Sandy Hoax And The Boston Bombings

In the post with the video, I said to go to the 11:50 mark. Then you can skip the narration. But that's not what I asked you. I asked you why a firsthand witness would defer to the reaction of a camera man by discontinuing his account, and why Gene Rosen has changed his account of what happened several times since then.

 

it does make me want to narrate a video about a fake conspiracy so I can laugh my ass off when storch and pressed rat start using it as proof.

 

I did skip to 11:50. I watched a man recounting events. At one point I saw him choke up, shake his head, and say "matt" at the cameraman. You can't even hear what matt said to him though. What does this prove?

 

Yeah, that'll fix us . . .

So, you believe what Gene said in the video, then?

 

. . .

 

I'm saying what you're trying to point out in the video didn't happen. I didn't see any point where the cameraman corrected him

 

You're not paying attention. When the camera man gasps, Gene stops with the story and then says he can't do this. He was doing fine up until the camera man gasps.

But my question to you was: Do you believe what Gene said in the video just before the camera man stops him?

 

I dont doubt he is an eyewitness, I certainly dont think he is an actor, but eyewitness accounts are known to be faulty so I can't say with certainty that what he is presenting is 100% truth, only how he sees the truth.

seriously though, a gasp proves nothing. Maybe the cameraman gasped because its a shocking subject, maybe the eyewitness couldn't go on because he was sad.

 

Gene Rosen is not an eye witness to what went on at his house. He's telling what happened to him. So, do you believe what he said up until the cameraman gasps and Gene stops?

 

I already answered that. I dont really want to hear your answer so I won't ask....but I will point out, an eyewitness is a person who shares what they witness and what happens to them. Jesus fucking Christ.

I seriously am done with this thread this time. No one has presented a shred of credible evidence. You guys are giving conspiracy theorists a bad name.

 

Gene is not an eyewitness to something. He is making a relaying what happened to him. Do you believe that what he said happened to him--up until the time the cameraman stops him--is true?

 

Wrong! Jesus had no middle name. I learned that from a video.

 

i have seen the official final report from the state of Connecticut . one item states that federal
investigators determined that a particular factual aspect revealed by the of the investigation
shall be ignored as irrelevant .

dna samples from 2 of the victims were discovered in inexplicable places . one was on a
shotgun in the trunk of the shooter's car . the other was in the Lanza home .

let's consider the shotgun . there are two possibilities to account for a victim's dna presence
there .

1. a victim-to-be had once held the gun .
2. the dna had come from the crime scene .

one is improbable and the second would be revelatory .

closing the investigation as to what may be revelatory is an act of conspiracy . what might
logically be revealed ? the presence of a professional - the Shepard - and of such an ego
as to leave one confounding signature on his perfect , diabolical and gruesome work . the
work would include the elimination of the mother and her testimony as well the destruction of
Adam Lanza's computer , which was the state investigators only hope of understanding the
truth of the matter .

 

Yeah, but what do you think? What could it mean?

 

I should be in the insurance money from idiots for political purposes business. That's clearly where it's at.

 

Could you rewrite that first sentence. I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

I did set forth my thoughts on what it means and welcome yours .

 

I think that the information that you've shown is quite pertinent and telling.

 

These two posts demonstrate something that bothers me....

And this is what I always think about when I hear of a new conspiracy. Fuck, I think this when ever I hear of an event happening on mass media... like right when it happens... I think that although there are conspiracies that I think are real and some I think are not real at all... I kinda pick and chose what I believe or buy based on an individual basis... my problem is that most people who believe in some of them automatically believe in all of them. And what would that imply? That would imply that truly, truly fucked up, crazy things just don't happen in real life. Right? Which isn't the case... people are fucked up.

 

Well, that's why you have to research and cross-reference details. You take a look and you decide if things look just too fucked up to believe. Changing stories, inconsistent shit, and timelines that don't make sense just beg to be examined. Have you seen post #333?