Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Floppin

Floppin's Sandy Hook Thread - You knew it was coming.

402 posts in this topic

to be clear, i don't think there's anything wrong with any of that

that being said, every mass murder/terrorist attack/whatever is going to lead to conflicting reports and conflicting eyewitness accounts, neither of which is some sort of smoking gun or even particularly relevant in the grand scheme

That's also one of the things that fuels these types of fires. People are always going to accuse the official story of being manufactured to explain away those inconvenient things that they didn't want getting out that did.

For everything that you want to explain away as bad eyewitness accounts, other people aren't so readily able to just shrug it off the shoulders.

It's just the nature of the beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to be more clear, having you tell me that all the inconsistencies are just "bad reporting" or "bad eyewitnesses" doesn't really mean anything.

Because that's just you filling in the narrative how you want to, for yourself. I'm going to need a little more proof than you just wanting to believe that these things that people said that they saw, didn't actually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the poor quality of eyewitnesses has been studied. witnesses in high stress environments are p unreliable. yes, there's always a chance that they could be right on the money this time, but it's not particularly reasonable to ask why no one's following up on them, since it requires that we first know that their reports weren't investigated (something we do not know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the poor quality of eyewitnesses has been studied. witnesses in high stress environments are p unreliable. yes, there's always a chance that they could be right on the money this time, but it's not particularly reasonable to ask why no one's following up on them, since it requires that we first know that their reports weren't investigated (something we do not know)

Indeed. But we aren't talking about one individual report. We are talking about multiple corroborating reports. The more times that the same thing is reported as seen by different people, the greater the odds that it's a factual event.

I have little doubt that they were followed up on. I want to know the results. I want to know what happened to the guy that was handcuffed and drug off. Unless you want to tell me that that didn't really happen, despite all the evidence to the contrary. These are just a few of the questions, as many others have been covered in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also a logical fallacy to dismiss something such as eyewitness testimony out of hand because prior testimony by other people at completely different events has turned out to be faulty.

It's very similar to attacking the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also a logical fallacy to dismiss something such as eyewitness testimony out of hand because prior testimony by other people at completely different events has turned out to be faulty.

It's very similar to attacking the messenger.

Especially when the eyewitness accounts are provided so quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to be more clear, having you tell me that all the inconsistencies are just "bad reporting" or "bad eyewitnesses" doesn't really mean anything.

Because that's just you filling in the narrative how you want to, for yourself. I'm going to need a little more proof than you just wanting to believe that these things that people said that they saw, didn't actually happen.

and since you don't have that proof, you'll go ahead and believe the conspiracy theories?

it's not like you're filling in your own narrative or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so where are we on the 2nd shooter? did he exist or not? and msm links that clear this out or are there still loose ends on him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so where are we on the 2nd shooter? did he exist or not? and msm links that clear this out or are there still loose ends on him?

Nothing that I've seen has made any other mention of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also a logical fallacy to dismiss something such as eyewitness testimony out of hand because prior testimony by other people at completely different events has turned out to be faulty.

It's very similar to attacking the messenger.

i very clearly said that the witnesses could have been "on the money"

what you are doing is very similar to attacking a straw man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      18,321
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    chaz
    Joined
  • Masters of PIE !