Sandy Hoax And The Boston Bombings

That is hysterically funny.

 

Who strongly believed it?

And since you're here, what does the government report say about the DNA found on the envelope containing a Christmas card wihich was in the Lanza home?

 

I believe you are capable of viewing Robbie Parker's happy mood when he was as yet unaware of the camera, and the oops written all over his face when he realized that he was being filmed. No one can miss that. And no one can miss his attempt to get into character so that he might appear to be the hyperventilating sad man struggling to hold back the tears that weren't there. Not even red eyes; what a trooper. And not one sniffle. If he had shown signs of what he was attempting to portray, you would be saying, "See, that proves that he's sincere." Funny how when he shows no signs of what he was attempting to portray, you contend that he is sincere. Interesting position . . .

And of course we also have the fact that Gene Rosen's multiple versions of his account of what he allegedly experienced is kind of self-contradictory. So, which version of his account do you find most believable?

And whose DNA was on the envelope found in the Lanza's house?

 

http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf


.

 

Increasingly funny I made no assertions whatsoever about robbie parker's sincerity. I haven't viewed the video/s. I don't rely on belief in this instance. My position is that your impressions lack significance as reliable evidence of any conspiracy related to the event on the face of it impressions being what impressions are, which is a position I'm sure you find less interesting. I don't know whose DNA was found, do you?

 

I don't give a fuck what it's based on...

 

No you haven't, and no you don't, and yes I do.

So, you've judged my assessment of the contents of the videos without viewing the videos. I understand.

 

You don't give a fuck what it's based on, or you don't know what it's based on?

 

What did I say... I'm not speaking in code here.

 

No, I make my assessment on my familiarity with the mechanisms of perception. Attempts at deception represent levels of insecurity and it is at this doorstep I feel safe leaving the explanation for any anomalous behavior sight unseen.

 

Could you post the part from the government report that tells of how they "believe" the DNA mishap occurred?

 

Paint it any way you want, but you judged the accuracy of my assessment without bothering to view the subject of my assessment.

 

Could you read the report yourself... I posted the link for you. Twice!


I told you, I don't give a fuck. Why should I read the report for you.

 

What do you think said DNA represents?

I told you, cross contamination of evidence. Gun wasn't found in trunk, it was found in the car and put into the trunk to secure it by police. As far as protecting the forensic aspects of the crime scene it wasn't done do to the ongoing situation. All sorts of things were handled and mishandled like swat dropping shot gun shells everywhere.

 

I assumed that something caught your eye in the report that explains why they decided that it was a mishap. Did something catch your eye?

 

Could you cite the source for this?

Whose DNA was found on the rifle used by Adam Lanza?

 

Not the accuracy, you see what you see. I question the relevant associations made considering what we all see. No reason to follow leads that lead nowhere. There is no way to measure the spirit of a man save to look within.

 

I see . . .

 

Originally it was something i surmised immediately from context then I passed along what I only later read in the report.
Doesn't matter whose DNA was found, But if you care to inform us generally go ahead.