Originally Posted by daily
Instead of speaking in generalizations why don't you address the points you find half "assed"?
I think you'll find if you look into things deeper you'll find half assed conspiracy theories get half assed responses.
Most of those claims made by conspiracists surrounding Newtown are so far off based that there's really no way to respond to them other than with a quick dismissal
For starters, they give a half assed excuse when it comes to the guy that discovered the kids. I accept that people are usually confused and their reports vary a bit. But this guy's story was completely different almost every time he gave an interview. I understand some sort of confusion, but he was so sure of himself and what happened, yet his testimony was very different.
The article didn't cover why the roads to the school blocked all aid, it didn't cover why there was that one picture taken but yet there wasn't ambulances, and other response teams all over, why there's only that one picture with no other footage of any sorts. Not saying that this is the end to the argument and that it proves without a shadow of a doubt that it was all a hoax, but what the article doesn't do is debunk the theorists.
Theres other shit that simply asked the reader to dismiss anything and everything without making a concrete argument as to why.
In regards to the actors, I don't know if the information regarding the Actor's Guild is true or not. But the government has used actors in other instances. Two examples that stand out at the top of my head are the daughter of a Kuwait oil baron used as a testimony to invade Iraq (the 1st time), another was eye witness related to drug war in the late 80s (or was it early 90s?). Whether they are from an actor's guild/group who knows, but they were exposed as following a script and were associated with a government in some fashion.
Another recent example that comes to mind is the 9/11 Pentagon cab driver. Extremely suspicious behavior and completely different testimonies that were impossible. Yet his testimony was used endlessly, he was used as a key witness for the official story. There's been other interviews given by groups with ties to the government (think tank groups, donors, etc.) or people used as key witnesses that had ties, some of them were promoted as non-partisan or just average folk, yet had ties to conservative think tanks and so fort.
These aren't conspiracies either, these aren't stretches or assumptions, these are FACTS.
So it doesn't surprise me if allegations are made of "actors" or manipulated (scripted) interviews. The government (or government related groups) have had a rich history of orchestrating, covering up and manipulating events for their gain.
Again, not to say that THIS event is a hoax. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, because the Snopes article sure as hell doesn't debunk most of what was presented in the vid. I don't fully believe everything stated in the vid, some of the things can be easily explained once one takes a closer look. But it still raises some legit questions that have yet to be answered with a legit response.