I'm bog-eyed from lack of sleep, but a lot of interesting points have been made.
Here are a few of my observations...
dogsmilk wrote:
* It's well understood people can behave in seemingly odd ways when confronted with grief and the situation in question was particularly out there. That guy wouldn't know if he was coming or going. One minute he's living his life and the next his kid's dead and he's the centre of a media extravanganza. I think when going on about that guy in the video they should remember his kid got killed - now if it's being suggested he's some kind of actor because of that laughing thing I think people should remember that looking at some guy on a youtube clip and deciding how he should behave means exactly jack shit. Like people actually involved with the whole thing wouldn't notice if he wasn't one of the actual parents.
I agree that people can behave oddly when confronted with grief. But there wasn't just one clip showing parents behaving oddly. There were three couples. And as mentioned repeatedly, it's this in conjunction with other things that it raises doubts.
By behaving 'oddly', in this case, it was a clear impression given to a lot of people that there wasn't any sign of genuine grief. They all struck many viewers as acting a role, but not managing to pull it off convincingly. All were immaculate and didn't appear to have been crying, or suffering, or in shock, and that is distinctly odd in my book.
Also, as I've also said before, there are plenty of photo's around of other parents who by sharp contrast, look exactly as you'd expect them to. I.e. beside themselves with grief. I'm not for dismissing it, frankly.
Regarding the other parents noticing - that's why there was talk of the possibility of those specific ones having connections, & having been possibly paid off for co-operating, and part of the pay-off being that their children were spared. That'd explain why they don't exactly look shook up.
It's all conjecture which might be way off in reality, but that's what we try to look at the details for - to see how they'd make sense in the bigger scheme of things.
Bear in mind also the (as far as I know) unprecedented step the law has taken of threatening prosecution to anyone there who posts things on social media that they've not approved.
dogsmilk wrote:
It doesn't even make any sense - if the children are really gone - and nobody here seems to be suggesting they aren't - why in God's name would you have some actor to appear on telly when there's all these parents anyway??
Maybe they don't want people who are going to scream, "The bastards wouldn't let me see my baby." Which I'm damned sure I would be doing - refer to the contradictions highlighted in #588.
I'd anticipate that some parents might conceivably be persuaded that they're better off not seeing their child with gun wounds. But equally, there are bound to be people who, like myself and others here have stated, wouldn't in 1,000,000 years accept my child was dead with out seeing it with my own eyes. I don't believe it.
dogsmilk wrote:
*When big, hectic events happen, the media are falling each over each other trying to get whatever they can to fill their reports. The media cannot be treated as if everything it says it gospel and it's automatically deeply suspicious if the story changes or if there are inconsistencies in what's reported. A bunch of reporters will have been running round finding whatever they can to report and copying what each other reported. Expect a degree of confusion. Personally, I'd find it far more odd if the details were 100% established from the outset.
Agreed. But the initial reports of the other suspects, which have never since been mentioned are a bit fishy to say the least. And that can't be written off as confused reporting, since their presence is there in the police radio scan.
It's interesting that there are also some details that they've not retracted / corrected. Such as the assertion throughout that Adam drove himself there in his mum's car, which is the one they found the weapons in the boot of. That car's registered to one of those other vanishing suspects, Christopher Rodia, as heard on the scan,
not Mrs Lanza.
dogsmilk wrote:
*Since when is the profile of somebody who snaps and goes on the rampage contingent on how they behave in the hairdressers? Is there any reason to believe somebody who goes on to snap and go on a murderous rampage can't be a quiet, subdued person prior to whatever catalyst? It's a bit like like saying Dennis Nilsen must have been innocent because everybody thought he was such an inoffensive person.
I'd agree with that.
dogsmilk wrote:
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?
Well that would implicate everybody who handled the bodies in a big conspiracy, starting with Connecticut's chief medical examiner and fanning down to every single person who was in a position where they'd have seen or handled the bodies in whatever capacity. That is a very significant claim that would require compelling evidence.
Well, you've seen the chief medical examiner. How many people do you think would have seen/handled the bodies. Not that many, I'd have thought. Particularly since they didn't allow the parents to see them. Not that numbers involved is actually of prime importance I think, given the number of huge scale scams that we know are real.
But since I specifically said...
Gilly wrote:
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.
...I'd like that quoted along with it please.
dogsmilk wrote:
I'm not trying to start an argument and don't want a big debate about it - I'm just trying to point out that when hectic shit goes down there can be a habit of people scrutinising the internet looking for 'anomalies' and deciding it all means something - but I don't think any genuine cover-up has ever been busted by people looking at online media and drawing conclusions from it.
I didn't think your post came across as an argument - just logical, relevant observations, which are much appreciated.
I actually think there's a possibility that if plenty of people get on the right track, there's a chance that somebody in the know might crack and spill the beans. Or it might persuade someone with clout to delve more deeply. Maybe that's just wishful thinking. I'm pretty sure no cover-up's ever been busted by people who think something's wrong turning a blind eye to it and so failing to explore it though.
.......... wrote:
I find it strange the barber said his mom had to give him commands to get out the chair after every haircut...
That is really bizarre...
The lad's said to have been autistic though, RA. I've only ever known one little boy with autism, and he was much the same, in that if he didn't know you, he'd blank you completely.
noseymutegirl wrote:
*When big, hectic events happen, the media are falling each over each other trying to get whatever they can to fill their reports
Damn right. That is how the video showing police tampering with evidence was aired.
An excellent point.
i-baster wrote:
I find it odd that you keep getting offended by people on this topic.
Oh really? I thought I'd made it crystal clear. Tell me what specifically confuses you and I'll be pleased to enlighten you.
