I think a lot of the people who entertain this particular theory are young people with very little experience of grief. Certainly few (if any) of them will have had the experience of unexpectedly having their child murdered at school, and then talking about it to the media.
Wouldn't "disinfo" refer to deliberate lies of some kind? Are you just saying they did a poor job, or that they have covered something up? Any examples?
Correct. Disinfo (noun false information that is intended to mislead, esp. propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.) is actually the most accurate, and misinformation (noun false or inaccurate information, esp. that which is deliberately intended to deceiveis almost 100% the same. The opposite to both is "fabrication" in thise instance, since what we speak of is people creating Truths, not distorting truth.
ok so its very obvious the guy with all the answers here knows alot more than he is saying, u dodge alot of questions or just dismiss with an illogical answer along with a sneaky insult..anybody can see this is suspicious at best, this is merely 1 thing that u 'debunked' and really u havent debunked nothing, all you have done is put up more photos which somehow u got permission to publish..anyway i dont have a concrete opinion whether this girl died or not, theres been ansolutely no evidence to say for certain she is but thats besides the point.
The fact remains there is dozens and dozens of inconsistences in the media and police stories, 2 many to list but i'll give just a few.
1. How come the green car that was towed away had 2 bullet holes in them? (most say .45 calibre size). ok, so how did this happen? and how is it that 1 hole is a shot fired into the car and the other is an exit hole??
2. How does a scrawny guy like Adam carry 3 or 4 handguns, a long rifle, over 100 rounds of ammo, wearing a mask..carrying all that and then to shoot so many with such accuracy?
3. who were the people police mentioned on the police radios? and who was it they took into custody? (there is a witness that stated he saw a man in handcuffs on the ground under arrest)
4. How were facebook pages for the victims made days before the event?
5. where is the security footage? this would stop the whole debate but none?
Answer them and youre halfway there to any kind of debunking the 'conspiracy theory'
For those who doubt your government would do this ask yourself why would our own government stage a terrorist attack like 9/11? yes that already proven to be a false flag attack, and that was once a far more an absurd idea.
It should be noted that law enforcement have stated that anybody spreading lies about this story may be prosecuted so if OP is lying about any of this he/she should expect prosecution
for a deeper look at this and additional info and inconsistencies check this link
I don't think that's the case. Firstly I actively discourage such impolite terms. I've allowed more opinionated discussion in this thread because it's such an extreme example.
But if you do see a suggestion that someone is mentally ill, then it is NEVER such a broad statement as saying this is simply because they don't trust the government. Nobody trusts the government. Nobody trusts the media. The suggestion comes into play when they believe a particularly ridiculous theory, or take it to extremes - like believing the earth is falt, the moon is not real, the Queen is a reptile, rainbows in sprinklers are a sign of the NWO, the twin towers were destroyed with nukes, cats are robots, - that type of thing.
In fact, I think I'd ALMOST go as far as saying the OPPOSITE of your statement is true. I'd almost say that anyone who unquestioningly believes the official information provided by government and the corporate media is mentally ill - or at least a little dim.
In the one photo I think the 9th one..with the father sitting down and the kids in front of him..where are madelines legs?????????? I still think the whole thing smells funny! Looks like a photoshop to me..and Emilie is supposed to be the oldest..why in some pics does she look younger than Madeline?? I have 3 girls..and it's just impossible for the younger to look older and vice versa...Please explain that!!
More generally though, the presence of a date NOW that predates the shooting does not guarantee that the page, or post, or whatever, existed before the event. It's always possible to create backdated material, and dates may display incorrectly (or be misinterpreted). Some of the supposed evidence might even be internet trolling, which does happen.
Why would you BACKDATE material that hasn't happened yet? That made no sense whatsoever! Dates appearing incorrectly???? When it happens on more 6+ pages, I'd say far fetched, espec. all pages dealing with the victims of the same tragedy? C'mon now..are we really that stupid?!
In the one photo I think the 9th one..with the father sitting down and the kids in front of him..where are madelines legs?????????? I still think the whole thing smells funny! Looks like a photoshop to me..and Emilie is supposed to be the oldest..why in some pics does she look younger than Madeline?? I have 3 girls..and it's just impossible for the younger to look older and vice versa...Please explain that!!
Why would you BACKDATE material that hasn't happened yet? That made no sense whatsoever! Dates appearing incorrectly???? When it happens on more 6+ pages, I'd say far fetched, espec. all pages dealing with the victims of the same tragedy? C'mon now..are we really that stupid?!
There were tens of thousands of pages dealing with the tragedy. It was major world news. Some of the pages ended up with incorrect dates, as happens on the internet. The mechanisms whereby those dates were incorrect has been explained in every case.
You do know that Canada has more guns per person than the US, right? So, do some research on "gunless" societies before injecting your opinion. Thanks.
Okay - It's your opinion formed by a hysterically transmitted pathological suspicion and a compulsive need to find ANYTHING that can possibly be called a discrepancy and claim it is proof of shenanigans.
What is the connection between a girl supposedly looking younger than her younger sister and the aims of a conspiracy to commit a massacre in order to pass legislation restricting access to some firearms?
What purpose does supposedly photo-shopping a girl into her father's lap (what was his arm around before then?) serve in terms of this nefarious operation?
Are you claiming this girl wasn't a member of the family in the first place?
Did her legs have some incriminating evidence of the real perpetrators that had to be photo-shopped out?
Why did they bother to make the photo available to the public if such a poor job of photo-shopping was done that vigilant citizens who are told what to look for by others are so able to claim it's a fake?
What the hell is the point of all this complete insanity?
Do you have such a need to feel outraged that a disturbed kid mutilating small children to death with a firearm just isn't enough, so you have to find any inconsistencies and weave them into some narrative implicating your own government attempting to take away YOUR 'freedom'?
Why is this about you and not those kids?
I also found this quoted from him in an article. (Which you can find in several different articles)
"Then, 15 minutes later, as he was heading from his house near Sandy Hook Elementary school to a diner, he saw the children.
There were six of them, small children sitting in a neat semicircle at the end of his driveway. A school bus driver was standing over them, telling them things would be all right. It was about 9:30 a.m., and the children, he discovered, had just run from their school to escape a gunman."
Why were the kids with a bus driver? Why not their teacher who probably wouldve ran with them. In the raw footage of the first police helicopter on scene he said he saw no children leaving and that they must be safe inside in lock down and that video is said to be taped around 9:35am. The same time this man said he found children at the end of his driveway.
I also found this quoted from him in an article. (Which you can find in several different articles)
"Then, 15 minutes later, as he was heading from his house near Sandy Hook Elementary school to a diner, he saw the children.
There were six of them, small children sitting in a neat semicircle at the end of his driveway. A school bus driver was standing over them, telling them things would be all right. It was about 9:30 a.m., and the children, he discovered, had just run from their school to escape a gunman."
Why were the kids with a bus driver? Why not their teacher who probably wouldve ran with them. In the raw footage of the first police helicopter on scene he said he saw no children leaving and that they must be safe inside in lock down and that video is said to be taped around 9:35am. The same time this man said he found children at the end of his driveway.
Why are all of you condescending to this madman because he is proof incarnate that gun ownership has to be severely regulated to keep people like him from ever owning them. His feet are firmly planted in some alternate reality wherein he sees plots and conspiracies that I would bet money he wants to take on with his firearms. In short, he's nuts.
Sad that children diednat the hands of a madman. It could have been my grandchildren, which frightening. What is also sad and frightening is that people want to use the children ti stirr emotions (and lies also) to make decisions that need to be well thought out and not be hinged on an emotional plea.
If Sandy Hook shooting is a hoax, no others could do it except the Fedsbecause so many resources were activated: police, media, government officialsand informants (some were called as "actors" by people.) And they ofcourse would let out disinformation to meddle the water.
Here is a doctored picture. Madeline and Samantha have no legs in thephoto.
And they deliberately let Madeline wearing Emilie's dress in photo withObama. At the purpose to confusing people then to prove the suspicious peopleare "conspiracy theorist". Remember, no others have the motive andresource to do that. Those who could take pictures of Obama and Samantha havethe privilege or that photo was a product of the "strategyoffice"(disinformation office) too.
It's quite simple really. Google, like anyone else, has trouble with dynamic websites.
You can do an experiment to see similar things yourself:
Search for something with any combination of keywords related to the incident. Click "Search Tools", and then under "Any Time" select "Custom range...". Set it to years and years ago and up to one day before the incident.
Here are the results for "sandy hook elementary shooting" with the date range of 10/10/1999 to 12/13/2012:
Don't want to be caught on camera smiling and laughing one minute and then saddening yourself up a minute later when it's time to be in the spotlight?
...STAY AWAY FROM THE MEDIA.
You're a grieving father? A grieving mother? Just lost your daughter in a massacre? Tell me why in the world would you want to put yourself in front of a WORLDWIDE audience after something like this just happened to you and your family? Get home. Lock all your doors, shut the curtains, turn of the television sets and take...care...of...your...family.
To everyone else:
Stay away from the media. Stop watching and, therefore, empowering the media. In case it hasn't dawned on you people yet, the media does not report facts. They are interested only in headlines. They are a business. They put on the screen what sells. They are interested in stories shocking enough to make you watch them instead of their competition. Stories they never research thoroughly and to the end. They're goal is not to report the facts and it's clearly obvious they can't be trusted to provide the facts. Why do you think the majority of the reporters are young, big-breasted, dyed-hair, heavily-made-up, provocative-clothes-wearing women? Sex sells. It's a business. They do not care about reporting facts and getting the story straight.
Example (of the millions): Everything you saw regarding this shooting that has been reported by the media has been conjecture. That's why the death toll kept changing, and the suspects kept changing, and the guns that were used kept changing. No one is going to know the truth of what happened, conspiracy or not, unless they were directly involved in the situation, themselves. This is the way of the world and has been! Everything else is speculation and ends up in the history books... as speculation. So turn off the fucking television, the radio, the computer, and stop empowering these people.
You already know damn well that you can't trust the media to report the news truthfully and thoroughly and you can't trust the government to do ANYTHING truthfully and thoroughly.
You know this. So why are you still participating?
I'd imagine they did not realize the horrific negative reaction and ridiculous levels of suspicious they would be getting from the conspiracy community. I'd also imagine that their minds were not at their clearest, having just lost a child.
And I think things like the death toll, the suspects, and the guns settled down pretty quickly. Conflicting and uncertain information is par for the course in ANY large news story. It's entirely expected, and not suspicious.
I've looked at all the other family photos. I still say, please look at the hair. The parents may have begun to comb Madeline's hair differently at the time of the funeral, after the embarrassing photo with the President, but every other photo of Madeline shows her hair parted to the left of midline, while every picture of Emilie shows a part to the right of midline, and Emilie's hair is noticeably darker than Madeline's.
Which means one of two possibilities, either Madeline combed her hair slightly different that day, or these parents are con artists who took their supposedly dead child out in public with numerous cameras around while leaving Madeline at home then de-aged Emilie by several years. Now tell me, which seems more likely?
You seem to have very selective eyesight, as you are apparently unable to tell the difference between a four year old and a two year old, but are able to tell whether or not she's teething in spite of the fact that her mouth is barely open.
I would suspect it's more that they simply don't have those images to show, as the shootings took place inside a building the media don't have access to.
my question is------ why did her ( emilie parker) father already have an account set up in her name if he had no clue what so ever if she was dead?!?? and what do u think was so dang funny to Mr parker right before he went on tv to fake cry about emilie.. just thought i would ask..
my question is------ why did her ( emilie parker) father already have an account set up in her name if he had no clue what so ever if she was dead?!?? and what do u think was so dang funny to Mr parker right before he went on tv to fake cry about emilie.. just thought i would ask..
my question is------ why did her ( emilie parker) father already have an account set up in her name if he had no clue what so ever if she was dead?!?? and what do u think was so dang funny to Mr parker right before he went on tv to fake cry about emilie.. just thought i would ask..
Here's a thorough debunking of the Facebook and charity website stuff. This guy's very good. He made a small series of videos on Sandy Hook. They said everything he needed to say and then he went away. http://youtu.be/BztlVGDtL0E
The problem with conspiracies is that many people want to contribute to the evidence pool, inevitably at least one of those things will be debunked or another possible explanation put forth.
Unfortunately most of the general public seem to only need that one thing to be able to feel comfortable that the government and mainstream media can be trusted.
The problem with conspiracies is that many people want to contribute to the evidence pool, inevitably at least one of those things will be debunked or another possible explanation put forth.
Unfortunately most of the general public seem to only need that one thing to be able to feel comfortable that the government and mainstream media can be trusted.
I don't think your conclusions follows. I don't feel that way, and I'm a debunker.
Very few people trust the government, or the media, or TV ads. But that does not mean they have to believe every conspiracy theory that comes along - especial those unbacked by real evidence, and contrary to common sense.
I wonder how much TV and movies have added to folks looking for a conspiracy or a 'bigger' story? Between shows like 24 and Homeland and the police procedurals, are we becoming 'hard wired' to look for MORE.
I wonder how much TV and movies have added to folks looking for a conspiracy or a 'bigger' story? Between shows like 24 and Homeland and the police procedurals, are we becoming 'hard wired' to look for MORE.
Oh, I think it's a huge amount. Oliver Stone's JFK resulted in a lot more people buying into that theory, and even shows like The X-Files and films like The Matrix have considerable influence on the conspiracy culture. Lot of shows use some aspects of conspiracy mythology (like a shadowy set of MIB operatives running the show) just as a backdrop - and despite it being mythology in the writer's mind, it comes across as a reference to reality to the naturally suspicious).
Really "drone strikes that kill millions' ? That is a GROSS overstatement. I believe that deaths from drone strikes, are still in the total of 1000 deaths, overall of them.
Oh, I think it's a huge amount. Oliver Stone's JFK resulted in a lot more people buying into that theory, and even shows like The X-Files and films like The Matrix have considerable influence on the conspiracy culture. Lot of shows use some aspects of conspiracy mythology (like a shadowy set of MIB operatives running the show) just as a backdrop - and despite it being mythology in the writer's mind, it comes across as a reference to reality to the naturally suspicious).
I think the concept of movies themselves play a role too. People get engrossed in stories that always have a concise beginning and end, and they want life to be like that. They want there to be a "plot" so to speak that gives them goosebumps when they figure it out.
Here is a link to who created the Emilie Parker memorial fund page on Facebook. They are some of Robbie Parker's best friends, and they live in Utah. Sounds like they wanted to help and this is all they could do from hundreds of miles away.
Also, as far as WHY Robbie Parker went on tv? He and his family had moved around a ton in the past few years for his job training. They have family and friends from all over who were calling trying to talk to them and get information. They also had reporters begging for interviews. Robbie's Bishop also counseled him to go and speak to the reporters. I think he figured he could take care of it all at once. Poor guy probably had no idea how awful people can be!
It's very simple: Who has the ability and motive to do this? I don't think it's a mechnic error. computer works as it originally designed. It won't make an error on a particular case.
1. A hacker.
2. The staff of Google.
3. The perpetrator who create Sandy Hook shooting.
I think the purpose is to meddel the water to confuse people. Government monopolized the news agency. Theycensored the important news of Sandy Hook shootings. Sandy Hook - Judge sealspolice records for 90 days. It helps to fume suspicion of people. Why did theyrelease so much inconsistent information on Sandy Hook shooting?
Do you know why they released the following news(MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE)? Because there are manypeople work for government as informants. They are afraid of becoming sacrificeswhen they were told to carry out a mission. So the late news (hijackers stillalive) released to comfort them. Now we saw so many disinformation releasedlater after Sandy Hook shooting. It hints "we didn't kill that manychildren". That's the trick how the government fool you the people.
MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.
The world's media has reported that many of theso-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. Forexample the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report:
It's very simple: Who has the ability and motive to do this? I don't think it's a mechnic error. computer works as it originally designed. It won't make an error on a particular case.
Clearly though, google does make errors regarding the date of a page. Consider a search for ANYTHING that just happened, data restricted, like, Netflix news series "House of Cards", released in 2013, there are review pages that Google dates as far back as 2003:
(Note that except for the first result, these are specifically referring to the original 2013 Netflix series, not the 1990 British series )
Google dates are frequently incorrect, so it's meaningless.
It's very simple: Who has the ability and motive to do this? I don't think it's a mechnic error. computer works as it originally designed. It won't make an error on a particular case.
1. A hacker.
2. The staff of Google.
3. The perpetrator who create Sandy Hook shooting.
I think the purpose is to meddel the water to confuse people. Government monopolized the news agency. Theycensored the important news of Sandy Hook shootings. Sandy Hook - Judge sealspolice records for 90 days. It helps to fume suspicion of people. Why did theyrelease so much inconsistent information on Sandy Hook shooting?
Do you know why they released the following news(MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE)? Because there are manypeople work for government as informants. They are afraid of becoming sacrificeswhen they were told to carry out a mission. So the late news (hijackers stillalive) released to comfort them. Now we saw so many disinformation releasedlater after Sandy Hook shooting. It hints "we didn't kill that manychildren". That's the trick how the government fool you the people.
MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.
The world's media has reported that many of theso-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. Forexample the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report:
Actually, none of the above. It's really quite simple why it happens, but first you need to understand a couple of things:
How Google and other search engines index pages
How dynamic pages work
Google uses what is called a web crawler, which is literally a program that visits every page of a domain(e.g. youtube.com) as defined by their robots.txt file located at the root of the domain(visit http://youtube.com/robots.txt to see YouTube's robots.txt, which determines exactly how Google, and other web crawlers following the same standard, should index the site).
In the case of Google, they have thousands of instances of their crawler bot running on a multitude of servers, scanning every domain they know of, 24/7. Unrelated: this crawling actually puts a good deal of load on smaller sites that host a large amount of content, because unlike regular people visiting their site Google is requesting everything they host in a short span of time.
Now, the majority of the web today is dynamic(meaning every time you visit a page, things may be different). Metabunk or any forum is a great example of this. Google, or any other search engine for that matter, has no way of knowing when a page changes because it would require the developer(s) of these dyanmic websites to incorporate some code that informs Google when changes are made, which is actually a lot more complicated than it sounds.
So there we have it - the reason we get erroneous dates like this is because Google is taking a guess as to the publish date for those pages.
Go ahead and try any date range spanning many years up to the day before the Sandy Hook shooting, and any combination of words pertaining to the shooting. You'll find near limitless results with dates that seemingly indicate the pages were created well before the shooting. You can try this for any other event since Google began indexing pages(~1999 or so) and you will get the same result.
You've posted the second part before, so I think you are just trolling now.
THANK YOU so much. You are so smart for someone so young! I spent a lot of time frustrated about this. Well, I never had any children, so I guess I wasn't thinking about it skillfully. You really made my month. With that in mind, do you have anything to say about the way Adam could not have fired off the number of bullets found? Or, comments about why the big rifle, which the examiner said was used, was found in a trunk outside?
They had three blond daughters, Emilie (aged 6), Madeline (aged 4) and Samantha (aged 3). Now they have two, Madeline and Samantha. The elder girl shown in the photo with Obama is quite obviously Madeline. The family portrait of all three girls was apparently taken in 2010, when Emilie was about the same age that Madeline is now. Obviously the dress is a hand-me-down.
The claim is based on photo taken at a meeting between President Obama and the Parker family. Two low resolution photos of this meeting were used in the conspiracy theory posts:
The photo below is the one that gets used most by the conspiracists. It's a low resolution cell-phone photo. I've added the names of the girls. The three children on the right are cousins of the Parker girls.
They were posing for the white house photographer. This photo was taken a few seconds apart from the above. You can clear see it's Madeline and not Emilie, especially if you compare to more recent photos of Emilie, and not the 2010 photo when she's the same age as Madeline is now, when of course they will look more similar. Even there though you can tell the difference, Emilie had a broader nose than Madeline.
Dec. 16, 2012 "Two days after the shootings at Newtown, the President traveled to Connecticut to meet with the victims' families and give remarks at a prayer vigil. The President spent hours greeting family members. Difficult as that was for everyone, the one moment that helped sooth the pain was when he posed for a photo with the siblings and cousins of Emilie Parker, one of the 20 children who died that day in Newtown. I see both sadness and hope in this photograph, and I know after a lot of tears that day, it meant so much to the President that everyone was able to smile for a moment in this family photo. Thanks to the Parker family for allowing us to show this photograph publicly." (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
THANK YOU so much. You are so smart for someone so young! I spent a lot of time frustrated about this. Well, I never had any children, so I guess I wasn't thinking about it skillfully. You really made my month. With that in mind, do you have anything to say about the way Adam could not have fired off the number of bullets found? Or, comments about why the big rifle, which the examiner said was used, was found in a trunk outside?
is almost 100% the same. The opposite to both is "fabrication" in thise instance, since what we speak of is people creating Truths, not distorting truth.
