Sandy Hook Principal ALIVE, NOT DEAD! Gave statement on Shooting, now removed from site.

reply to post by DOLCOTT

I understand your commitment to find a conspiracy behind every act that defies logic, the article has several typo's which is very uncommon for a media outlet. IMO I would venture to say that they were in such a rush to get the story out they made some errors. I find it hard to believe this incident was faked, staged etc.

really ??

even in the light of the statement posted above your post .. ?

how can a DEAD principal .. possibly talk to the Bee .. ??

reply to post by magickmaster


You so desperately want a conspiracy where there isn't. In another thread you claim the parents of the deceased are actors and that no child is dead. You really need to understand how the news system works (wrongly in my opinion, but society has allowed this beast to grow with its desire for consistent tosh). Essentially it is first past the post reporting and fact checking has been relegated a poor second against this approach. As was displayed throughout the coverage of the massacre, facts were reported as truths but often changed when some fact checking took place later. Retractions are very common and all that you have here is an example of bad reporting being corrected later. It is sad to see these desperate threads continue to appear penned by armchair sleuths who have no actual evidence other than examples of sloppy, non- fact checked reporting to go by.

Read Flat Earth News by journalist Nick Davies and you will soon see why this kind of bad journalism occurs.

reply to post by notquitesure

1) Someone at the newspaper spoke with the Principal immediately before she was killed. That would be quite impressive, and every news outlet in the country should be clamoring to interview this reporter.

I agree this one is not very feasible. If this reporter was the last person to speak with the principal alive it would be plastered everywhere. That's a goldmine.

2) Someone at the newspaper spoke to someone else, who they mistakenly thought was the Principal. Maybe the Assistant Principal? The reporter perhaps went to the school website to grab the name and mistakenly listed the Principal instead of someone else. Who knows...in all of the confusion maybe they THOUGHT they were speaking to the Principal but did not get the name.

This one is entirely plausible, given that the vice principal was with the principal when the shooting occurred. More credence if the interview was conducted over the phone. There is no reason to believe the newspaper reporters all knew the principal personally. We're not talking about a town with a population of 1000 people. If you put the principal of my daughter's school in a line up in front of me I couldn't pick her out. I too would have to visit the school website to get her name.

If option number 2 is the truth, then a retraction would have been the proper course of action, no matter how painful. Obviously failure to do so is causing quite a stir.

I agree. They failed to follow the proper course of action and should rightly be called out on that. Perhaps the family or some other involved party will sue.

3) Someone claiming to be the Principal spoke with a reporter early on, and somehow didn't get the memo that the Principal was supposed to be dead. (Unless such mass confusion and contradictory evidence was part of an over arching plan).

Sadly, this one is all too possible as well. How many news sources have been duped in the past? Lots.

I suppose number 4 would be that the Principal is not dead at all.

And thus we have the conspiracy mindset. This would require that the principal was killed after the incident, or that the principal is still alive and in on it. Possible? Yes, everything is possible. Probable? I'll believe it when the more probable explanations have been thoroughly discounted.

Originally posted by sprtpilot

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Exactly.
A mistake does not a conspiracy make.

But many inconsistencies, gaps, contradictions, lies, illogical conclusions, may.

Of course they may. Questioning such things is fine. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary in the interests of keeping the conspiracy alive is quite another matter. And I see that happening quite a bit in this thread.

In a rush to prove a conspiracy, did the author of the youtube video, or people in this thread, even stop to think there were editorial errors in the article?

reply to post by elrem48

I believe "denial" is one of the emotions we are said to go through when a death(s) occur that affect us.

Anger is another part of the grieving process so its amazing that not one of the interviewed family members expressed any anger at the government or the schools for not protecting their kids, and not one harsh word for the perp.

Originally posted by Aisling

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Aisling

Originally posted by bknapple32
Some ancient wise person once said...

If you search for a conspiracy everywhere you look; you will find one every time.

Not really.

no, not really, but you get my point.

I'm not here to play word games. I've seen enough of your posts to understand where you stand in all of this. No need to continue harassing people over their opinions.

That's nowhere near harassment. And you obviously haven't read enough of them. Perhaps double check that.

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
In a rush to prove a conspiracy, did the author of the youtube video, or people in this thread, even stop to think there were editorial errors in the article?

And over the years I have been associated with ATS, a story with editorial errors has become the go-to item of evidence to declare a conspiracy. People should do themselves a favour and understand how journalism works today. Badly, very badly in my opinion but when you have people wanting to be the Bernstein and Woodward of the conspiracy world, you will continue to get this kind of nonsense peddled.

Does anyone else think the actual interview they posted was with the SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST?
Sha and another woman did not confront the shooter and did survive.....perhaps there was a mix up in the names?

reply to post by Aisling


To be clear, you are not being attacked by me, you are being challenged. This is a conspiracy forum. Theories are scrutinized intensely and logical counter-points are made. It's logical to suggest that the reporter made a mistake, and some people would posit that it is more logical to assume human error than an elaborate cover-up involving fake funerals. Doesn't mean you can't be of the conspiracy opinion, but if your opinion sees the light of day you open yourself up to criticism, and rightly so.

Originally posted by stirling
Does anyone else think the actual interview they posted was with the SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST?
Sha and another woman did not confront the shooter and did survive.....perhaps there was a mix up in the names?

How does someone misidentify her own name and title?

ALSO, the article has not been removed. It is right here:

Newtown Bee Article

reply to post by magickmaster


Ive been a cop for a long time...and I have never seen anything like that video with that officer saying people will be pursued for false statements. I don't even know of a law like that that even exists! Very weird. Our local media messes up our reports all the time with details...we don't think a thing of it...just post a correction later if its even worth the time. Freaking weird.

Another thread, and another " this is a conspiracy forum. Duh. What are you doing here if you're just going to disagree"

This line of reasoning is so off. It can only be made by someone who doesn't frequent ats, or someone who only wants to talk with people who agree with them. Ats has and always will pride it self on its skeptics. And sorry if the skeptic in this case is so adamant. Could be the topic. Could be that we see more holes than usual. Who knows. But if you expect us not to voice our opinions and engage in dialogs, then maybe you are the one who is at the wrong site. Were truth seekers just like you. Just, sometimes we know when we're seeing it and feel we need to defend it.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by magickmaster

 

Ive been a cop for a long time...and I have never seen anything like that video with that officer saying people will be pursued for false statements. I don't even know of a law like that that even exists! Very weird. Our local media messes up our reports all the time with details...we don't think a thing of it...just post a correction later if its even worth the time. Freaking weird.

And within this post lies the answer to the very non-conspiracy editorial mistakes. It happens a lot in the UK too and I have personally seen it when I was involved in press photography for a while.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by magickmaster

 

Ive been a cop for a long time...and I have never seen anything like that video with that officer saying people will be pursued for false statements. I don't even know of a law like that that even exists! Very weird. Our local media messes up our reports all the time with details...we don't think a thing of it...just post a correction later if its even worth the time. Freaking weird.

Could just be one emotional cop

Originally posted by stirling
Does anyone else think the actual interview they posted was with the SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST?
Sha and another woman did not confront the shooter and did survive.....perhaps there was a mix up in the names?

The school psychologist was sadly, one of the many deceased.

Originally posted by LarryLove

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by magickmaster

 

Ive been a cop for a long time...and I have never seen anything like that video with that officer saying people will be pursued for false statements. I don't even know of a law like that that even exists! Very weird. Our local media messes up our reports all the time with details...we don't think a thing of it...just post a correction later if its even worth the time. Freaking weird.

And within this post lies the answer to the very non-conspiracy editorial mistakes. It happens a lot in the UK too and I have personally seen it when I was involved in press photography for a while.

ACTUALLY, the paper's retraction states the person they interviewed identified herself as the principal. So there is no editorial mistake. The paper is saying that someone lied to/misled them and they just reported what they were told.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Another thread, and another " this is a conspiracy forum. Duh. What are you doing here if you're just going to disagree"

This line of reasoning is so off. It can only be made by someone who doesn't frequent ats, or someone who only wants to talk with people who agree with them. Ats has and always will pride it self on its skeptics. And sorry if the skeptic in this case is so adamant. Could be the topic. Could be that we see more holes than usual. Who knows. But if you expect us not to voice our opinions and engage in dialogs, then maybe you are the one who is at the wrong site. Were truth seekers just like you. Just, sometimes we know when we're seeing it and feel we need to defend it.

Over the years ATS has evolved into a lot more than a 'conspiracy' forum and there is some incredible thinking and prowess in deduction displayed in some threads -- not this one and others like it.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Another thread, and another " this is a conspiracy forum. Duh. What are you doing here if you're just going to disagree"

This line of reasoning is so off. It can only be made by someone who doesn't frequent ats, or someone who only wants to talk with people who agree with them. Ats has and always will pride it self on its skeptics. And sorry if the skeptic in this case is so adamant. Could be the topic. Could be that we see more holes than usual. Who knows. But if you expect us not to voice our opinions and engage in dialogs, then maybe you are the one who is at the wrong site. Were truth seekers just like you. Just, sometimes we know when we're seeing it and feel we need to defend it.