Trump

[BadFish]

All this bollox that different people behave in different ways,when faced with a death of their own child. come on does anyone really believe he isn't faking it. ffs it's a clear certainty he is.

But it is not clear. Without a great deal of experience of how people behave when faced with the combination of shock grief and media exposure you cannot say how you exist people to act. What do you have to compare this to? What had shaped your opinion of what to expect? Without answers to theses kinds of questions you are just pissing in the wind.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

He's a bad actor:

https://youtu.be/Vic5bOWGmQI

You have leaped to the assumption that the only reason for ocular dryness while crying is that the tears are fake. Have you researched other possibilities? My understanding is that sometimes people, especially adult males don't always produce tears when crying. There are a few explanations for this including conditioning that cry is not a masculine trait and should be suppressed or a problem with the tear ducts.

Conversely it is my understanding that most actors worth their salts can produce tears at will in order to give their performance the gravitas and emotion required. Surely if employing/coercing actors into performing for this hoax they would have found one who can do the basic skills?

Can you provide me the evidence you found that supports your idea that crying must always be accompanied by tears?

 

[BadFish]

Let's imagine this happened at your local school, and your kids go there:
Either you lost a child, or your child was caught up in the most horrific day they'll ever have.
Assuming the latter, they will know children who died. You will too. Children who will never go back to the school, but will probably have siblings who do.
As life continues, you will see some bereaved parents collecting their remaining children at pick-up. It will be an unusual experience for years.
Regularly your children will talk of their lost friends, and what the school has talked about in their memory that month.

Now let's imagine it was fake, no one died:
You've got 450 children wondering what people are talking about, as none of them met any of the imaginary children that died. None of them witnessed a shooting at school, none of them saw a gunman or saw anyone being shot or dying.
You've got a similar number of parents who talk to each other, and none of them know of any parents that lost any children, and when they ask their children what happened their children haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Then you've got all the staff who know that nothing happened.

So that's about a thousand people who know nothing happened, so you've got to get them all in on this great scam.
And that's before we bring in any outsiders - all the police etc, all those actors that were told to walk around the school in circles to make it look like there were more of them.
This mass lie would make Watergate look like Chinese whispers at a camp fire.

Over a thousand ordinary citizens, including children, who have to keep going with a mad lie for the next 50+ years because some people want tighter gun laws.
Noting that many of those that would need to be involved in the cover-up would actually be against tighter gun laws.

Seriously, what the **** has to be wrong in your head to believe it's not real?

My understanding that the conspiracy theorists believe that there was no functioning school on that site (i think, it was a bit vague.....funny that). But even so your point stands. Once you start considering the alternative theories into events that day one quickly realises that only one is a possibility despite the oddities surrounding it.

'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.'

 

[BadFish]

For my troubles i have given it a go and to be perfectly honest with you i could not make head or tail of it, call me ignorant thick whatever i couldn't care less. as far as i am concerned it's jargon. the gist that i got from it was how one comes up with his own set of beliefs and how prejudises can sway a persons opinion.. correct ?

Loved one quote particularly...Smart people believe weird things ...Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe, that can be applied to both sides.

I think

I am going to be blunt here but if you cannot get your head around confirmation bias then you really are not is a position to draw conclusions from your sources on the internet.

You have alluded to it already by suggesting that my mind about this is already made up. You assumption is that whatever evidence you post on here, i will find a reason for it to be incorrect as I already know what i want to believe. An extension for this would be that while I am researching a subject I will ignore information that challenges my view and apply more credence to that which supports it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_YkdMwEO5U

However I am aware of this bias and have tried as much as possible to ask questions about information presented rather than dismiss it out of hand. This is also why i have asked for the evidence you find compelling rather that running the risk of ignoring it during my own research.

The main reason for my pessimism in this being a hoax is the idea that an unworkable number of people would need to involved in the hoax for it to have worked. Aside from the coordination of all these people it would be very difficult to keep them all quiet. Imagine the money they could make selling their stories with proof of a hoax. This of course begs the question 'Have any of the people involved in the hoax come forward and told the 'truth'? I didn't find any but maybe I missed that.

 

[brighton fella]

Yes, it applies to us all, which is why critical thinking requires us to test our beliefs and understanding of evidence using scientific method. One useful tool is Occam's razor: http://skepdic.com/occam.html

There is a good line in this piece as well: "We know from experience that more often than not the theory that requires more complicated machinations is wrong."

Applied to this situation we can choose to believe the most simple explanation: The tragic murder of children by a disturbed individual happened and some who oppose gun control or mistrust the state, either deliberately or through confirmation bias, interpreted the events in a way that could nullify the emotive impact of mass child murder on the political question,

or the more complicated one: Obama faked it. At first glance this may sound the simpler option but believing it also requires an individual to believe that:

The president is machiavellian enough to arrange a massive hoax in order to support his gun control arguments. This is already a stretch given his indecisiveness last year when informed by his intelligence experts that Russia was interfering with the election;
That the president's illegal plan was supported by all around him. Not only everyone in his administration who was in on the plan, but also everybody involved through their jobs working for the state. People whose political views could not be assumed to be supportive of the president: that's civil servants, those working in emergency services, schools, the actors and directors. They all had to agree to the plan:
None of those thousands of people ever let the secret slip to their friends of family;
That everyone in the mainstream media was either fooled, or knew the plan and were happy to go along with it;
That everyone in the media who knew kept it secret, despite the fame, money, prizes and adulation that would have come their way had they uncovered this massive story;
They also didn't tell any friends or family;
That everyone is Newtown was also in on the secret and have kept silent, or if they were not in on the secret at no point since the events have told anyone that weirdly they didn't know any of these people who claim to have had children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, that nobody was related to them, or knew them socially.
That they also didn't tell any friends or family;
That everyone in the dozens of neighbouring communities were also in on the plan, or haven't bothered to mention that it was weird that they too didn't know anyone who was involved in the events. (Imagine this happening in a town in Sussex and think about how far the social networks of friends and family of those immediately affected would stretch).
That they also didn't tell any friends or family.

Without stretching the point further (you would have to consider the hospitals, the unions, the local authorities dealing with the bureaucracy that would surround such an incident, the split between state and federal authorities, the employers and colleagues of the families impacted) the number of people involved would stretch into the millions and would represent all walks of life and political viewpoints in America. and none of them could have said anything to their friends or family.

Now balance that all against 'this bloke, who had just gone through an unimaginably tragic event acted slightly odd for my liking,' and decide which is more likely to be true?

Having had discussions with conspiracy theorists before I am counting the minutes until one is along to say either 'but how do you explain......?', or to accuse me of also being in on the conspiracy (and of not saying anything to my friends or family).

I understand perfectly what you say by meaning that there would have had to been a total silence for it to be able to work and sure at first glance this would present itself an impossible task have you ever considered compartmentalization as an explanation for this and how practically almost every institution in the United States of America and across the rest of the world is compartmentalized.

The answer to Sandy Hook is a mystery in respect both sides hold some compelling arguments, for instance the identical photograph of some little boy announced dead in Sandy Hook was later re used again in relation to a massacre in Pakistan, another bit of compelling information when you bother to search deep enough is the remarkable set if coincidences in relation to the backgrounds of many of the parents involved in Sandy Hook, and why are they withholding documentation concerning Sandy Hook and why when any reasonable answers are put to them in relation to Sandy Hook they are then turned down.. .

Whatever side of the fence you sit with this the truth remains the truth and one of us has to be right, me i don't mind being proven wrong, i take it all as a learning curb the one thing i do strongly object to though is when some ignoramus who cant be arsed to research a particular subject for himself has the brass neck to label a conspiracy theorist a degenerate especially when certain conspiracies were later found to be true.

Answers will no doubt come out eventually, you think you have your answer wrapped up already ..i await mine.

 

[BadFish]

I understand perfectly what you say by meaning that there would have had to been a total silence for it to be able to work and sure at first glance this would present itself an impossible task have you ever considered compartmentalization as an explanation for this and how practically almost every institution in the United States of America and across the rest of the world is compartmentalized.

Can you explain a little more about how this compartmentalisation could have worked? Surely this strategy is only possible if the big picture never comes to light.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

This thread is populated by some seriously strange deluded bananas

 

[BadFish]

This thread is populated by some seriously strange deluded bananas

Yes but I just noticed that is was started by Shandy H......Shandy Hook........ Sandy Hook!!

Explain that one.

 

[Stato]

I understand perfectly what you say by meaning that there would have had to been a total silence for it to be able to work and sure at first glance this would present itself an impossible task have you ever considered compartmentalization as an explanation for this and how practically almost every institution in the United States of America and across the rest of the world is compartmentalized.

The answer to Sandy Hook is a mystery in respect both sides hold some compelling arguments, for instance the identical photograph of some little boy announced dead in Sandy Hook was later re used again in relation to a massacre in Pakistan, another bit of compelling information when you bother to search deep enough is the remarkable set if coincidences in relation to the backgrounds of many of the parents involved in Sandy Hook, and why are they withholding documentation concerning Sandy Hook and why when any reasonable answers are put to them in relation to Sandy Hook they are then turned down.. .

Whatever side of the fence you sit with this the truth remains the truth and one of us has to be right, me i don't mind being proven wrong, i take it all as a learning curb the one thing i do strongly object to though is when some ignoramus who cant be arsed to research a particular subject for himself has the brass neck to label a conspiracy theorist a degenerate especially when certain conspiracies were later found to be true.

Answers will no doubt come out eventually, you think you have your answer wrapped up already ..i await mine.

In answer to your paragraphs:

No. Compartmentalisation of institutions is a completely inadequate response to the question of why no one person from the millions who would know has broken cover.

There are not compelling arguments on both sides. There is the truth of what happened and there is politically motivated innuendo, cherry picking and poison. If there are sides, one side is a community of families, friends and neighbours working together to deal with immeasurable pain and the other is a load of internet chatterers thinking that their right to play at Sherlock Holmes outranks other people's real lives.

On your third point read the Guardian piece. People have sent death threats to some of these parents. Siding with people willing to do that kind of thing is likely to make others a bit cross.

You won't get answers unless you are willing and able to think critically and weigh evidence. Most conspiracy theorists don't seek answers, they seek the opportunity to keep asking questions that give them the sense that they know more than the general populace.

This century's obsession with conspiracy reminds me of GK Chesterton's suggestion that when people stop believing in god they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. He had another good line when he said that the object of opening the mind, like opening the mouth, is to close it again on something solid. Conspiracy theory will, on very few occasions, provide anything solid to close your mind upon.

 

[Triggaaar]

My understanding that the conspiracy theorists believe that there was no functioning school on that site

So all of the local residents have to be kept quiet

 

[BadFish]

I am going to be blunt here but if you cannot get your head around confirmation bias then you really are not is a position to draw conclusions from your sources on the internet.

You have alluded to it already by suggesting that my mind about this is already made up. You assumption is that whatever evidence you post on here, i will find a reason for it to be incorrect as I already know what i want to believe. An extension for this would be that while I am researching a subject I will ignore information that challenges my view and apply more credence to that which supports it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_YkdMwEO5U

However I am aware of this bias and have tried as much as possible to ask questions about information presented rather than dismiss it out of hand. This is also why i have asked for the evidence you find compelling rather that running the risk of ignoring it during my own research.

The main reason for my pessimism in this being a hoax is the idea that an unworkable number of people would need to involved in the hoax for it to have worked. Aside from the coordination of all these people it would be very difficult to keep them all quiet. Imagine the money they could make selling their stories with proof of a hoax. This of course begs the question 'Have any of the people involved in the hoax come forward and told the 'truth'? I didn't find any but maybe I missed that.

Here is a video of other biases that it is useful to be aware of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwGBIr_RIw

i have been guilty of the last one already on this thread

 

[BadFish]

So all of the local residents have to be kept quiet [emoji38]

Yes and those from neighbouring towns, the district education system and the department of education. Not to mention anyone visiting any of the buildings nearby.

And given that the school is still running, all the people that have taught there, attended or parent children that attended from the shooting until today. Surely if this had been a hoax and the school was not operating beforehand then they would have closed it afterwards.

It really makes no sense.

 

[brighton fella]

I am going to be blunt here but if you cannot get your head around confirmation bias then you really are not is a position to draw conclusions from your sources on the internet.

You have alluded to it already by suggesting that my mind about this is already made up. You assumption is that whatever evidence you post on here, i will find a reason for it to be incorrect as I already know what i want to believe. An extension for this would be that while I am researching a subject I will ignore information that challenges my view and apply more credence to that which supports it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_YkdMwEO5U

However I am aware of this bias and have tried as much as possible to ask questions about information presented rather than dismiss it out of hand. This is also why i have asked for the evidence you find compelling rather that running the risk of ignoring it during my own research.

The main reason for my pessimism in this being a hoax is the idea that an unworkable number of people would need to involved in the hoax for it to have worked. Aside from the coordination of all these people it would be very difficult to keep them all quiet. Imagine the money they could make selling their stories with proof of a hoax. This of course begs the question 'Have any of the people involved in the hoax come forward and told the 'truth'? I didn't find any but maybe I missed that.

This conformation bias can apply both ways. rather like the majority on here and the alternative media. when someone tells another person not to go there because it is full of nutcases they automatically do only to report back with negative comments. Trust me i do look at both sides and many a time i wish to be wrong, believing in a world totally free of corruption greed and war would be far better for my health trust me..
9/11 and discovering the truth behind it got me initially started , before late 2012 i was like you a sheep, mocking every conspiracy theorist going. It was in 2012 when i became very ill which meant i had to give up work, then someone during the latter part of that year posted me up a clip debunking the official story of 9/11 ... i wasn't having any of it, anyway as i was not working and had stacks of time on my hand i started to indulge and do some research of my own, what i found was staggering to say the very least, remember this all happened when i was in a hypnotized trace and under the spell of her majesties government/ the British Bullshit Company and the rest of it's cronies believing like every other brainwashed sheeple the world was in a utopian kind of state. i soon changed my mind and saw the light and to be honest haven't looked back since. My family and a lot of my friends agree with the fact that 9/11 was a total 100% stitch up job, which came as a total surprise to me when i first came on here and seeing just how many are in denial of it
.

 

[BadFish]

This conformation bias can apply both ways. rather like the majority on here and the alternative media. when someone tells another person not to go there because it is full of nutcases they automatically do only to report back with negative comments. Trust me i do look at both sides and many a time i wish to be wrong, believing in a world totally free of corruption greed and war would be far better for my health trust me..

Of course bias works both ways, we are all guilty of it. the key is to understand that you are susceptible to these biases and try to take them into account by looking at quality evidence to prove your theories.

9/11 and discovering the truth behind it got me initially started , before late 2012 i was like you a sheep, mocking every conspiracy theorist going. It was in 2012 when i became very ill which meant i had to give up work, then someone during the latter part of that year posted me up a clip debunking the official story of 9/11 ... i wasn't having any of it, anyway as i was not working and had stacks of time on my hand i started to indulge and do some research of my own, what i found was staggering to say the very least, remember this all happened when i was in a hypnotized trace and under the spell of her majesties government/ the British Bullshit Company and the rest of it's cronies believing like every other brainwashed sheeple the world was in a utopian kind of state. i soon changed my mind and saw the light and to be honest haven't looked back since. My family and a lot of my friends agree with the fact that 9/11 was a total 100% stitch up job, which came as a total surprise to me when i first came on here and seeing just how many are in denial of it
.

I told you you would end up calling me a sheeple . I would also like you to point out where I have been mocking you.

The problem as i see it is that on this thread all you are saying is that you have done research and discovered the truth. This is all well and good but in order to convince anyone else you are going to have to provide some of the research that convinced you of your truth. This is what scientists do when they publish journals to be peer reviewed, this is part of the method that scientists use to establish facts.

You are spending post after post telling us that Sandy Hook (and now 911) was a hoax without offering the fruits of your research for us to look at. Given that you have spent hours and hours researching this you must have come up with alternate theory of what happened. So lets have it, tell us what really happened.

 

[brighton fella]

In answer to your paragraphs:

No. Compartmentalisation of institutions is a completely inadequate response to the question of why no one person from the millions who would know has broken cover.

There are not compelling arguments on both sides. There is the truth of what happened and there is politically motivated innuendo, cherry picking and poison. If there are sides, one side is a community of families, friends and neighbours working together to deal with immeasurable pain and the other is a load of internet chatterers thinking that their right to play at Sherlock Holmes outranks other people's real lives.

On your third point read the Guardian piece. People have sent death threats to some of these parents. Siding with people willing to do that kind of thing is likely to make others a bit cross.

You won't get answers unless you are willing and able to think critically and weigh evidence. Most conspiracy theorists don't seek answers, they seek the opportunity to keep asking questions that give them the sense that they know more than the general populace.

This century's obsession with conspiracy reminds me of GK Chesterton's suggestion that when people stop believing in god they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. He had another good line when he said that the object of opening the mind, like opening the mouth, is to close it again on something solid. Conspiracy theory will, on very few occasions, provide anything solid to close your mind upon.

Don't tar me in that bracket please,,politically motivated give me a break, i seek answers because i want answers and not for the reasons you seem to be insinuating. why all the sudden get sloppy, sloppy because i happen to have a different opinion to you, and by using the community of families friends and neighbours to justify yourself in shutting me down is low to say the very least , have you completely forgotten the link that you posted me. best forgotten eh. .

 

[brighton fella]

Of course bias works both ways, we are all guilty of it. the key is to understand that you are susceptible to these biases and try to take them into account by looking at quality evidence to prove your theories.



I told you you would end up calling me a sheeple . I would also like you to point out where I have been mocking you.

The problem as i see it is that on this thread all you are saying is that you have done research and discovered the truth. This is all well and good but in order to convince anyone else you are going to have to provide some of the research that convinced you of your truth. This is what scientists do when they publish journals to be peer reviewed, this is part of the method that scientists use to establish facts.

You are spending post after post telling us that Sandy Hook (and now 911) was a hoax without offering the fruits of your research for us to look at. Given that you have spent hours and hours researching this you must have come up with alternate theory of what happened. So lets have it, tell us what really happened.

Ive told my theory a thousand times over, the proof is out there, type in 9/11 and you will come across thousands upon thousands of different theories.. some of them complete bolox and some are credible, its up to you on how you decipher them and choose which ones sounds the most credible . how it all happened is irrelevant when you consider the whole thing was a complete stitch up.from start to finish.

 

[W.C.]

He's a bad actor:

https://youtu.be/Vic5bOWGmQI

A person with some real life knowledge of such matters offers us an account of an actual experience. And you immediately come back with another youtube video? Seriously, listen to yourself.

 

[BadFish]

Ive told my theory a thousand times over, the proof is out there

,

That maybe so but i haven't heard it. You are constantly saying people are trying to shut you down and stop you from sharing your views. Here I am asking for your theories and evidence yet you refuse to share. it seems to me that it is you that is shutting yourself down. what is all that about?

type in 9/11 and you will come across thousands upon thousands of different theories.. some of them complete bolox and some are credible, its up to you on how you decipher them and choose which ones sounds the most credible .

Of course there is, i can type millions of things into google and get thousands upon thousands of different theories. The world is flat, the universe was created a few thousand years ago (my mother in law has bookshelves full of 'evidence' that this is correct and that dinosaurs never exsited - doesn't make it true), we are all ruled by alien lizard people etc etc. It is not up to me to research all these things that is what we have experts for, scientists, judges, commissions and journalists work through all the evidence and find the truth. You have chosen not to believe the experts in this case and have decided to 'choose' which theory makes most sense to you. However what you are missing this is not subjective, something happened and Sandy Hook and your theories are all incorrect except one. If you don't believe the mainstream version of events then the burden of proof is on you. What do you think happened?

how it all happened is irrelevant when you consider the whole thing was a complete stitch up.from start to finish.

This makes no sense at all, how events went down at Sandy Hook is completely relevant as it is exactly what we are talking about.

P.S why are you trying to steer the conversation to 9/11 when we are talking about Sandy Hook?

 

[beorhthelm]

there is no Sandy Hook. they made it all up, no one died, no relatives, it was all fake of course to push the governments agenda to control your mind. look at what else happened that day, it was all a distraction from the real story.

 

[Stato]

Don't tar me in that bracket please,,politically motivated give me a break, i seek answers because i want answers and not for the reasons you seem to be insinuating. why all the sudden get sloppy, sloppy because i happen to have a different opinion to you, and by using the community of families friends and neighbours to justify yourself in shutting me down is low to say the very least , have you completely forgotten the link that you posted me. best forgotten eh. .

I meant that the rumours and what ifs that you are reading were written by the politically motivated. From your comments I would bracket you as one of the amateur detectives who see this whole event as an intellectual puzzle for you to solve. I mention those who have lost children not to shut you down, but as a reminder that it is is not an intellectual puzzle it is a real tragedy that happened to real people. That has nothing to do with confirmation bias. The link you really need to read is The Guardian one. Here it is for the third time: ://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/02/sandy-hook-school-hoax-massacre-conspiracists-victim-father. Hadley Freeman's story gives voice to one of the real people involved in this tragedy and highlights that while you are claiming your right to answers because you want answers, other real people are just wishing that they could be allowed to grieve, move on and not be abused by those who refuse to accept the real life events that have shattered their lives.

In case you didn't get it. These are real people with real lives. They are not actors and this is not happening on the internet without real world consequences.

If I wanted to shut you down, I would say quite simply what I am saying now: Just stop it. You are not making the world a better place by persisting.