The Sandy Hook "conspiracy" and what they base it on

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

His confession rings true based on the evidence that the CIA was involved, as he said it was. He himself or his doppelganger was photographed in Dealey Plaza shortly after the shooting (no, not as one of the three tramps, but crossing Elm Street in a trench coat and felt hat like a secret agent straight out of central casting). The CIA's Rip Robertson was photographed on the corner of Main and Houston (safely out of the kill zone) as JFK rode by. A prime suspect is the CIA's David Morales (whom Hunt also named), who drunkenly ranted to friends about JFK and then said, "We took care of that son of a bitch, didn't we?" Morales died of a "heart attack" before he could be questioned by the HSCA. Another prime suspect is the CIA's David Atlee Phillips, who according to his brother admitted on his deathbed that he was in Dallas that day. There is CIA operative John Martino, whose wife says he told her that JFK was going to be killed when he went to Dallas. Every one of these people could be lying, but if so they were all telling the truth at the same time, i.e. the CIA was involved.

I don't know Martino's story so I cant comment on it. But if you hear what Phillips told the commission as well as what Morales actually said, I always got the vibe that they assumed the agency did it, with neither one of them being involved and just assuming it was other elements. They never said "here is how we did it", or "X pulled the trigger, this is who ordered it, here is the evidence, here is how we covered it up after the fact". Phillips went so far as to sue for libel at one point against someone who claimed he was involved (and won), which would have opened him up to all sorts of expository questioning. He also donated the money to a fund for other clandestine agents wrongfully accused, so hardly the public actions someone who wants the whole thing kept quiet would take. And telling the commission you believe it was an agency conspiracy as Phillips did is hardly a way to lower the heat on yourself either.
But again, look up the story of David and Sarti and their supposed involvement on behalf of the mob - it has as much corroboration or more, and yet just like your theory there isn't any real evidence, just hearsay and a couple of witnesses who can't provide anything either other than a couple of interpretive photos from Dallas that day (sound familiar?). The "official" version has far more attached evidence and the two conspiracies directly contradict each other, yet you choose one of the conspiracies to the exclusion of other explanations.
And for the record, I have never said a conspiracy that day isn't possible, I would be willing to change my mind if real evidence surfaced, it's just that the CT evidence is outnumbered by factual supportive evidence many times over. Just like how I approach most issues I try to be factual, and rationally to me distrust in government isn't enough of a reason to believe something, especially when it has limited support around it relative to the alternative.

[bluelang]

The Dad's grief is completely irrelevant. He could have had a hot dog and sparkler party because his daughter died. It has no bearing at all on the facts. None. It is not evidence for or against reality.

[AmericaFirst]

Originally Posted by bluelang

The Dad's grief is completely irrelevant. He could have had a hot dog and sparkler party because his daughter died. It has no bearing at all on the facts. None. It is not evidence for or against reality.

I disagree completely. Statements like his that appear to be forced are what causes parents to become prime suspects when their kid goes "missing."

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by AmericaFirst

I disagree completely. Statements like his that appear to be forced are what causes parents to become prime suspects when their kid goes "missing."

This isn't a missing kid case. She's dead. Some asshole shot her.

And now a bunch of other assholes on the internet are dishonoring her memory by pretending it didn't happen.

[AmericaFirst]

Originally Posted by bluelang

This isn't a missing kid case. She's dead. Some asshole shot her.

And now a bunch of other assholes on the internet are dishonoring her memory by pretending it didn't happen.

We'll disagree on this one. You know damn well that dad's reaction is strange beyond words and is totally forcing himself to be distraught after SMILING for the camera.

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by bluelang

This isn't a missing kid case. She's dead. Some asshole shot her.

And now a bunch of other assholes on the internet are dishonoring her memory by pretending it didn't happen.

The "assholes" you speak of aren't pretending anything. They are using critical thinking skills to question what they see and hear. The worst way to dishonor someone's memory would be to care no more than to buy into something that doesn't ring true to you so you can turn to your own affairs without giving it another thought.

If the way these people are behaving looks OK to you, fine. Doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by oragator1

I have never said a conspiracy that day isn't possible, I would be willing to change my mind if real evidence surfaced, it's just that the CT evidence is outnumbered by factual supportive evidence many times over. Just like how I approach most issues I try to be factual, and rationally to me distrust in government isn't enough of a reason to believe something, especially when it has limited support around it relative to the alternative.

Let's assume that everyone who has talked was lying. Let's assume no one has talked at all. The evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming, and the argument that the official story is a stronger case is ridiculous. The single bullet theory defies the laws of physics, and I don't know how you figure that Oswald managed to shoot JFK from in front. But this thread isn't about JFK, and I've wasted enough time arguing with a supporter of the lone-nut scenario. Now if you will excuse me I have to go argue with a young-Earth creationist.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The government has the ability to not only conduct an investigation, but to also set and control the parameters of an investigation. In other words, they can investigate every angle of an event or no angle at all. They can also control the evidence, and limit what they allow the public to see. If that's not enough, the government also possesses the legal authority to withhold evidence and information from the public, press, and courts under state secrets privileges. All they have to do is say, "this is a matter of national security", and no court in the land will override them. This immense power basically constitutes the ability of government to shape reality and manage perception of any event.

According to the conspiracy denying government apologists, we should just trust that the government is telling the truth. And why? Just because. It doesn't matter that our government is obviously corrupt. It doesn't matter that our government lies. It doesn't matter that our government gets caught in criminal scandals. None of that matters to them. What matters is not questioning our government overlords. These people worship government like a religion. That's why they struggle to construct any rational counterarguments.

Don't fall for any of their antics.

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

What matters is not questioning our government overlords. These people worship government like a religion.

Religion might be the opiate of the people, but government is the meth.

[outbackjack]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Good questions here from someone who's probably never been shot at.

Since you like asking questions, I have one for you: say you were in a situation where there's a shooter firing at everyone in sight. Is your first priority going to be to get a perfect visual of the guy--or to find the first cover you can find where you're shielded and, by definition, aren't visible/can't see the shooter (and their gun)?

Um, actually, it is EXACTLY the opposite. I've never been shot at, but I have had a gun pulled at a group I was in, while camping outside awaiting Braves playoff tickets in 1995 at Fulton County Stadium. None of us knew the guy, he was arrested on the spot, he was clearly drunk and disturbed.

No shots were fired, and despite this being nearly 20 years ago, i remember EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the guys face, and will til the day I die.

No, getting a good look is not a priority, but at least in my case it's frozen in my brain, whether I wanted to or not.

[gregthegator]

Look ya'll...it all started when the beloved government of ours gave blankets infested w/smallpox to THE indians...and it ain't stopped...sorry if THAT news to some of you...it is what it is.

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by gregthegator

Look ya'll...it all started when the beloved government of ours gave blankets infested w/smallpox to THE indians...and it ain't stopped...sorry if THAT news to some of you...it is what it is.

They apologized. It's all good.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Let's assume that everyone who has talked was lying. Let's assume no one has talked at all. The evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming, and the argument that the official story is a stronger case is ridiculous. The single bullet theory defies the laws of physics, and I don't know how you figure that Oswald managed to shoot JFK from in front. But this thread isn't about JFK, and I've wasted enough time arguing with a supporter of the lone-nut scenario. Now if you will excuse me I have to go argue with a young-Earth creationist.

Good luck. But hey keep your chin up it's only been 50 years, I am sure you will be proven right soon

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by outbackjack

Um, actually, it is EXACTLY the opposite. I've never been shot at, but I have had a gun pulled at a group I was in, while camping outside awaiting Braves playoff tickets in 1995 at Fulton County Stadium. None of us knew the guy, he was arrested on the spot, he was clearly drunk and disturbed.

No shots were fired, and despite this being nearly 20 years ago, i remember EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the guys face, and will til the day I die.

No, getting a good look is not a priority, but at least in my case it's frozen in my brain, whether I wanted to or not.

So what you're saying is: no--you've never actually been in a situation where bullets were flying..and moreover, you weren't between the ages of 6-8 when this was happening either.

Correct?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

The "assholes" you speak of aren't pretending anything. They are using critical thinking skills to question what they see and hear. The worst way to dishonor someone's memory would be to care no more than to buy into something that doesn't ring true to you so you can turn to your own affairs without giving it another thought.

If the way these people are behaving looks OK to you, fine. Doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.

Conversely, if those "assholes" were wrong and there was absolutely no factual or substantive reason to question what they see/hear--and it was merely a reflection of their own paranoid psyche projecting fantasies into reality...then those people would, in fact, be assholes. Behaving in as childish and as disrespectful a manner as the douchebags from Westboro Baptist. In fact, I'm pretty positive their rationalizations when they go about spreading their gospel of hate is that they're using their critical thinking skills to question what they see and hear as well.

Great people, no?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

The government has the ability to not only conduct an investigation, but to also set and control the parameters of an investigation. In other words, they can investigate every angle of an event or no angle at all. They can also control the evidence, and limit what they allow the public to see. If that's not enough, the government also possesses the legal authority to withhold evidence and information from the public, press, and courts under state secrets privileges. All they have to do is say, "this is a matter of national security", and no court in the land will override them. This immense power basically constitutes the ability of government to shape reality and manage perception of any event.

You'd think for a poster as wise and all-knowing as you are, you'd have the smarts to realize the difference between the national government and local law enforcement agencies (you know, the actual people who were dispatched to the scene and with jurisdiction over the incident)--and that your local town sheriff can't, in fact, claim the legal authority to hold state secrets (and moreover, no court in the land would allow him to assert such protections).

But hey, I guess we all make mistakes, eh C&G? Even the wisest, most omniscient poster on here, like yourself.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

How is it that there were no surviving wounded? Nobody who got hit survived. That would be extremely hard to pull off, even with multiple shooters.

that's because all were shot between 3-11 times.

Which, you know, is usually enough to kill a grown man, let alone a 6-7 year old child.

http://www.euronews.com/2012/12/15/p...hook-killings/

Police now say Adam Lanza, 20, a former pupil at the school, forced his way into the building early on Friday and killed six adult women and 20 children, 12 girls and eight boys aged around six or seven. All were shot between three and 11 times. He is also suspected of killing his mother at home before going to the school.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

You'd think for a poster as wise and all-knowing as you are, you'd have the smarts to realize the difference between the national government and local law enforcement agencies (you know, the actual people who were dispatched to the scene and with jurisdiction over the incident)--and that your local town sheriff can't, in fact, claim the legal authority to hold state secrets (and moreover, no court in the land would allow him to assert such protections).

But hey, I guess we all make mistakes, eh C&G? Even the wisest, most omniscient poster on here, like yourself.

LOL, nice reading comprehension. I guess you failed to notice in my post that I didn't reference Sandy Hook once, because I was speaking in general terms, about investigations with federal oversight.

But now that you mention it, is there some reason Connecticut state police couldn't be involved in a cover-up or be working with the FBI on such a cover-up? Surely you're aware that federal agents are fully involved in the case. Do you have an answer other than, "but, but, but, the police and government would never do that"?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

that's because all were shot between 3-11 times.

Sounds like a professionally orchestrated hit to me.

Professionals never leave surviving witnesses, if they can help it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

So what you're saying is: no--you've never actually been in a situation where bullets were flying..and moreover, you weren't between the ages of 6-8 when this was happening either.

Correct?

That's a nice diversion and all, but it doesn't address any of his questions.

Where's the evidence supporting the official conspiracy theory?