Posted on 01/21/2013 1:40:50 PM PST by TigerClaws
+ At the words "they arrived to carnage," the CNN Anderson Cooper report cuts to helicopter footage of seven police officers charging across a parking lot and toward a school. It is breaking news coverage of the Sandy Hook shooting just hours earlier. The three-minute report posted on the day of the shootings at the official CNN website is entitled "Tragedy Strikes at Elementary School." But the school is almost certainly not Sandy Hook.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/341776#ixzz2IeFku7BJ
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
Golly Gee Willikers -- why didn't someone think of that before. Oh Yeh -- they wouldn't be able to make videos postulating a hoax.
The poster I responded to in this comment has asserted elsewhere that they do not espouse the theory that the grieving parents are all actors.
My response suggests they did, and I apologize. The poster was responding to a DIFFERENT poster who made those claims, in a positive manner, and that is what led to my response. I should have called out the offending commenter, not this one.
I will work harder to use non-personal pronouns, since I am addressing a group, not individuals, and don’t mean to single out a specific instance of lunacy over others.
I do assert that it is not a shame that people who have crazy ideas are called crazy when they espouse their crazy ideas.
you seem to have a lot of time on your hands so have at this one too
What got me is the video of the parents being interviewed with Anderson Cooper, where they were smiling and laughing.
NO WAY did those people go through what the media said they went through. NO WAY!!
An interview with grieving parents would want to emphasize their sadness, so this COULD NOT have been planned that way.
It must have been a spontaneous event.
NO WAY were those grieving parents who just lost a child...
I heard the call from the first officer on the scene saying that there was broken glass at the front door.
so he got there in one minute or was that the dispatch?
Apology accepted, though you accused me directly.
That said, I thought I made myself perfectly clear. I do not believe this was a hoax, I do believe the Government has in place those who would exploit a tragedy like this to facilitate their agenda though.
Is that so hard to fathom, is it not a reasonable reaction?
Especially in light of what happened with F & F and it's goals, the Benghazi cover up, ramming a socialist agenda down out throats?
Sheesh, we have a "man" in office with no verifiable past and I'm to accept everything as truth when no one in major media will even question him?
Sorry, we're living in an upside down, black is white country, I'll question just about everything.
I already did. I glanced through it. Same video clips of the same people and the same narrative of the same bonehead making it under different names.
I called your attention to the most eggregiously verifiable prefabrication in that video last night — an absolute lie about the window not being broken — and your response is to send me another one as bad as that one if not worse. You ought to be apologizing for having wasted my time
Furthermore the bonehead last night claims that Gene Rosen could not have heard the gunshots because they took place in the closed school. Well he could certainly have heard the gunshots breaking the front glass, and once that glass is broken the sound of shots in that office right there would have escaped.
And then he goes on to say that the decibel level of a
AR-15 would be so loud as to be intolerable — oh but Gene Rosen couldn’t have heard it coming from the office area by the broken glass — right.
And these boneheads are your sources of truth???? Keep digging —
Happy to oblige: Comment 38, by Las Vegas Ron:
Instead of Alinsky tactics, why don't you dispute and then answer the questions the video brings up?I think that can reasonably be described as calling "on someone to look over the posted "truther video" and actually deal with what it says.
Oh, you can't you say?
What did you MEAN when you said "dispute and then answer questions the video brings up", if you didn't mean "watch the video and refute the points it makes?
Hopefully, my repost of your comment section will jog your memory. In general, it is easy to go back through a thread.
Yes, his response in my opinion is questionable, are you a psychology expert?
No. I have seen grieving people laugh. I saw my sister laugh at her husband's funeral. Parker is a Mormon, so he has a belief in an afterlife, and may well be comforted thinking his daughter is in a better place, as some often say to console the grieving. I tend to avoid people who have lost loved ones, because I cry easily. But if I've seen people with true loss laugh, I can assert that laughing is not incongruous with a loss of a loved one.
Which is the real problem, you asserting that in the world of responses, laughter could NEVER be a real response in that situation. In fact, almost every emotional response is possible. My wife tends to laugh hysterically whenever she is really upset, probably a protective mechanism before she breaks down into tears. Everybody has their own way of handling things. To assert that the only real response is that which you would contemplate is silly.
I happen to think a man who just had a daughter murdered would not be yucking it up right before a news conference the very nest day.
And yet there he was, doing it. And rather than acknowledge that your opinion of what a man might do is clearly wrong, you instead took your opinion as fact, and assume therefore that the man is a liar, and that somehow nobody has noticed.
There is a grave in Utah with his daughter's name on it -- who did they bury, if not his daughter? There is a picture with his daughter in it? What did they do with her, if she is still alive? There is a picture of the family with Obama, which anybody in this country could have easily seen -- and you think that nobody who knew the "real Parkers" has noticed an imposter?
It's not just that your entire theory is based on a false premise of "how people would act", it's the shear impossibility of your theory being correct, given the public nature of the information we have.
The conspiracy required to fake an entire family, on national TV, is phenomenal.
It's not just a few people in a quiet town in Connecticut. How do you fake the funeral? Ogden, Utah: Family says final goodbye
Apparently, there is entire branch of the conspiracy in Utah, pretending to know the "family". And there's "Vinny Idone, her father from New York who had befriended the Parkers when they moved to Connecticut about eight months ago". I guess that's a long-running conspiracy.
The reason there aren't THOUSANDS of people refuting this absurd claim is that it is so absurd nobody feels compelled to come forward to say "ye, we also knew the Parkers".
Emilie Parker laid to rest next to her grandfather -- hey look, they got a fake grandfather and buried him years ago, just for a time such as this.
Burial at Evergreen Memorial Park followed a private funeral for family and close friends at a Mormon church across the street from Ben Lomond High School, where Emilie's parents, Robbie and Alissa Parker, met.Wait, that is "fake close friends". And I'm sure nobody at Ben Lomand High School remember Robbie and Alissa attending school. They even slipped fake pictures of them into the high school yearbook, just so they'd be ready for this conspiracy.
Seriously, do you even comprehend how hard it would be to create a fake family with multiple children, with relatives, friends, an entire life, and then have one of the kids get a fake burial?
I think some people watch way too much TV.
I didn’t see any mention of the broken glass in the dispatch but I remember hearing an officer note that the glass by the front door was broken. And ............... the police broke more glass there and elsewhere to get into the building.
Huh?? Asking a poster to argue the subject in a video is directiing them to it?
And then telling them not to use "truther" labels but rather discuss points is some how what?
I come here to have adult conversations, not be labeled because I disagree with something....see the difference?
What did you MEAN when you said "dispute and then answer questions the video brings up", if you didn't mean "watch the video and refute the points it makes?
It's called a discussion, debate, trying to understand what the hell is really going on.
The conspiracy required to fake an entire family, on national TV, is phenomenal.
Please tell me you are not that illiterate, I have made my position perfectly clear to any one that has an elementary comprehension of the written word, at least twice now to you, what the hell is your problem?
You really did bump your head or something, I wrote it was an opinion.
Seems to me, you have the opposite opinion, and believe you are just as right as I believe that I am.
Deal with it.
The broken glass at the front of Sandy Hook School:
http://www.frequency.com/video/broken-glass-at-front-of-sandy-hook/72154872/-/5-85140
You should call that Riley program and ask who that flim flam man was on their program and how someone with his supposed credentials can be so obviously wrong —
I knew there was video of the broken glass and told you so...his story changes first from no broken glass to broken glass...so he has some errors nothing wrong with us correcting them there are other errors thats what discussions are for ..as for the second video his theory is the govt is exploiting the situation and wants people to see the discrepencies and start trouble so they can be crushed...do you remember Buckhead?
Problem here is many people think they can conduct an investigation based solely on information on the internet-in reality it takes face to face gumshoe work to properly investigate and as for me I’ll wait until the official PD/State Police report comes out then I will do some fact checking..
I know it sounds stupid, but look at how many people think that Robbie Parker is an actor, that Emilie Parker is still alive, and that their pictures are all photo-shopped.
It is absurd, so it requires extraordinary measures.
That's not the real title of the thread, as it starts with a real article and the title is the article name. But the thread is a series of comments with posts of different articles quoting different people who knew Robbie or his wife or the kids.
It would be great if one of our people from Newtown could find references to the family in local sources, like a phone book, or a yearbook, or property records, or quotes from other people who knew them.
Since we've had people claiming that the daughter didn't exist, and didn't attend the school, it's time to prove otherwise, just to shut these people up before they make even bigger fools of the site.
The following is a list (as released by police) of the victims in Friday's shooting spree on the campus of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female - Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male - Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female. - Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female - Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female - Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female - Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male - Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female - Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female - Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female - Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male - Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male - James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male - Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female - Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female - Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female - Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male - Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male - Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female - Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female - Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female - Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified) - Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female - Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female - Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male - Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
Police knew the names of the victims Friday, but officials said they were pending positive identification by the state medical examiner's office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-victims-names_n_2307354.html
There are no discrepancies between the facts on the ground and what the police have told us thus far.
There are none.
The only discrepancies that people are seeing are those that this guy and others like him are making up out of thin air.
If I could find that press conference and the dispatch about the broken glass, then why couldn't he, the supposed expert???
If what you are looking at is conspiracy, then you should be looking at this guy and those like him lying about Sandy Hook as one of your conspirators.
do you remember Buckhead?
Nope
SANDY HOOK CENTRAL: A VIRTUAL DATABASE OF FACTS, THEORIES, AND EVIDENCE
http://thedirtylowdown.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/sandy-hook-latest-evidence/
Thanks — that is quite a compilation of material.
Don’t bother posting to me again, since it’s clear that you will do “whatever it takes” to force us to listen to what CBSMSNBCABCNBCNYTCNN has to say about this scandal.
In what way is your opinion not a theory? Are you claiming that your opinion is that something impossible happened? If not, then you have a “theory” about Parker. That theory is your opinion, so it’s not a “theory” in a scientific sense, it’s in the normal linguistic sense.
I only have an “opposite” opinion in the general sense. There are many things that could be true; truth is not a bi-polar selection. But I certainly have an “opnion” that Parker is actually Parker, that his daughter is Emilie, that Emilie is dead.
But just because I have an opnion, and you have an opinion, does not mean that our opinions are equivalent, or equally valid. They are opinions about truth, and in this case, my opinion corresponds to the facts as they are known, and your opinion is contrary to facts and common sense, and is grounded on a faulty premise about the range of human behavior.
It isn’t that I believe I am right; it is that my opinion is based on an analysis of all the facts that are known, and the research I have performed, and is therefore grounded in reality, while your opinion is based on a feeling you have based on a simplistic understanding of people’s emotional reactions, and contrary to the facts as they are clearly laid out.
Again, you may have an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, but that opinion is not grounded in reality, nor equal to an opinion of the nature of the moon based on the scientific study of the samples returned from the lunar missions.
That is, assuming you don’t believe that was staged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.