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

[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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by Emmitto

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]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

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]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

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.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]

Originally Posted by 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.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...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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