Sandy Hook as False Flag

No, this is not going to be a political post. It is going to be psychological post.

Sandy Hook as False Flag Maneuver

How can people believe that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a "False Flag" event orchestrated by some unknown entity?

The answer is that people can and will believe anything not only in lieu of any supporting evidence, but even despite mountains of contrary evidence.

From Holocaust deniers, to non-belief in modern evolutionary theory, there will always be skeptics of the unwarranted variety.

I am what I hope is a good example of a good skeptic. I believe when independently verifiable evidence warrants such a belief. I'll often withhold belief until it is quantified. As a practical scientist(a semiconductor process engineer), I believe that there is almost shockingly little that cannot be quantified.

The human brain/mind is sometimes stated as the most complex system yet known. Yet, even the human brain can be broken down and the roles of each component can be defined--yes, even quantitatively.

In order to overturn the Sandy Hook shooting, enough of the evidence must be found to be demonstrably untrue(not false, as proving a negative is maddeningly difficult). To date, no evidence other than some instructions to reporters covering the Newtown, CT has surfaced to support anything but the factual evidence of a mass shooting.

The instructions to reporters is simply an artifact of the media's manner to get people positioned properly for the best angles, and having copy ready for the news items that hit the 'airwaves.' This is how all news items are covered that are not absolutely live. That reporter cueing is given as evidence of a cover-up simply shows an obvious lack of the ways in which modern television broadcasting is conducted.

I am not in the media business, but living in the little state of New Hampshire, USA, every four years our first in the nation' presidential primaries I have seen every kind of media machination one can imagine. In the 2000 primary, I sat and ate with a secret service agent and we had a long discussion about how the media gets things correct, and incorrect. I added that most of the major media doesn't give one enough matter on a given topic in order for an inquisitive citizen to go and "conduct follow-up research without first conducting follow-up research." My lunch date got a good chuckle out of my characterization which she thought spot-on.

Summing up, one has to provide contrary evidence in enough magnitude to first challenge the official story, and that only raises the specter of doubt. It hardly overthrows things.

Do governments lie? Absolutely. Is the government lying in this instance? Perhaps, but as yet there is zero real evidence of any misdoing.

It's fun to be a contrarian. But a contrarian sans evidence is simply a nuisance that takes away from real, important issues; and in this instance likely causes additional pain to the mourning survivors.