Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
Really Nappa? You think you've provided evidence?

There have probably been thousands of hours of footage shot of the Sandy Hook stuff. On-scene footage from 50 news sources, post-scene interviews with hundreds of eye-witnesses, and all kinds of reporting for all kinds of reasons. Might even be tens of thousands.

I haven't seen all of it, you haven't seen all of it. Nobody has seen all of it, but all of it has been seen. Most of it has been seen by many people, some of it has been seen by millions of people.

Almost all of it looks pretty damn legitimate. People grieving like you think they should, police acting like police are supposed to act, eye witnesses telling stories that match up very well with what other witnesses are saying, etc.

A few things are out of place. A few things, really just a tiny percentage of all that was filmed, clearly less than 1%, probably less than 1% of 1% of all the footage shot, just this little tiny percentage of things that seem wrong.

Keyword: seem. You don't know what that one guy was thinking. I don't know what that one guy was thinking. Hell, that one guy might have been in enough shock that even he didn't know what he was thinking. So what if that one guy said or did something that seemed out of place? Humans screw up. Hell, your whole theory is based on paid actors screwing up, so you clearly know that humans screw up. But when anyone suggests that, yes, he did screw up but no, he wasn't a paid actor but rather just a grieving citizen, you immediately shout no, that makes no sense because what, you don't think humans can screw up? You don't think some of the thousands of people involved might just do something that surprises you and seems different from what you would do?

That girl's dad, laughing before his interview, you don't know a word he said. Maybe he was just embarrassed - people laugh when they're embarrassed. A guy who hates talking to crowds is suddenly about to talk to about 50 million people. So he says something lame like "I hate talking to crowds" and gives a shy smile. The cameraman says "try to imagine everyone in America naked" and a bunch of people laugh, including the nervous dad. Just for a second, the tension, the trauma, the shock, relieved by a bit of stupid humor for the sole purpose of making him relax before an interview. Then the interview is about to start, the cameraman is counting down on his fingers "5... 4... 3... ". Dad starts breathing deep to soothe his nerves. The humor is gone and the realization that he's about to talk about his dead beloved daughter brings him back to the moment and his grief returns.

It's a simple explanation that really makes sense based on how real humans behave.

But that's not good enough for you. You've latched onto the conspiracy theory like a bulldog on a bull. As you have already said, nothing is going to convince you that this guy isn't a paid actor pretending to grieve and joking around before his performance.

Fine, you have your theory and I have mine. Who's right? We'll never know.

But I know this. Thousand upon thousands of hours of footage, and almost every minute of it shows people doing what both you and I would expect. A few conspiracy guys find a few minutes out of all those hours where something seems amiss and they put them together into a story that completely ignores the other 99.99% of the footage, completely ignores all the thousands of people involved, and completely ignores the fact that our incompetent corrupt government couldn't pull off a stunt like this to save their own ass.

You can't just latch onto a few anomalies and ignore the enormous weight of all the non-anomalous evidence. That's poor journalism, poor science, poor logic, and basically just crazy.

And even if you do focus only on the anomalies, building a whole paranoid conspiracy fiction to explain a few odd moments of unexpected human behavior as some kind of government cover-up that requires thousands of participants to fake so many things that are otherwise easy to verify - our government couldn't even hide a few pieces of paper from Woodward and Bernstein but somehow you think they're going to get hundreds of actors to fake the deaths of 28 people and convince thousands of journalists and hundreds of law enforcement officials and hundreds of medical personnel and nobody will ever say a word.

Preposterous.

Your theory is wildly improbable and contrary to everything we humans know about human behavior. Yes, the government is corrupt. You're right about that (and wrong about us weak-minded people not knowing it), but the government is also incompetent and humans are predicable enough in large groups to know that a job this big, someone would blab. You know it and I know it.

But what is far more likely is that some nutjob blew away 28 people, creating a media frenzy, and hundreds of witnesses in various stages of shock told various accounts of what happened and almost all of them were mostly accurate but a few were less accurate than the rest. And a few people, in shock, displayed unexpected emotions. This is a far more plausible story, by many orders of magnitude, than any conspiracy idiocy anyone has presented so far.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
18-01-2013, 05:48 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2013 05:53 PM by Nappa.)
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 04:19 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Really Nappa? You think you've provided evidence?

There have probably been thousands of hours of footage shot of the Sandy Hook stuff. On-scene footage from 50 news sources, post-scene interviews with hundreds of eye-witnesses, and all kinds of reporting for all kinds of reasons. Might even be tens of thousands.

I haven't seen all of it, you haven't seen all of it. Nobody has seen all of it, but all of it has been seen. Most of it has been seen by many people, some of it has been seen by millions of people.

Almost all of it looks pretty damn legitimate. People grieving like you think they should, police acting like police are supposed to act, eye witnesses telling stories that match up very well with what other witnesses are saying, etc.

A few things are out of place. A few things, really just a tiny percentage of all that was filmed, clearly less than 1%, probably less than 1% of 1% of all the footage shot, just this little tiny percentage of things that seem wrong.

Keyword: seem. You don't know what that one guy was thinking. I don't know what that one guy was thinking. Hell, that one guy might have been in enough shock that even he didn't know what he was thinking. So what if that one guy said or did something that seemed out of place? Humans screw up. Hell, your whole theory is based on paid actors screwing up, so you clearly know that humans screw up. But when anyone suggests that, yes, he did screw up but no, he wasn't a paid actor but rather just a grieving citizen, you immediately shout no, that makes no sense because what, you don't think humans can screw up? You don't think some of the thousands of people involved might just do something that surprises you and seems different from what you would do?

That girl's dad, laughing before his interview, you don't know a word he said. Maybe he was just embarrassed - people laugh when they're embarrassed. A guy who hates talking to crowds is suddenly about to talk to about 50 million people. So he says something lame like "I hate talking to crowds" and gives a shy smile. The cameraman says "try to imagine everyone in America naked" and a bunch of people laugh, including the nervous dad. Just for a second, the tension, the trauma, the shock, relieved by a bit of stupid humor for the sole purpose of making him relax before an interview. Then the interview is about to start, the cameraman is counting down on his fingers "5... 4... 3... ". Dad starts breathing deep to soothe his nerves. The humor is gone and the realization that he's about to talk about his dead beloved daughter brings him back to the moment and his grief returns.

It's a simple explanation that really makes sense based on how real humans behave.

But that's not good enough for you. You've latched onto the conspiracy theory like a bulldog on a bull. As you have already said, nothing is going to convince you that this guy isn't a paid actor pretending to grieve and joking around before his performance.

Fine, you have your theory and I have mine. Who's right? We'll never know.

But I know this. Thousand upon thousands of hours of footage, and almost every minute of it shows people doing what both you and I would expect. A few conspiracy guys find a few minutes out of all those hours where something seems amiss and they put them together into a story that completely ignores the other 99.99% of the footage, completely ignores all the thousands of people involved, and completely ignores the fact that our incompetent corrupt government couldn't pull off a stunt like this to save their own ass.

You can't just latch onto a few anomalies and ignore the enormous weight of all the non-anomalous evidence. That's poor journalism, poor science, poor logic, and basically just crazy.

And even if you do focus only on the anomalies, building a whole paranoid conspiracy fiction to explain a few odd moments of unexpected human behavior as some kind of government cover-up that requires thousands of participants to fake so many things that are otherwise easy to verify - our government couldn't even hide a few pieces of paper from Woodward and Bernstein but somehow you think they're going to get hundreds of actors to fake the deaths of 28 people and convince thousands of journalists and hundreds of law enforcement officials and hundreds of medical personnel and nobody will ever say a word.

Preposterous.

Your theory is wildly improbable and contrary to everything we humans know about human behavior. Yes, the government is corrupt. You're right about that (and wrong about us weak-minded people not knowing it), but the government is also incompetent and humans are predicable enough in large groups to know that a job this big, someone would blab. You know it and I know it.

But what is far more likely is that some nutjob blew away 28 people, creating a media frenzy, and hundreds of witnesses in various stages of shock told various accounts of what happened and almost all of them were mostly accurate but a few were less accurate than the rest. And a few people, in shock, displayed unexpected emotions. This is a far more plausible story, by many orders of magnitude, than any conspiracy idiocy anyone has presented so far.
What you call on scene footage is a helicopter circling above the school and a few pedestrians talking. That is not footage of 28 people shot dead, not that I'm asking for that, just their bodies... and dna tests matching their parents, for reasons I've already explained. Not because I think they would pull 28 bodies out of nowhere, but because I know that's something I would do in this sort of situation had I been the one trying to promote a conspiracy.


Really? You're claiming that an old man was in shock from having 6 children on his lawn? The man did not experience anything I would consider traumatizing. He found 6 children on his lawn, 6 children that were supposed to be dead. Because their teacher was supposed to have been shot along with all her students. In fact on the news before this little inconsistency was brought to light it said. A teacher and ALL of her students, not just some.

I've already stated that people aren't grieving like I think they should, in fact we have video of two parents who had lost their children who are jubilant in an interview, not grieving. And the man who did not lose anything grieves more than those parents did. Far more. Far more than a man who only found a few children on his lawn should be grieving.

Oh for the love of god the father who was laughing before the interview was not nervous, he was jolly! happy! Nervousness and happiness look like two totally different things. You are an extremely poor judge of character if you can not tell the difference between happiness and nervousness.

As for the government being incompetent, no it's very competent, you just said that it was corrupt. You admitted it, what you didn't admit was the fact that you just willingly admitted that there are things you don't know about the government. The government looks incompetent from an outside perspective if you watch news debates. Oh yes by lord and jovee they do. But puppets don't have to be competent now do they? The real power that is held in the EU and the U.S. lays with those who have a ton of money, rich families. Not in the government.

And I never said that the police officers weren't police officers, or anyone otherwise. Just a few dozen people would have to be the actors in such cases you can often do more with less.

So let me get this straight, the government of one of the most powerful nations in the world is incompetent. But the Roman Catholic church can rape little boys for decades and no one is none the wiser? The only incompetence here is coming from your inability to perceive that you've been duped by your incompetent government. You can't possibly be duped by some organization which has the resources to do pretty much whatever it wants. You can't possibly be duped by say for example the CIA. You can't possibly be duped because you're so much smarter than the government is right? Right? You're smarter than those imbeciles you see on T.V. of course you AREN'T. Because guess who they just fooled!? You!

If the government can appear incompetent that's all the better for them, because you will never suspect them. Just as you never will suspect them because of your own incompetence. No no, I never said you had to believe your suspicions. I merely now just stated that you do not suspect your own government which is quite capable of pulling off large scale conspiracies as we've seen in the past (conpsiracies that were found out or admitted) but for some odd reason their conspiracy stick just must not be working right these days.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 05:58 PM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
It is possible Nappa, you have what is commonly referred to as confirmation bias: if you already believe in conspiracies then you will look for/only accept a conspiracy as a valid explanation for any perceived unresolved inquiry. It is possible your previous life experiences have caused some sort of paranoiac fear in your mind, which you are unable to rationally see without alluding to a lie.

The thing is, if you were presented a crime scene photo of children's bullet ridden bodies, it wouldn't be enough for you. You will simply pass it off as further evidence of some elaborate theatrical.

That is why I question if viewing evidence of bodies will let you stop seeing a conspiracy at all or simply fuel your paranoia. So far, photographic evidence in other matters has not seemed to help you conclude anything other than an even greater conspiracy.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
18-01-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 05:58 PM)kim Wrote:  It is possible Nappa, you have what is commonly referred to as confirmation bias: if you already believe in conspiracies then you will look for/only accept a conspiracy as a valid explanation for any perceived unresolved inquiry. It is possible your previous life experiences have caused some sort of paranoiac fear in your mind, which you are unable to rationally see without alluding to a lie.

The thing is, if you were presented a crime scene photo of children's bullet ridden bodies, it wouldn't be enough for you. You will simply pass it off as further evidence of some elaborate theatrical.

That is why I question if viewing evidence of bodies will let you stop seeing a conspiracy at all or simply fuel your paranoia. So far, photographic evidence in other matters has not seemed to help you conclude anything other than an even greater conspiracy.
I'd accept DNA testing of the bodies. As far as confirmation bias. If I find out that my government is in the business for conspiracies it's not that I'm going to be biased about information. It's just that I'm then more open to the possibility that my government might be up to something. As far as paranoia goes, I am only paranoid of one thing.

Open doors. I can't stand them.

Again back to the confirmation bias, an atheist is likely not to believe any religion that he or she is presented with over any other religion. Just as in reverse, after finding out one conspiracy on my own I am then more willing to give the other conspiracies I may have heard about in the past more probability than I originally had. I still don't think the moon-landings were staged, and I still don't think roswell or area 51 have any extraterrestrial life. Though area 51 most probably contains top secret military weapons.

I mean hey, they gotta test them out somewhere, might as well be the middle of nowhere.

I've already made a thread partially discussing this phenomenon called "the tri-religious concordant."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 06:18 PM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 06:11 PM)Nappa Wrote:  ...after finding out one conspiracy on my own I am then more willing to give the other conspiracies I may have heard about in the past more probability than I originally had.
What conspiracy did you find out on your own?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2013 07:22 PM by Nappa.)
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 06:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 06:11 PM)Nappa Wrote:  ...after finding out one conspiracy on my own I am then more willing to give the other conspiracies I may have heard about in the past more probability than I originally had.
What conspiracy did you find out on your own?
Well not all on my own, but left with compelling arguments and good evidence. However I'd say that the closest I've been to finding one REALLY all on my own. Would have been 9.11, at the age of 15 I was deeply suspicious of the intentions of my government had in the middle east. I soon became aware that the war was at least partially for oil, and questioned why our government would see it fit to invade two nations over the single actions of a small group of renegades.

However, at the age of 15 I did not share my thoughts about controversial matters with others. Not only because I wanted to and I quote myself "protect the innocence and happiness of others" but also because right after becoming an atheist I thought it was quite rude of me to just go around trying to convince other people that their god didn't exist. I also thought that I was one of maybe 20 atheists in the entire world. I did not have any outside help in convincing me that a god didn't exist, nor did I know anyone aside from my brother (who rarely crossed my mind after he moved out of the family's house) who was an atheist and at the time I didn't what know what the disbelief in a god was called I had never heard the term atheist before in my life. (it should also be noted that during the period of my deconversion I was not thinking of my brother's disbelief at all.)

The point is though, I was rather reserved back then. Had I known about World Trade Center 7 (the other tower that fell) I would probably have been able to finally realize a conspiracy, alas I did not learn about WTC 7 until 5 years later. When I finally took it upon myself to question the incident.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 11:50 PM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 06:11 PM)Nappa Wrote:  I'd accept DNA testing of the bodies. As far as confirmation bias. If I find out that my government is in the business for conspiracies it's not that I'm going to be biased about information. It's just that I'm then more open to the possibility that my government might be up to something. As far as paranoia goes, I am only paranoid of one thing.

No you wouldn't. You would say that the government faked the tests. Then you might say that you wouldn't believe them unless you did the tests yourself, and you would go learn how to do DNA tests and get access to all 28 bodies and parents, collect DNA, test it, find out it was a match, but you wouldn't accept that, you'd claim that the government meddled with your equipment to make it give false results. So you would learn enough about engineering to build the DNA testing equipment and collect all new samples and run the tests again on your equipment, find out it was a match, but you wouldn't accept that, you'd claim that the government drugged you and tampered with your stuff while you slept. And so on.

I'm pretty sure that if you had been in that classroom and watched the shooting as it happened, you'd still claim the kids were all actors and the wounds were all squibs.

(18-01-2013 06:11 PM)Nappa Wrote:  Open doors minds. I can't stand them.

Fixed - We all hate what we don't have.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
19-01-2013, 01:12 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 11:50 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 06:11 PM)Nappa Wrote:  I'd accept DNA testing of the bodies. As far as confirmation bias. If I find out that my government is in the business for conspiracies it's not that I'm going to be biased about information. It's just that I'm then more open to the possibility that my government might be up to something. As far as paranoia goes, I am only paranoid of one thing.

No you wouldn't. You would say that the government faked the tests. Then you might say that you wouldn't believe them unless you did the tests yourself, and you would go learn how to do DNA tests and get access to all 28 bodies and parents, collect DNA, test it, find out it was a match, but you wouldn't accept that, you'd claim that the government meddled with your equipment to make it give false results. So you would learn enough about engineering to build the DNA testing equipment and collect all new samples and run the tests again on your equipment, find out it was a match, but you wouldn't accept that, you'd claim that the government drugged you and tampered with your stuff while you slept. And so on.

I'm pretty sure that if you had been in that classroom and watched the shooting as it happened, you'd still claim the kids were all actors and the wounds were all squibs.

(18-01-2013 06:11 PM)Nappa Wrote:  Open doors minds. I can't stand them.

Fixed - We all hate what we don't have.
Well I certainly wouldn't let the government do the DNA tests if I was thinking they were the ones in a conspiracy. That's just common sense, you don't give a psychopathic murderer with a long history of violence a gun either. I would indeed be either doing the dna tests myself or overseeing their procedure. But first I'd have to find some bodies, assuming there were bodies. You're already on the belief that the event actually took place. Until you can verify that it did you can not say that it did. It becomes IF.

Also I doubt the government could tamper with my tests if I was personally involved with them. If they were able to do that, it would be because of poor security measures on my part, and I would be deserving of being duped for my incompetence in such a case.

I don't understand why you're making a big deal out of this. Is it because it's labeled as a conspiracy? Do you know what the word conspiracy means

Conspiracy: A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

By this standard any persons two or more who had agreed to say rob a store, or say if they worked there to embezzle funds, and there's certainly a lot more conspiracies to murder people than you would care to think about.

Conspiracies are just every day things. Your poor judgment on the government and the fact that you were probably indoctrinated to believe conspiracies were foolish notions has made it so that you personally believe that something could never slip by your watchful gaze. When in reality it happens on a regular basis. From the low level commoner to the aristocratic oligarchy government.

In short, you are biased when it comes to conspiracies. I certainly do not believe in every conspiracy I hear, but I give the good portion of them a reasonable chance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 01:53 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
It's odd that you think you know what I believe. I am disinclined to take advice or criticism of my judgment capacity from someone who can't discern the difference between paranoid delusion and reality. I don't believe conspiracies are foolish notions, considering it was a conspiracy that led our founding fathers to declare independence from England and create the country that allows you the freedom to be an arrogant d-bag to anyone you want. I have no illusions as to whether "something" could "slip by" my watchful gaze. Hell, my gaze isn't even very watchful, mostly. It's only when I'm confronted by clueless idiots who are actually doing damage to good people that I step up and try to help such a moron rise above his intellectual challenges.

Oligarchy government? You need to look that word up. Our government is not an oligarchy. Are you saying that the secret ruling class that secretly controls the government is the rich and famous wealthy 1%? If so, well, Duh. Everyone knows that. It's the worst kept secret and worst kept conspiracy ever. Here, I'll give you one better - every single government, ever, EVER, was exactly the same way. Money talks. Even brutal dictators, mighty kings, bloodthirsty emperors, etc., all had to bend the knee to the families (and corporations) with big money.

So thanks for the hot tip. I'll, uh, ignore it because all you're doing is describing status quo for every government ever.

And finally, no, I am not biased. Nor prejudiced. (another couple words for you to look up). I certainly do not believe in (actually, "believe" is much more precise than "believe in" in this context) every conspiracy I hear, but I give them all a chance to provide any evidence that might even remotely compare, weight for weight, with the evidence on the other side (you might call it the "official story").

In the case of Sandy Hook, there is about 1,000x more evidence for the official story what the "truthers" have coughed up for conspiracy evidence is fare less reliable, far easier to debunk, and, well, far more bullshit than what the official story has.

Yes, it's in my name. Skeptic. I chose that for a reason. I'll look at any old conspiracy and give a skeptical handshake. This one has cold sweaty palms and a feebler grip than a toddler.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2013 03:08 AM by Nappa.)
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(19-01-2013 01:53 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  It's odd that you think you know what I believe. I am disinclined to take advice or criticism of my judgment capacity from someone who can't discern the difference between paranoid delusion and reality. I don't believe conspiracies are foolish notions, considering it was a conspiracy that led our founding fathers to declare independence from England and create the country that allows you the freedom to be an arrogant d-bag to anyone you want. I have no illusions as to whether "something" could "slip by" my watchful gaze. Hell, my gaze isn't even very watchful, mostly. It's only when I'm confronted by clueless idiots who are actually doing damage to good people that I step up and try to help such a moron rise above his intellectual challenges.

Oligarchy government? You need to look that word up. Our government is not an oligarchy. Are you saying that the secret ruling class that secretly controls the government is the rich and famous wealthy 1%? If so, well, Duh. Everyone knows that. It's the worst kept secret and worst kept conspiracy ever. Here, I'll give you one better - every single government, ever, EVER, was exactly the same way. Money talks. Even brutal dictators, mighty kings, bloodthirsty emperors, etc., all had to bend the knee to the families (and corporations) with big money.

So thanks for the hot tip. I'll, uh, ignore it because all you're doing is describing status quo for every government ever.

And finally, no, I am not biased. Nor prejudiced. (another couple words for you to look up). I certainly do not believe in (actually, "believe" is much more precise than "believe in" in this context) every conspiracy I hear, but I give them all a chance to provide any evidence that might even remotely compare, weight for weight, with the evidence on the other side (you might call it the "official story").

In the case of Sandy Hook, there is about 1,000x more evidence for the official story what the "truthers" have coughed up for conspiracy evidence is fare less reliable, far easier to debunk, and, well, far more bullshit than what the official story has.

Yes, it's in my name. Skeptic. I chose that for a reason. I'll look at any old conspiracy and give a skeptical handshake. This one has cold sweaty palms and a feebler grip than a toddler.
I'm terribly sorry for taking so long to reply to you. I was just browsing bestgore, god that site is awesome, they have some REALLY interesting stories if you can manage to stomach the grotesque pictures.

Anyways, founding fathers, that's a phrase I have not heard in a long time. The term 'founding fathers' implies an emotional attachment to those who organized the 13 colonies in a revolt against the British Empire in the 1770's who would later form a loose confederation and not much later become a single state. It is much like how a christian might feel an emotional attachment to jesus christ or one of the apostles.

Anyways I understand perfectly what an oligarchy means, and I find your weighing of evidence to be grossly overestimated. Back to the story where the policeman shot the robber in the head!

Well just got back from browsing the bestgore take on the sandy hook shooting. And guess what? No pics. Bestgore, which has gore on pretty much everything. Doesn't have pics on this. Even that theater shooting they at least had some minor wounded people and some blood trails. I have failed to provide you with any physical evidence that this happened. I apologize.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Conspiracy theories that have come true. Metazoa Zeke 20 423 30-06-2014 12:58 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Sandy Hook Shooting Hoax dancefortwo 27 971 31-05-2014 01:46 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Church conspiracy theories. BlackMason 4 153 04-05-2014 11:44 AM
Last Post: BlackMason
  MH 370 Conspiracy Theories Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver 9 595 24-04-2014 11:26 PM
Last Post: Drunkin Druid
  Found a bat shit crazy conspiracy theory website ... TheLogicalAthiest 6 258 24-03-2014 04:38 PM
Last Post: Chas
  What's the craziest conspiracy theory you can come up with? Tartarus Sauce 85 2,693 17-03-2014 10:28 AM
Last Post: Just Another Atheist
  Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura Punk Pumpkin 18 502 09-03-2014 09:36 AM
Last Post: Revenant77x
Forum Jump: