Actors in Sandy Hook

[bagelred]

You act like any of this is unusual on a big breaking story. Or that eyewitness reports can't be fragmentary or contradictory. Look up the most recent evidence on eyewitness testimony....they have done a lot experiments on this recently.....your brain doesn't record every detail like a camera, it fills in gaps with its' own narrative and it's quite easy to "change" a memory of even very recent events.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

They did report that Lanza killed himself and they did say what gun he used.

Did anyone see it? dunno. Why would that be unusual? Every person in the school was trying to hide from him. They did report he killed himself before police entered the school.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. Sometimes initial reports are wrong. What I'm saying is....in many instances, if you want to get the truth about an event....you find that the real truth is from initial reports, first eyewitnesses, early reporting....this is before an official narrative is put together to the public.

I'll give you an example. During 9/11, you know what all the eyewitnesses were talking about at the WTC? EXPLOSIONS!!! Lots and lots of explosions. This was the big story early. Go to YouTube and see for yourself. When everything calmed down and official story started coming together, did we hear of these explosions? Nope. Never mentioned again.

Stuff like that. All I'm saying is you're assuming early reports are errors....if anything, assume the opposite. Typically, early reports can get at truth before an official narrative is put together, and the early reports are either ignored, or explained away with meager explanations......you can't just say "mistakes are made" and be done with it.

[-p.tiddy-]

Eye witnesses are the worst during tramatic events...eye witnesses from the pentagon saw about 50 different things...no 2 people have the same story

Same with the towers...

The OKC bombing had an array of stories

Same with the Colorado shooting...some saw two shooters, some saw one



Fact is, when chaos goes down it scrambles many peoples heads up...they don't know what they just witnessed

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Gah! You're TOTALLY right!!!! How could I be so blind?

Everyone grieves in the exact same way!

All the time!

Your sarcasm flew over his head.

[andgar923]

An actor playing the part of a fake grieving father as part of a hoax to cover up a government conspiracy would know exactly what his "stage" was. He would be "on stage" for a very long time before he even stepped up to the microphone.

There would be no "behind the scenes" for him within two miles of that press conference.

Again, not that I believe the OP and the entire theory, but you would know this how?

There's actors that believe they can turn it on and off in an instant and take pride in the fact. YES some actors are method actors and need time to prepare, but there's others that don't and will literally get into character an instant before action is called or they step on stage.

[RaininThrees]

In all seriousness, I cannot believe this is still a "thing". In a race in "what's more ridiculous", "still believing in actors at Sandy Hook" is just slightly beating "actors at Sandy Hook".

[KevinNYC]

All I'm saying is you're assuming early reports are errors....if anything, assume the opposite. Typically, early reports can get at truth before an official narrative is put together, and the early reports are either ignored, or explained away with meager explanations......you can't just say "mistakes are made" and be done with it.

And you're making your own assumptions.

A. That there is "an official narrative." Narrative heavily implies fiction
B. That this "official narrative" is different from the truth.
B. That competing news organizations work together to help create this official narrative, rather, than you know competing.

Who is in charge of the official narrative? Is there a single project manager or editor at the top?

Why would thousands of journalists working at hundreds of competing organizations all agree to this "official narrative?"

When you consider how important it is in journalism to "scoop" the competition and how much attention and value that gets you, why hasn't a journalist tried to scoop his competition on this story? You can only get the "scoop" when you get the story no one else has, so what would motivate journalists to turn down fame and possible fortune?

This "official narrative" mindset just takes you one step closer to "the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

[KevinNYC]

Again, not that I believe the OP and the entire theory, but you would know this how?

There's actors that believe they can turn it on and off in an instant and take pride in the fact. YES some actors are method actors and need time to prepare, but there's others that don't and will literally get into character an instant before action is called or they step on stage.

My whole point is that if you are an actor who is being paid to particpate in a hoax you would know what "your stage" was.

[Riddler]

I'm so happy I stayed out of this conversation.

[timlush]

I'll give you an example. During 9/11, you know what all the eyewitnesses were talking about at the WTC? EXPLOSIONS!!! Lots and lots of explosions.

Let's have you stand near a building and fly a plane into it and see how you describe the aftermath...

"Ah yes, there was one loud noise when the plane entered the building and then it became quiet with no subsequent noises"

[bagelred]

Let's have you stand near a building and fly a plane into it and see how you describe the aftermath...

"Ah yes, there was one loud noise when the plane entered the building and then it became quiet with no subsequent noises"

Wow.

[-p.tiddy-]

I saw someone put together a 911 vid showing how people edt what the witness says to make it look bad...

crying witness:

"and then the plane hit the building and it was so intense it felt like bombs went off!"

what the video showed the witness saying:

"bombs went off!"

they chopped off the beginning...making it look as though someone is claiming they saw bombs going off

[Jackass18]

I mean, I'm not an expert at this, but it's because real people are involved. Real reporters trying to get answers. Eyewitnesses giving real information. Real local cops trying to do their job. It must be very hard to control a scene 100%.

I'm not saying media doesn't rush and get things wrong. I'm just saying don't ASSUME it's that. Look at what is initially reported, especially from eyewitness accounts and things that first happen...and then suddenly no one ever discusses it again or the story changes.

There were multiple people running away from Sandy Hook caught on helicopter. Caught by police. No one really talks about it.

The story of which guns were used at Sandy Hook completely changed from what first reported.

Most early reporters had multiple shooters, then strangely....later it was just one, Lanza.

And how did Lanza kill himself? When? What gun? Did anyone see it? Never reported.....

Anyway, there are dozens of strange things going on here.....most of it gets ignored.

That stuff was reported, but it kind of got buried. Sometimes you have to dig for it, but it's there. Eyewitness testimony scares me at times. Read this:

"Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004)."

It's from a good article about memory. From the same article: "In some cases, however, an eyewitness accuracy is lower when questioned immediately after a traumatic event."

[bagelred]

Actually, in this particular case, it's the opposite. There are no eyewitnesses. That's the problem. No one actually saw Adam Lanza do it. Mask over face (as usual...lol). No video camera evidence as usual.

But there's plenty of OTHER evidence and suspicious circumstances surrounding this that put official story in doubt......

[RaininThrees]

If you want "truth", you get it immediately, as the event is happening....later, it will be scrubbed away.

You can't actually believe this statement.... can you?

[RaininThrees]

There were multiple people running away from Sandy Hook caught on helicopter. Caught by police. No one really talks about it.

This isn't suspicious at all. Here's what happens in a situation like this:

The police take down anyone in the area. They don't care if you haven't done anything, they take you down to eliminate possible threats. Thus, you get police chasing down people who are just randomly on the side walk in the area and "arresting" them. Some people's reaction when chased by police might be to run away. Usually, these people have nothing to do with the situation and are victims of circumstance.

IIRC, there were several people taken into custody but all were cleared.

One such instance of this at Sandy Hook:

[QUOTE]On Friday morning, her husband, Chris, went to help make gingerbread houses in the first-grade class of the couple