As I understand it, the purpose of this discussion is to debate controversial issues in a calm, reasoned manner using fact based, documented, testable hypothesis and "thought" or other experimentation to arrive at reasonable conclusions. To that end, the "lack of tears" scenario in regards to the Sandy Hook "event" (I don't know what happened) is an anomaly that is worth discussing. If I may, let me try and cut through the "noise" and suggest that you (the members of this community) focus on the issue at hand. Someone please correct me if you feel I have stated anything that is factually incorrect;
1. The argument as I understand it is that in the videos and pictures of the grieving parents and/or relatives of the Sandy Hook victims, there appears to be a lack of tears. First, let's all agree that a picture of a person "crying" and the evidence of "tears" are two different things. We all have seen small children "cry" or actors on a stage "cry" when in fact, they are not "crying".
2. Secondly, I think we can ALL agree that people react differently to traumatic situations.Those who take the position that the lack of tears lends credence to the CT that Sandy Hook was a staged event should "stipulate" that the above statement is accepted as TRUTH. Therefore, using it to "debunk" the argument is a red herring therefore invalid and should not be accepted as a reasonable counter argument.
3. I also think we can all agree that the production of tears by the human body is an autoimmune response. In other words, a person can easily "act" as if they are sad or act as if they are crying, but it is difficult (though not impossible) to "create" tears as part of the scenario, if indeed, one is "acting".
The argument then, as I see it is: "The apparent absence of actual tears proves that the grief is contrived."
The problem with this argument as with many others concerning SH and other conspiracies is that it doesn't "prove" anything. If we accept as true or valid the assertion that different people react differently to grief, then logic dictates that it is possible that those people were the type of people who for physical or other unknown (to me) reasons do not produce tears. It is also possible that they were interviewed at such a time that their bodies were not producing tears.
As with most such arguments, it is impossible to either confirm or deny in any absolutist terms the offered "proof". The argument can be stated another way:
"The absence of visible tears among the many Sandy Hook parents lends credence to the idea that the "parents" were actors, not actual victims of a tragedy."
This statement is more difficult to dismiss. To claim that absence of tears "proves nothing" is easily supportable as I have shown, but to claim that the absence of tears is of zero value in determining whether or not the "parents" were really victims or actors is a claim that is much harder to support. I suppose one would need to do a scientifically grounded study at a mass causality event and use statistical data as to the number of people "crying" whose bodies shown actual tear production in order to confirm or deny the plausibility of a scenario where the grief stricken victims show no evidence of tear production. In a cursory search, I found no evidence that such a study has been undertaken but there are a plethora of articles concerning tear production (emotional tears vs. the type produced in response to an irritant) in response to vivid emotions.
As with most science, "statistics" and repeat-ability are the foundations by which a hypothesis is accepted as being proven or debunked. Mick asked that someone produce a photo of a person crying. I did a google image search "people crying". The image attached is from that search. I then did another google image search "Sandy Hook victims crying" and compared the two. I won't say I found anything shocking or extraordinary. I will say that in my first search, it was easy to see on many (not all) of the photos wet tears running down faces. I was not able to find the same type of images on any of the Sandy Hook photos.
Again, this doesn't PROVE anything. It is simply a small piece of the puzzle to keep in mind if one were to accept the notion that the event was staged. If your mind is already made up and you accept the official story as true and valid, it proves nothing. On the other hand, in my mind at the very least, the absence of tears is an anomaly that shouldn't be casually dismissed. Couple that with the bizarre Robbie Parker interview where he seems to be laughing and is certainly smiling seconds before he seems to "cry", and a reasonable person can claim that it seems "odd". Claiming something seems odd to you should not immediately plunge you into a category where your favorite head gear is made of tin foil.