If we assume that this was all a scam for some reason then let's roll it along and speculate rather than get bogged down with back and forth points. The family smiled because
A: they just got rid of their least favourite child.
B: they just saw how much they raised so far.
C: they just can't believe people are buying it all.

Wouldn't such a scam cost money? I mean i guess we assume the family worked for Obama so what does he gain from this event? Or are we claiming the event never happened?

If this is to be a conspiracy you need to have a theory about it all or multiple to pick from.

i-baster wrote:
He doesn't appear to be normal tbh.
Is he saying do I read from the card at the beginning?

i-baster wrote:
Well you must approach it however you want to i-baster, but personally, I don't yet know what to make of it. There are a number of possibilities though. So to me, it's not a matter of avoiding getting bogged down with back and forth points.

On the contrary, I wish to look at the points that I've encouuntered, and decide with each one individually whether they hold up or not. There are so many different ones being discussed elsewhere, that (I can't speak for anyone else) I've already discounted the validity of some, and so not attempted to discuss them here.

So your question, "Or are we claiming that it never happened" - well I'm not claiming anything, but rather, questioning a multitude of so called 'facts' that have been presented to the public, which either don't make sense, or contradict each other. So you could say that I'm claiming that we are being lied to, and I for one would like to know the reason why. I'd like to know what really happened, and why they need to cover something up. I don't think that's unreasonable. Do you?

I have to say though that if you find the behaviour of the people in those 3 sets of clips to be plausible, then that's fine. I absolutely don't.

But it's in combination with the other points raised that it becomes so very suspicious . Points that I get the distinct impression you haven't bothered reading on this thread to be honest. (Same as Gue).

Such as your declaring that you'd never even seen anything showing either father had anything to do with Libor, therefore the Libor connection is pure BS. Yet when I asked if you thought the clip I'd posted showing Lanza's connection was fake, it turned out that you'd not even looked at it.

So to bring things down to the simplest level, let me say this. If you've observed something - such as, for example, the information on the Libor connection, and are able to say, "Well this could be fake because of X, Y & Z", then I really do want to hear it, because it's helpful in trying to separate what's fact, what's fiction, and what's a possibility. If on the other hand, you're going to say that you've chosen not to look at the Libor information, but it's BS because you haven't seen anything about it, I have to say that, as much as you're entitled to your opinion, that's really not a helpful contribution.

So, with all due respect, unless you catch up, and can demonstrate that you're at least aware of those points (which have been stated repeatedly earlier in the thread) I won't be discussing them with you - because I don't intend wasting my time on (deliberately?) inane suggestions like, (paraphrasing) 'Do you think they're smiling because they've just got rid of their least favourite child?'

Even if you can't be bothered reading back (or elsewhere) to familiarise yourself with the rest of the points, at least you should recognise from very recent posts that the official line does not add up. So how about addressing them? I'm definitely not averse to someone convincing me that I'm wrong about any conclusions I've drawn, that's a promise!

What do you make of the parents not being able to see their children - including the teacher's parent in the report I posted? What do you make of the contradicting reasons given for that? The contradictions/lies regarding the wounds?

Do you see a problem with people not having been able to see the children?

How do we even know the teachers weren't the only ones shot, while the kids were drugged up, photographed, then shipped out to some fucking paedophile ring in the middle of the night?

And because I feel some people are deliberately misinterpreting what's being said, let me clarify. I am not saying that I think that is what happened. I'm saying there's a lot of lying, covering up and strange behaviour going on, and there are any number of possibilities as to why that is. And none of them are good.

Whether the Libor thing is the answer or not, I don't know. As I said earlier in the thread, it's a bloody big coincidence when you look at the similarities between this and the Aurora case.

It's dumped a ton of fuel onto the 2nd amendment 'debate' - whether or not the authorities would covertly stage something like this to create an instrument for 'justification' of the removal of the right to bear arms - I don't know. It's a distinct possibility. There's now much talk of attempts to do that being likely to trigger a civil war btw.

So I'm hoping that if you want to 'debunk' anything about the Sandy Hook tragedy, you'll at least realise the gravity of it, and so stop with the, 'Satan is the Lord', and 'They just got rid of their least favourite child,' type piss-taking .

@ Andy - Yes he is.

Some major dodgy shit going on.

This extra shooter and then no extra shooter, this rifle that becomes a machine gun that is actually a shotgun and that remained in the trunk of a car....the whole thing is bloody bizarre!

Have there been any parents on any media saying that any of this stinks?

i-baster wrote:
I figured since I had that particular piece of audio ["end the life of Adam"] already opened up into an audio editing program that I'd make the most of it and just see what came out. So, I reversed it and then went on to slow it down so that there was the original snip, the reversed snip and finally a reversed and slowed down snip as it was something of a challenge even just listening to and trying to make out the original piece played forwards at normal speed. My reasoning is as follows.

This event, for whatever it actually is, was horrible. I think we can all agree on that. So it's only natural that we try to make sense of it in as rational a way as possible, given the facts made known/public thus far. Well, that's where it all goes sideways, as even the facts are subject to change or interpretation and when dealing in factual events it really should just be one way: What actually happened. Thus far, nearly everything that has been said of this tragedy by both political and authority figures has been most of the time vague at best and downright fishy and unbelievable at worst. This suggests, to me anyway, that maybe either somebody (or a lot of somebodies) don't have their information straight OR we're being lied to.... again!

With all that has been left in question, serious holes in the story and some things just not even near to adding up, how are we to take this event as described by the media at face vaule?? Certainly there are some twinges in even the most skeptical minds (skeptical of conspiracy ideology and alternative views) that begs the question "What really went on here?" Here's where it gets complicated.

A lot of people seem to think that this case bears all the earmarks of having been a cover-up. Not only that, but a cover-up with implications as to having some kind of dark, occult-related motives/connections. Now, I know for a fact there are sick/bad/evil people in this world. They do horrible things. And sometimes these horrible things are done with secret collusion on many parties behalf. This cannot be disputed as it's just a sad fact of life. Law enforcement deals with Satanic Ritual Abuse in everyday real life, not just on TV or in movies. They also deal with mass shootings and murder of various kinds all the time as well. These things cannot be denied.

Now, it has been a very popular belief (in some circles) for a long time now that some of those in power (both the nameless, faceless ones that elude even our very knowing AND the ones we can identify such as political figures, members of law enforcement and the military, banking tycoons and power-broker family dynasties) are involved in practices deeply anchored in the dark arts and the occult, such as black magic and Satanism. Not being a religious person, I don't have a dog in this race, but I also don't discount the possibility of this being true just because the image I'm given of these people on the surface by the media would suggest otherwise.

You have to admit, that whole "Yes We Can" - "Thank You, Satan" thing was rather strange. Now I'm not above seeing that as a total coincidence and just laughing it off. But you have to look at this with a more discerning eye. These people (in various places of power throughout the world) aren't based in "coincidence". They deal very much in purposeful action as they not only have positions to keep but money/material wealth to protect. Not to mention the interests of their benefactors. So in my mind, when Obama ran with the campaign slogan of "Yes We Can" it wasn't just some kind of positive, powerful statement he thought up himself to drive the American public forward into being a stronger, more unified nation. You can guarantee that he had that written FOR HIM, by guess who? Someone put into place that knows very well what the agenda is, and it's not to strengthen or unify the American people.

If they do deal in the dark arts and occult then symbolism and double meanings and inside-out, backwards, contrary and reversed is their mode of operation. They take the sacred and invert it, making it profane to warp the influx of power/energy to suit their needs, dark ones. This cannot be argued. Of course the "who" part of it can, but certainly not the "what" or the "how".

So in my looking at various ins & outs of all possibilities in this case, I do entertain the not likely and long-stretch because to not do so would be neglectful of many possible explanations and a further, better understanding of not only this event but all similar such events worldwide. Of course you are entitled to your own feelings on this matter. I certainly won't condemn you for thinking differently about all this.

dawnbreak wrote:
I wouldn't go that far just yet. But I would say that it certainly didn't happen the way they're saying it did. Too many holes and not enough solidity for me.

Gilly wrote:
It's not something that could be down to mere "human error". Either parents saw children or they didn't. Either they were shot as is being claimed or lies are being told. Sure, maybe misinformation, facts garbled by this being such a horrific case, but it's been long enough now that enough dust has settled for "facts" to be presented without being in contradiction.
Gilly wrote:
YES!!! Big, huge Red Flags ALL over the place!!!
Gilly wrote:
Not many people would want to touch this line of thinking. That's exactly what they count on in pulling these kinds of tricks off!! Like you said, I'm not saying that THIS is in fact what happened but I am saying it's a distinct possibility. Child-abuse/sex-slave rings EXIST. FACT. That cannot be denied. That's not to say that it's what was involved here but it shouldn't be laughed off the table just because it's so mind-boggling and difficult to get your head around.

phemohilia wrote:
I can't square it with unintentional misinfo though.

You've on the one hand got the medical examiner making a public statement immediately after seeing the children.

Reporters ask, "What part of the body they were shot in?" - he answers, "All over"

They ask, "Where they close range shootings?" - he answers that of the 7 kids he was, only 2 were close range.

They ask, "What calibre were the bullets?" - he acts evasively, stating you'd think he'd know that because of his vast expertise in that field, but declines to answer the question (while looking around at the police guards).

They ask, "Have the parents all been in to identify the children?" - he answers, yes, they're all identified. He then expands that they didn't get together the parents and the children, and that it was done via facial photo's, and what great photographers he has.

So no, the parents weren't allowed to see the kids.

Then you have the report about Lauren Rousseau...

Her Canadian-born father, Gilles Rousseau, told Radio-Canada that he wanted to see his daughter's body but was informed by authorities that it would not be possible.

In a tearful interview, he said the rounds used were so powerful that they ripped through the school's walls and left several holes in his daughter's car outside in the parking lot.

"They told me, 'You can't see (the body),'" Gilles Rousseau told Radio-Canada, the French-language CBC. "Because most people he shot, it was two or three shots in the face, point-blank."


(My emphasis)

That is not, imo, unintentional erroneous reporting. That's some fucking devious lying going on by the authorities somewhere along the line. Bear in mind also, that not all formal identifications rely on facial recognition - it can be birth-marks etc etc.

Let's face it, the police don't inspire much confidence in their ability to id people, given that they initially claimed it was Adam's brother, Ryan in the school! (The same Ryan they'd declared at first having found the body of elsewhere - in his flat I think- early on. Then, mysteriously, that story vanished and there was no further mention of a dead adult male being discovered off the premises).

Who do you think lied to you and what about?


It is not a normal situation Andy so acting normal is what people are expected to do.

As for me going through 30 pages again to get one video I apparently failed to watch. Not right now. Unless you know what page it is on. As I understand it there is no libor testimony to speak of and no evidence of involvement regarding the boys father. Unless you can prove something I would dismiss it.

So far the only evidence is that people do not behave as you think they should.

You don't even have a theory anyway.

i-baster wrote: i-baster wrote:
So you've been looking into it, and have come to see what we're saying about it - but apparently without availing yourself of the anomolies that are being discussed everywhere - or ... er...reading the thread that we're talking about it in.

You've clearly not even bothered to read the most recent posts from yesterday and 5 minutes ago containing info, so as much as I like you, I'm not prepared to waste my time answering you any further.

Gilly wrote:
Dear Connecticut,

Get a competent medical examiner, ok?



This highlights his ummm, "strange" behavior. And I know some will argue about context but this needs no context! This man got up in front of cameras like this.

he's pretty jolly for being elbow deep in dead kids

but i guess you have to disassociate yourself from a tragedy if you want to work in it

Putting the Con in Connecticut!!

It would be interesting (and by interesting, I mean hilarious) to see this guy hooked-up to a polygraph.

Damn thing would catch fire.

he seems like he should be hanging out with burt reynolds

they all dead. its so gross. urm... yeah i dont know lol.

the essays above worry me.

Guevarista wrote:
Which ones?

phemohilia wrote: