Originally Posted by
Jimmors
Plausible? Like inferring that Chris Nolan had some kind of insight into the Newtown shooting simply because part of a map in his movie lists "Sandy Hook?" Like that is MORE plausible?
As far as the Emile Parker thing goes...ive seen this claim before and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out: Her sister is wearing her dress. Yeah yeah i know, its not as exciting a theory as "OMG SHES NOT ACTUALLY DEAD BECAUSE SHE'S THERE WITH THE PRESIDENT!!," but its way more "plausible" to believe that one of her sisters is wearing her dress (anyone who has kids, especially kids same sex and similar age, know that they share clothes).
Ah yes, just because some people exercise COMMON SENSE and apply that to information given to them, makes them "asleep in denial." Heard that before too...in fact been down this road many times in the past over the 9/11 conspiracies.
And this is proving to be quite similar in many regards...a tragedy happens, confusion and disbelief is the result since its difficult to process said tragedy, so we naturally want an explanation. We want to know why these things happen. So then you end up with "internet detectives" who gather news reports, pictures and interviews (all of which online mind you), that were done by the media, and they begin to try and discover inconsistencies, coincidence and conspiracy.
Dont get me wrong, im naturally a skeptic, and a healthy does of skepticism and willingness to question everything is good. However, this is NOT a case of skepticism, because Conspiracy Theorists have their OWN agenda, their own commentary on what THEY think happened, and anything that "debunks" or calls into question THEIR theories is systematically dismissed. Thats not what skeptics do. Skeptics question everything, so if a TRUE skeptic doubts media story of what happened and then are presented with videos/pictures like you presented, their FIRST inclination is to be skeptical of THAT as well.
But, its easier to play Devil's Advocate and try to follow the logic of what is more "plausible," so lets try that out:
Lets say that it never happened, and it was all some kind of government fabrication/cover-up, what have you. As a skeptic, these questions would pop into mind:
1.What is the possible reason for including the name of the school in a movie that was obviously going to be a blockbuster seen by millions?
2.If Emile Parker wasnt killed, then why would they include her taking a picture with the president, a picture they know would have been seen by millions of people due to the fact it includes our President as well as family of Newtown victims?
3.And if it was her in that picture, WHY have her wear the SAME dress as in a picture previously released to the media?
4.Who is supposed to be benefiting from this supposed cover-up/fabrication? It sure isnt the president, it happened AFTER the election, and it has only galvanized the pro-gun people against both him AND the government.
5.The victims are children. Why would anyone base a conspiracy on the ability of CHILDREN to keep their mouths shut and not say anything?
Yes, i get the appeal of playing internet detective and discovering "evidence" of a plot more sinister then what actually happened. We ultimately are all small cogs in a very big machine, so things like this give us an excuse to believe that we are capable of understanding how the machine works, that we are able to see through the fog of what we are shown and see the so called "truth," the man behind the curtain so to speak. Unfortunately, when you try to apply logic and common sense to such narratives, at best...they simply fall apart because they do not make much sense at all, and at worse, it is an insult to the families of these tragedies.