pretzelogik

I think keeping a lid on this one may be a bit tougher than you hope, there are quite a few videos and sites devoted to this topic besides this one. As far as Alex Jones, why are you confident that he is a supporter of liberty? I would still appreciate your thoughts on why "they" made this "obvious on purpose".

Just curious what the reference to "obvious on purpose" means. Who are "they"? As far as facts go, every fact that has been reported, contradicts most of the statements made by the survivors, which contradict each other, with a final story emerging from the media which seems to be an impressionistic agenda more than a report on facts. What is going to happen next year?

Has anyone else seen this film featuring Ryan Gosling? IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/ I enjoyed it. It is a rather interesting look at family trauma. I would love to hear Stef do a review of this film and hear his take on it.

I have yet to see any video of the survivors or anyone associated with this event that displays emotions that are characteristic of my experience of grief, or aligns with what I have noticed others displaying under similar circumstances. I have attended quite a few funerals and memorial services having been the technical director of a church for a number of years and these interviews do not mesh with my experience of survivors.

Well, I am doing chores with an FM transmitter listening to the Piers Morgan gun debates and engaging in the ultimate hypocrisy. (Guilty pleasure, so far Ted Nugent is my favorite!) So, the debate is worth listening to from the perspective of analyzing the logical fallacies on both sides, and noting the glaring omission of state violence or the threat thereof. As far as evidence of these events goes, what we have are stories of completely implausible scenarios, lists of names, backstopped by manipulated photos, transparently scripted interviews of survivors of the supposed victims who have a preternatural disposition towards happy, sunny grief, featuring talking points about gun legislation, "shooters" and AR15s, and a multitude of conflicting reports about what happened. Add to that recycled videos of drills, pictures of the locations that don't make any sense, implausible interviews with law enforcement and coroners, etc. Not very compelling as far as facts go. What we don't have are photos of the crime scene (not necessarily morbid, I understand the sensitivity issue, but you can see someone getting their head shot off nearly every second of the day, side issue), but blasted out doors, shell casings, interior shots of the school, pictures of the cars that were supposedly shot up. A photo of a single bullet hole in the wall would be something. I have yet to see any of the physical items that might be presented in a court case. Imagine trying to collect insurance on a class action suit with videos of the deceased, interviews with survivors and photos and videos of funerals as evidence. I have yet to see any credible evidence that the villain is even a real person and not a created entity. Why don't we have a drivers license photo? The media rolls out an event, guests are lined up on various talk shows and the debate commences on the merits of gun control. So, from my perspective, the bigger issue is: "Why do we accept the news as real?" Newscorp brags about "creating news". I take that literally. Like 9/11, I see this as a watershed issue, wherein the media is not objective, but complicit in the creation of the story.

Seriously, why should we accept any of these stories from the mainstream media at face value? The question isn't how well side A presented by the MSM performed against side B presented by the MSM, but whether the event they are going on about happened at all. There is little if any credible evidence that this event even took place. If we spent half the time researching the actual facts and evidence as we do getting caught up in the debate that we are being directed to getting caught up in, we would learn to simply ignore the machine.

The Sandy Hook Media Event is obviously serving its purpose of directing attention to debates about guns, mental health, security in schools and various and sundry conspiracies. What is often missing from these debates is due diligence on the part of anyone that takes the bait that is placed before them by the media machine. The question to be asked is: "Is the assumption that the media outlets are observing, documenting and reporting events, as opposed to creating them from a pre-determined script, a valid one?" I have pointed out on other threads and will mention it here, the tag line for News Corporation is: "Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world." (Emphasis added.) Investigation trumps acceptance at face value. Before a debates are conjured by virtue of any of these media driven confabulations, perhaps we should examine the evidence used to create these stories to determine whether it stands up to scrutiny.

He should be the next president.