3
« on: January 13, 2018, 08:50:40 PM »
Was it a staged shooting? I believe so. There's no evidence a shooting happened (video evidence, photos of dead bodies, etc), no investigation into the shooting by independent researchers (how could they? The school was torn down immediately after the alleged shooting), and there is much inconsistencies about the whole thing. So, by default, I am forced to conclude that it is more logical to believe a shooting never happened, and because of the many inconsistencies (sealing evidence, father of a victim laughing before changing mood, etc), I'm not convinced that the official narrative can stand scrutiny. I think that the alternative explanations are somewhat better (though I admit that I'm open-minded to all sides). It looks like the only real evidence of a shooting is the testimonies, which aren't consistent and which are not evidence. If I am to accept testimony as evidence, am I not committing a logical fallacy? Am I not appealing to authority? Why not accept eyewitness testimony of Bigfoot or aliens as fact if I am to accept the sandy hook shooting testimonies as fact? Why is more weight given to one source of testimonies than the other? Because one involves the government's involvement? Again, isn't that fallacious and appealing to authority? What are your thoughts? Please, I want serious answers, for this is a serious inquiry. Thanks!