Fuck off. What are you even expecting?

Are there actually any videos of students that seem like they actually saw someone get shot for real? Cause I've taught students that have been through a real school shooting, and what I've seen just doesn't pass muster. Especially the mouthpiece kids.

Removed. Rule 10.

Don't know if this is any use to you but some cctv came out yesterday

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5506357/Newly-released-CCTV-shows-school-officer-outside-massacre.html

Lol I don't give a shit if you don't believe it mate

It shows a few angles of the deputy "reacting" and getting in a cart to go somewhere. He goes somewhere, and the camera changes a couple times. By 1:00, it is done showing different angles, and it's just a sidewalk. If you look closely, behind the pole, there's a guy standing there and waving his arm. Does not look alarmed.

Video doesn't show anything

Become a journalist and you can travel to all these places and find out yourself

I guess that depends on what form of evidence you are comfortable with believing in lieu of physically being there.

So basically just video proof of the shooting and aftermath? There are police reports and medical reports, but I assume you would reject those as possible forgery's or lies.

Btw, I'm not the one down voting your comments, I just wanted to get that out of the way. I feel like downvoting in a thread I'm taking part in is fucking retarded.

On to your question, I'm not of the opinion that mass shootings are faked. Through cursory research of prior shootings, there has never been evidence that I have found to support that idea. I don't have the motivation to go combing through every shooting to see whether or not it was faked, for various reasons. Also, outside of clear video evidence, there is nothing that could be found on the internet that would sway me to believe this, or any, shooting was faked. At the end of the day, if the video of the shooting was to be posted online, those are children being killed, and I can understand why people wouldn't want that to be on the internet for all to see.

"Cursory research" haha how cursory? Sandy Hook was a clear hoax for anyone who did even 1 hour of honest research.

Of you have video proof?

Haha of people planting dead bodies or what? What kind of video besides official footage do you need? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence presented does not sufficiently support the claim that Lanza killed kids at Sandy Hook.

Is there a nice neat packaged evidence debunker I could watch/read backed with sources?

I wish research was as easy as asking one person for a full analysis, including a summary of evidence and citations.

It usually is seeing how other people are more passionate than I am about Sandy Hook or conspiracy in general. If you want to convince people Sandy Hook was staged, then you have to put forth the effort that others are not willing.

It sounds like you're just making excuses for not going to look up the information yourself. But the great thing about life is that nobody will force you to do anything. You can do whatever you want, so if that doesn't involve researching Sandy Hook, then you've made your decision.

In not making an excuse. Im saying I don't care enough to look into it further bc if there was decent evidence that it never happened people would be screaming at the top of their lungs about it. This tells me that the "evidence" is just more ancedotal bullshit "evidence" that could have multiple explanations and has been fit into a narrative to explain your confirmation bias.

That's a false line of reasoning though. It assumes that nobody is screaming at the top of their lungs about t, which is not true, and secondly you're appealing to some notion that you need to hear it from official sources like the news or some 20/20 investigation. It's not going to come from those sources. If you do the research, you'll find testimony from experts in forensics, law, and education and public safety. Just because they aren't ring paraded around the evening news doesn't mean they aren't making valid conclusions.

Ok, but you are saying we have experts in all of those areas that were at the school directly after the shooting saying that the shooting did not take place? Or do you have experts mulling over paperwork and videos trying to find out what happened second hand. Was there anybody that was there that day that says a shooting never took place?

I'll look at the video and see what I can see

Wait so you think they managed to somehow kill the kids of these parents and then use their bodies for an elaborate fake?

I mean these kids went to school there, people knew them, people knew the parents. It's simply impossible that it was faked.

Btw, I'm not the one down voting your comments, I just wanted to get that out of the way. I feel like downvoting in a thread I'm taking part in is fucking retarded.

Right on.

Also, outside of clear video evidence, there is nothing that could be found on the internet that would sway me to believe this, or any, shooting was faked.

Is there clear video evidence that any shooting is real? I’d love to see it if you have it.

If there isn’t then you should consider why your standard of proof for a faked shooting is so much higher than for accepting a “real” one.

Is it possible you’ve been conditioned to trust and accept what you are told by the news?

There was pretty clear evidence the Kennedy shooting was real, but there is still a conspiracy behind that. Vegas shooting looked pretty real, but there is still a conspiracy behind that.

Now I'm aware that there are other conspiracies behind those shootings other than were the real, but that is exactly how conspiracy minded people work. The find a place where they cannot necessarily be disproved and start going full tilt on the conspiracy theories.

Now I think you have me a little wrong on your last sentence, I don't trust the news by any stretch, but that doesn't mean I assume everything they say is a lie. I don't go around saying Parkland Shooting was a lie, bc there isn't any hard proof that I can use in my argument. Also, the ramifications of me saying that, without hard proof, is worse than just simply not taking part in discussion about it.

There was pretty clear evidence the Kennedy shooting was real

I used to think that too.

Vegas shooting looked pretty real

Not to me.

I don't trust the news by any stretch, but that doesn't mean I assume everything they say is a lie.

Have you ever wondered what is the point of the news? How important are the stories to your daily life? How does it enrich you?

News has a very clear purpose, which is obvious when honestly examined. If a story isn’t outright entertainment then it’s agenda-pushing propaganda.

Wait. These two shootings have video evidence of being dying being killed, and you do not believe they are real?

These two shootings have video evidence of being dying being killed

Please post links, and if you don’t mind please also explain which part(s) of the video convinced you. A time stamp is always helpful.

you do not believe they are real?

Vegas: no. It was a made for TV hoax, I have seen no clear evidence any live rounds were fired, let alone anyone or anything being hit by them. It’s one of the more recent in a long line of similar events that rely primarily on media fakery and the audience’s suspension of disbelief.

JFK: I believed he was killed until quite recently, just not the way the media portrayed it. /u/daddie_o put me onto a couple of fascinating long form articles and related links that made me re-evaluate that belief, check his recent comment history to find them.

I now lean towards the idea that JFK’s assassination was faked too.

I'm sure you have seen this video of JFK getting shot the part that is convincing is the part where is dome peals open around the :20 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

Vegas around the :27 mark. If that chick is faking she needs an Emmy. I have seen dead people...she's dead: https://www.bitchute.com/video/v5dpXFUY4iWU/

Now, after looking through the profile of /u/daddie_o I can fully say that you believe everything is a conspiracy as does daddie_o. I saw an link that said Hitler was a gay jewish actor...really? Now it's fun to make shit up like that, but you have lost any credibility I would have given you in this thread as a courtesy. I will more than likely trudge through daddie_o's comment history for fun.

I'm sure you have seen this video of JFK getting shot

The Zapruder film is the least convincing piece of evidence for the official story.

If you look into its own history, when it was released to the public, and all the problems it has then you will soon understand why.

I have seen dead people...she's dead

So have I, and no she isn’t.

In fact, I’m not even sure “she” is an actual person. Training mannequins are quite lifelike now, as are Hollywood moulage effects. Look into the US Army specialist division for setting up scenes just like this.

There happened to be US Army trucks parked right outside the event too. Curious.

you have lost any credibility I would have given you

It’s not about me.

Perhaps it’s time to reconsider if perceived credibility can even help to discern truth.

I came to the realisation that credibility is an incredibly dangerous concept. It creates a false sense of security by minimizing your desire to double check a claim.

Once you start peeling back that onion, you come to realise most of the “fundamental truths” you take for granted every day, things you and everyone else are taught in school, are all grounded on trust in authority, faith and other such fuzzy feelings.

The people in charge would be grateful if you continue to believe things based on credibility.

Evidence and claims always stand on their own merit until disproven, regardless of the “credibility” of the person (re)stating them.

We are at an impasse. You genuinely believe everything is a conspiracy. Hypothetical for you, if I attended the concert that was shot up in las vegas, and I told you it was real based off what I witnessed, would you have a retort to how what I saw was an elaborate mock up, but ultimately fake? I feel like that is the direction you are going.

None of the evidence you have on any of these conspiracies hold any weight. People connect dots that are not there. You don't take into consideration that people make mistakes. That people say the wrong shit. I assume this bridge that fell in Florida is a fake cover up for something else? The official narrative is almost always going to be riddled with mistakes, and even lies, but that doesn't mean it is a part of a much bigger overarching conspiracy.

I mean there are no "US Army specialist division" that set up scenes. That doesn't exist. Where is the evidence of that? Also, what US Army truck was parked outside of the concert? Why would they use actual Army vehicles that could easily be identified as such? Why have a branch of the Army that sets up scenes, when you could have a branch of special ops, or a completely different part of the government that has nothing to do with the Army? That has no markings.

You genuinely believe everything is a conspiracy.

On what do you base that?

Hypothetical for you...

I'd ask you to prove it, because I do not assume claims posted anonymously on the internet come from trustworthy or reliable eyewitnesses.

None of the evidence you have on any of these conspiracies hold any weight.

Can you be more specific? Which evidence did I post where you take issue?

I mean there are no "US Army specialist division" that set up scenes. That doesn't exist. Where is the evidence of that?

http://www.militarymoulage.com/ was the very first link when I searched for "US Army moulage". Did my "perceived credibility" lead you to skip this rudimentary fact check?

Why Why Why etc

I don't know "why". To speculate on a motive is a waste of energy. In any case, the "what" is more important when it comes to evidence. What is it, what does it show, what does it prove?

I've had no trouble ruling out all explanations put forward to date (except for "it was a hoax") simply by judging the evidence objectively and ignoring what the media tells me to think about it.

In the absence of any compelling evidence to support the original claims of a mass shooting, numerous gunshot wounds and 58 deaths, then those claims are false.

It was a general statement based on what you have told me so far. What even do you think is real? Give me a few examples.

The question was a thought experiment to prove a point. And it was meant to be a person to person meeting. The real question is, what if I was a part of an event that you or someone else put forth a mountain of evidence to say it was staged or faked, only to see I had irrefutable proof that it wasn't?

The evidence in a jfk post saying he wasn't killed. It was daddie_o's post, but you pointed me to it.

Those people are make up artists not army personnel. And I have actually trained with these scenarios, and talked to people that did the makeup. It's a waste of money if you ask me, but malicious makeup artists faking a shooting? You are stretching it.

Your conclusion is based on armchair evidence. You are already wrong about the military having a specialist division for setting up scenes.

What even do you think is real?

Things I can personally verify with an unbroken chain of evidence leading to a primary source, or from sources I have personally vetted.

Consensus, popularity, capability, credibility... all meaningless in terms of truth. Unpick those terms to their roots to understand what I mean.

I assure you, the few claims I’ve alluded to in this thread can be verified, whether you choose to investigate further or not. It’s how I discovered most of it myself.

I’m personally not a fan of spoonfeeding answers, I think it’s far more convincing (and rewarding) to offer a prompt and let curious minds take the initiative themselves.

If you choose to end the journey there, that’s cool too. This stuff is hard to swallow, and I don’t personally mind what you or anyone else believes.

I would like an example of something you have researched and found out the narrative that was being driven was the truth. I'm talking small. Your weather app says it's 75 degrees out and you have a local thermometer that backs that up. Your neighbor said you were getting new trashcans, and it happened. Your waitress said she was going to bring you the check and she actually did. How do you know the food you are eating is really what the package says it is? How do you know you are putting gasoline in your car? Why do you trust your research as apposed to those who were actually at the event that took place? I'm just trying to get a basis for how you think. I don't understand it to be honest.

You have a point. Epistemology is a tricky subject, and it becomes so nebulously philosophical after a certain point it becomes rather silly.

Reductio ad absurdum - one of the classic logical fallacies, incidentally.

A reductive epistemological framework isn’t necessary for things like the food I’m eating because I can already make sense of it, or in the case of the actual temperature or what’s actually going into my car’s gas tank, it doesn’t matter if I can’t.

I do prefer knowing what I’m eating; I avoid processed food and when I eat out it’s in restaurants where I can see the kitchen staff working.

My culinary preferences won’t get to the heart of what you’re asking for, though, and that is for me to satisfactorily fill the gaps left behind if one rejects the official narrative.

I don’t have all the answers. Accepting that is part of the learning curve. Rejecting the false without demanding the true. It’s hard, because we humans do love a good story to fill awkward gaps in the narrative.

That doesn’t mean I can’t identify bullshit when I see it though.

Why do you trust your research as apposed to those who were actually at the event that took place?

The problem is, the people representing these events on TV are obviously stage managed and cannot be trusted. Just “being there” isn’t nearly enough to qualify their accounts.

After hundreds of hours (no exaggeration) of researching characters and claims from these events over the years, I’ve yet to find even one example whose trail doesn’t abruptly and suspiciously end.

Media fakery is the only rational explanation tying it all together. The events are scripted, they have a limited cast, the people on screen are also (mostly) acting, the ‘physical evidence’ is just props.

We're the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan faked in your opinion?

All wars are faked, but that is not the same as saying "nothing happens". Clearly there needs to be enough of a show to have the appearance of real conflict. Explosions, destruction, some inevitable deaths and injuries along the way.

But nothing like the chaos and ruin we are fed by the media.

Events resembling the common definition of "war" are not nations fighting one another. It's all planned, outcomes are known in advance and the media narrates the storyline, wittingly or unwittingly, until the ending.

This goes back much further than Iraq and Afghanistan too. The extent of the deception we all live under is almost unfathomable.

To what end? Why "fake" wars? Do soldiers fake wars? Are they playing a role like a character?

Useful idiots, like almost everyone else. Most people believe the play is real.

It is real for many people, and if there was a group of elites running the show and having wars to simply profit, not many of the pieces involved would know.

Bingo.

Your exhaustive back and forth with agent bart2278 is admirable but a complete waste of your time, which is part of the goal.

As Marshall McLuhan is quoted as saying, "“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.”

As for anyone reading this far and incredulously mocking the assertion that Hitler was gay and Jewish: well, mainstream historians have shown convincingly that he was indeed gay.

There has also been a partial admission from the mainstream that Hitler had some Jewish roots, but this paper here offers a lot more evidence.

All that may be somewhat beside the point, since it appears that more than one person played the 'role' of Hitler over the years, so it's anybody's guess who the "real" Hitler was.

Lol that this is a new one for me. So the theory here is that Hitler did not exist and there was no real Hitler, only a series of actors?

Do you realize how rediculous that is?

Yes, I realize how ridiculous it sounds. But the thing that is truly ridiculous is your unwillingness to analyze the evidence.

I fail to see any evidence.

Hitler had body doubles for security reasons if that's what you are referring to.

The fact is Hitler existed and it would require a large amount of evidence to claim otherwise.

You fail to see because you fail to look.

Okay maybe post some then and enlighten us.

I did. See the links above

No you did not. You shared an image showing pics of him across time and talking about his body double.

There's a couple vids taken by students inside the school on live leak you could check out

There have been presentations of highly implausible recoveries from severe bullet wounds discussed here.

I don't have any doubt that a shooting took place (I searched Google for funeral home pages of some of the deceased, it's real) what I don't believe is that it was just this one kid (or him at all) I think there is some shady stuff going on in Broward County's sheriff department. I bet it was one of the cops in there shooting up the place. Why? I don't know. Have you seen the group on twitter exposing the sheriff department's collusion with the schools to "not arrest any kids" so they could get more government money? Did you hear about the two SWAT officers that were fired for going into the building?

The lack of evidence is what makes people that say "this is a false flag but can't be a hoax" very sketchy. You basically have to take someone like David Hogg's word for it. Considering he is pushing an over the top controlled agenda that would be a very naive thing to do.

I'm sure you have seen this video of JFK getting shot

The Zapruder film is the least convincing piece of evidence for the official story.

If you look into its own history, when it was released to the public, and all the problems it has then you will soon understand why.

I have seen dead people...she's dead

So have I, and no she isn’t.

In fact, I’m not even sure “she” is an actual person. Training mannequins are quite lifelike now, as are Hollywood moulage effects. Look into the US Army specialist division for setting up scenes just like this.

There happened to be US Army trucks parked right outside the event too. Curious.

you have lost any credibility I would have given you

It’s not about me.

Perhaps it’s time to reconsider if perceived credibility can even help to discern truth.

I came to the realisation that credibility is an incredibly dangerous concept. It creates a false sense of security by minimizing your desire to double check a claim.

Once you start peeling back that onion, you come to realise most of the “fundamental truths” you take for granted every day, things you and everyone else are taught in school, are all grounded on trust in authority, faith and other such fuzzy feelings.

The people in charge would be grateful if you continue to believe things based on credibility.

Evidence and claims always stand on their own merit until disproven, regardless of the “credibility” of the person (re)stating them.