Finding his body there isn't enough? I don't see 'evidence swept under the rug'.
I know I'm not entitled to this kind of evidence
You seem to have a fascination with wanting to see dead bodies. They are rarely shown. The news is not CSI with bodies and blood everywhere.
Stop and ask your self, what would be effect on a child of seeing the same poster that is in their school room, splattered with blood? or the body of a child?
I just said there's no evidence of it and you're ignoring that fact and saying I want to see a body.
Don't believe everything you see on TV or read on Wikipedia my friend. I just would like to see legitimate evidence before I get off the fence. (Not necessarily a body; again, footage of Adam coming to the school that day should be incredibly easy to produce. The claim is that people will use this kind of thing negatively and 'more Adam Lanza's will be created, which is bull considering the NSA just released information on a bomb plot they supposedly stopped thanks to their spying efforts. How can they release information about a suspected terror event but showing a video of someone walking up to a school is harmful? Hmm?)
If we saw video evidence (that may or may not exist), how would we know it was Lanza? The truther response would be "That could be anyone, he/she is wearing a mask".
Such evidence would not satisfy any conspiracy theorist. The bottom line is that, there is none that would.
Even photos/film of a body would be dismissed as a look-alike or a an sfx dummy or, of course, an actor! (At last....a role even I could play!).
Most importantly, this is all (to use an unfortunate phrase) jumping the gun. The official report has not yet been released, so no one can yet say whether the information that they seek is, or is not available.
... Until then, this has been nothing but media misinformation and more story changes than a Choose your own adventure book.
So what?
You expect every detail of a violent chaotic event to be 100% known step by step from the start? That would be suspicious.
Reality is messy and you cannot know anything totally.
How do you know the world doesn't just pop into existence just for your benefit when you can see and hear it and isn't doing something completely bizarre behind your back?
Why do you consider it reasonable to doubt the death of these people you don't know?
So not only has their been no convincing evidence of this event, now you say there's no official story yet? So how can YOU be so sure it happened? I'm not saying I can prove it happened; but if there's no credible evidence and no official story, how can you, who believes it happened, be any more right than some conspiracy nut? You're just jumping on a different bandwagon.
Saying it didn't happen sounds crazy, given the coverage of the event. But trying to stick with the claim that it did happen at this point is also just as crazy, given the incredible amount of mix ups and misinformation on this case.
If anything, Wikipedia basically has the 'official story'. I'd be willing to believe that, especially if that simple footage I mentioned of Adam approaching the school is released. Yes, I understand that most nut jobs would try to nitpick it and claim it's not him or whatever, but if it appears to actually be him and officials claim that it is indeed the footage from that school, on that day, and as long as their is not some convincing video on YouTube proving somehow it's not him, then I'll be happy to pick a side and say it went down as told by officials. Until then, this has been nothing but media misinformation and more story changes than a Choose your own adventure book.
Saying it didn't happen sounds crazy, given the coverage of the event. But trying to stick with the claim that it did happen at this point is also just as crazy, given the incredible amount of mix ups and misinformation on this case.
You are flat out putting words in my mouth. Official report. "Official story" is conspiracy theorist speak. That which constitutes "official story", is evidence that we have seen or read which may or may not be from an "official" source but that disagrees with th Ct line. There is a great deal of that, none of which has been disproven.
There is only ambiguity regarding Sandy Hook because truthers have chosen to introduce it. Other than being present at the incident, can you please cite one example of the type of evidence that would, in your opinion, be "credible" and could not have doubt thrown upon it by conspiracy theorists?
Sorry, I cannot edit that lost post again...but I meant to say the only evidence I've seen that would link Lanza to the crime scene[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]. [/FONT]
It's not though. He was being pulled over that the same time for an unrelated traffic stop, and there was just cross-traffic one the radio. 872-YEO was registed to Lanza's mother.
Details:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-conspiracy-theorists-cant-think-2535800.html
Once you hear it you can't unhear it. It is like listening to Jimi Hendrix Purple Haze and hearing "excuse me while I kiss this guy" it just ruins it every time after that.
Once you hear it you can't unhear it. It is like listening to Jimi Hendrix Purple Haze and hearing "excuse me while I kiss this guy" it just ruins it every time after that.
You don't consider the testimony of the police to be evidence?
How has this expedited the NWO? What changed?
Disarming Americans and successfully getting by with yet another media hoax. All, are impossible without the involvement of the mass media.
Americans are now disarmed?Disarming Americans and successfully getting by with yet another media hoax. All, are impossible without the involvement of the mass media.
Fine, play semantics, we'll use your word 'report' instead of 'story'. Make it sound more official. If it's not official yet, then it's just a story anyway. But I guess report fits your likings better, so if I say 'official story,' ignore that and replace it with 'official report' to please yourself.
By the way, why do I have to site the type of evidence that would please conspiracy theoriststs? First off, that statement is implying I'm in that category. You're lumping me in that category. Why should I have to answer for conspiracy theorists? As I said before, I have no clue what happened, other than stories...sorry, REPORTS of what happened. The only evidence that I've seen would be the Lanza's car at the scene, which also proves nothing. If you see a car somewhere, it doesn't prove someone is at that location
How do we know such footage exists?In an age where we have so much technology and cameras we cannot produce this simple video of him walking to the front of the school?
...you have to accept that it could be given any number of vague interpretations.
Is there anything that says that the school had a security camera? This was an elementary school in a upper middle class rural area. That is not a place where security cameras are common in the US. Businesses will have them, for shoplifting and robbery. I doubt there are many grade schools in the US with security cameras.
'End the life of Adam' is also ridiculously formal language.
It's like a phrase one would hear during a Shakespearean play, or listening to back-masked messages from Satan.
It's funny how aural paridolia tends to result in more uncommon formal phrasing.
Not semantics. Conspiracy theorists construe any information that does not comply with their view as the "official story". It's up there with "sheeple" and "do the research" as a truther buzzword. The "official story" comes into existence the moment the event takes place and may be from an official source or not. The official report is quite different and, I reiterate, has not yet been made public.
I did not imply that you were a conspiracy theorist, I merely asked the question about what would constitute the type of information that would be, in your opinion, "credible", and therefore satisfactory to such an individual.
How do we know such footage exists?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. So can I reverse that and ask YOU, what type of information would satisfy a conspiracy theorist? I bet your answer is 'nothing' because you and I both know what conspiracy theorists are like. Either way, I don't have to answer that question, it has nothing to do with anything we're talking about.
About the footage...why would they have top notch security in the school and have cameras that don't even record? That seems kind of 1970's to me. If this really is an upper/middle class area, why would they have cameras that don't record? So much for state of the art security, huh?
So any event that has misreporting in, you consider it wise to immediately doubt whether it happened at all, rather than the more obvious 'they misreported something'.Saying it didn't happen sounds crazy, given the coverage of the event. But trying to stick with the claim that it did happen at this point is also just as crazy, given the incredible amount of mix ups and misinformation on this case.