Posted on 01/30/2013 8:20:05 AM PST by RummyChick
Umnn.. yes, I noticed that.
Heartbreaking stories about her in the first few days..
Was she pregnant in that photo? Or was that just a weird, puffy dress?
Now don't come here and try to pollute wild-eyed conspiracy theories with logic and reason!
I watched bits and pieces of some “conspiracy” video on the shooting. Lots of it can be explained by inaccurate first reporting. It was interesting though how my mind tended towards the “conspiracy”. I was wondering aloud to my wife what makes the human brain want to look at these big events (Assasinations, 911, Sandy Hook, etc.) as “conspiracies” is some type of protection method. Rather than looking at them as random attacks by some nutjob (which could happen to me or my kids), the idea of a conspiracy makes it somehow less random and less likely that it could happen to me?
And definitely some unanswered questions that may/may not be important. (The one that I wonder about is the guy seen running from the school and caught, and accounts of a guy cuffed and on the ground at the police station, then in the squad car). Perhaps it was just “some guy” that happened to be in the woods near the school at the time, and never warranted further response from the media.
But the media has definitely used this brutal attack to further their liberal agenda, and will use it to their full advantage. Including lying and omissions.
You are one who keeps suggesting that kids weren’t in the school. I still have no idea why, or what you are trying to get at.
But even in this thread, in which we are discussing an article where the police specifically talk about taking classrooms of kids out of the school and to the firehouse, you still bring up the principle and “700 kids” and wonder why we don’t see them.
Why? What is your point? Do you think that most of the kids were told to stay home? Do you think they all stayed in the school? Do you think they were all killed and so they didn’t leave the school? Or are you just raising “questions” so you can say you raised “questions”?
As I have said many times, questions are cheap. If the question doesn’t have a point, it’s just a waste of time.
So, let’s here it — what is your theory regarding the missing children?
I don’t get your obsession with Gene. At best, Gene is a guy who embelishes a story hoping nobody notices. At worst, he is a liar who, if anybody cared, would immediately be found out, simply by interviewing kids and finding that none of the kids were at his house.
But his story is a total red herring as regards the shooting. He’s a sideshow. But as you said elsewhere, people who are vainly trying to spin a conspiracy by ignoring reality (like that a school really has students, even if you don’t see them in a video) like Gene very much, because he is a bizarre guy with a shaky story.
I approach these kinds of things differently than most people. We are all observing a black box, and we take measurements (the various stories). The measurements are error-prone, and you need to put various measurements together to get a better picture of reality (in signal processing, you can get a pretty accurate result with a lot of very inaccurate measurements if you know the error statistics of the measurements).
So, I start by presuming that Gene isn’t a pure liar. Why? Because if he made the whole thing up, someone would know by now. You don’t think ANY reporter has questioned all the survivors from Soto’s class? OR that none of the parents got to thinking about Gene, and would say something like “well, we didn’t go to Gene’s house — who did?”
It’s not that he couldn’t be lying. It is just that, if he is, we’ll know eventually. Because there will be an official report, and there will be witness statements, and I’m betting Gene, as someone who claims to have spoken with the kids, would be questioned, and his recollection of what the kids said would be added to interviews with the kids who were at his house.
And if there were no kids at his house, the report will tell us that.
So, since we’ll KNOW that for a fact eventually, I focus on possibilities that won’t be easily determined. So I figure kids were at his house. How many? Who? How were they picked up? That is all pretty much in the noise. He could get all those facts wrong, but still have had kids at his house.
I would start with the bus driver. Unlike the kids, a bus driver can be harassed by police and by reporters. So some enterprising reporter should have found that bus driver by now, and asked about Gene. That would give evidence one way or another.
Gene would have to know this. Now, some liars keep everything vague, because they don’t want to give easily falsified statements. Gene certainly gave lots of details. But some liars give details, specifically because if you don’t have time to research, people take detail as proof of fact.
And here is where the “Gene is a distraction” comes in. If Gene was important, I can pretty much guarantee that police would have questioned him, reporters would have investigated his story for truth. So either they DID, and found nothing seriously wrong, and that’s why we haven’t read about him being a liar, or they have NOT, because his story is meaningless to the actual shooting.
Gene to me could easily be a liar. If a reporter said that tomorrow, I wouldn’t doubt it. I just haven’t seen enough evidence yet to say that his entire story is false. If the official report says that kids were in his house, I won’t be surprised. If it says they were not, i won’t be surprised either.
And no matter what, it will make no difference to my understanding of the shooting. You might as well ask whether the kids got hot chocolate at the fire house.
Either the official narrative is wrong or Gene is a liar.
Take your pick.
They both can’t be right.
Btw, there is a very interesting video of what happened when someone visited Sandy Hook with a camera.
There are a lot of pictures.
A narrative.
Oh, the kids would have had to have gone past the Firehouse to get to Rosen’s lawn.
What "official narrative" are you talking about???
Here is another weird part of Gene’s story.
If cops were on the scene in three minutes then they were there as Adam Lanza was shooting up Soto’s class.
How come the kids didn’t go to the cops?
There is only one road. They were going down that road.
How did Gene not hear any sirens or any EMS or anything to know what was going on...
Doesn’t add up.
And there sure are a lot of missing kids and parents and cars in the videos .
700 kids
700 parents
700 cars
The narrative is that children were found alive in Soto’s room.
I have posted link after link after link.
So your claim is that it is a lie and the children are on Gene Rosen’s lawn?
Please post “the official narrative” or link to it that you keep referring to.
Anyone know why Soto gets a school named after her but the other teachers who died protecting their students are forgotten...
What?? She has the prettiest face or what. What about the women who died trying to protect her special needs kids
I am not going to play your game.
The narrative is that some kids escaped, some were found dead, and some found alive in Soto’s room.
Now, that could be a lie.
But you have to face which is the lie - Rosen or the Narrative about Soto.
They both can’t be true.
Pleas post a link to this “narrative” that you keep referring to.
how about you actually read this thread.
There is more than one link here about the surviving kids.
Either they were found alive in the classroom as said by law enforcement OR they weren’t.
You can’t have kids found alive in Soto’s class and found on Gene’s lawn.
btw, please stop repeating your same crap. I have ALREADY posted the links to you.
Dont keep asking.
Read the thread.
That's fine. Then which one of those links is the "official link" containing the "official narrative"???
The Official Narrative is that Soto saved 7 children in her classroom.
You know EXACTLY what I mean.
There can be no narrative from law enforcement at a podium because Vance won’t give it. . They may NEVER release that info.
So for now you have quotes FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT given to reporters.
The story is 7 survivors.
Now, if you claim that the info from law enforcement is WRONG then you have to also acknowledge that ANY of that narrative info FROM LAW ENFORDEMENT could be wrong as well.
OR you have to acknowledge that Creepy Gene is lying.
Becausse you can’t have both of the stories.
Not enough kids to have 7 saved by Soto and 6 on Creepy Genes lawn and at least two at the police station.
If that is the official narrative, then why are you unable to link to it???
Anyone who believes a single word of what these sordid losers has to say is an absolute fool. Watch the interviews with these "witnesses" and "grieving families," and you will see plenty of inappropriate laughter, fake crying, jokes, smiles, conflicting lies and false claims. What you will NOT see in these FAKERS is genuine emotional response, to include tears, sadness and fright.
Juxtapose these deceptive creeps to the people who suffered through the REAL SHOOTINGS at Fort Hood, Virginia Tech and Columbine. It's a night and day difference.
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.