rigorousintuition.ca

I've avoided this thread for a few days because of Lupercal (waste of time) but I just checked back in.

I have not decided one way or another what this thing was. I deliberately avoided even looking at the news for a good week after it happened. Just hearing about it was horrific enough. I also didn't want my kid to find out about it. Just a couple of days ago he finally heard about the Dark Knight Rises shootings (thanks, world).

Anyway, there is certainly some fishy shit around this thing. And that one father, the one who's smiling and laughing before "getting into character" and giving his press conference -- that's one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen.

And I came across this today, checking out news sources:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/09/f ... -happened/

Check out the headline:

Florida professor defends theory that Newtown shootings never happened


Versus what the story actually says:

“In terms of saying that Sandy Hook — the Newtown massacre — did not take place, is really an oversimplification of what I actually said,” he explained. “I said that I think that there may very well be elements of that event that are synthetic to some degree, that are somewhat contrived. I think that, overall, the media really did drop the ball. I don’t think that they got to the bottom of some of the things that may have taken place there.”

As for the deaths of 20 elementary children, the professor said, “I think that most likely that took place.”

But, before you get to that rather interesting quote, you get this:

On Tuesday, WPTV caught up with Tracy, who also doubts the official versions President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks and the mass shooting at a theater in Aurora, Colorado last year.

And this from a supposedly "progressive" news source.

Again, I have no idea what really happened, but .... as someone mentioned above ..... there are people out there who would do this. Just because they could. Just for shits and grins, just as a test to see what happened, for future reference. The people who did 9/11 will do ANYTHING. They got away with it, and they'll get away with it again, and they will continue to do unfathomably evil shit JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.

geogeo wrote:

DrEvil wrote:I just watched that youtube video. Lots of intuition. Severely lacking in the rigorous department.
That's also my main gripe with this thread. Several posters have already decided this is a black op, and are now trying really hard to fit the evidence (or the complete lack of evidence, which apparently is evidence in itself) to that theory, and anyone who disagrees is a gate keeper.

I'm suggesting we keep our minds open to the possibility that this, as well as at least the Sikh Temple shooting last year, where several witnesses were quoted as having seen multiple shooters with their own eyes, could have been some type of black op. I personally haven't decided that it was a black op, by any means. I doubted the official line on 9-11 starting on 9-11, but I can't say I decided anything for a good number of years. I'm a bit unclear why this might be turning into some sort of a taboo subject, though--could it be because so many are saying that it was actors and no children were killed? It's like not being able to talk about Israel in a critical way without feeling unclean, tainted, lumped in with the Holocaust deniers. At this point, given the MSM coverage today of both the professor at the Memory Hole, and Alex Jones, my interest is quickly being drawn into tracking the public perception of conspiracy theorists--and no, I'm not saying that the event was staged to crack down on conspiracy theorists.

I agree, we should keep an open mind. I'm not categorically ruling out black op, I just haven't seen anything to support that theory yet, so until I see something a bit more compelling than a sloppy youtube video and armchair ballistics I'm leaning towards the simpler explanation - the guy was nuts.

geogeo wrote:But, like JackRiddler, I'm wondering if you're this intellectually sloppy and, frankly, rude, in real life. Wow.

Okay, but that was a completely different subject.

geogeo wrote:

compared2what? wrote:That said, though. It's not really all that difficult to understand why or how things get heated. I mean, when you feel that you're pointing to what you can clearly see is some kind of danger or horror so that no more people will be hurt by it and you're going unheeded, the distance between "be careful" and "what's the matter with you, are you some kind of fucking idiot?" can be a pretty quick trip.

Because it's panic-inducing. How could it not be?

True for all, I think.

I guess it depends on one's culture and upbringing.

I wish I could lay the blame off on them. But I'm sorry to say that when I do wrong, I'm a discredit to my culture and upbringing, not the other way around. I don't really know that there's much more to be said about that approach, though. 'To me it's obviously not as good as never doing wrong would be. And that being the case, it's equally obviously better than never admitting to it.

That's pretty limited-value as a monologue, granted. And boring, too. But I guess my hope is that it still just might go somewhere someday..

/iwasnotsomuchraisedaslowered

Nordic wrote:But, before you get to that rather interesting quote, you get this:

On Tuesday, WPTV caught up with Tracy, who also doubts the official versions President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks and the mass shooting at a theater in Aurora, Colorado last year.

And this from a supposedly "progressive" news source.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that statement would be interpreted as prejudicial against the professor by most readers of The Raw Story. In fact, I found the entire article fairly objective on the whole, and uncommitted on the veracity of his claims. I say that with no joy, though, because when I look at the article on Tracy's blog I find the same warmed-over leftovers I've seen ever since it became clear that the Connecticut police had made the decision not to release high-quality photographs of the children's corpses to the general public.

I lean toward Aurora, Sandy Hook and a few others being part of a connected series...if not as well, Giffords, VT Tech, Omaha mall, etc.
Not sure if it's black ops, *really* black ops(occult) or just some undefinable synchronicity but they seem connected.
Sometimes there just is no provable evidence, you just have a hunch. But a favored tactic seems to be making sure there is only the single guy or cell of men
blamed for it as far as surface visible evidence.

8bitagent wrote:I lean toward Aurora, Sandy Hook and a few others being part of a connected series...if not as well, Giffords, VT Tech, Omaha mall, etc.
Not sure if it's black ops, *really* black ops(occult) or just some undefinable synchronicity but they seem connected.
Sometimes there just is no provable evidence, you just have a hunch. But a favored tactic seems to be making sure there is only the single guy or cell of men
blamed for it as far as surface visible evidence.

Undoubtably, they are connected. The question is always what is the nature of the connection. At the very minimum, they are the product of the same social conditions. At the very most, they are part of some wilful plan. Currently, and until I see better evidence, I lean toward the social conditions explanation as sufficient.

barracuda wrote: Some ideas are deserving of mockery within the scope of a reasoned discussion.

As long as we keep firmly in mind, of course, that the mockery is of the ideas, rather than of the people who hold them. And as long as our discourse makes that obvious.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/the_wor ... heory_yet/

fyi

DrVolin wrote:As long as we keep firmly in mind, of course, that the mockery is of the ideas, rather than of the people who hold them. And as long as our discourse makes that obvious.

Oh, darn it.

Geogeo wrote…

I can compile these links and post if folks or interested, or not, whatever.

Thanks but I think I’ll take a pass; this conspiracy stuff is not really my cup of tea.

However you would do me a favor to check out the Mechanics of Power thread, maybe there we could ‘talk’ in a less inflammatory context.

cuda wrote...

Some ideas are deserving of mockery within the scope of a reasoned discussion.

But mine was not an idea, it was a request for folk to look at a you-tube. What does serve as ‘proper’ evidence cuda? Anyway it’s fine that you refuse to look at the tape. Others will and they can add or discount it as evidence as they see fit.

You know what I consider childish? Watching a low rez YouTube video 5000 miles away from the scene of a murder and without taking the slightest advantage of one's critical faculties continuing to smugly proffer the absurd theory that these murders didn't happen at all, and that the families and the victims are all part of some simulated event. Dispensing once and for all with the notion that the victims are still alive here may allow the discussion to proceed with examinations of actual issues of conspiracy minus the idiotic sidetracking and copy-paste fantasy speculation we can find anywhere on the paranoid web.

continuing to smugly proffer the absurd theory that these murders didn't happen at all, and that the families and the victims are all part of some simulated event.

Continuing—seems a bit preemptive cuda.

And what’s with the plural, 'murders didn’t happen at all'. I didn’t even ‘say’ that one murder didn’t happen. I simply pointed out a thing that looks hinky and now I think that my beliefs color my perceptions a good bit less than yours do, given your beliefs about my beliefs that you claim are so smugly offered.

The word families, plural is nowhere stated or implied. Please supply reference if you think otherwise.

Who said that the murders didn’t happen at all?

I expect to continue to wonder what you think of as being ‘examinations of actual issues of conspiracy’.

And yes Jack there may always be tension between the skeptics and the speculators, but you guys are just rude.

For my dime, folk do not add to their credibility when they go hyperbolic.

DrVolin wrote...

As long as we keep firmly in mind, of course, that the mockery is of the ideas, rather than of the people who hold them. And as long as our discourse makes that obvious.

Oh never mind.

DrVolin wrote:

8bitagent wrote:I lean toward Aurora, Sandy Hook and a few others being part of a connected series...if not as well, Giffords, VT Tech, Omaha mall, etc.
Not sure if it's black ops, *really* black ops(occult) or just some undefinable synchronicity but they seem connected.
Sometimes there just is no provable evidence, you just have a hunch. But a favored tactic seems to be making sure there is only the single guy or cell of men
blamed for it as far as surface visible evidence.

Undoubtably, they are connected. The question is always what is the nature of the connection. At the very minimum, they are the product of the same social conditions. At the very most, they are part of some wilful plan. Currently, and until I see better evidence, I lean toward the social conditions explanation as sufficient.

Right, and again I have no real formation as toward what the heck is going on. Certainly the 1986-early 2000's phenomenon of postal shootings all had connections(a lot of which was extremely abusive work environments)
All of these 2007-2012 mass shootings we've discussed happened with friendless isolated guys 19-24 years old. In each case they either self terminated when they figured they shot enough people, or they calmly waited for the cops, as if in some sort of trance or daze(according to accounts) All of them showed high intelligence and explored very curious intellectual exploration(Holmes with his advanced psychology, Loughner with exploring the programming of language, etc)

you know, if a bunch of theoretically respectable ignoramuses can get away with running around saying "cutting taxes actually raises revenue" and the whole rest of the right-wing mind-fuck games, the mainstream media can't really be surprised if some other members of the selective-reality community want to say no children died, or other shit.

I actually expected the crazy-spin on this would have been that lanza evanded the kill team in his home and then raced to the school to try to stop the real shooters, but got heroically killed in the effort... I guess this 'no kids died' or whatever thing is even better since no doubt all the dead have long paper trails behind them that proves not only their existence, but the current lack of ongoing metabolic processes.

Sounder wrote:But mine was not an idea,

It wasn't much of an idea, I'll grant you that:

Sounder wrote:the next picture has Emilie Parker... shortly after having been murdered.

I expect to continue to wonder what you think of as being ‘examinations of actual issues of conspiracy’.

Oh, I'd say there's a lot going on here once you get past the same old lameness, some of which has to do with the manipulation of the news cycle to create confusion in regard to the details of these crimes. We continue to see the destabilizing effects of crimes like this magnified through the treatment of the release of information from law enforcement and the general much-commented-upon ineptness of the press. The hidden players in power don't have to cause shit like this to happen, they can easily play upon the emotions of the news-saturated populace to provoke near-panic, distrust among the citizens towards each other, simultaneous demands for both more guns and gun control laws, questions about "mental health", and even further antipathy between the citizens and the government simply by providing a raft of bad information upon which to float any and all theories and concerns. All these issues wind up helping the politicians and their money-men in the long run, providing set after set of issues with which to swing vote blocs and ultimately disenfranchise various groups of people, and much joy is felt across certain swaths of the land.

The parallels to Brabant make sense, but they don't need to fake a massacre or false flag us to do this. All things considered, between the actions of the government and the mannerism of its people, America is likely the most violent nation the world has ever seen. In the realm of personal anecdote, even in the fairly sedate environs of my own life, I've been caught in the midst of two gun fights myself. I've known killers, assassins and psychopaths. I had a very good friend who'd killed four men, two with his bare hands; another, who died shooting it out with police in a barricaded house having taken his own father hostage; another, less close but more poignant, killed double digits with knives in service of his country and never got right with it. And I could go on. They were all young men in their early to mid twenties, like Lanza, like Loughner, like Holmes. I recognize those guys, to an extent. They remind me of people.

It strikes me now as I write this that what I'm saying is that I've known a few serial/mass killers-at-large. I never really saw them that way before. I guess I romanticized them into something I could deal with. I always saw them as victims.

And that was in my relative youth - it's many times worse now. America trains you to kill in so many little ways. I don't trip too hard on the lack of motive in Newtown, because I'm familiar with the impulse: right there is where I felt I was wronged, and right there is a gun, like a horse and carriage.

If most folks haven't had these kinds of experiences, it's a bit of a surprise to me, and they're lucky for that. I'm a pretty ordinary person in most ways. Maybe if I hadn't been through all that it would seem more obvious to me that these events are all staged. And, like yourself, I see the seemingly ceaseless killing going on under the imperial auspices ridiculously overshadowed by the local horrors visited upon Fairfield County in the guise of a man described by a maddeningly sparse biography and as unlikely an ID photo as you're like to come across, in many ways tailor made for the story, in other ways completely out of place, any place. No one seems to have known him but his mother, and she's not available for interviews any more than the dead of our wars or the parents of the dead children.

I suspect Lanza had a rich online life, even if we haven't been granted many details of his existence there. Handy with computers, living in his mother's basement, he must have spent hours making friends and gaming acquaintances much like we talk to each other here, much like people do all 'round these days. It shows a measure of the true anonymity that is carried by online lives that these environments have proven largely inaccessible to journalists - the details are probably known only to those granted open access to such files, the cyber survelliance crews that surely have their ways to track his machines and trace him around the net. They know what he was doing, but they're not talking either. Why should they when staying mum creates so many lively diversions? His online friends may have some clues, but maybe they're not sure who he was or sure of much else. Or maybe even that stuff is as opaque as the rest of it all when it comes to explaining what happened to folks who've never seen anyone frustrated enough or blasé enough to kill. Like I said before, there's really no justification that could possibly satisfy anyway. They say about inexplicable madmen that they suddenly snap, but I don't think it's like that. I think they plan idly, then maybe not so idly, then one day they're just ready and it's all mapped out and seems like as reasonable a thing to do as another.

It's idle speculation, sure. And maybe it's mainstream and doesn't fall under "actual issues of conspiracy" per se, but weirdness, yeah, and horror. Is it somehow worth any more than wondering why the sister wears the same dress in the photos? I don't know - I can imagine any number of perfectly reasonable ideas why they'd share that dress. It's a pretty dress, and it belonged to the dead child. Maybe it was a gesture of remembrance by the mother to bring her little girl's memory to meet the president in the form of the hand-me-down. Maybe she thought it would have pleased her dead daughter to have her favorite dress on her sister for the occasion. Maybe the little girl really wanted to put it on. And maybe it was just the best dress the newly-eldest sister had around to wear.

But yeah, I think you quickly run up against the limit of your ability to really know anything concrete about what you read about and have to make some decisions about how to proceed. I decided Emily Parker's really dead. I can't justify that decision in any non-maudlin, proof of concept way that doesn't rely on my sympathies for complete strangers and sources we all consider compromised. I'm not there. But that was the decision I made rather than creating the pageantry of a farcical sham incident radiating out from the supposition of her survival and running with it.

Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. It just kinda got my hackles up when you started fishing an idea I thought we'd dealt with rather thoroughly a few dozen pages back. You know that thing when a bad notion seems to rise again and again from the dead yet never really grows any new flesh on the bone, never really adds any more flavor to the soup, and you feel like you have to strike it down all over again before it picks up momentum, because if you don't that's all that might be left? Well, maybe you don't, but I do, goddamit.

cuda wrote...

Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. It just kinda got my hackles up when you started fishing an idea I thought we'd dealt with rather thoroughly a few dozen pages back. You know that thing when a bad notion seems to rise again and again from the dead yet never really grows any new flesh on the bone, never really adds any more flavor to the soup, and you feel like you have to strike it down all over again before it picks up momentum, because if you don't that's all that might be left? Well, maybe you don't, but I do, goddamit.

No hard feelings here cuda, that was an awesome response.

I should pay better attention to my sloppy word usage.

I looked at this thread more closely only as the prior post was being made. So maybe I missed the part where the Emilie question was dealt with. (Later) I looked again, though this stuff is less appealing the more I look and I still don’t see it.

Perhaps I will do best to re-retire from this aspect of dancing with the impressions in my head.

All of us have our perceptions colored by our beliefs. It seems to be a sloppy business getting to authentic representations of any given perception.

Best of luck to all folk that are trying to 'get behind the scene'.

Funny thing is, I have some of the greatest respect for a few people here that seem to take a decidedly negative attitude toward pretty much everything I may present.

This world sure is puzzling.