Sandy Hook Conspiracies 'Debunked' by Glenn Beck

Wait...do people REALLY believe that the ENTIRE incident was made up to fit Obama's anti-gun agenda???

Or...Do they believe that the facts have been skewed...

Jo Jo is confused...

I think there is a bit of both - but in this case, it is my understanding that a certain group believe it did not happen....

Jo,

I doubt the entire incident was staged, but find it plausible that some aspects were "skewed" as you put it.

Consider for instance, the possibility that reports (which really were presented by a major media outlet) the day after the shooting, which said that two different reliable sources connected to the investigation told them that four hand guns hand been found in the building, and no rifle, were accurate. Nothing unthinkable, nothing that renders the death of anyone trivial or "hoaxed", obviously a person with such weapons could kill two dozen people at close range very quickly . . but, something that would not be conducive to targeting assault rifles as legislation that had just been introduced did . . There would be no "We could have prevented many of those children's deaths with legislation like this" aspect to the push to get that legislation passed.

Other things that have been echoed in the mass media I find extremely implausible, for example (and there are many I could pick), the neighbor who claims he took six children into his home soon after the shooting. I have seen about half a dozen interviews he gave. I have heard him speak of finding six children sitting at the curb in front of his house, which, according to what I have seen, is further from the school on the same road as the fire station where the children were taken. Why would six children be taken beyond the place where the others were taken, and be sitting on a curb?

He speaks in some interviews of them being addressed somewhat roughly by a man, and in some interviews there is also mention of a female bus driver, (and in one there were no adults with them apparently). He says he brought the six children into his home, not knowing what had happened, and that he found out gradually from the children . . Why would he not ask one of the apparently two adults with them what had happened? Were they not in his home too? Did they just leave six children with a stranger (he never, as far as I know, speaks of these adults as people he recognized, always a man, or a she)? Why would those adults even allow a stranger to "debrief" little kids that had just experienced a horrible tragedy, while not themselves being questioned or speaking up? He never again in the interviews I have seen) mentions anything at all about what they said or did . . they just seem to have vanished into thin air (quietly ; )


He sobs very demonstratively (always at the same point in his various accounts) as he speaks of one little boy that kept saying "We can't go back to school because our teacher (whose name is mentioned several times- Ms. Soto) is dead". But it is Ms. Soto's class that is ostensibly shot dead at that moment . . He speaks of seeing her name on a victims list a 6;00 pm that same day, when the victim list was not released until Dec 16th . . .

He's called a "hero" by the media talking heads, but as far as I can determine there has been zero confirmation from anyone else that anything he mentions ever happened. Nothing, just blind faith in this man's (to me) unbelievable accounts and testimony, as though the entire MSM news community never heard of confirming stories before treating them like absolute fact . . like it's somehow impossible that this guy is a publicity hound or whatever, taking advantage of people's shock and grief to make name for himself. Nothing at all was done apparently, to confirm what he says, yet he is repeatedly highlighted without the slightest trace of skepticism or doubt, as a hero.

It sure looks to me like the corporate mass mediums are "helping" to sell the weapons ban agenda, and are not even trying to be unbiased sources of reliable information.

John,
This kind of critical analysis is completely outside the box for the 'progressive' mindset.

In any incident like this there are always wildly conflicting eye witness accounts. What seems to have happened in this case is those accounts presented as evidence have been cherry picked to suit a particular agenda.

I don't believe it was a hoax but it is more than likely the official version was heavily spun.

Ian, there is no critical analysis there at all. If you had read any of the same things John has read and I've read, he's just partially reiterated what people have been saying all over the Internet, and I can refute each and every point to show you that there is not even much thinking involved, let alone critical, unless you're talking about a mental condition.

"there is no critical analysis there at all...he's just partially reiterated what people have been saying all over the Internet"

Agreed!

sure he debunked them, I guess he has all the inside anwers reported to him, either that he was paid. Really he's trying to catch up to infowars. He's nothing but a piece of crap.

We differ here, my dear friend - I think the only conspiracy was by the political opportunists to advance their anti-second amendment agenda. Additionally, as Jim points out, "Look, there have been many inconsistencies about the Sandy Hook narrative, hence it's completely natural to be skeptical." It was the failing of the msm to report the shooting properly that really fueled the conspiracy theories.

I dunno about that one Renee, how much have you dug into this one. I'm not saying it is all a positive for sure. But inside intel states this case is very, very shady. A few experts have dug into this as well. There are to many missing pieces. Not to mention it has come out there was no rifle used in the shooting. The cops aren't able to explain who the people were in the woods, and what they were doing there. People have seen many things on videos the lovely feds are working real hard to get rid of. I guess time shall tell though. Look at 911 there is tons of information coming out about that. Other countries are even getting involved in this feeling it crooked.

You know, I can't stand Glenn Beck. I think he's nuts. But to suggest that Sandy Hook was a big government conspiracy to take our guns is just plain idiotic. I never thought I'd see the day when I said, "Good for Glenn Beck for keeping it real."

Seriously.

Glenn Beck: Charter Member of the Broken Clock Club.

I thought Beck was "debunking" those theories, unless I read this post wrong...

Whenever any type of horrific news story breaks in the press--and all throughout the initial coverage of such stories--there will always be inconsistencies based on the rush to be among the first to 'scoop' other reporters. That's why every reputable news agency issues corrections. Everyone was in panic mode on that day, so of course fallible human beings are going to make stupid, boneheaded mistakes when they get names wrong.

If you want infallible news reporting, then invent the Report-a-bot 9000 and send it out to do a human's work. Until then, be content that human reporters will goof up. Need I remind you that this is nothing new to journalism? Does "Dewey Defeats Truman" ring any bells here? Of course, I doubt that I will be able to convince anyone who has chosen to believe that the whole thing was staged. The capacity for people to believe the most asinine things in order for reality to fit their world view is astoundingly more powerful than rational thought.

John Knight, I'm putting this down here because you were carrying on the discussion with JoJo and so not to interrupt that.

"Why would six children be taken beyond the place where the others were taken, and be sitting on a curb?"

Echo? This question is the echo. This is the question everyone is asking when it involves this man who took these children in. That some kids got separated in that hysterical confusion is not at all out of the realm of possiblity and not of probablity either. If they had remained together and all ended up nice and neatly at the fire station it would be less credible.

We both know of someone who speaks of 9-11 because he was there that day, and I take very little of what he says seriously because he had to have been in the state of shock as anyone in the vicinity of the actual experience. This man was in the state of shock too so you can't take every last word he said about it and scrutinize it.

You have to believe the whole thing was a hoax if you're going to incriminate him because there was also a woman, a mother, who came to his house in hopes that her child was there. He said later that the woman's child was killed and he named that child. So you have to believe that the woman whose child was killed was also in on this scam if you think he was some kind of plant. The man has lived there for years and people know him and who he is. That's too ridiculous for me to even waste time with. As far as calling him a hero, that's the media for you. Since when does what they say make a difference to you?

As I said, if you want to talk about Adam Lanza's father and his association with people in government who may have in some way set up Adam, that might be investigated, but not these innocent people who still live there today. In fact, you're always the one to bring up false flag scenarios. I wouldn't be surprised if they did get the public to concentrate on this nonsense so they won't focus on what and with whom the collusion might have really involved.

Sue,

"That some kids got separated in that hysterical confusion is not at all out of the realm of possiblity and not of probablity either."

Sure, but so is the possibility that this man is making things up, for whatever reason, including but not limited to some form narcissist personality disorder and/or Pseudologia fantastica. Such people obviously exist, and continue to exist during "major events", don't they?

"This man was in the state of shock too so you can't take every last word he said about it and scrutinize it."

I am not going to assume the man was in a state of shock, I am not going to pretend he does not appear to me to be telling "tall tales" so to speak, simply because the mass media acts like it is impossible. Being "in the vicinity" does not send a person into shock, before he knows he's in the vicinity of a shocking event. His accounts contain highly irrational aspects, such as not relating to the adults he says he observed, when he says he thought he was seeing some form of rehearsal for a "skit". If he thought that, there would be no "shock" and no rational reason to behave as he says he did, and the hypothetical adults ostensibly did.

If just seeing distraught children throws him into a state of shock, and he returns to a state of shock at the mere recollection of the troubling matters involved, which he did not witness, he's a completely unreliable witness as far as I'm concerned. How one would know he didn't imagine any or all of what he describes, is a mystery to me. And, if as it appears to be the case, the mass media folks are not even looking at what he says critically, there is no reason to be presenting him as a hero . . That they did, repeatedly, is highly suspicious to me.

"You have to believe the whole thing was a hoax if you're going to incriminate him because there was also a woman, a mother, who came to his house in hopes that her child was there."

Not really, that's an assumption. What is known (to me, and I figure you too) is that he said "there was also a woman, a mother, who came to his house in hopes that her child was there".

"He said later that the woman's child was killed and he named that child. So you have to believe that the woman whose child was killed was also in on this scam . . "

I've not seen any naming of the child, and don't think in terms of "the whole thing" being a scam, if there is a woman that was. People can be "added" to something like this, if it is being pysoped in some sense, without everyone involved being in on the psyop aspects. Each of the other parents or school personnel can easily just assume they didn't know that parent and child very well, and without critical investigation, as is not happening apparently, no one would realize none of the others involved knew them . .

We don't normally think in terms of us personally knowing everyone in a class or school well, so each one that could have, can rather easily be convinced they just didn't know those particular people well. Adding some "ringers" would be a piece a cake, so to speak, if there are no serious/critical investigations going on. That's what the psyop boys would understand and work from, if they were tasked with inserting extra people into the narrative and presentation.


Consider please, the medical examiner clearly implies in his first public interview/press statement, that he is revealing things that he would not be comfortable revealing, if there were going to be a prosecution. How could they know that early that there would be no prosecution? They couldn't, not if everything was on the up and up, could they? They couldn't know that no one else was involved in the crime, that afternoon, unless that was . . preordained in some sense. They could know the positive, that someone else was involved, but you couldn't just know the negative, right?

And if they knew there was not going to be any prosecution they knew no one was going to do a serious (official sort of) investigation of what that "good Samaritan" neighbor said, so he could say just about anything, without significant risk of him being caught making things up. If there were just one child/parent added, he could be given that name . . when people began to express real skepticism.

As I see this, it is you who are being "whole hog" about the matter, as though deception would have to be total, when in fact it could just be a small portion of what we are told/shown.


"The man has lived there for years and people know him and who he is."

So what? Everybody lives somewhere . . but everyone is not a saint or pathological truth teller ; )

By the time he was relaying to the reporter that he thought the children seated on the lawn at the end of his driveway were in a skit, he had been apprised of what really happened, and it is very shocking when you're in the vicinity if only because you realize that the horror story that you're learning of could have involved victimizing you or someone you care about.

This was a relatively small school population; it only went from kindergarten through 4th grade. People are usually aware of who the parents of their children's school friends are, John. I also know for a fact that the child's name was mentioned at some point so there was every way to corroborate who it was he spoke of.

I also don't understand why the media would present the man as a hero, but I don't consider that any different from any other assessment they make of something that I think is off the wall. Actually, I personally have not heard them make any such statements, but I'm not disbelieiving that some might have either. So what? What's their definition of a hero? I'm sure it isn't mine so I wouldn't have paid any attention to that remark if I did hear it.

"Consider please, the medical examiner clearly implies in his first public interview/press statement, that he is revealing things that he would not be comfortable revealing, if there were going to be a prosecution. How could they know that early that there would be no prosecution?"


First you say that the medical examiner clearly implies that he is revealing things he doesn't feel comfortable (or should not be) revealing. Then you ask how he could know (at the time of that first interview) that there was not going to be any prosecution.

Weil, it seems to me that there are two possiblities for deciphering this as you put it:

If he felt uncomfortable revealing what he did, as you said he clearly implied, then I don't know how you can ask how he could know there would be no prosecution because a very good reason he would be uncomfortable is that he did think there might be a prosecution and wasn't supposed to be as forthcoming as he was.

The other possiblity is that he was so sure that Adam Lanza was the perpetrator and he was dead, he made an unprofessional decision, banking on there being no prosecution.

Sue,

"First you say that the medical examiner clearly implies that he is revealing things he doesn't feel comfortable (or should not be) revealing."

No I didn't . . I said he clearly implied that he was revealing things that he would not be comfortable revealing, if there were going to be a prosecution.

I no longer believe you have even looked into any of this stuff.

John,

Something I've suspected for a very long time of which this showed more evidence is that when you process things you see people write or when you hear what they say, you often do so in a way that mischaraterizes the intentions they wished to convey.

"I said he clearly implied that he was revealing things that he would not be comfortable revealing, if there were going to be a prosecution."

That's right; that is exactly what I said you said. The difference is that you're interpreting his "if there were going to be a prosecution" to mean that he thinks there isn't going to be one and that is not what that statement says. In the first place, there should be no comma before the prepositional phrase. That is of your doing; if what you think he conveyed is what he wished to convey, he would have had to word it differently.


He isn't saying that "he would not be comfortable revealing..., if there were going to be a prosecution," [which there isn't going to be in this case]. That's not what he said or implied. He was merely stating a contingency that may or may not be but, according to professional protocol and because of that contingency, his professionalism would be on the line if, for instance, at a later date they had to dismiss something from being presented that would have made a difference if he hadn't divulged what he had at this time. He was not saying that the "if" clause meant it was something that he knew for sure was not going to happen.

I can't go on here if you're going to continue to understand what you want to understand instead of what someone actually said. Now, that does not mean that I said i can't go on here because I know you're going to continue that way. It says, "if you are," and I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not you will.


I saw that very interview with the medical examiner to which you alluded here, and I've commented here on Gather as to what I thought of it too. I''m pretty sure you read what I wrote because you commented there too.

"Something I've suspected for a very long time of which this showed more evidence is that when you process things you see people write or when you hear what they say, you often do so in a way that mischaraterizes the intentions they wished to convey."

Why doesn't that say *when you process things you see people write or when you hear what they say, you often do so in a way that mischaraterizes what were the the intentions they wished to convey, if what I think were the intentions they wished to convey, is correct*? As in, we disagree about something we both observe?

Why are you speaking as though your sense of other people's "intentions they wished to convey" could not be incorrect, in any given case? Why couldn't it be you, at least in some number of instances, who was in error? There's nothing one can say if the person who sees things differently simply assumes they see things correctly, by default . . that's just a form self worship, to my mind . . essentially assuming that the other person must be in error because they disagree with you . .

That's kid stuff to me . . like Critical Thinking 101 . . You don't just "recycle" your own impressions to determine if you are wrong . . the answer will invariable be no . . obviously.

John, if you read my comment from 1-26 @11:29PM, you will see that I did offer you that deference. I told you what I thought he meant, what his intentions might have been with two different options for examples.That was supposed to be for you to process "as in, we disagree about something we both observe?"

Your answer to me was that "I no longer believe you have even looked into any of this stuff. " You never as much as acknowledged that what I thought were his intentions had an ounce of validity and only you could possibly be correct. You only said instead, "I no longer believe you have even looked into any of this stuff." There doesn't have to be any reason or any example of why you think that,only declaration, making you no different from any of the other "whimsical blowhards" who would tell you they invented a new perfume while wallowing in their own feces, believing it so to boot. So if you want to continue here with your sermon on self-worship, I suggest you recite the rest of what you wrote into a tape recorder, sit yourself down in front of a mirror and play it back to yourself.

Sue,

"John, if you read my comment from 1-26 @11:29PM, you will see that I did offer you that deference. I told you what I thought he meant, what his intentions might have been with two different options for examples.That was supposed to be for you to process "as in, we disagree about something we both observe?"

I quoted what I was referring to, as an example. There is no implication that each and every thing you ever said is of the same class . . I don't think that, I think you are prone to falling into "conformational bias" mode, so to speak, and when you fall, you fall very hard, as I see things.


"Your answer to me was that "I no longer believe you have even looked into any of this stuff. "

That was a truthful statement, a general information, not a response to anything in particular you said. I do not believe you have actually done serious research into this affair, and you are perfectly free to say you have, if you wish. If you haven't done that sort of research, I don't know how to discuss the matter meaningfully with you . . that's just true . . it;s not even anything personal, just true . .

What do you mean you quoted what you were referring to as an example? This is what you quoted of mine:

"First you say that the medical examiner clearly implies that he is revealing things he doesn't feel comfortable (or should not be) revealing."


Then you explained what you said above which I already told you I understood and went to great lengths to explain how I did. It seemed you were hell-bent on interpreting his words to mean something I don't think they meant. And then I spent a whole comment explaining why to which you made no attempt to rebut.

In fact, the only reason I can see that anyone would interpret his words as you did shows me only exactly of what you've just accused me. You are the one with the bias that these people were involved in a sordid plot, going as far as twisting the medical examiner's meaning of words to confirm your bias. If that's not bad enough, you now decide to project your own confirmational bias on to me, as if I'm the guilty party instead. That's hilarious, John, or at least it would be if it didn't put you in the same company I mentioned above.

I know your statement was general, and that's my gripe. You did not address a single specific point I made about why I said that your interpretation is different from mine because I think you know I am correct but it blows your whole theory that confirms your bias about how the medical examiner was a part of the plot.

Was he also some crisis actor? I told you before that he is the same medical examiner who was in charge of the infamous woodchipper murder in the late 80s. The guy is well known in that town and the surrounding areas.

There is nothing you've presented that I haven't read or heard in the allegations that this tragedy was orchestrated using town people. There is nothing that indicates to me that you've looked into this past casual reading of blogs and the like and perhaps watching the same videos I've seen, reading what you want into them to confirm your bias.

Have you been to the archives of government jobs listings on Craigslist yet? Found any like this one? Crisis Actors Needed in Newtown, CT. Will train.

The name of that child whose mother came looking for him was Jesse Lewis. So if you just think that he wasn't well known enough for anyone to notice, I think someone would have noticed this. You have a picture of him there too.

And don't bother to respond to that because I didn't display that for your benefit. I just put it there to show that you didn't even bother to look beyond your nose. You don't even know enough about this to know what you don't know to be able to determine what to look for.

I see now that the picture is of another child, but the story is ample enough for someone at least in the school administration to recognize that services were being held for a kid who didn't exist.

Here is a nice picture of that beautiful child, Jesse Lewis. You have the nerve to deny that he was killed? I only hope his mother doesn't come across such asinine ideas. She has enough sorrow without you making it seem as if she's some kind of criminal. God help you.

And it says in that article that she was frantically searching for him before she had to face the reality. I'm sure that part of that search included Rosen's house where she probably learned from others there were some children who had taken refuge there, thus the story from him.

I have a good mind to start an ongoing blog to take each and every one of these nonsensical allegations and tear them to shreds so that if there is indeed something we should be focusing on because the full story isn't known, we can at least get the nonsense out of the way of lucidity.

Ms. Sue, is this a young person you are talking to? No disrespect intended, but it seems like he doesn't understand the world real well. I see things and sometimes I don't understand very well. But you seem to get what's going on. I'm interested in your opinions. Please forgive me for interrupting, but I'm trying to be informed about important issues.

The other two are plausible because one's supposedly a Christian and the other is an atheist, but this one sounds too much like Abby.

Good guess, but...no.

Sue,

From the linked article;

"Rosen said, "Her face was frozen in terror and fear. She said, 'Is my son here?' and she said his name and I said, no."

She was the mother of Jesse Lewis, one of 20 children killed at the school."

So, that was not actually him giving the name, and that would explain why I never saw him give the name, if he didn't in those early accounts he gave which I saw. . The article was "Posted: 12/20/2012", and the 'People' article it is quoting was "Originally published 12/19/2012". Naturally, if this was an "added" person, it would be logical to name that name, in response to skepticism about Mr. Rosen's accounts.

I stress if, because this is how a hypothetical is rationally treated. One "runs down" the logic as if it is psyop stuff, to see what one finds with that "suspicion" active, so to speak. It's not that one assumes it is, in a permanent sense, but that one recognizes the potential seriously, and does not assume it isn't. Within that potential, are then sub potentials, dependent on exactly what the psyop is intended to do/impress on us.

The person could be "added", with or without an original intent to use them in this way, or the person could be the real deal, subsequently "enlisted" so to speak, or they could be the real deal intentionally used as a form of "bait" to make those who question anything about the event look bad, so people will dismiss all the questions as "conspiracy theorist" imaginings, which obviously would be in the interest of real "conspirators" in high places that want people to continue to dismiss the idea that people in high places ever conspire. That "works" because people tend to lump things together according to labels, and many see one idea shown to be erroneous as a sort of "model" for all similarly labeled ideas. It's not very rational, but it is very common, which is what psyop folks are interested in, naturally.

Now, I know, and the psyop guys would obviously know, that introducing more people into the narrative as "verification" of what one suspected "ringer" says, creates a question about the introduced persons. Which brings us back to the "How dare you question these suffering victims, have you no shame?" hurdle/deterrent. Nothing has actually changed, but the suspecter is made to look more heartless and unsatisfiable, simply by introducing more people into the narrative.

It is perfectly logical, to pull that sort of maneuver, regardless of anyone at all actually being a "ringer", if the intent of the pysop is to harden people against "conspiracy theorists" and their evidence/theories in general. And, at this point (even if no one in high places has been "conspiring"), it would be a perfectly logical goal to get all "conspiracy theorists" and their theories, discredited as much as possible in the eyes of the populace. That would essentially by a "given" objective, in terms of what those folks do for a living, even if the Gov/Corporate media et al were squeaky clean in this regard.

They would want us to believe any "official" narrative, regardless of whether it is true or not (assuming of course that they are in the "officials" camp, in a given instance. At other points they could be tasked with discrediting some potential "authority figure" that is perceived to be a threat to the high ups, like a Mr. Paul, for instance, or a Mr. Wakefield, or a notable scientist that speaks out against "global warming" etc, etc). At this point, there would naturally be all sorts of people tasked with discrediting "official narrative" critics and skeptics of all kinds . . The powers that be are hemorrhaging credibility and blind faith believers in their mass media "presenters", and "hoaxing" aspects of what we see through those presenters" just to discredit skeptics is a perfectly expectable "mission", of pysop creators and implementers . . It's a goal unto itself now, I have no doubt whatsoever. If they haven't made it a goal, they are incompetent imbeciles . .


" . . . we can at least get the nonsense out of the way of lucidity."

Sounds great, but at this point, the major "presenters" of information to the public can literally agree to something, literally claiming that multiple trusted sources they have, have told them something is so, and then it turns out not to be so, according to the eventual "official narrative", and no one bats an eye so to speak. Consider this video, please, and realize that to trust what the mass media presenters tell us, is identical to not trusting what they tell us . . there is no bottom to the rabbit hole, and no way to not be skeptical of what they tell/told us . . we just ain't in Kansas anymore, in that sense;

'ABC, CBS, NBC Admit No Assault Rifle Used at Sandy Hook'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HK8Z5K5M2Dw


You do believe them, don't you? ; )

You can't, in anything like a consistent way, so why ought I believe what the sources you linked to, tell us? Why do you?

I have no desire to get into debates about the "verifiability" of an endless stream of corroborators, but the first link I checked that might give me a sense of who this next person in the chain is (Amazon, since I saw in the google results that she wrote a book, I was immediately presented with this, from a profile page;

In My [her] Own Words:

"I wrote Rose's Foal, a true story about a foal born on my farm the day after September 11, in honor of my sons. ..."


Now, what are the odds do you suppose? What are the odds that this person just happens to be the author of a book intended to . . well, in her own next words . .

"... I was reading children's books to my kids but there wasn't an[y] substance, lesson or connection with what I was reading."

. . add, substance, lesson or connection, into what she was ostensibly able to read to her children in the wake of 9/11? . . I went to "Search inside this book" as Amazon puts it, before I starting writing this comment, and got a "Not available at this time" notice . . . But when I just now went back to the same book page, I got a "look inside" as usual . . but the look doesn't actually show me any of the writing in the story, just some basic bio stuff (and as few pics) . . that mentions the foal was born on Sept. 10th 2001 . . So, I'm left to wonder how writing about that foal and his mother, lends any "substance, lesson or connection" to the universe of children's books, which it ostensibly lacked . . which somehow relates to 9/11 apparently . . or to reading to children in the wake of such thing . . But the book description at Amazon says;

"Book Description
Release date: January 19, 2009
Rose's Foal is written by Scarlett Lewis and illustrated with her photographs taken as the story unfolds. The book is a warmhearted story about Rose, a gentle and wise draft horse living on a farm in Connecticut, and her newborn foal. Her new son, Little Chief, is curious about the world around him and well-protected by his watchful and loving mother. This book shares their timeless story, and the thoughtful lessons of love and happiness that Rose imparts to Little Chief as he grows and explores his new world."

There's no freakin' way there is any lack of that sort of "substance, lesson or connection" in children's books . . That's nonsensical, on the face of it . . and that's all I can see, the face of it. Of course it could all be coincidence, just a person making use of the date of the foal's birth in a general "hook" sort of sense, to lend some sort of hypothetical significance potential that buyers might be subliminally "caught" by, so to speak . . but this echoes the same basic theme of comforting children in disasters one hears in things like a FEMA/Homeland Security preparedness training event having been scheduled for Dec 14th, titled 'FEMA-L336 Planning for the needs of children in disasters', from 9am to 4pm, twenty minutes drive from Sandy Hook school, in Bridgeport Con. . . The exact time and chief "focus" of the tragedy that we are discussion now.

And this whole Mr. Rosen affair . . who ostensibly took six children into his home that morning, some of whom ostensibly witnessed the killing of their teacher, but end up sitting on his lawn, next door to the firehouse where all the other kids have been taken . . he found ostensibly in the company of a school bus driver (and a man who was apparently telling them "very harshly" that "It will be alright"), who does not seem to realize where she is in relation to that firehouse fifty feet away from them, and decides to go into this man's home with the kids, rather than walk (or drive) them to the firehouse . . and no one seems to have any problem with that "detour", when Mr. Rosen (or the bus driver) ostensibly calls some sort of officials, after trying to call the kid's parents (based on the the phone numbers the kid's gave him), and getting only answering machines. This bus driver knows "there's been an incident" according to Mr. Rosen, but is unaware that the children are being taken to the adjacent firehouse in response to the incident? A whole lotta strange coincidences going on that day, it seems . . some in the astronomically unlikely realm, it seems to me.

Could they all have been in shock? Were all these people behaving so strangely due to being in "vicinity shock"? Is there no limit to this justifications ability to justify? No limit to the total coincidence level we are to accept as plausible? I have just barely scratched the surface of the coincidences I am aware of . . Is there any point at which it becomes rational to think we are being conned in some way? Any point at which it is OK to doubt this bizarre and repeatedly morphed "official narrative", to your mind? If not, then virtually anything could be faked or distorted in virtually any way, and it would be our "moral obligation" to just accept the latest things we are told . . through mass media that got tons of things wrong in this instance, and obviously can't be trusted . . without simultaneously distrusting what they just told us was trustworthy information.

There's no bottom to this rabbit whole, that I can detect . . no way to know anything or anyone is as they appear. I believe that is intentional, regardless of what happened that day. I believe that is an aspect of an extensive psyop, not a coincidence. And I believe that psyop includes fake "conspiracy theorists", meant to appear irrational, to keep people from trusting the alternative media, as they are losing trust in the corporate media. Better we trust no one, from the perspective of the powers that be, than we distrust their jive hawkers, and trust their adversaries.

It would have been more along the lines of what I would have expected from you had you written this kind of thing first. There's quite a difference in the reasoning with the examples you're displaying here and the selections from the top 40 bubble gum hits all with the same sounding choruses you presented earlier.

It almost sounds now as if you were paraphrasing some of my ideas I've presented already in other places with a new package wrapping, but I don't know why you would want to do that. If you'd read my comments you'd see that I said in different words that why I think so many people are deceived is because of the psyop intent to deliberately confuse. So, yes, it is difficult to decipher what is fact from fiction, but there are some things that can be ruled out as imposslble to have happened. For instance, if someone says he shot himself in the head with a rifle, unless he's a contortionist with arms as long as his legs, it's not something to consider.

Some of what you've written is nebulous. You ask, for instance, "Could they all have been in shock?" I have no idea the "all" to whom we should even be referring (though you mention to whom you are referring in the preceding paragraph) so I can't tell you the answer. I'm still confused about the reports I initially heard and the subsequent reports that were different in just relaying how those children got to his house. I've now seen reports that say that the children ran through the woods to get to his house. However, the first reports included a bus driver (female, I'm pretty sure) and a man who was apparently using agitated body language in trying to let them know they should calm down. Suddenly, those characters dissolved into nothingness after those brief descriptions of what their roles were in the scenario at the foot of the Rosen driveway. I've never heard or read another thing about either of them.

If you look at your video about 1:33 into it, there's an aerial view that shows you how rural this area is so when you speak of the firehouse as "next door" to Rosen's house it's deceiving.

You packed a lot in there and it's not all very clear. I'm not saying that it's your fault, but you introduce material that isn't completely explained and with no sources, though I suppose I can take the time to look the sources up myself to get a better idea of what you are exactly trying to convey. (if there is anything exact) It's clear where you might be trying to take it, but it doesn't quite get there in your comment. I'm talking about the children's book and the preparedness training here. I only started to source the FEMA class and it was kind of funny that at the top was Snopes. Their reasoning that the class scheduled for that day was less suspicious was kind of humorous to me. They said the class had also been scheduled 6 other times in other parts of the state in November and earlier in that December. It depends on how you see that, I suppose, but such a concentration of that same course in such a short period of time doesn't do much to quell my suspicions. That's not the first time I've seen Snopes "reason away" suspicions in much the same way, though. On the other hand, you can see here that it was released as early as 2011 in conjunction with the Red Cross and the AAP and it had been in development sometime prior and available online sometime. I'm not saying that this allays all concerns behind its creation, but it's difficult to pin it exactly to this incident all by itself too.

In all of this, I refuse to see that Robbie Parker was anyone but Robbie Parker, the father of Emile who died, and that any of the other parents, Gene Rosen and the medical examiner were any other than who they are, and they were not playing deceptive games of any sort, though they may have been unwittingly used because of their controversial reactions to the incident that work in favor of a psyop ploy.

Must be the mysterious atheist, whoever that is!

To clarify, that should say, "On the other hand, you can see here that it was released as early as April 2011 in conjunction with the Red Cross and the AAP, and it had been in development sometime prior to April of 2011, and available online for some time before the incident."

Pete and Simon probably know.

Young man, when you grow up a little more you will be able to tell the difference between reality and your fantasy world. It's not the same as in those video games you are playing. Good luck!

Here is a bit more of FEMA's history of the Disaster Preparedness Program for children and why they saw fit to create the course. From the glimpse I get of the course, it's not so much geared to the kind of thing that happened at Sandy Hook where mostly children were involved, but in disasters where mostly adults are involved and the children get overlooked because they aren't in the majority but they have needs different from those of adults.

Sort of half-nix what I just wrote because I was reading that under the assumption that our schools were at least adequately equipped to meet the needs of children since that's who attends, and they were modeling this program on schools. Although I think that might have been their intention, they found that only 7 states had implemented minimal standards for disaster. So I guess the program could very well apply to any school too since they too are apparently so astonishingly unprepared.

Ah, those two. Between them, they probably know the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

If only Sy and I could, as does JK, transcend mere Knowledge and Truth, and ascend to a higher plane of epistemological entities.

Sue,

"If you look at your video about 1:33 into it, there's an aerial view that shows you how rural this area is so when you speak of the firehouse as "next door" to Rosen's house it's deceiving."

That's an aerial view if the school, here's a link to one of the video's I've seen that deals (among other things) with the area of the firehouse in relation to Mr. Rosen's home (at least one other I saw that dealt with that, is now blocked . . you might want to take look soon);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keOG2piLGsM&list=PLBdshB7DWJMhOpYgFfjr4N839ji71fM8Q

It's an aerial view of the school, of course. I certainly wasn't saying it was an aerial view of his house. That's what that video was about and the parking lot with all the cars would hardly be an aerial view of his home. How you possibly think I was saying it was aerial view of his house makes me wonder about what wavelength you're on or if you're just trying to make me appear to be an idiot.
But if the kids could run through the woods to Rosen's home it's still an aerial view indicative of the rural aspect of that whole area.

I was trying to get his house on Google maps but I don't know the exact address. I'll take a look at that video, though.

That's not very clear to me. I can't say for sure that they would have passed the fire station before coming to his front lawn. Since also I'm not sure whether they did run through the woods to get there, it's not even something that would prove anything if that were so.

I remember distinctly getting the impression from the radio reports I was listening to that there was a school bus, but I might have just assumed there was because of the talk of the school bus driver being with the kids. Had there been a school bus it was cold so why would they have gotten out of the bus to sit on the cold ground? I remember thinking that when I heard that report too. At that point I had already heard so many other discrepancies that I didn't give it much more thought at the time.

If you listen to just the first few seconds of this video, Gene Rosen speaks of a school bus. However, he makes it clear that the driver may not have taken them directly from the school, but that perhaps she had picked them up along the way. It just isn't clear at all that those children passed that fire station.

Let's say they had for your argument, though. At that point, those kids had escaped within inches of their own lives, and you would think that it was around the time that emergency personnel would have been either en route to the school or have just gotten there so any firemen in this little, local unit would probably have been at the school and not at the station at that time, anyway.

Sue,


"I can't say for sure that they would have passed the fire station before coming to his front lawn."

The school is not far down the same obviously bigger road, which is also the shortest route, and the one anyone tasked with taking kids there from the school, would have been told to take. A school bus driver wouldn't need to be told that, obviously, if they were told to take them to the firehouse. That totally eliminates the possibility that a bus driver took them to that place and had them sit there like that, as far as I'm concerned. That would be some of "nonsense" that needs to be removed from the mix completely, for the sake of lucidity, as you put it. It's gone, as far as my reasoning goes,

The potential that any resident of the area would not use that same route, if they knew the destination, and were charged with taking them there, is incredibly small, to mind, vanishingly so, if part of the mass exodus that would be blatantly obvious to anyone so charged, and with the school in "lock-down", and law enforcement escorts and overseers all over the place and so on.

Making the potential that the hypothetical agitated man who appears in some accounts, calming/reassuring the circle of children sitting there, brought them there using a more circuitous route, hyper unlikely to my mind, off in the astronomically unlikely zone, basically. All but removed from the swirl of potentials that exist within the cloud of the official narrative, but serving no logical function as we pursue that lucidity stuff.

Was there another person who was tasked with getting them to the firehouse, and is already gone at that point? Who took that bizarre departure from what was the obvious and direct route, and has walked on without them? Set them down there, to be found by the "very loud" man and hyper-compliant and happenstance school bus driver to find, just before Mr. Rosen does too? No, that is not rational to believe deserves serious consideration to me. We're getting into the cosmologically unlikely combination of coincidences and oddities, and the whole class of; Someone took the wrong route, when charged with getting those kids to that firehouse, is gone, as far as I'm concerned. It would require at least three or four adults being essentially incapacitated by shock, as well as many other unlikely coincidences.

"Since also I'm not sure whether they did run through the woods to get there, it's not even something that would prove anything if that were so."

" I'm still confused about the reports I initially heard and the subsequent reports that were different in just relaying how those children got to his house. I've now seen reports that say that the children ran through the woods to get to his house. However, the first reports included a bus driver (female, I'm pretty sure) and a man who was apparently using agitated body language in trying to let them know they should calm down. Suddenly, those characters dissolved into nothingness after those brief descriptions of what their roles were in the scenario at the foot of the Rosen driveway. I've never heard or read another thing about either of them."

So, have you attempted to investigate evidence available that might alleviate your confusion? Could the reason it appears so confusing, be that it did not happen, in reality-land? That it's a "hoax" aspect, and voluminous contradictory and incredibly unlikely things have been spun up to appear like a cloud of possibilities, that does not really have a less than incredibly unlikely single narrative in the mix, so we are being presented with an array of them, to swamp the "lucidity" potential?

You speak of this or that not "proving" something didn't happen, but don't seem to recognize that you have nothing that proves it did . . This is where the need to un-default the presumed "reality" that, one way or another, it did happen, in order to think critically about the matter, comes into play. You have seen something pretty darn coincidental, if the children "escaped" the area without anyone noticing, and just so happen to wind up on that lawn, next to the official destination . . even without the multitude of contradictory evidence I have seen. It's then necessary that those other persons Mr. Rosen describes enter (and exist) the scene as he describes . . It's a confluence of incredibly unlikely scenarios, occurring one right after the other.

At a minimum, and this is just one tiny portion of an overall flood of amazing coincidences, troubling questions, and inconsistencies I am aware of, in relation to the whole affair. I no longer have the option of "believing" we are not witnessing at least a significant amount of "hoaxing" being perpetrated on us. It's gone, for me, out of the realm of possibility to my mind. A few hours of "suspension of belief" that we are not seeing that happening, coupled with some serious skeptical investigation, might alleviate a great deal of your "confusion", I feel. At least about the "zero hoaxing" potential . . Confusion about much of this stuff is probably inescapable, but that comes with this territory, so to speak . .

PS~

Yeah, I have seen reports that Mr, Rosen's house is blocked by google maps . . I was able to find the firehouse on google maps, but at the resolution of individual houses and such, it takes me right to street view, which is to say ground level actual images. I could "move around" the area with the "camera", but could not get it to maneuver such that I could see the side/back of the building . . it just stops going in that direction . .

I'm no expert, but I think that video is very likely legit, in terms of that area depiction. Mr. Rosen speaks very nonchalantly about taking the kids there, whenever I've seen him mention that eventuality. He makes small gestures toward the firehouse he is referring to, as though speaking of something nearby, and there's no apparent "journey" involved in the story. He just did, a single brief sentence. And like a mentioned, at least one video I saw this aspect dealt with in, as the whole subject, has been Xed by google.

(I mean Xed by youtube)

John, it seems to me that our perspectives are very different.

"The school is not far down the same obviously bigger road, which is also the shortest route, and the one anyone tasked with taking kids there from the school, would have been told to take. A school bus driver wouldn't need to be told that, obviously, if they were told to take them to the firehouse. That totally eliminates the possibility that a bus driver took them to that place and had them sit there like that, as far as I'm concerned. That would be some of "nonsense" that needs to be removed from the mix completely, for the sake of lucidity, as you put it. It's gone, as far as my reasoning goes,"

You seem to hold the idea that this was some kind of orderly evacuation of thes 6 kids. I have the impression that these 6 kids flew out of the building and were left to their own devices because at that point anything was better than being where they were. I don't get the impression that any bus driver was instructed to do anything at all. There was no time for instruction. I'm pretty sure that anything that transpired concerning these kids who escaped was ad lib as most everything at the school during that time was.

Now if you don't even think there was a shooting, this won't apply, but if you can imagine the chaos caused by such an unexpected, unbelieveable and horrendous event, you would never even be thinking along the lines of what I just quoted. In the wake of such a disaster there are going to be things that happen that are also out of the ordinary and make less sense than they should because chaos breeds more confusion. From what you write about this, I just don't get that you have a good handle on how people might be processing this kind of turmoil and how they react as a result.

Those children won't be allowed interviews at this time, but 7 or 8 years from now when they're in their teens they'll talk about it, and they will tell you what happened. And I think we're going to have to wait to hear it from them unless, of course, you think the ones who escaped were part of the plot.

What you are calling nonsense and what I call nonsense are different too. Saying that he only had a rifle on him when they also claimed he shot himself in the head was nonsense, but we also now know there were two other handguns. I'm just not willing to confirm my bias that there is something more to this by dismissing valid possiblities of what could have happened that by doing so make what seems strange nonsense, but you seem to be willing to dismiss them to write your own story.

Sue,

"You seem to hold the idea that this was some kind of orderly evacuation of thes 6 kids."

Not at all, that's the potential I just "eliminated" from consideration, openly, for the sake of lucidity as you put it. I don't understand why you would then speak of "having that in mind, when I just explained that I consider it out of the realm of possibility, and explained why . .

"I have the impression that these 6 kids flew out of the building and were left to their own devices . . ."

Understood, that's what's left after the elimination of the (to my mind) utterly implausible class of; "Someone charged with getting those particular children to the firehouse messed up incredibly badly", potential.

And I asked if you investigated the matter further, because "an impression" is essentially an "imagination" in this case. I have no way of knowing what you have become aware of in this realm, other than this "impression". No way to rationally discuss the feasibility of that having actually occurred, other than in some people's imagination based upon the idea being presented by some "media". The very same media that "impressed" us with there being only handguns found in the building, please recall.


One can always, in such a case as this, just keep invoking the confusion/shock/unprepared "explanation" for any and all oddities, coincidences, contradictions in the official narrative, and just drop it at that. Basically accepting whatever we are (eventually) told happened, because it was a terrible situation . . and we are back to blind faith in the authorities . . Blind faith that "they" would never deceive us. All any psyop meant to deceive/impress us would need to involve is innocents being harmed, and them having grieving relatives and so forth, and it would be successful.

It does not need anything remotely resembling "proof" to succeed, let alone a lack of contradictory evidence, just some tragic elements and it will do the trick, so to speak.

This is not a good circumstance to my mind. This is an invitation to be deceived, if we remain (in large numbers) such incredibly easy to deceive people. And if when we are "impressed" with the idea that anyone who questions the "official narrative" is a bad guy, whom we have a "moral duty" to despise and persecute, we comply . . the jig is up, as the saying goes. There is nothing to stop the powers that be from manipulating us any which way they wish to, with our willing assistance.

"Someone charged with getting those particular children to the firehouse messed up incredibly badly", potential."

I don't see that potential, and that's what I mean. I just don't see how anyone would have been "charged" with any such thing. Like I said, I think it's more than likely that at that time the firehouse was empty. The few firemen that they have posted at the station would have either been on their way to the school or already there. You're asking me if I've looked into things that only a detective talking to several people in person could do. That you think you've looked into these things because of what you've found on the Web is so silly I can't even entertain it for another second.

That also doesn't mean that I don't think it's possible that a bus driver at that time of the morning either getting ready to go back to the depot with the bus or who had already left the school and was on the way back to the depot on the road still close to the school may have spotted the children and thought it was odd, stopped and picked them up. There are possiblities for how they connected, but not that they were specifically put in the driver's charge by anyone. And these are the kinds of things that a detective would find out.

"I just don't see how anyone would have been "charged" with any such thing."

It's a basic way of saying that someone was involved in transferring the 600 students to the firehouse . . obviously there would be real people that really were told to escort the children to the firehouse, or they wouldn't have just all decided on there own to take go/take them there. Real people must have been "charged" with the responsibility of getting them there . . A decision by "officials" to transfer them must have been made, and expressed to the people involved in making that happen.

If you can't "see how anyone would have been "charged" with any such thing", I don't know what to say . . it's just so basic to me. And basic to the "official narrative" too . .

It doesn't quite fit the idea that the whole joint was thrown into total panic, I suppose, but I have seen no credible evidence that any such mass panic occurred . . I have watched a total of at least a few hours of video, showing people milling about and not acting at all panicky . . and none showing anyone panicking . . Feel free to alleviate my ignorance if you aware of such evidence, by showing me anything at all that substantiates the idea that there was "pandemonium" going on there that day, but I can't (as a critical thinker trying to make sense of this incident) just use my imagination to generate such things . . because it fits an impression that people have gotten . .

I have seen no credible evidence that any mass panic occurred, just some people like Mr. Rosen telling stories about his and those kid's state of shock/fear . . There ought to be tons of evidence, with all the coverage I've seen, but there is none I am aware of. I know of a single photograph of some children being led hastily by a teacher, that look sort of scared . . but that's it . . One photo.


"That also doesn't mean that I don't think it's possible that a bus driver at that time of the morning either getting ready to go back to the depot with the bus or who had already left the school and was on the way back to the depot on the road still close to the school may not have spotted the children and thought it was odd, stopped and picked them up."

And then dropped them off, right? Didn't take them anywhere in particular . . knowing, according to the teller of this story that "there had been an incident", but she decided to just leave the bus somewhere (it is clearly not sitting there in the scene Mr. Rosen describes) walking away from it with the kids apparently, and sitting them down on someone's lawn. Then, allowing a stranger to take therm all into his house? And his house just so happens to be next to the firehouse the rest of the children would be taken?

This seems feasible to you? Seriously?

600 students? We were talking about the 6 students that were on Gene Rosen's lawn. At least that's what I was talking about.

????????????????????????????? I give up

Good! I gave up a long time ago.

Just for any who might have been following, John sees no difference in the scenario of 6 kids who fled the school in the midst of the chaos and the rest of the children who may have been put in the charge of several bus drivers later that morning to get them to the firehouse as they were able to plan after Adam shot himself.

"Just for any who might have been following, John sees no difference in the scenario of 6 kids who fled the school in the midst of the chaos and the rest of the children who may have been put in the charge of several bus drivers later that morning to get them to the firehouse . . "

John clearly tried to "eliminate" the possibility that those six kids were among the 600 who must have been taken to the firehouse by people charged with taking them there. John not only saw the difference, he tried mightily to demonstrate that it is unreasonable ti think that's how they ended up in a very different situation than the rest of the children, precisely so that conflation of the two potentials could be avoided.

Now (as I feared), Sue has introduced a potential that clearly contradicts what the person this whole hypothetical scene on the lawn is dependent on us believing is telling us the truth, told us, as I see it. The hypothetical bus driver must be aware that "there has been an incident" as Mr. Rosen repeatedly states in his accounts, as she simultaneously, according to Sue's hypothetical explanation, is;

" ... either getting ready to go back to the depot with the bus or who had already left the school and was on the way back to the depot on the road still close to the school may have spotted the children and thought it was odd, stopped and picked them up."

It cannot be simultaneously true that she knew there had been an incident, and was just heading back to the bus depot unaware that there had been an incident . . such that if she "spotted the children", she would just have "thought it was odd". She tells Mr. Rosen, ostensibly, that there has been an incident, obviously in relation to them being on his lawn . . If she didn't say something like that to Mr. Rosen, then he is not telling us the truth. If she did, Sue's little story makes no sense at all, I say.

She cannot both be seeing their presence there as related to an incident, and not related to an incident . . and the more one introduces the idea that she is in some sort of shock, to account for such a bizarre bifurcation of her understanding of reality, the less it makes sense that she would just "see it as odd" that those kids were wandering around on their own like that . . She can't both be in shock because of the nature of an incident she is aware of, and be heading back to the bus depot unaware of the nature of the incident . . but aware there has been an incident, and be thinking that is why they are there on the lawn.

But this is the sort of utter nonsense one must resort to, it seems to me, in order to keep the faith, in "the authorities". .

John Knight Jan 30, 2013, 11:46pm EST
????????????????????????????? I give up

"It cannot be simultaneously true that she knew there had been an incident, and was just heading back to the bus depot..."
Why would there be any simultaneous truth that she knew and she didn't?
I'm saying that she had no idea there was an incident until the kids apprised her whenever it was she and the kids connected before Rosen saw them on his property. (in just one possible scenario, but there are others I haven't even thought of that could have happened in a different way, I'm sure.) Until we know the facts, we can't possibly say that Rosen is some kind of fake, or at least I can't. It has nothing to do with "authority worship" that you attribute just about everything to, anyway. It has to do with putting some timelines and concrete facts together. Just because facts are missing and are not clear because no one has investigated them yet is not an invitation to obsess on magically turning incongruities due to ignorance of facts into the facts that you rely on to call the whole thing a sham. You can continue that by yourself because I'm done.

Sue,

"I'm saying that she had no idea there was an incident until the kids apprised her whenever it was she and the kids connected before Rosen saw them on his property."

Then what is she doing letting the children off the bus, walking away from it, and sitting them down on a random lawn?

Would YOU do something like that if you came upon a group of small children that told you they had just witnessed a horrendous atrocity? Seriously, does it sound even remotely rational to you?

(And note please, that we have yet to account for the agitated man loudly telling the children that "It will be all right" in this bizarre fantasy "explanation" which Sue has to resort to, as she tries to account for the bus driver's irrational behavior in the scene Mr. Rosen describes many times. That "man" has to also have reacted utterly irrationally as well, or Mr. Rosen is not telling us the truth . . )

I have that all figured into a very plausible scenario, and no one said the bus driver left the kids there either, but I don't have time for your nonsense now. Maybe I'll write a post about how I think it could have happened.

Sue,

"I have that all figured into a very plausible scenario, and no one said the bus driver left the kids there either . . "

Leaving the bus is what I asked about, and sitting the kids down on that lawn;

"Then what is she doing letting the children off the bus, walking away from it, and sitting them down on a random lawn?"

It's her hypothetical state of shock that I am trying to eliminate from her actions/behavior. If she is unaware of the nature of the "incident" (not being a person that was at the school, charged with getting the kids to the firehouse), then shock because of the nature of the incident is off the table, so to speak. She would have had to go into irrationality inducing shock upon hearing the children speak to her, if she was not already aware of the scope/nature of the incident.

That's what would have had to happen to Mr. Rosen too, in order for him to have been in shock . . That's why I went to such lengths to get the idea of people at the school acting bizarrely when charged with those kids getting to the firehouse, because they might be in shock, away from the idea of other people, not at the school, and so not aware of the nature of the incident, acting bizarrely because they were in shock.

I never said the bus driver was in any state of shock, John. At that point, she had only just learned of this from the children, I think. I don't think that the actual event's realism was at that time as poignant as it would be once she had heard a media account, for instance.

You seem not to connect at all with what I had been trying to convey, but even less so with this idea of the state of shock that I had been speaking of even before this. Whenever I had mentioned it, you didn't seem to understand why it would be feasible that someone would react a certain way because of their feelings, and you want to make it seem as though I'm using it as an excuse for any and all behavior concerning the issue. That couldn't be farther from the truth, but I don't think you would do that consciously unless you just did not yourself have any clue of what the impact of this experience means when it's closer to you. The closer it is, the more the impact, and the more the shock.

I just ran across this NYT article earlier today. I thought of you and said to myself, "John should read this." The second page, especially, will give you an idea of what you don't seem to have any idea of at all at this point.

It's a shame Glenn Beck has fallen so far below the credibility factor that he can't even get genuine "experts" on his show to actually do something good. But, at least he's not trying to perpetuate the hoaxes out there.

You know your whackjob conspiracy theory is really loony when another whackjob, prone to believing and disseminating all kinds of wild-eyed conspiracy theories, thinks it is too far fetched and loony.

Of course, there is still no shortage of rightwingnutjobs who will buy into it, lock, stock and barrel. Because, in truth, there is nothing too nutty, too impossible, too weird and whacky to be believable to radical right wing rabble.

"You know your whackjob conspiracy theory is really loony when another whackjob, prone to believing and disseminating all kinds of wild-eyed conspiracy theories, thinks it is too far fetched and loony."

Unless, of course, Beck is trying to establish a monopoly on raving nut-jobbery on the public stage.
(I'm always willing to offer another conspiracy to the anxious cretins who inhabit the fringes of rationality, which is the tea-bagger party.)

I propose a new group on Gather. (Right, just what Gather needs is a new group.) No, wait a minute, kids, it's the Conspiracy-of-the-Week-Club! Every week, one of its members will put forward a New Conspiracy, carefully worked out, with a Byzantine structure and motivation worthy of the Bavarian Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission. The only rule is that it must not credible to any rational human (or any higher simian, for that matter). Reaction will follow from the True Believers of Gather, the Marinus van der Lubbe International Firebombing Society, and any other responsible group, individual or wind machine. Whaddya say, kids?

I am sure that you are offering this new group as a diversion from the attempts that King Obama is making as we speak to snatch the guns from our hands and use them to assassinate true patriots and force them to have abortions in the black helicoptors of the United Nations.

Since it has now been proven in an internet article that the International Red Cross and the League of Women Voters are really fronts for the Homosexual Agenda and the suppression of coal mining, everyone knows that the Wiki is an attempt to control our thinking and suppress church attendance through high taxes to reduce Global Warming.

I bow to The Master.

Go on and mock. You libtards will rue the day when Obama the Antichrist completes his agenda of One World Order, which is going to happen any day now. I mean it, any day. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon. Like a week from Thursday. Or maybe mid summer, when everyone is away on vacation. But soon, real, real soon. Like maybe this time next year. Hell, I dont know when, but soon. In fact, it will always be very soon. (Even after Obama is gone).

Then, you'll be sorry.

Martial Obamalaw will be declared as soon as the current backorder for jackboots is filled. Having government thugs marching into your houses wearing Converse Chuck Taylors is insufficiently intimidating for the minions of the very model of a modern major tyrant.

So THAT's why the delay. I was wondering.

Will the boots be ready soon? Is this when we have to hide our guns? Should we get ready soon? Sorry because I want to be ready like a good citizen. Is it ok to say that?

Sy, the Government Thugs, or GT-men, are going to be wearing the same jackboots as the slightly more stylishly-clad Death Panels and consequent Death Squads ordained by Obama; the fact that he rammed the "legislation" (heh heh) through for the latter so quickly was a great surprise to the Uruguayan leather tanners and Chinese bootmakers (not to be confused with this Chinese bookmakers, who are taking odds on just when the Chicago Beer Hall Putsch is to take place) who have been chosen for this outsourced procurement be cause they are as far away from the U.S. as anyone could arrange, and they got behind on this order. They will be executed as soon as the Death Squads are shod.

Hyperia (or so I like to think of you), you should practice hiding your guns right now! And be sure to write down all of the places you think of to hide them, and keep that piece of paper handy at all times... by the phone, for instance. It's good citizens like you who will make this New World Order a Paradise on Earth!

Chicago? Did I say Chicago? A slip of the finger... I meant Detroit. No, Tampa! Yes, that's the ticket! It's Tampa.

Also, they've lost track of those gray FEMA coffins they've been so craftily moving from one small town to the other hoping to avoid detection by alert patriots. The ominous containers were last seen off Interstate 20 in Georgia. Apparently, someone really goofed up and now they have to order new ones, putting the NWO takeover on hold.

Uh-oh... we're in trouble. Those were supposed to be color-coded. The FEMA coffins were supposed to be black; the MRE containers are gray. Oh, well... dead is dead.

You know your whackjob conspiracy theory is really loony when another whackjob, prone to believing and disseminating all kinds of wild-eyed conspiracy theories, thinks it is too far fetched and loony.

This cannot be repeated enough...well said Rory.