Sandy Hoax And The Boston Bombings

Didn't cry enough? Didn't cry at all! And some needing to get into character for the camera. You'll have to forgive me for pointing out that Gene Rosen's account changes everytime he told it, and for my criticism of the news networks that thought it would be a good idea to allow Gene to present himself as inconsistency personified.

 

I think we got off topic here. Let's pick it up from here:

In the video below, Gene Rosen screws up his “firsthand account” of the event, saying that the kids came in and immediately told of the massacre, at which point, the “camera man,” Matt, lets him know that he has screwed up the chronological order of the event. In a later interview for Fox News, he said that the kids came into his house, and that it was fifteen or twenty minutes before one of the kids tells him that the teacher was shot and killed.

The problem with Gene’s first account to “camera man” Matt, is that it would leave him having to explain why he failed to call the police or the school after immediately hearing of the teacher’s murder. He attempts to resolve that issue when, during a later interview for Fox News, he tells of the children sitting in his living room for fifteen or twenty minutes before they mentioned the teacher’s murder. Go to the 11:50 mark for the gist of the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgq6SVbIbAI

Here is another video which shows that the grieving parents at the school on the day of the shooting were shown to be wiping nonexistent tears from their eyes and faces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw9MJu9FyxQ

 

They could have bawled their eyes out and then you'd think it was a hoax because they were histrionic.
I just think you're disgusting for making judgments about people's emotional reaction in an incomprehensible situation. You say they must be actors because they didn't give an adequate performance, yet you had a pre-set expectation of "performance" all the same, since according to you they didn't live up to it. It's the kind of dehumanization only the mentally ill are capable of, but that isn't a surprise given the subject here.

 

Not true. If they had bawled their eyes out--or cried at all--I wouldn't have looked twice. But anyway, your righteous indignation and insults are noted.

 

you mean didn't cry in front of the media. You have no way of knowing how often they cried in private.

one's display or lack thereof of public emotion cannot be treated as evidence of anything. You're only discrediting your argument by continuously bringing it up.

 

No, I mean they didn't shed a tear in the parking lot right after the shooting. They try to give the impression that they're crying, but their total lack of tears destroys that impression. And then there's Gene Rosen with his multiple versions of what happened. And Robbie Parker's behavior is just unbelievable. It's OK if you disagree, or if you believe that I destroy my own argument by bringing it up. But this is my opinion.

 

I think that what you're trying to say is that you disagree with my assessment of Robbie Parker and the parents in the parking lot as seen in the videos. And I believe you also disagree with what I make of Gene Rosen and the multiple scenarios he offers as to what happened. Which scenario of his struck you as the most believable?

 

How long do you suppose Gene Rosen was in shock? Is it your opinion that he was in shock during every interview he did for television?

I don't recall saying anything more about the Sandy Hook incident than that Robbie Parker was clearly seen getting into character for the camera, and that the couple in the parking lot was trying to give the impression that they were grieving when their lack of tears destroyed that impression, especially when the father pretends to be wiping tears, but a close up in the video exposes no tears from either of them. I also said that Gene Rosen responded to the gasp from the camera man by stopping in his tracks and discontinuing his story.

You're having an emotional response to my statements. This is clear by your attempt to paint me as one who backs every aspect of what you deem a conspiracy theory. You need to review my posts to get a bearing on what I've said. I've given my opinion about what I've seen. And that's all I've given, no matter how much you need for me to have given more. You need to let go of this, and just let people make of the videos and commentary what they make of it. By now they're quite aware of your contention that the videos prove nothing at all about anything. Of course, that, too, is just my opinion.

 

How can anyone who is not Robbie Parker say how Robbie Parker should act.

I wonder how I would feel if I went through something like that and someone who had never experienced the same thing, tried to call me a fake. I'm pretty sure it would only make the pain much worse.

 

I think it less than sound practice to judge the spirit of a man by his outward demeanor. A person can come across insecure for a multitude of reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand. As far as worthy spirit we would all do good to recognize that self interest rules the day and this could be the end of neighbors with suspicious motives and we might enter an age when we become less alienated from each other and far more pragmatic about our future together.

 

Yes, I did make my point. Robbie Parker is clearly seen getting into character for the camera. The man in the parking lot was wiping nonexistent tears. Gene Rosen was interrupted by the camera man, and then discontinued his account. Gene Rosen has told different stories at different times. That is my point.

Your point concerning the videos I provided is that anyone can respond in any way in any situation, and that someone seen to be giving a big grin and then a smile just before doing a 180 and getting into character for the camera is not what it looks like. As I said, we disagree.

And what I asked you was which version of Gene Rosen's account do you find most believable.

 

so what you're saying is there is no proof whatsoever of a conspiracy, only interpretation and conjecture.
/thread

 

I've pointed out inconsistencies in peoples' behavior and the changing stories of firsthand witnesses. Why would a firsthand witness defer to the reaction of a camera man and discontinue his account? What is that proof of?

 

You tell me

 

But I asked you.

 

the video you posted above of gene rosen's interview is narrated so I'm not watching it. I have no interest in a narrator telling me what to think. I did find the same interview without narration, it was cut down to 3 minutes so I don't know if it was the entire interview but it seemed fine. It certainly didn't provide proof of a conspiracy.

 

ummm ok I skipped through the narrated video to where the narrator stopped his 10 minutes of meaningless diatribe and actually showed the video. It was the same video I watched and it doesn't prove anything. Are you talking about the part where he shakes his head and says "matt"?