[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Also, it appeared to me that you haven’t seriously looked into it and that your entire post was a speculation-criticism designed to say that it wasn’t worth looking into
Did I misunderstand? Set me straight please[/quote]
If you can find something wrong with the substance of my criticism, show me and I will respond.[/quote]
I did. I pointed out that your criticism had no real substance
You said that a conspiracy would necessarily entail: and then you made a ridiculous listing
I said that your listing was ridiculous and that a conspiracy need not be as on its face ridiculous as you were positing. I then conjured up my own alternate theory (zero evidence of course, BUT) without any of the so called ‘required’ ingredients that you had listed. It was extremely easy… I just couldn’t let it slide, being the whack job that I am
People have a strange tendency to cram conspiracy theories into a weird little box that they can easily set aside. The setting aside doesn’t bother me none, but the weird little boxes do[/quote]
No you didn’t. You babbled something about brainwashing. This is real life, not a Brosnan-era Bond movie.[/quote]
…eh?
Real life?
In this dialog?
Where?
Damn. I guess I was confused about you. You just may be crazier than me, maybe
Now I just said last time that your criticism had no substance. Show me the substance in your criticism and I will see what I can do
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Also, it appeared to me that you haven’t seriously looked into it and that your entire post was a speculation-criticism designed to say that it wasn’t worth looking into
Did I misunderstand? Set me straight please[/quote]
If you can find something wrong with the substance of my criticism, show me and I will respond.[/quote]
All I did was match up your extremely narrow, baseless conspiracy theory against my own extremely broad, baseless conspiracy theory. All I said was that your extremely narrow perspective on it was not the cookie cutter from which all conspiracy theories flow. Other (equally baseless) conspiracy theories can possibly be constructed which do not utilize the exact same ingredients that you said were required. You can’t really disprove all conspiracy theories in a single post
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
The children listed as killed–they had to be real kids. You can’t make up the names of children and then pretend that they’ve been living in a community and attending public school. You can’t bandy the names of fake children and their fake parents about the national airwaves without people in the community stopping and asking, “Wait, has anyone ever heard of these people before?”
So, what happened to the kids then? They’re going to be hidden forever? Going to have to assume new names and new identities? And, since the parents of the children can’t all get up and move away from the town at once, who’s going to be taking care of these children? Surely they aren’t going to be hidden in the basements of their old houses for decades?
What about all of the first responders. All paid off? Or were they tricked with fake blood and fake corpses? If the former: when were they notified of this? How were they notified? Would the planners and executors of one of the most daring cover-ups in American history call a bunch of local cops and EMT’s into a room and say, “hey guys, we’re going to be faking like two dozen deaths here in a month or two. Need you on board. Cool?”
What about the hundreds of neighbors and distant relatives interviewed in the aftermath? Were they in on it, or are they being duped like the rest of us? How is little Jane Doe going to be hidden from Uncle Bob for the rest of her life?
And most importantly: with this army of actors and fakers and bribe-takers, are we to believe that there isn’t a single one among them tempted by the notoriety that he or she would win by blowing the whistle? Not one who got drunk at a holiday party and found it impossible not to let on about an earth-shattering secret of national consequence?
Contending with the above we have the tinfoil-hat crowd–the guy who solved “Lost,” that is–and his bulletproof evidence: a little girl who shares clothing with her sister and a hysterical interviewee who laughed in a moment of grief.
[/quote]
In case someone who is entertaining this “idea” wants to respond.[/quote]
This is the part that started it all between us
There are problems that I see with this post, which I can point out very easily and dispassionately since I have not been following this supposed conspiracy
The major flaw - I point out again, is right here in the opening line
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail: [/quote] Again - you cannot disprove all conspiracy theories in a single post. You can consider/ignore them on a case by case basis as they come, accept all, ignore all, consider all… I am not sure if I have expended all possibilities
The most interesting thing about this post is that I cannot tell if you are ignoring the “idea” or actually considering it. Actually I am pretty sure that you are only considering it enough to where you and/or others might be satisfied with ignoring it. That’s all fine. But what is being considered and what is being ignored? Do they match piece by piece?
No
In other words, your analysis itself is flawed
I see a lot of times people will analyze A B and C.
And then conclude that D and E are obviously false[/quote]
“I think the government faked Sandy Hook. I think all the parents were paid actors and no children died.”
This is what gave birth to my list of questions. Those questions are entirely apropos in that they illuminate the unfailing ability of the nutjob to disregard the improbability of his pet canard.