGLE fact to demonstrate that the narrative is wrong. Zip, zero, zilch. And as much as you bitch and whine otherwise, if you want to challenge a particular narrative, the burden of proof is on you.

Otherwise, you can carry the burden of proof to all sorts of nonsensical and pointless topics. Such as:

Here are things we know about Charts and Grafs:

- We know he lies.
- We know he is vulnerable to corruption.
- We know he tries to cover stuff up and ignore opposing viewpoints so he can control the narrative.
- We know he is scandalous and posts deliberately inflammatory opinions and arguments with no proof or evidence.
- We know he has had violent fantasies at various points in his life.
- We know he has the capability to carry out violent fantasies, otherwise he wouldn't bother to plan them.
- We know he does have the ability to sometimes maintain secrecy.
- We know he has legal methods for concealing the truth, via constitutional protections on privacy.
- We know his parents and friends often carries the water for him, and refuses to get tough on him out of love.

Edited slightly to prove a point, but:

With these things in mind, how can you sit here and tell me you aren't a violent person about to go on a rampage? PROVE ME WRONG!!

Since it's likely you've stopped reading by now, this will probably escape you: but you can manipulate general maxims to fit any particular group or individual all day long and make wide, sweeping allegations all day long for whatever you want to target. Whether that's "the government" "WalMart" or "Charts&Grafs".

I have just as much "evidence" to support the hypothesis of you being a psychotic, violent individual (none) as you do that Sandy Hook was some mass conspiracy foisted on us by the Stone Cutters or the Hellfire Club or whatever the hell you want to call the imaginary super-villains that live in your fantasy world.

[wgbgator]

I'm undecided on the whole Hollywood movie/predictive programming conspiracy. To believe that this is true, you'd have to also believe that there is some kind of executive overlap or close, cooperative connection between the media and the Pentagon.

The question is, how connected is Hollywood to the Military-Industrial Complex? Is it closer than the average person suspects?

Well movies like Act of Valor, and Zero Dark Thirty were made with government cooperation (the former with actual soldiers). It's not really a conspiracy at all, because it was well publicized. I suppose that makes them technically propaganda, but its not much of a secret that many war films were made with some state cooperation going back to the 1940s.

[gatorev12]

There's a difference between challenging ideas with more accurate information and being offended by something. I support a rational debate of challenging ideas; if his ideas are ludicrous, they should be easily defeated. When these exchanges occur, it reinforces the truth.


Could you agree that challenging ideas with NO information or facts to support a changed narrative is a wasted exercise for all involved?

I'm not a mod on this board, but I would say the difference here is that posters are not allowed to attack one another, and this would very clearly come off as an attack. I would have a completely different opinion of this faculty if he was actually reaching out to the Sandy Hook victims and asking them if their child/relative/friend had many instances of poor behavior before the event occurred. I think the analogy is a bit of a stretch.


I find your answer to be a little on the lazy side here.

I've no doubt many of the conspiracy theorists out there genuinely believe the bat-sh*t crazy stuff they blather. For them, they're "questioning authority" and doing something noble and good for society. Others do it just to troll. In the hypothetical I posed, say the poster asking "questions" wasn't doing it to troll--he was doing it because that was his sincere belief. Does that change things, or not?

If you're going to tote the board line and say "it's an attack on another poster"---then is it really that much different to say deliberately inflammatory, nonsensical, and inane posts are designed to cause the same reaction?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Well movies like Act of Valor, and Zero Dark Thirty were made with government cooperation (the former with actual soldiers). It's not really a conspiracy at all, because it was well publicized. I suppose that makes them technically propaganda, but its not much of a secret that many war films were made with some state cooperation going back to the 1940s.

My words were imprecise. I know WW2-era war movies often had U.S. government and military advisors on the set to make sure movies contained to right message. I'm sure that still goes on today.

What I meant was, a predictive programming conspiracy would require much closer cooperation between the media and Pentagon than that. We're talking about inside information being fed directly to the studios. We're talking about media executives and producers having a direct connection to the Military-Industrial Complex, and being in place to deliberately carry out this predictive programming.

It's a hell of a thing to consider.

[cocodrilo]

The question is, how connected is Hollywood to the Military-Industrial Complex?

Well, it's a fact that a movie like Stone's JFK will never get made again in Hollywood. There are several movies coming out for the 50th anniversary, and they are all pure crap. (Oswald did it or the Mafia did it. Real safe bets.) Not a one about maybe the CIA was involved, based on the evidence, because producers won't touch it. This doesn't imply a connection to the MIC, it implies pure fear, even though there is money to be made. The investment is not worth having your career or personal life suddenly go down the toilet.

[cocodrilo]

It isn't in TDKR, at least not that I can see. It's in the latest James Bond movie Skyfall. Sorry, I don't know the time.

Thanks. If it's not in TDKR, then it sounds like some collective wishful thinking. It's presence and the time in Skyfall would seem to be irrelevant.

It's entirely conceivable to me that the Sandy Hook scene in TDKR is not a coincidence.

The Newton shooter, who was familiar with the Sandy Hook school, may well have watched the movie, saw "Sandy Hook" and "Strike Zone 1," and the whole plan unfolded right there in front of his eyes.

Note that this has nothing to do with conspiracy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Great. That's established and a given. Your parents have lied to you about things great and small from the time you were born until you were likely in your 20s. Heck, they could be lying to you now about something they don't want to tell you. Does that mean EVERYTHING they tell you that affects your life is wrong?

First of all, my parents are deceased. Secondly, no, a string of lies does not constitute proof that the next statement will be a lie.

Again, no. You'd need some proof that they were lying to you in the present because their lies to you about Santa Claus in no way, shape, or form is relevant to whatever current topic you're discussing with them.

No, I would need some proof that they were telling the truth. In other words, the default position isn't that the U.S. government is telling the truth, the default position is that everything the U.S. government says requires credible evidence. The burden of proof is on the U.S. government to show that they are telling the truth, not on me to show they are lying.

If you have no proof, then there's nothing to substantiate your allegation. Whether we're talking about the government lying or you talking to your parents.

False. You allege that the government told the truth, but can't provide any evidence supporting this claim. I ask for evidence of government truth, and you've got nothing but deflection.

Any rational matrix one might care to use? Call it "critical thinking" "the scientific method" "preponderance of the evidence" or "Occum's Razor" or simply "it's more likely."

Use any one you like.

With regards to Sandy Hook, you have yet to furnish a SINGLE fact to demonstrate that the narrative is wrong.

And you have yet to furnish a SINGLE fact to demonstrate that the narrative is correct. And anything you do provide is essentially based on, "the government said so".

Zip, zero, zilch. And as much as you bitch and whine otherwise, if you want to challenge a particular narrative, the burden of proof is on you.

False. The burden of proof is on you to support the narrative.

Again, your chosen narrative doesn't just get to be correct or true by default. You have to support it with credible, verifiable evidence.

Edited slightly to prove a point, but:

With these things in mind, how can you sit here and tell me you aren't a violent person about to go on a rampage? PROVE ME WRONG!!

I very well might be a violent person about to go on a rampage. You have no way of knowing one way or the other.

Since it's likely you've stopped reading by now, this will probably escape you: but you can manipulate general maxims to fit any particular group or individual all day long and make wide, sweeping allegations all day long for whatever you want to target. Whether that's "the government" "WalMart" or "Charts&Grafs".

I have just as much "evidence" to support the hypothesis of you being a psychotic, violent individual (none) as you do that Sandy Hook was some mass conspiracy foisted on us by the Stone Cutters or the Hellfire Club or whatever the hell you want to call the imaginary super-villains that live in your fantasy world.

That's my whole point. We don't really know if the government is telling the truth or not, since they get to control the investigation and our media doesn't seem interested in doing anything other than protecting the status quo.

[Emmitto]

Thanks. If it's not in TDKR, then it sounds like some collective wishful thinking. It's presence and the time in Skyfall would seem to be irrelevant.

It's entirely conceivable to me that the Sandy Hook scene in TDKR is not a coincidence.

The Newton shooter, who was familiar with the Sandy Hook school, may well have watched the movie, saw "Sandy Hook" and "Strike Zone 1," and the whole plan unfolded right there in front of his eyes.

Note that this has nothing to do with conspiracy.

Yes, that's a much more likely concept to me. I would imagine a movie can inspire any particular action as much as anything else. Even then, genuinely getting that inspiration in these cases is hard to believe. You'd have to be one eagle-eyed individual to even see these particular words, in either movie. I paused TDKR on Blu-ray on a 60" TV and moved right up the screen to verify. But hypothetically, I agree with your premise.

[outbackjack]

Another coincidence, also a tad chilling.

The prop designer of Dark Knight, Scott Getzinger, who likely handled the map with Sandy Hook clearly marked as a strike zone.....

He mysteriously died in a car accident earlier this year. After the accident, his injuries were listed as non life threatening.

Anyone wonder where he died? You guessed it, Newtown, Ct.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d76_1357595961

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004050/bio

I'm not believing it is a conspiracy, but that sure is a weird and rather eerie co-inkadink.

[oragator1]

Another coincidence, also a tad chilling.

The prop designer of Dark Knight, Scott Getzinger, who likely handled the map with Sandy Hook clearly marked as a strike zone.....

He mysteriously died in a car accident earlier this year. After the accident, his injuries were listed as non life threatening.

Anyone wonder where he died? You guessed it, Newtown, Ct.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d76_1357595961

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004050/bio

I'm not believing it is a conspiracy, but that sure is a weird and rather eerie co-inkadink.

He's from Newtown which would explain Sandy Hook being in a prop, the accident was on the Parkway near Stamford.

http://mydeathspace.com/article/2013/01/10/Scott_Getzinger_(46)_died_when_Alexandra_Orteig_(1 8)_lost_control_of_her_vehicle

[cocodrilo]

The accident was caused when an 18-year-old lost control of her Lexus in a southbound lane, spun out, and crossed over into the northbound lane, hitting Getzinger head-on.

Doesn't sound like a black-ops staged accident. If it was, that 18-year-old was one hell of a stunt driver.

[Spurffelbow833]

The accident was caused when an 18-year-old lost control of her Lexus in a southbound lane, spun out, and crossed over into the northbound lane, hitting Getzinger head-on.

Doesn't sound like a black-ops staged accident. If it was, that 18-year-old was one hell of a stunt driver.

Hani Hanjour was one hell of a pilot. Maybe her driving instructor will come forward now and tell us she couldn't park.