Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 07:37 AM)Nappa Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 07:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem is your gullibility.
I'm the person who doesn't believe the first thing he hears, I merely accept it as a likely possibility until I can find supporting or contradictory evidence. I see a man change testimony on camera (the rosen guy did do this) that is highly suspicious and worthy of speculation alone and in itself. I see three people (including the rosen guy) who are over exerting themselves in their emotion. The Rosen guy is more depressed even though he personally wasn't subject to a tragic loss. The two parents in the one interview have a sunny disposition despite the fact that their child was just murdered in cold blood a week or two before the interview, a man turns from laughing and having a good time to shedding tears after 'composing' himself.

Am I really the one who is gullible here?

I sincerely feel sorry for you if you believe everything you hear on the news.

This explains the news/media perfectly.




You have no evidence, merely speculation and typical human inconsistencies.

The claim that there was a conspiracy is so extraordinary that it requires real evidence.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
18-01-2013, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2013 07:59 AM by Nappa.)
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have no evidence, merely speculation and typical human inconsistencies.

The claim that there was a conspiracy is so extraordinary that it requires real evidence.
So video footage of all this happening on tape isn't evidence? Just what kind of evidence ARE you looking for? Do you want me to go dig up some graves? Cause I would if I could, but unfortunately it's ILLEGAL for me to disturb the dead without good reason, also because I live nowhere near that region, also because it's likely I'd get in big bantha poodoo with the government if I was found on the verge of proving a conspiracy so soon after it was implemented. And I mean BIG BANTHA POODOO! Of course then again if I was grave digging and there wasn't any body in the grave technically it wouldn't be disturbing the dead. unfortunately it would not take much to find some spare bodies at hand to fill in the graves as a precaution if anyone was aptly willing to take such action. I'm not saying that the government did do that, but I am saying that if I was the one conducting a conspiracy I would be the one doing that.

Also conspiracies are not extraordinary, it is literally just two or more people agreeing to indulge in dubious activities. It is not the equivalent of trying to prove the existence of a god. They're relatively easy to prove or disprove based on the evidence that surrounds them. If you must fall upon such a weak statement to try and reassure yourself then I must say you're even more pathetic than I imagined you to be.

If none of the above is sufficient enough evidence for you just WHAT is?! I've already stated why I can't go digging up graves so just what evidence ARE you looking for? Despite the fact that we have overwhelming video inconsistencies. You have reached the point where all a christian says to subdue an argument is 'yeah but you can't prove god doesn't exist!' that is the sad sad point you have reached.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 08:02 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 07:52 AM)Nappa Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have no evidence, merely speculation and typical human inconsistencies.

The claim that there was a conspiracy is so extraordinary that it requires real evidence.
So video footage of all this happening on tape isn't evidence? Just what kind of evidence ARE you looking for? Do you want me to go dig up some graves? Cause I would if I could, but unfortunately it's ILLEGAL for me to disturb the dead without good reason, also because I live nowhere near that region, also because it's likely I'd get in big bantha poodoo with the government if I was found on the verge of proving a conspiracy so soon after it was implemented. And I mean BIG BANTHA POODOO! Of course then again if I was grave digging and there wasn't any body in the grave technically it wouldn't be disturbing the dead. unfortunately it would not take much to find some spare bodies at hand to fill in the graves as a precaution if anyone was aptly willing to take such action. I'm not saying that the government did do that, but I am saying that if I was the one conducting a conspiracy I would be the one doing that.

Also conspiracies are not extraordinary, it is literally just two or more people agreeing to indulge in dubious activities. It is not the equivalent of trying to prove the existence of a god. They're relatively easy to prove or disprove based on the evidence that surrounds them. If you must fall upon such a weak statement to try and reassure yourself then I must say you're even more pathetic than I imagined you to be.

If none of the above is sufficient enough evidence for you just WHAT is?! I've already stated why I can't go digging up graves so just what evidence ARE you looking for? Despite the fact that we have overwhelming video inconsistencies. You have reached the point where all a christian says to subdue an argument is 'yeah but you can't prove god doesn't exist!' that is the sad sad point you have reached.


The burden of proof is on you who is making the claim. You have provided no proof.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-01-2013, 08:11 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  The burden of proof is on you who is making the claim. You have provided no proof.
Son I am not the one trying to prove something here, I am the one trying to disprove something. As far as I know I've done a pretty good job, I've provided you with inconsistencies and video evidence of a person lying on tape, as well as flawed human behavior after a tragic loss or traumatic event.

I've already proven my side. The only thing you have to do is get it through that thick head of yours that your government is actually a lot more corrupt than you thought it was! Besides I've already asked you if the evidence I've submitted wasn't sufficient that you should then point me towards what would be sufficient.

Your lack of response to that demonstrates that you have no standard for what would be sufficient and that you have no real understanding on what an analysis is. I find it a miracle that you ever became an atheist. Tell me, was it because becoming an atheist are what the 'cool' kids are doing? Because it is clear you do not the ability to think critically. Instead falling back on 'burden of proof' and 'extraordinary claim' even though I've just shot that extraordinary dope out of the water and explained to you how it is such a very ordinary occasion.

You've now fallen back on the 'burden of proof lies on you' without really submitting any preference on how I can bring you the appropriate proof that would satisfy you, even though the evidence I've brought forth already exposes major problems with this event. So what little bland statement are you going to fall back on next?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 08:15 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 08:11 AM)Nappa Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  The burden of proof is on you who is making the claim. You have provided no proof.
Son I am not the one trying to prove something here, I am the one trying to disprove something. As far as I know I've done a pretty good job, I've provided you with inconsistencies and video evidence of a person lying on tape, as well as flawed human behavior after a tragic loss or traumatic event.

I've already proven my side. The only thing you have to do is get it through that thick head of yours that your government is actually a lot more corrupt than you thought it was! Besides I've already asked you if the evidence I've submitted wasn't sufficient that you should then point me towards what would be sufficient.

Your lack of response to that demonstrates that you have no standard for what would be sufficient and that you have no real understanding on what an analysis is. I find it a miracle that you ever became an atheist. Tell me, was it because becoming an atheist are what the 'cool' kids are doing? Because it is clear you do not the ability to think critically. Instead falling back on 'burden of proof' and 'extraordinary claim' even though I've just shot that extraordinary dope out of the water and explained to you how it is such a very ordinary occasion.

You've now fallen back on the 'burden of proof lies on you' without really submitting any preference on how I can bring you the appropriate proof that would satisfy you, even though the evidence I've brought forth already exposes major problems with this event. So what little bland statement are you going to fall back on next?


By blandly stating that I am not going to spend any more time talking to a conspiracy nut.

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, 08:20 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  By blandly stating that I am not going to spend any more time talking to a conspiracy nut.
Then

[Image: owned.jpg]


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 08:20 AM)Nappa Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  By blandly stating that I am not going to spend any more time talking to a conspiracy nut.
Then

[Image: owned.jpg]




Whatever you say, but if you think you've 'won' anything here, you are quite wrong.

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, 11:11 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 11:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  Whatever you say, but if you think you've 'won' anything here, you are quite wrong.
Seeing as you still fail to reply just how I could 'impress' you. I think I'm quite right in my assumption that you've logically beaten.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 11:11 AM)Nappa Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 11:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  Whatever you say, but if you think you've 'won' anything here, you are quite wrong.
Seeing as you still fail to reply just how I could 'impress' you. I think I'm quite right in my assumption that you've logically beaten.


No, it is up to you to provide actual evidence of an actual conspiracy. Suspicion, innuendo, speculation don't qualify.

Memos, e-mails, testimony, something that shows the existence of a conspiracy.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-01-2013, 11:29 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2013 11:32 AM by Nappa.)
RE: Sandy Hook Conspiracy.
(18-01-2013 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is up to you to provide actual evidence of an actual conspiracy. Suspicion, innuendo, speculation don't qualify.

Memos, e-mails, testimony, something that shows the existence of a conspiracy.
Alright fine you prick, I'll do that but first you must provide actual evidence that a god doesn't exist. No suspicion, no inconsistencies, and no speculation.

you really think I'd be able to get my hands on a memo or an e-mail from them? And There are problems with the testimony which was in the video in the OP. You clearly didn't watch it or you chose to DELIBERATELY ignore those parts. It's very unlikely that anything would have been sent by e-mail and even then any sort of document could be faked to provide more weight for the conspiracy side, just like testimonies can be faked. You dumb ass. I've already talked about the only physical evidence this event has. Which would be the bodies.

Ah that's right, give me a negative rep just because you were beaten in a debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: