Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
You miss the point that in ALL the CT stories the players are all in on the conspiracy. They are not REALLY grieving, so why respect them in any way?
- Status
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
1.No, it's sick.
2. Because sociopaths cannot be persuaded by an argument that relies on empathy.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Is it ethical or right for people that have no concept of the types or stages of grief to analyze the victims' families?... no absolutely not. Is it ethical or right for people who DO know what to look for... I wouldnt suggest writing a paper on it or anything, but Id answer yes. Analyzing the emotions or behaviors isnt wrong.. its a well established form of investigation, but with that said.. great care (being the operative word) is given to spare the feelings of those involved. Making purely ill-informed conclusions based solely on your own personal perceptions, feelings and bias without care or regard for the individuals you're making these claims against without any kind of understanding or training on same, is just stupid, puerile and wholly subjective for no other reason than to push an agenda. Thats where I would say the unethicality of the situation would come into play.
Tobes
Member
As far as I know, no expert has ever claimed Robbie Parker was faking.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure everyone who does know what to look for has said there was nothing suspicious about Parker's behavior.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Well, I didn't follow the Sandy Hook aftermath as obsessively as some did,
but I don't remember any expert saying there was anything suspicious
about any of the victims' (and, of course I'm including parents of slain children, in that) behavior.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
"insanity laughs under pressure. we're breaking"
David Fraser
Senior Member.
I don't know if an "expert" would be able to make an assessment. We, in the West, have a rather stylised view of grief based on historical context but also the stages model/Kubler-Ross Model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model
Where that has left us is with a public expectation of how someone should behave. I stand to be corrected but I have never read a psychological study that has been able to show 100% of a sample present x behaviour under y circumstance. But for a few years there has been a move from the standard thinking. A good video relevant to Sandy Hook, especially the first commentator here
http://live.wsj.com/video/do-the-fi...ist/658AF39A-5E72-4AB1-B856-4E5C34049C0D.html
I know this is Huff Post but this is a short and useful piece
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4414077/
Where that has left us is with a public expectation of how someone should behave. I stand to be corrected but I have never read a psychological study that has been able to show 100% of a sample present x behaviour under y circumstance. But for a few years there has been a move from the standard thinking. A good video relevant to Sandy Hook, especially the first commentator here
http://live.wsj.com/video/do-the-fi...ist/658AF39A-5E72-4AB1-B856-4E5C34049C0D.html
I know this is Huff Post but this is a short and useful piece
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4414077/
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
"Not enough tears" was one of the most feeble Sandy Hook conspiracy theories (and that's against some pretty stiff opposition). One of those where all but the most deluded know that there was nothing to support it, and yet like so much other stuff it's perpetuated because it suits the agenda. Those who keep it barrelling on because they actually believe it are, perhaps, not as bad as those who realise that it's crap but peddle it anyway. A very familiar scenario.
Slightly off topic and I apologize.
I find it odd that Alex Jones, in his many rants and tirades doesn't burst into tears. I mean if he is that dedicated to the cause and cares so much, I would expect tears from him every now and then.
https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones+crying
Tobes
Member
If Robbie Parker chose to do so, how successful could he be in a slander suit against the maker of the "Sandy Hook Exposed" video that first raised the issue that he was "acting"?
Seems to me it's a clear-cut case, especially since there have been some accusations that he was using the "tragedy" for financial gain.
When Ben Swann claimed he was a victim of a smear campaign for asking questions about the shooting, my response was "Cry me a river. Robbie Parker and Gene Rosen are the real victims of a smear campaign."
Seems to me it's a clear-cut case, especially since there have been some accusations that he was using the "tragedy" for financial gain.
When Ben Swann claimed he was a victim of a smear campaign for asking questions about the shooting, my response was "Cry me a river. Robbie Parker and Gene Rosen are the real victims of a smear campaign."
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Unfortunately, in the UK at least, there has to be an element of harm in a libel case. That can be either reprutation or emotional but it is up to the plaintiff to prove, which may be extremely difficult. Then there is the issue of costs which may far outweigh and damages awarded.
Sometimes it's not about what you get out of it but what you make them give out of it.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
I can't speak for the US as such but the costs to even bring a case to the High Court are prohibitive for most people. While financial gain may not be an aim most people will think twice about the possibility of shelling out 10s of thousands.
Lobster Johnson
Member
I have watched an awful lot of very cheaply made indie horror films in my time and many of them have scenes where a cast member cries in response to something horrible happening. If an actor who is paid a couple of pounds can weep on camera whilst a rubber suited monster pretends to eat them how come one on a government wage, entrusted to bring about a gigantic social change and shoved in front of a school turned slaughterhouse can't muster a tear?
I sincerely hope those who believe this theory are never involved in such a tragedy but if they are, there better be an appropriately liquid response.
I sincerely hope those who believe this theory are never involved in such a tragedy but if they are, there better be an appropriately liquid response.
I'm sure his actors pay can cover it.
deirdre
Senior Member.
I think he wouldn't need to come up with the money. the public would do that in a heartbeat. mostly for his childs sake.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
If you think about it that would play into the defendants hands. It makes it far harder to prove a case of damage to reputation and/or emotional harm if you have a shedload of people supporting you. That's just my rather cynical opinion btw. However take that into account and it is easy to understand that bringing a case would be extremely stressful. I don't think I would want to put myself in the glare of the media for the length of a trial, never mind the people that will start to claim that there is no smoke without fire.
NoParty
Senior Member.
As a rule, it's considerably harder to prove slander or libel in the States than in the U.K.
It's the downside of a robust 1st Amendment…and our tabloids, etc. take full advantage of that, knowing
it's almost impossible for plaintiffs to prove the "malice" necessary to prevail in court. In short, if the accusers
seem to really believe what they are saying, it's almost impossible to win a slander or libel case in the U.S.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander
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.
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.
Attachments
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
That I think is the issue. It isn't to everyone, only a select few.
Tobes
Member
Out of respect for the people who lost children in this shooting, this is not something that should be examined. A reasonable person seeing Robbie Parker's statement should say "He lost a child, leave him alone."
Mark Barrington
Active Member
I honestly don't even believe it's an anomaly. I've had the opportunity to interact with people in similar situations, and there was nothing unusual in any of the videos I've seen. Frankly, this kind of amateur psychoanalysis based on video makes me a little pissed off, which is why I try not to respond to it.
By the same reasoning then, Susan Smith, the woman who was eventually found to have drowned her children should have been "left alone". Having said that, I can concur that the subject is at best, morbid, and that if one wants to find conspiratorial evidence regarding Sandy Hook, there are many, less intrusive, avenues to discuss.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Umm, are you saying the parents are the perpetrators of their own children's massacre?
I'm sure you're not, but that's how it appears.
Please restate your reasoning.
Tobes
Member
We're not talking about Susan Smith; we're talking about Robbie Parker.
This is not an ethical exercise of your critical thinking skills or amateur detective work.
If, God forbid, one of your children dies under tragic circumstances (though I guess, by definition, any death of a child is under tragic circumstances) would you welcome such scrutiny of your actions? Are you confident your behavior would hold up to this kind of scrutiny?
That's why examining this issue is unethical.
deirdre
Senior Member.
what??
JRBids
Senior Member.
And of course, what we see in the movies.
JRBids
Senior Member.
I think the mere suggestion they are "actors" is so absurd as to be dismissed.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Correct. Amateur internet sleuths, out of respect for the victims' families, should keep their ignorant pie holes shut and let the police do their job. Instead they construct grand conspiracies and stoop to levels of depravity that even the worst tabloids wouldn't dare go near.
Susan Smith was a lone killer. The police immediately suspected her of murdering her own children. Who did the police suspect committed the Sandy Hook killings?
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Ryan Lanza.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
No, the police never suspected the actual Ryan Lanza of being the killer. They initially reported the suspect was Ryan only because the killer's corpse was carrying Ryan's ID.
Are you playing silly games, Josh?
Last edited:
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
Ryan Lanza?
One only needs to consider the leap of judgement necessary to consider Ryan Lanza a suspect to understand the "not enough tears" mentality.
Those who still deny that people in grief can behave in a huge number of different ways simply don't want to believe the clear evidence before them. In the same way they want to believe Ryan was a suspect because his brother had his ID. (Presumably if Lanza had been carrying a novelty Clark Kent driving licence, they'd be screaming "Superman did it!!")
The camera was not on these poor folks when they woke in the middle of the night, or when they sat with their heads in their hands wondering how they were going to carry on, or when they held their other children to them, trying to work out how they were going to let them out of their sight ever again. The cameras weren't there then. But if conspiracy theorist's had their way, the Sandy hook parents would have been followed around by a film crew 24/7 to make sure they were really grieving. Ironically many of these individuals complain that they are being spied on by "the government"!
One only needs to consider the leap of judgement necessary to consider Ryan Lanza a suspect to understand the "not enough tears" mentality.
Those who still deny that people in grief can behave in a huge number of different ways simply don't want to believe the clear evidence before them. In the same way they want to believe Ryan was a suspect because his brother had his ID. (Presumably if Lanza had been carrying a novelty Clark Kent driving licence, they'd be screaming "Superman did it!!")
The camera was not on these poor folks when they woke in the middle of the night, or when they sat with their heads in their hands wondering how they were going to carry on, or when they held their other children to them, trying to work out how they were going to let them out of their sight ever again. The cameras weren't there then. But if conspiracy theorist's had their way, the Sandy hook parents would have been followed around by a film crew 24/7 to make sure they were really grieving. Ironically many of these individuals complain that they are being spied on by "the government"!
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
No. A reasonable person would understand that grief manifests in a whole myriad of ways, (as has been explained over and over again), that are in fact all normal reactions because they occur so frequently. Only an unreasonable, or even unreasoning, person would think his behaviour odd.
ColtCabana
Senior Member
Wait a minute - why would they, or whoever is behind this "false flag") allow this type of information to seep out? Why couldn't they just cut out the footage of Parker supposedly laughing before the interview and broadcast it from that point?
Josh Heuer
Active Member
No. You asked who the police suspected at Sandy Hook. They initially suspected Ryan Lanza. That's not playing silly games. That's fact. Let's not twist things around here.
Even if it was a misidentification, that's what happened.
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
Oh....the Illuminati ALWAYS leave clues.....
deirdre
Senior Member.
or is that just what the media misreported?
- Status
Similar threads
