SANDY HOOK: Newtown, CT—“School Shooting”: December 14, 2012

[brianv]

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Farcevalue]

Brian V

I am glad you brought this up. I noticed a thread or post by Hoi Polloi recently that dealt with the general ideas of arguing and eliminating contradictions, although I can't find it now.

Perhaps it would be worth establishing a resource that included logic, syllogisms and argumentative fallacies that could be a handy SCF reference for citing shill tactics by their formal designations. Logic and non-contradictory information are precious commodities these days.

[Lazlo]

Re: Brian V

Perhaps it would be worth establishing a resource that included logic, syllogisms and argumentative fallacies that could be a handy SCF reference for citing shill tactics by their formal designations. Logic and non-contradictory information are precious commodities these days.

Why not just get a list from the master liars themselves: Wikapedia?

List of fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[Sisterlover]

Some people believe these 'actors' may be under the influence of mind control, the most famous of which is the Monarch system.

"Conspiracy" fodder.

I'm not sure I'd dismiss the idea (mind control) as a matter of course. If we believe that not all of these scenes are CGI monstrosities, and if we believe that some people are acting the roles, and that these same people (actors) are never available for comment on their acting, then we could also assume that they are doing this most perverse 'job' for some morally bankrupt reason. Most actors (I know a few) are exactly as pompous yet simple as a person could be (don't want to paint them with too broad a brush, but lets call a David Spade a David Spade). I don't think they are capable/smart enough to maintain a secret such as this under intense scrutiny. They just aren't that swift. And then, to maintain that secret for life?

Somewhere on these forums, the great work of David McGowan is mentioned. His Laurel Canyon expose' is very telling as is his serial killer manifesto. Both of which suggest the influence of mind control of the highest order. Henry Lee Lucas and Charles Ng, both mind controlled patsies... the list goes on.

I think what you are suggesting, with the 'logical fallacy' argument, is further exercise of trivium education, or Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. It's a good exercise, and one that avoids the pitfalls of typical discourse/fallacy.
So, for you to suggest that 'conspiracy fodder' is all the answer required for the suggestion of mind control, does that not put the onus on you to prove that it is strictly conspiracy fodder?

Finally, if you don't believe in mind control, how do you explain 300 million dupes believing in a shitty performance such as Sandy Hook?

[brianv]

Somewhere on these forums, the great work of David McGowan is mentioned. His Laurel Canyon expose' is very telling as is his serial killer manifesto. Both of which suggest the influence of mind control of the highest order. Henry Lee Lucas and Charles Ng, both mind controlled patsies... the list goes on.

McGowan, despite his brilliance refuses to touch upon the notion of Fakery, or it simply hasn't dawned on him, and could account for half, if not all, of the events throughout the history of the USA! I happened to catch two minutes of the Simpsons the other night where Homer, I think, joking remarks how a cabal of high level Freemasons FAKED the US War of Independence??

So, for you to suggest that 'conspiracy fodder' is all the answer required for the suggestion of mind control, does that not put the onus on you to prove that it is strictly conspiracy fodder?

Well , I could say conversely, since "Monarch and Mind Control" in the strict sense of "US Secret Government Establishment where individuals are hands-on brainwashed to commit murders and the likes" is in the realms of fancy and Conspiracy Theory , and therefore isn't it incumbent on you and those who promote it to first prove that such a program exists?

I agree with you regarding the TV to a point... Belief in the Media and Mind Control are two different animals in my book, but they do walk hand in hand.

[Sisterlover]

Agreed, Brianv... I'm not entirely convinced of the role of mind control, but it could lend itself to fakery. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive. When I was entirely smitten w/ McGowan's work, I emailed him and inquired of his knowledge of media fakery. I directed him to Hoi's Vicsim report, figuring he'd be all over it. I never did hear back from him, nor do I know if he cared to check it out.

I suppose it's like hypnotism. I've never been hypnotized, nor do I think I would easily fall under the spell of a hypnotist, but apparently there are those who do this work professionally. That's got to be considered mind control, yet never having experienced it first hand, I'm skeptical that it is real.

There is a history of anomalies suggesting the efficacy of mind control, from hypnotists to cult leaders to assassinations (if we are to believe them). I think its a reasonable explanation (until a better one comes along) for gaps in the logic of media fakery that we find ourselves facing from time to time.

[anonjedi2]

Jillian Soto tweets about the shooting at 8:01am the morning of the 14th?

[Sisterlover]

Jillian Soto tweets about the shooting at 8:01am the morning of the 14th?

interesting... and no tweets from her re: shooting since? hmmm....
I suppose they're grieving to much to tweet, yet not so much to yuck it up with Anderson and friends. Total tripe.

[Knapsack]

Jillian Soto tweets about the shooting at 8:01am the morning of the 14th?

I noticed that Tweet timestamps show up in Pacific Standard Time. (Perhaps that's because I'm located on the west coast?)

Anyway, I've noticed many, many Sandy Hook tweets from before 7AM on 12/14. 7AM, of course, would be 10AM in Connecticut. The earliest Sandy Hook-related tweets I have found are stamped around 6:37AM (9:37AM East coast time).

[anonjedi2]

Jillian Soto tweets about the shooting at 8:01am the morning of the 14th?

I noticed that Tweet timestamps show up in Pacific Standard Time. (Perhaps that's because I'm located on the west coast?)

Anyway, I've noticed many, many Sandy Hook tweets from before 7AM on 12/14. 7AM, of course, would be 10AM in Connecticut. The earliest Sandy Hook-related tweets I have found are stamped around 6:37AM (9:37AM East coast time).

I'm in Mountain Time, it still says 8:01 for me. It looks like she has posted on Twitter recently. Here are her 2 latest tweet, photos she posted on January 12th. All smiles for the Soto family, as usual.




On the 10th, a friend posts the Victoria Soto memorial fund:
http://vickisotomemorial.com/Viki_Soto/ ... _Fund.html

Here they are posing with Anderson Cooper (nice shoes, buddy) - "CNN rocked"


Here she is with Obama (allegedly)


She also complains about how this guy who made a video of her sister has his "facts wrong" but she still "loves his overall message"

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peLqWOXlRfQ

[brianv]

Agreed, Brianv... I'm not entirely convinced of the role of mind control, but it could lend itself to fakery. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive. When I was entirely smitten w/ McGowan's work, I emailed him and inquired of his knowledge of media fakery. I directed him to Hoi's Vicsim report, figuring he'd be all over it. I never did hear back from him, nor do I know if he cared to check it out.

I suppose it's like hypnotism. I've never been hypnotized, nor do I think I would easily fall under the spell of a hypnotist, but apparently there are those who do this work professionally. That's got to be considered mind control, yet never having experienced it first hand, I'm skeptical that it is real.

There is a history of anomalies suggesting the efficacy of mind control, from hypnotists to cult leaders to assassinations (if we are to believe them). I think its a reasonable explanation (until a better one comes along) for gaps in the logic of media fakery that we find ourselves facing from time to time.

I'm not entirely convinced of the role of mind control, but it could lend itself to fakery. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Military Grade Actors versus Under the Spell of a Magician. I think I'll stick with the former.

Could you expand on the blue text? Which gaps in logic?

[anonjedi2]

Carlee Soto's Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/ICarlee23

A couple of tweets worth noting:

Dec. 16 - Going to meet Mr. Obama ... wish Vicki was here. Dressed in all my big sisters clothes and looking cute in honor for sissy.

Dec. 16 - My sister and brother and I will be on the today's shows in NBC at 8. Turn on the tv an hear my beautiful sisters story. Thank you.

Dec. 15 - Everyone out of respect for me and my family if someone from the news calls or asks you anything please don't talk to them.

[Sisterlover]

Agreed, Brianv... I'm not entirely convinced of the role of mind control, but it could lend itself to fakery. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive. When I was entirely smitten w/ McGowan's work, I emailed him and inquired of his knowledge of media fakery. I directed him to Hoi's Vicsim report, figuring he'd be all over it. I never did hear back from him, nor do I know if he cared to check it out.

I suppose it's like hypnotism. I've never been hypnotized, nor do I think I would easily fall under the spell of a hypnotist, but apparently there are those who do this work professionally. That's got to be considered mind control, yet never having experienced it first hand, I'm skeptical that it is real.

There is a history of anomalies suggesting the efficacy of mind control, from hypnotists to cult leaders to assassinations (if we are to believe them). I think its a reasonable explanation (until a better one comes along) for gaps in the logic of media fakery that we find ourselves facing from time to time.

I'm not entirely convinced of the role of mind control, but it could lend itself to fakery. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Military Grade Actors versus Under the Spell of a Magician. I think I'll stick with the former.

Could you expand on the blue text? Which gaps in logic?

Sure, I can try... You know how sometimes you get a fake event so completely out of touch with reality that no other questions need to be asked. A great example is Hoi's Vicsim report? It pretty much puts to rest any doubt that the event was staged. The reasoning is complete.
Then, you sometimes get events/actors/circumstances that don't quite fit the bill as being entirely faked. An example might be Pozner's 'mom' Veronique. She may appear to be devoid of maternal grief, which in itself is suspect, but no one has proven beyond a doubt that she is not the mother of a dead child, have they? How do you explain the SSDI entry for the dead entity:
http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/ ... ssingtime=

Result 1 of 1)

Noah S. Pozner
Born: 2006 Died: 2012
State issued: Connecticut

This is just one example, and perhaps not the best one. There are many. If their fakery were that obvious, this forum would have died out a long time ago, our work complete.

So, while it's convenient to paint the entire event as fake, this actually does fakery research a disservice. Of course, we all 'know' it's bogus, but proving it is another thing entirely, is it not?
A dedicated, wealthy researcher, might just buy a plane ticket, head on down to Newtown, interview these entities and nail them with the hard questions, or they could just say, "It's fake. I know it's fake and that's that." It's easy to be an armchair skeptic and using digital tools to reveal digital fakes is becoming more and more pointless, so where's the hard evidence?
Although you might 'know' something is fake, until your reasoning is complete, you're just grasping at straws.
The 'spell of a magician' and 'military grade acting' again are not mutually exclusive. So, are you saying that hypnotism is bogus? Are you suggesting that the military has not dabbled in mind control or even something as seemingly ridiculous as remote viewing? Looking forward to your response...

[Wings]

Brian V

I am glad you brought this up. I noticed a thread or post by Hoi Polloi recently that dealt with the general ideas of arguing and eliminating contradictions, although I can't find it now.

Perhaps it would be worth establishing a resource that included logic, syllogisms and argumentative fallacies that could be a handy SCF reference for citing shill tactics by their formal designations. Logic and non-contradictory information are precious commodities these days.

It was once known as the Trivium, and was the basis for what was then understood, as being the platform or premis on which a formal Education was to be based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium

Of course, since FDR roughly, all of that became anathema in our so called 'schools'.

[Sisterlover]

Brian V

I am glad you brought this up. I noticed a thread or post by Hoi Polloi recently that dealt with the general ideas of arguing and eliminating contradictions, although I can't find it now.

Perhaps it would be worth establishing a resource that included logic, syllogisms and argumentative fallacies that could be a handy SCF reference for citing shill tactics by their formal designations. Logic and non-contradictory information are precious commodities these days.

It was once known as the Trivium, and was the basis for what was then understood, as being the platform or premis on which a formal Education was to be based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium

Of course, since FDR roughly, all of that became anathema in our so called 'schools'.

We covered this trivium thing above, Wings... Grammar, logic, rhetoric.