You won't see this Sandy Hook video from the MSM......WHY??

reply to post by Laxpla


You're chastising me for questioning why nobody has puffy eyes or a sleep deprived appearance, yet I find it unbelievable that they're all reacting as you have in the past.

If we had a decent mixture of crying and those who were trying to remain strong by hiding their emotions like you're suggesting, I could understand, but that's not what we're seeing here.

I can see where the men would be able to restrain themselves from crying uncontrollably, but the women, too?
Not one woman I've seen looks as though she has puffy eyes and a nose rubbed raw because she was crying all night. All of the women appear as though they're ready for their close up.

So, yeah. Nice try, but I'm not buying it. Sure. Everyone acts differently, but I find it hard to believe that they're all acting strong and keeping themselves together like you're implying.

reply to post by Afterthought


How much time have you spent in New England, really... I ask because if you have any clue as to the mentality of the people who live in this region, you will know that we tend to keep our emotions and feelings pretty close to the hip, and not allow ourselves to be seen as anything more than stodgy Swiss types to the outside world. I've seen major incidents here in the 5 state area that have been heart-wrenching, and not one person in public has cried, broken down, etc, that has lived here for the better parts of their lives..

They don't call New Englander's "cold" for no reason.... While it's the furthest from the truth, it's how the perception to the outside world is..

reply to post by vkey08


That's amazing that every single person is able to hide their emotions when their child is murdered.
Every single person, you say?
If you say so, then I guess I'm going to have to believe it to be a fact.

By the way, I'm in the south now, but I originally grew up in the north. Even though people are able to remain strong in front of others, when they're alone, especially the women, they will allow their emotions to flow. This is what I'm talking about. The aftermath of how they would appear had they been crying the night before.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by vkey08

 

That's amazing that every single person is able to hide their emotions when their child is murdered.
Every single person, you say?
If you say so, then I guess I'm going to have to believe it to be a fact.

By the way, I'm in the south now, but I originally grew up in the north. Even though people are able to remain strong in front of others, when they're alone, especially the women, they will allow their emotions to flow. This is what I'm talking about. The aftermath of how they would appear had they been crying the night before.

I've had to pull myself together more times int he past 5 years than any time in my life, not one person I had to deal with ever knew that I had been spending my nights bawling my eyes out, it's just part of the way a lot of us are... Yah just can't always tell, and it's ludicrous to think that because of that that this is all just some big hoax. I've seen many many video clips locally of these people breaking down, i've also seen a lot of them laughing and having fun, State's been through a lot lately, after a while, you become numb to it all. Anger is a more potent emotion around here lately, not sadness.. Anger.

Also women use makeup before going into public something that I learned very quickly how to do well after my daughter died... it covers a LOT of evidence of crying..

reply to post by vkey08


As I said before........

The majority of media consumers are NOT likely to encounter news footage from Connecticut. However thank you for pointing out how his speech was covered throughout your state yet the MSM intentionally fails to broadcast something that was widely covered there, therefore strengthening my point of a conspiracy by the MSM.

Then you stated:

So I stand by my comments, the OP is misleading, and patently false, and just because it didn't make National News doesn't mean it was not discussed as nauseum locally, which, unfortunately is where it SHOULD be discussed..it was after all a Connecticut hearing......for Connecticut.

My OP is misleading and patently false? As I said:

It has become so completely obvious how despicable the MSM is surrounding this topic. Almost immediately after this tragedy the gun control debate was off and running full steam ahead. Much to the surprise of probably many in the Govt and MSM people are opposed to such restrictions for a plethora of reasons not to mention the vile and nauseating fashion in which TPTB have attempted to capitalize on this heinous act. Here is an example of a conspiracy, YES a conspiracy, to only broadcast what fits the agenda. This video is NOT in line with their agenda and therefore will not be shown......along with others.......hence the conspiracy. Feel free to attempt to explain why voices like this are NOT heard.

1) The very first sentence states I am talking about the MSM NOT your local news.
2) Yes the gun control debate was off and running virtually immediately.
3) Are the politicians in a most vile fashion using children in more ways than one here? YES
4) Is there a conspiracy in the MSM to NOT broadcast speeches such as this? YES

You just admitted in your statement above it did NOT make national news. You just proved my point yet your explanation for this is because it is your state's business it should only be discussed there and not be a national topic? Gun control IS a national topic and anything said by anyone for or against gun control should not be censored PERIOD. I don't care how many times this was shown on your local news. The people who have the most impact with their comments in a situation like this is of course the victim's families but this guy having a child in that very school comes close behind but because his statement was not FOR gun controls it was not in the MSM. As I said before the MSM coverage of this hearing was biased PERIOD and IMO they conspired to report nearly close to 100% of those opinions slated for gun control and nearly 0% of those who oppose it.

The next time you accuse me or anyone else of posting misleading or patently false information post some facts to support your claims. Also try a little harder to not contradict yourself so much. You admit that the MSM did not cover this yet tell me that it is patently false after I posted it in my OP?

Kills Mother, Drives to school to murder kids...Yet won't park in a "No Parking Zone"... Strange

Murder .. Good... Breaking Driving Rules..Bad

Originally posted by vkey08

So? That doesn't change the fact that the OP is misleading. Anyone in the United States can go to CT-N and see the replay of this testimony on their computer from the website, it was not deleted, it was not censored, and all of out local media (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, Radio, Newspaper) did stories on this guy's testimony, and nowhere was it censored or did anyone claim that our state politicians had their rears handed to them. It was civilly done, the legislators all thanked this gentleman for his testimony and they went on to the next person.

I don't see the national media posting video from other states that have public hearings, so why is it such a massively huge deal that they aren't posting Connecticut's legislative hearings, where's New York's hearings on the subject or California's, that's right,, they aren't there either, and I would venture a guess that every state has someone like this person that is passionate and has spoken out, it's part of the process.

I have always been opposed to reactionary legislation and rule making, I speak out against it every single day, albeit locally and with regards to the new draconian security measures they have put in effect at our schools, which makes it impossible for a parent to get in at all without being subjected to TSA style harassment from school staff. That was reactionary, they didn't think first, they just classified parents as the enemy, and went from there. That's not on the national media either, gee.. is that some large conspiracy? No not really, I can't see CNN or FoxNews carrying a hearing from our town where residents threatened to kick out the entire Board of Ed and Town Council for the fact that they were reacting, rather than being rational. It's a matter of how these things are done, CT-N has it's own network, it's only on cable in Connecticut, at the time of the hearings, even our local stations had to get the footage from CT-N to run it, anyone could ask for it in the 24 hours before it was up on the web, it's public, not hidden, not censored and costs nothing....

So I stand by my comments, the OP is misleading, and patently false, and just because it didn't make National News doesn't mean it was not discussed as nauseum locally, which, unfortunately is where it SHOULD be discussed..it was after all a Connecticut hearing......for Connecticut.

I'm pretty sure that the MSM he's referring to is the national media...the big stuff that everyone sees...

Local affiliates are nice, but they don't speak to the whole country.

Taken in proper context, the OP is completely correct, you WON'T see this on fox news channel, or CNN, or MSNBC, or any of the other huge national mainstream outlets...are national papers covering this guy's testimony?

No, i'm pretty sure they're not.....and why? because it goes against the anti-gun rhetoric they're trying to brainwash everyone with...

reply to post by vkey08


I guess I'm just not that great at putting on my make up and I don't view crying as a weakness. It's actually considered to be healthy and healing. I could give a rat's behind who thinks what about me for being emotional when I've suffered the loss of a loved one.
I actually feel sorry for you and others who believe that it's a weakness to let others see that you've been crying. When did it become normal for people to act as though they're robots devoid of emotions?

Hi all, new guy here.


I dont know if this has been addressed on ATS yet, but apparently yesterday the Sandy Hook DA mentioned other "potential suspects" as being among his reasons to uphold the 90 day sealing of the search warrants. Below is a link(that hopefully works).


www.digitaljournal.com...

Originally posted by Gtr003121
Hi all, new guy here.


I dont know if this has been addressed on ATS yet, but apparently yesterday the Sandy Hook DA mentioned other "potential suspects" as being among his reasons to uphold the 90 day sealing of the search warrants. Below is a link(that hopefully works).


www.digitaljournal.com...

Which is why all the yahoos demanding answers need to take a breath and let them do their job. As someone who has witnessed a murder investigation unfold, I can say that there may be evidence that the police won't even tell the families of those children upon discovering it. Offering up every detail of the investigation could hurt the effort to find any additional shooter if there was one.

reply to post by Gtr003121


Old story from December that this place isn't telling everyone was an old story from December, the motion was filed shortly after the shootings..

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Gtr003121

 

Old story from December that this place isn't telling everyone was an old story from December, the motion was filed shortly after the shootings..

This decision to prolong the seal was made ten days after the shooting, so that they can continue to investigate people of interest without them knowing what they know.

Sedensky said that unsealing the warrants would also "identify persons cooperating with the investigation, thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being."
The statement by the CT prosecutor's office is the first indication from state authorities that Adam Lanza may have not acted alone

Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...

Thanks for the responses.

reply to post by crystalbeing


Yes, the Digital Journal... known for their commitment to truth and journalism... oh yeah, that's right it's a online rag that anyone with fingers able to type can "report" for.

As I said in another (one that has been removed for promoting that article) the story you are linking to is from a 28 December 2012 New Haven Register article which can be read here.

There are countless reasons for the inclusion of the "potential suspects" phrase being included in a motion to seal the search warrant:
(1) While the motion was decided on December 27, it was drafted by Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky III some time before that date (anyone familiar with the Court system knows that it is not like going to the DMV, taking a number and waiting for your number to be called to be seen; it is a more involved process which includes scheduling and assigning a judge).

(2) Considering there were three crime scenes involved (the Lanza home, the school and the automobile) there was/is a mountain of stuff to go through with a fine tooth comb. Frankly if the State's Attorney said that in less than two weeks they processed all the material and knew everything about the crime that they would ever know; well everyone would be outraged that the police did such a flimsy investigation. In reality they are doing a very thorough examination of everything (including the hard drive which was allegedly damaged and, who knows, that might have info about some other potential suspect; but data recovery takes time).

(3) The language of the motion includes: “The investigation, which was a basis for the issuing of the search warrant, is still continuing,” and “No arrests have been made and none are currently anticipated, but have not been ruled out.” Note that this is somewhat standard/boilerplate language that is used in similar motions where investigators have a tremendous amount of discovery to thoroughly process.

Let's use our imaginations for a second: Imagine there is someone else involved who helped Lanza. Imagine that this individual is relieved that he or she hasn't been implicated. Imagine that the State's Attorney didn't file the motion and something in the search warrant report tipped this individual off by listing something which could connect him or her to the crime but law enforcement had not yet been able to make the connection because two weeks after the homicide of 26 individuals isn't enough time to thoroughly investigate. Imagine that this imaginar alleged accomplice was able to flee justice because the State's Attorney failed to keep such information under wraps until law enforcement had the opportunity to fully explore all of the evidence. I don't know about you but I'd be outraged.

Bottom line: While I do have questions about the Newtown massacre, I'm sorry that the world many here live in is full of such paranoia that everything becomes a secret plot and conspiracy; I am thankful happy that I don't live in such a world and can enjoy it with my friends, family and other loved ones.

I posted this in the overlooked evidence thread but it applies here since you brought up that article. Here are some of Vance's latest statements as there are some news reporters and or bloggers who appear to be asking him for updates.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

The officer’s short fuse has a lot to do with rumors surrounding the weapon used. “There’s a tremendous amount of misinformation out there,” Vance said at the end of our call. “The murderer used a Bushmaster XM15.”

Part of that misinformation comes straight from his mouth, and he wonders why we all have a short fuse. Anyone else find it a bit odd he states "the murderer" rather than Adam Lanza?

Originally posted by RocksFromSpace
Kills Mother, Drives to school to murder kids...Yet won't park in a "No Parking Zone"... Strange

Murder .. Good... Breaking Driving Rules..Bad

edit on 6-2-2013 by RocksFromSpace because: (no reason given)

A) The car appears to be parked in a no-parking zone.

B) More importantly (and not to single you out) but this is a prime example of the silliness this has descended to in the conspiracy blogosphere. Lanza was obviously seriously disturbed at the time. Who can honestly make any rational prediction about where he would have parked his car? Same with all the statements about "if I had just lost my child I would have...xyz." Most coming from people who HAVEN'T lost a child and certainly not in such a bizarre and public way. There's no way to make rational distinctions about how parents would react in that once in a lifetime situation.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by 2manyquestions

 

Not only that, but you'd think they'd at least have puffy eyes and appear sleep deprived, but they all look like they had a good night's sleep.

Or at least not swaggering, chuckling and for some reason asking their handlers if they should just read from the card.

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by 2manyquestions

 

Not only that, but you'd think they'd at least have puffy eyes and appear sleep deprived, but they all look like they had a good night's sleep.

Or at least not swaggering, chuckling and for some reason asking their handlers if they should just read from the card.

Their handlers? Where do you guys come up with this garbage?

Originally posted by Laxpla

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Have you ever been really upset about something? Truly suffered a terrible loss? How did you look in the morning after crying all night?

I recently suffered a great loss and I could barely open my eyes the next morning they were so swollen shut from crying. I don't think I looked like my normal self for about three days following the loss. My make up certainly didn't look that good. I don't believe a professional make up artist could've made my eyes look un-puffy or remove the redness.

Really? Jeeze you must set the standard for everyone!

First of all, when my grandfather passed away I tried my hardest to have my family get their minds of it, not to toot my own horn but I make a lot of people laugh I actually had my grandmother laughing almost in tears at my little sister because she (being 6) slapped a nurses ass while she was walking down the unit while my grandfather was in the hospital during his final hours. I reminded her of that when we got home and had her laughing her ass off and tried getting her mind of things and yeah it made her feel better for a little bit, but I know for a FACT when shes alone she feels the pain so much like all of us. What you SHOW and how you FEEL are two totally different things.

So you're "experience" doesn't mean # if you think your emotions are universal. Everything takes thing differently and for you say something like that just makes you look utterly stupid. It really does. So your expertise advise and emotional experience doesn't really mean #. It really doesn't, yes I'm being "harsh" by some standards but its reality. I'm sick of people because they think their own emotional experience does justice for everyone in this world.

Have a nice day.

edit on 4-2-2013 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)

Not sure how many small children you have, but I know that I could never compare the death of my grandfather (which I have experienced) to the brutal murder of my little girl or my little boy (which is the absolute most terrifying and horrible thing I can possibly imagine experiencing in life). Are you really equating the two?