Obviously not, if Congressmans_wife thinks the "2010 photo" statement referred to the photo of Obama with the children. At least I think that's what they're saying.Originally Posted by Unregistered
Obviously not, if Congressmans_wife thinks the "2010 photo" statement referred to the photo of Obama with the children. At least I think that's what they're saying.
I know this family personally and have for years, they are real people, Emilie was killed in this horrible tragedy. I'm absolutely shocked that people could even believe these crazy conspiracy stories. All the photos after the shooting are of her two younger sisters, all beautiful girls.
This poor family had just lost their dad in September in a freak accident during the LOTOJA bike race. They have been through so much, I think they ran out of tears and coped with this horrible event in any way they could.
Please extend my thoughts and prayers for them and the other families and friends effected by this horror. I am shocked that some folks will ignore the facts so they can twist the story to fit their own agendas or their own desire for 'fame'.
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
oh god, reading the insane conspiracy theorists' posts in this thread and elsewhere.
my only response to you sick, sick [people]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ebanS7YL6V4
the world is becoming a scarier and scarier place every single day it seems. why should anybody even be able to trust anybody else anymore with the sort of "logic" you [people] possess? i can only hope that some of you aren't serious and are just parodying real nutjobs or "trolling" or something. christ.
Last edited by Mick; March 16th, 2013 at 08:32 PM. Reason: [politeness] (somewhat)
Much as I am sickened by the US use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and wherever else, it's plain bonkers to suggest that 'millions' have been killed. It's somewhere over 4,000 at the moment. You can read the list of all the children who died in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen at http://droneswatch.org/page/5/ (scroll down to the January 20, 2013 mark).
The plural of anecdote is not data
Mick, I've always considered your politeness policy to be sensible enough, but I've only read as far as half way down the 2nd page before having to stop before I get banned for some serious verbal abuse.
Some of the comments, by anonymous unregistered guests (of course), are genuinely sickening. I think I'm feeling some actual despair. What sad, sad, pathetic people. I don't know how you manage to stay calm, to be honest. I'm off to read something else before I punch the screen ...
The plural of anecdote is not data
I agree. This has been the one topic that has been hardest for me to remain polite about. Many of the suggestions make me genuinely angry. However some of the people making them actually believe in them. There are some people who believe that we live in a "matrix" of entirely fake newscasts. They are a tiny tiny minority, and so fringe that they generally can be ignored. Indeed it's probably best to ignore this type of story, because it's so crazy that it's unlikely to convince anyone, and the people who DO believe it are not the type of people who listen to reason.
The only reason I give them any time is that the "Sandy Hook was fake" story got a lot of mainstream attention, and was exposed to a broader audience who only see beguiling fragments of the picture, and have questions. Hopefully the debunkings here will help settle the minds of people who were briefly frightened.
Alhazred The Sane (March 27th, 2013)
Yay, you're not a robot!
At least the ones who maintain 'second gunman' or hit squad themes acknowledge that there was very real suffering caused; even though it is positing a vile situation without much evidence other than pathological suspicion of governments.
Edit.
The same tendency to cry 'fake' over extreme suffering is evident in the recent random shooting of a baby in front of its mother. People immediately questioned her truthfulness and on-camera composure in interviews.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread934995/pg1
Last edited by Pete Tar; March 27th, 2013 at 12:09 PM.
"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."
Please debunk this one as well cause it makes me sweat thinking what may happen to my kids while they're at school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8
So the question is, why is the father smiling and then struggling to look sad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMINqFGNr-w
Last edited by Chemx; Yesterday at 08:25 AM.
If you want people to debunk things for you, please
A) Pick one claim of evidence that you think is most compelling or important
B) Look for existing explanations on the internet
C) Explain what you feel is missing from the existing explanations.
This is the one: why is the father smiling and then struggling to look sad?
It's a reaction to grief. He's not "struggling to look sad", he is sad, devastated. Read the various personal accounts in this thread:
http://metabunk.org/threads/1078-Deb...t-Enough-Tears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_laughter
"Nervous laughter is a physical reaction to stress, tension, confusion, or anxiety. Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran states "We have nervous laughter because we want to make ourselves think what horrible thing we encountered isn't really as horrible as it appears, something we want to believe." Those are the most embarrassing times, too, naturally.[1] Psychologist and neuroscientist Robert Provine, from the University of Maryland, studied over 1,200 "laughter episodes" and determined that 80% of laughter isn't a response to an intentional joke.[2]Unhealthy or "nervous" laughter comes from the throat. This nervous laughter is not true laughter, but an expression of tension and anxiety. Instead of relaxing a person, nervous laughter tightens them up even further. Much of this nervous laughter is produced in times of high emotional stress, especially during times where an individual is afraid they might harm another person in various ways, such as a person's feelings or even physically"
Would be nice to know why he was all smiles before he started speaking to the camera. And also would be great if they posted Death Certificates for all the deceased. If they got nothing to hide, they will.
What about that is not explained by the accounts in the thread I referenced?
Maybe someone had told him a really funny joke?? As to the Death Certificates are they not on Public Record? If so you could order copies rather than just speculate.
Edit to add apparently not, but I presume there is a death register of sorts.
Last edited by Biggerdave; Yesterday at 10:39 AM.
Maybe baby? Maybe rock? The joke must have been about how he as an actor wouldn't have to pay child support for the third (deceased) child if he laughed all the way through his speech (and his wife divorced him after that). I've never seen anyone sane saying jokes at such events or smiling nor telling jokes to others. The guy was swallowing his laugh and trying to come up with some tears. He must have been a bad father. If my daughter was killed I would have avoided the media and especially the smiles.
I'm taking my kids out of this country, A S A P.
Regarding Death Certificates, they won't allow the public seeing the DC of SH victims for some reason:
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_23302362/connecticut-bill-would-limit-public-access-records-sandy
Last edited by Chemx; Yesterday at 11:05 AM.
Then you clearly have not read the thread I linked to that provided several examples of this.
How are you able to predict how you will behave in the future? May I suggest that you read the thread that Mick has linked you to. From a personal perspective I have seen all sorts of reactions to death and the only conclusion I can come to is "there is nowt so queer as folk" (that's a Yorkshire saying)
I run out of time as I'm very busy working, but do quote something on here to save my time.
I have done a little search and I have found the piece of legislation you are talking about HB 5733.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ASP/CGABILLSTA...ill_num=HB5733
I have been reading around the detail but I came across some details about the issue of death certificates. It would seem that short certificates can be issued which do state the cause of death.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013HB...R000585-BA.htm
SHORT FORMS AND CERTIFICATES
Current law allows anyone age 18 or older to request and receive a certified copy of a death certificate less than 100 years old. Instead, the bill requires town clerks and the Department of Public Health to issue a short form to requestors unless the person is (1) listed on the certificate (e. g. , the funeral director, embalmer, conservator, physician, or town clerk); (2) the surviving spouse or next of kin; (3) a researcher; (4) an authorized state or federal agency; or (5) in need of the certificate to determine or protect a personal or property right.
For the people ineligible to receive a short form, the bill does not explicitly authorize but appears to allow them to receive a certified copy.
Under the bill, the short form must include only the decedent's name and gender as well as the cause, date, and place of death. A person issued a short form is prohibited from accessing any other information in the death certificate.
So once this is sorted fill your boots and order some copies,
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks