Why did the United Way post a condolence page for the Sandy Hook victims THREE DAYS before the shooting?
Sandy Hook and the United Way
|by Anonymous||reply 131||01/29/2013|
The United Way supports the Boy Scouts so don't give anything to the United Way
|by Anonymous||reply 1||01/27/2013|
Sounds like a misconstruction of a Hurricane Sandy page.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 3||01/27/2013|
They weren't the only ones.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||01/27/2013|
I remember when it happened...some lady on the train was saying...'You just know the government planned this one too, the question is why."
|by Anonymous||reply 5||01/27/2013|
You're a ninny, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||01/27/2013|
Op knows nothing about internet and the way date-stamps work.
Why are you posting this "truther" dribble on Datalounge, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||01/27/2013|
R7 So then explain to us how they work rather than just put down the OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||01/27/2013|
Because google date stamping is unreliable and this nonsense is based not on someone actually seeing the United Way putting up a website before the event but from a google time stamp.
But telling conspiracy theorists this will accomplish nothing because they will refuse to believe it.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||01/27/2013|
I thin we'veall herd how the govement was to blame for this. Not saying I beleive it but strange things happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||01/27/2013|
R9 just to be clear OP gave more than one example. So what you are saying is that google is incredibly unreliable and you can give us hundreds of examples where the time/date stamp is wrong that have nothing to do with this shooting?
I would love to see more examples to prove your case.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||01/27/2013|
See, that's why it's not worth bothering with conspiracy theorists. You will believe anything that confirms your paranoid fantasies, no matter how little it is backed up with facts, but you set the bar extremely high on any evidence that refutes your theory.
So a google search seen AFTER the event is weightier evidence than the fact that Google admits now and has admitted in the past (see the article) that their time stamps are not all that accurate.
And to top it all off, you completely accept the ridiculous idea that the conspiracy would include the United Way in their conspiracy. The first rule of a conspiracy is to involve as few people as possible. Why would they include the United Way?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 13||01/27/2013|
[quote]So a google search seen AFTER the event is weightier evidence than the fact that Google admits now and has admitted in the past (see the article) that their time stamps are not all that accurate.
So . . . one should have Googled "Sandy Hook Massacre" the day before?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 15||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 16||01/27/2013|
I have a crazy conspiracy theorist friend who tried to say that the entire town was in on the conspiracy. I tried to explain to him in a clear, calm and rational way how unfeasible it would be for the US government to include an entire town in on a conspiracy and ensure the absolute silence of everyone involved but he just wouldn't listen.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||01/27/2013|
OP, don't make me come over there.
I snuffed-out Harvey Milk and I can do the same for you. Do you feel me?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||01/27/2013|
The Blaze? Really, freeper?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||01/27/2013|
You know, OP, the reason people like you just piss me off to no end is that my sister lives in Fairfield, knows the Pozners and is close friends with a woman whose daughter teaches at the school and who survived the shootings. Yup, there that day. Saw the carnage. Knows it was one insane, twisted fuck who carried them out.
You and people like you are, quite simply, cunts.
I pity you almost as much as I loathe you.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||01/27/2013|
Thanks for taking the bait, r19.
HuffPo, Salon, The Atlantic...
|by Anonymous||reply 21||01/27/2013|
r14/OP, no one said anything like that. More typical conspiracy theorist bullshit.
But are YOU saying no one went to the United Way website in the three days before the event? No one in those three days noticed this supposed plea for money for a tragedy that hadn't occurred yet and raised a red flag? Wouldn't someone have noticed that?
|by Anonymous||reply 22||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 23||01/27/2013|
What's your point, R20?
I don't give a rat's ass how you feel about this thread and I certainly don't intend to censor myself to spare your widdle feelings. Why'd you click on here anyway?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 25||01/27/2013|
[quote]And to top it all off, you completely accept the ridiculous idea that the conspiracy would include the United Way in their conspiracy. The first rule of a conspiracy is to involve as few people as possible. Why would they include the United Way?
Bullshit...I never said I accept that either.
Both you and google claim this happens all the time. If it in fact does, then please present your evidence of such.
I accept neither the OP, nor the refutes without further evidence in either direction.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||01/27/2013|
r26, Google itself provided a concrete example of bad time-stamping. Why would there be hundreds of examples available? Why would they matter? In most cases no one would care, and in the rest they would be fixed before most people even know.
To accept the OP's version of things you have to believe that an enormous conspiracy involving thousands of people for some reason included the United Way who was so foolish that it put up a webpage soliciting donations before the event and no on noticed the webpage.
To accept the debunking argument you have to accept that Google has acknowledged a problem with time-stamping, as they did in the example provided, well before and completely unrelated to the event.
One view is plausible, the other is not. But believe whatever you want.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||01/27/2013|
[quote]I don't give a rat's ass how you feel about this thread and I certainly don't intend to censor myself to spare your widdle feelings. Why'd you click on here anyway?
You're a sad little freak who has nothing better to do with your pathetic life that to engage in bullshit conspiracy fantasies.
You lack the intellect and critical thinking skills to merit consideration in any other situation.
But you are stirring up shit by parroting nonsense from other websites without any attempt to reason on your own.
You're one of those sorry freaks who would never stand up to me or anyone else in a public forum because you lack the courage and certainty to back up your claims in anything other than an anonymous online forum.
Another joke of a keyboard terrorist who eats up this nonsense because it brings him attention in a life in which he is largely ignored by others.
I am sorry you are powerless in the real world. I am sorry that you are weak-minded and incapable of sorting through the reasonable and the unsound.
But mostly I just think you're a piece of garbage who should be crushed like the neutered wimp you are.
So, as my grandmother always said, suck my dick.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||01/27/2013|
The reason why right wing nutjobs are proposing all these bizarre conspiracies is that they are trying to cover up their real conspiracy to take over America and sabotage its elections in perpetuity on 9/11.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||01/27/2013|
Again. Why are you here?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||01/27/2013|
Hi, Ricky Ricardo! (R10)
|by Anonymous||reply 31||01/27/2013|
OP, you asked a question. Are you so stupid you don't understand that when you ask a question you are asking for people to respond?
That you don't like their responses is your problem, not theirs.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||01/27/2013|
9-11 was a government conspiracy, a false-flag attack intended to make Americans angry enough to allow the government to take away their Constitutional right to own commercial airplanes.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||01/27/2013|
To make it clear to all and sundry that you're a malevolent idiot who parrots garbage.
The more important question - the one which really merits a good conversation the next time you meet with your therapist - is why you would post such crap when you know that there is a reasonable explanation for it.
You want attention. You want to stir up shit. You want to be "provocative".
Well, bully for you.
But, let's be clear, you want this attention because you are powerless in real life.
I know you. I know people like you.
And you're just sad little men.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||01/27/2013|
r33, honey, when people own planes, they're no longer commercial.
So your theory is debunked!
(But it was a false-flag attack orchestrated by conspiracy theory big business interests who wanted to profit from the weak-minded people who believe it was a conspiracy theory promoted by the government. There were billions of dollars at stake. Alex Jones is the mastermind behind 9/11!)
|by Anonymous||reply 35||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 36||01/27/2013|
No the better question is why are YOU here op?
You proved you are a gullible, paranoid moron with this thread.
Are you a GAY gullible paranoid moron?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||01/27/2013|
What makes those of you who do not agree with OP so angry.
Instead of calmly discussing this, you attack him, call him names and rebuke rudely.
It makes you appear to be paranoid and ugly.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||01/27/2013|
This thread is an abomination.
What happened to those children in connecticut happened.
To question it in any way is the mark of stupidity and paranoia.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||01/27/2013|
Right. The people providing actual evidence are rude and crazy.
The conspiracy theorists are poor victims.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||01/27/2013|
No, R37. I posted a legitimate question.
Did I say I BELIEVED it? No.
What would you like me to talk about?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||01/27/2013|
Both sides have posted what they believe is actual evidence.
One side has taken an angry tone and been rude and insulting.
I ask again...what makes you so angry?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||01/27/2013|
The United Way has a Tardis.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||01/27/2013|
The difference, r42, is one side truly has actual evidence and the other side does not.
You may read whatever tone you want into that, but you also might expect people who have had friends affected by the tragedy might not be the most dispassionate.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||01/27/2013|
I am not asking for the difference.
I am asking why one side is so angry and insulting.
But no one cares to answer the question as asked...making politicians of you all.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||01/27/2013|
Stuff like this is why you can't talk about conspiracy theories that are more plausible.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||01/27/2013|
Love that crackpot video. It posits that since the police followed other leads, there was "evidence" of a second shooter. It posits that since there were news reports that similarly treated this as "evidence" of another shooter, there must be some sort of cover-up.
The fact is that the police often pursue leads that don't turn out. The fact is that witnesses typically get things wrong with any story that receives attention, or with any story that doesn't. Humans are fallible. Police follow leads that turn out not to yield anything. The press often gets things wrong. Anyone who's ever been personally involved with an event that's received media attention, knows that.
And when you consider this was a rapidly evolving story receiving immediate press attention, the chances of the press getting something wrong are multiplied exponentially.
The sad thing is that so many Americans can't think analytically and read shit like this and take it as true. They believe everything they read, that they want to believe.
As to the google discrepancy, google date discrepancies do happen. Not infrequently. And when you consider how many google results there are relating to Sandy Hook, it's not at all surprising that there were glitches.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||01/27/2013|
[quote]It makes you appear to be paranoid and ugly.
You know what's ugly?
"“We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away. I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don’t talk about it abstractly, like these little angels just went to heaven. No. They were butchered. They were brutalized. And that is what haunts me at night.”
So, yes, those of us who are two or three degrees of separation from the Pozner family and one or two degrees away from someone who witnessed the events think people like OP and his ilk are lowest of the low.
Easy to talk about it in the abstract.
Those aren't people to you. There little parts of your ridiculous theories.
And so I say again: fuck you.
You're an abomination.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||01/27/2013|
r48 is right.
Whoever you are, OP, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for being stupid enough to even post such a thread.
How old are you?
What kind of education have you had?
Unless you're still in junior high there is no excuse for your ignorance.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||01/27/2013|
[quote]But no one cares to answer the question as asked...making politicians of you all.
"Why did the United Way post a condolence page for the Sandy Hook victims THREE DAYS before the shooting?"
"It was not posted three days before."
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
The problem is you think this is politics when it's the story of the bodies of first-graders being ripped apart by multiple bullets fired by a madman.
There are many idiots who post on DL. Almost all of them are ignored.
You're a malicious idiot so you deserve to be called out on what a twisted fuck you are.
But, hey, you got the attention you crave.
Now go upstairs and ask Mom for a HotPocket.
Maybe she bought your favorite.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||01/27/2013|
Agree with R7 and R9 - as an IT professional, I can tell you that if you're looking for a time stamp on a search engine to be the last word in accuracy you would be very wrong.
If this article was about someone actually seeing this page three days before and alerting Sandy Hook Elementary, that would be a story. An errant time stamp is not.
Give it up, tinhats. Go make sure all those water glasses around your house are full.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||01/27/2013|
And I am saying, r42, is you are seeing something that isn't there. The pro-conspiracy side was the side that made fun of the grief of people with a "widdle" insult. Of course, this somehow doesn't count.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||01/27/2013|
Nobody is saying the children were not murdered, r48. The OP is just questioning the official story (who, how and why). Not sure what to believe, but it would probably make sense to keep track of what points are being raised, and respond to them, instead of going off-track on emotional tangents unrelated to the issue being raised here.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||01/27/2013|
"Nobody is saying the children were not murdered"
Actually, yes, this is one of the conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||01/27/2013|
I did not seen that theory raised in this thread, r54.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||01/27/2013|
...and the anger and insults continue.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||01/27/2013|
Then you were not clicking on the links, r55.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||01/27/2013|
"...and the anger and insults continue."
Boo hoo hoo. Along with the anger and insults are points which none of the conspiracy theorists have even bothered to address. And the anger and insults have been provoked by the ridiculous and insulting positions of the conspiracists.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||01/27/2013|
[quote]...and the anger and insults continue.
Yes, because the trivialization of the brutal slaughter of children through the propagation of easily debunked conspiracy theorist propaganda should go unchallenged.
You want anger?
Go to Newtown and go door-to-door with your little theories.
Go do some firsthand research and publish your findings.
Clearly you are invested in your theories so you should go and investigate.
I think it is important when you have this strength of feeling on a subject that you interview those involved.
I could easily arrange for you to meet with some of the surviving teachers and maybe one or two of the parents. Or better yet, let's arrange a public forum in Newtown for folks like you so you can come and ask these probing questions.
You wouldn't have the balls to come within miles of that town.
Your unwillingness to defer to those with direct knowledge or to accept as given the accounts of hundreds of people just paints you as a willfully ignorant lower quartile thinker.
You cannot fix stupid. But you can call it out at every turn.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||01/27/2013|
hugs, r59. i am with you 100%.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||01/27/2013|
So, R59, et al., are we NOT supposed to discuss anything related to Sandy Hook because you have a friend of a friend of a friend who's connected to it?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||01/27/2013|
[quote]Why are you posting this "truther" dribble on Datalounge, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||01/27/2013|
Sure, OP. Talk about whatever you want.
But don't cry and whine when people call you out for being an idiot and an asshole.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||01/27/2013|
You clear your cookies frequently OP.
I think I know why.....
|by Anonymous||reply 64||01/27/2013|
Which of my posts indicate that I'm crying and whining, R63?
And the cookie clearing thing is a myth.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||01/27/2013|
In almost every one of your posts you whine something along the lines of "can't I pose a simple question" as if anyone said you could not...rather than respond to the actual point made.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||01/27/2013|
"And the cookie clearing thing is a myth"
Then why are so few posts of yours showing up on troll-dar?
Or is the government turning its attention onto the OP?
Morbidly obese man found dead in parent's basement.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||01/27/2013|
[quote]And the cookie clearing thing is a myth.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||01/27/2013|
[quote]And the cookie clearing thing is a myth.
Wait. No, really.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||01/27/2013|
This is a conspiracy thread is it not? So the government lackeys come to a conspiracy thread to attempt to explain a shooting where there are no blood, bodies, or bullets, all while exclaiming that those of us that don't believe it happened are attention seekers. Yep 20+ kids killed and not one tear shed in any press conference or interview from the parents, not one, and I am starving for attention; hilarious to say the least. If this were not serious and if we were not guaranteed to see more fake shootings and the like I would currently be giggling my ass off at these government drones. These same people have moon rocks from Nevada that they bought from auction for it truly was "one small story for man and one giant lie for mankind."
Having said that, your google time stamp inaccuracy in no way trumps the fact that this "shooting" did not happen. We saw no bodies and no surveillance video showing the "shooter" enter the school. But we saw video for Columbine. Next, if at anytime your child is shot to death at school you will not be smiling and laughing before a press conference only to meditate and conjure up your character as the conference starts. What Mr. Parker is doing before that press conference started is called conjuring up, or getting into character.
When someone claims a particular event happened, the burden of proof is on the claimer. If they cannot show evidence (notice I did not type "tell" but "show") of the event, manipulators typically show you illusions of it. We have all been shown illusions of an event that did not happen but we can ask Buzz Aldrin about that. Wait, he will just try to manipulate us into buying those moon rocks.
For someone to claim this "shooting" happened, you have to explain several things. Where are the surveillance videos, bodies, bullets, blood, etc...and why do we not see it when the media absolutely loves to show graphic violence any other time? Where is that Emile Parker girl that was seen with Obama? What is Robbie Parker doing before and at the start of the press conference and why? How was it that children were taken down the street to Rosen's house by a bus driver that did not call the police, only to chill in the driveway til he came out and fed them? This is not Ethiopia, this is CT, one of the richest states in the U.S. The children clearly were not hungry. Have any of you ever tried to eat after you've been traumatized and your knees are knocking?
Another thing you need to take into account is the fact that 5 and 6 year olds are not cognitively developed enough to know that people are dead even if they have been shot. Children's brains do not leap to definite conclusions regarding the abstract until much much later. So how was it that Mr. Rosen said the children told him his teacher was dead? Did the children hang out in the school long enough to have an adult check the teacher's pulse and inform them the teacher is dead? I highly think not. Children are very accurate recorders and if they didn't know the teacher was dead they would not report it. How could they know to tell it to Mr. Rosen?
Meanwhile, every parent and family involved is not immediately grieving but is immediately peddling songs and other shit and having their other kids interviewed on network television to hint at gun control. This is also so obvious that Ray Charles could see it. But go ahead lackeys, I see no need for your denial of rational thought to end. Let them keep governing your mental.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||01/27/2013|
[quote]And the cookie clearing thing is a myth.
Wait. Now wait just a second.
Oh! I get it. Forget about the cookies.
Just post from different IP addresses.
That seems to work.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||01/27/2013|
[quote]by: You'll find me
Yeah, in a mental institution.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||01/27/2013|
R70 is a whole pile of crazy...
He is a "Faces of Death" type freako.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||01/27/2013|
tin hats on parade.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||01/27/2013|
You can pretty much see when someone has legitimately changed IP addresses if they switch to a mobile device or an office VPN or a different home network (I have cable and DSL back-up for work). You can use a VPN to mask IP addresses at will.
Troll-dar usually gives it away.
Someone who switches devices (PC to iPad, for example) isn't trying to hide anything (e.g., one set of posts chronologically from each device). But someone could just as easily switch devices/IP addresses as I did in r68, r69 and r72.
In fact, I could have posted each of my comments from a different IP address, changing my syntax and grammar each time.
And no one - except the webmaster, no doubt - would be any more the wiser.
It takes about 30 seconds to defeat troll-dar if you want to do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||01/27/2013|
Regardless of the details of what happened that day, using the event as justification for curtailing our rights as guaranteed under the Second Amendment is bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||01/27/2013|
[quote]This is a conspiracy thread is it not?
No, it's really an intervention for the mentally ill.
But judging by your post, we're failing miserably.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||01/27/2013|
I didn't realize you were part of a well-regulated militia, r76.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||01/27/2013|
And here come the insults from the lackeys for they cannot defend themselves with information, only insults. Perhaps you all should work for FEMA or the TSA, and maybe you already do, which would explain the "I buy everything I'm fed in the media" garbage.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||01/27/2013|
If you actually stop with the insults and check all that I typed you'll see the info. presented is indeed accurate.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||01/27/2013|
check it how?
google and find equally crackpot conspiracy links?
|by Anonymous||reply 81||01/27/2013|
Is that supposed to affect me? These have been crackpot conspiracies for decades but most are coming to light as truth. Give me some info since you keep posting without saying anything. The reason for this is simple. Since you have no facts or info. to present you resort to ridicule. Look at all the press conferences and a complete lack of grieving or tears since you require some instruction on what to look at profound one.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||01/27/2013|
[quote]check all that I typed
Your typing is fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||01/27/2013|
" You will believe anything that confirms your paranoid fantasies, no matter how little it is backed up with facts, but you set the bar extremely high on any evidence that refutes your theory"
The above excerpt from R12 states it perfectly.
I will add, these people who believe this crap most likely have not spent 1/10th of the time monitoring the investments in their 401K, or exercising their bodies in or out of a gym.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||01/27/2013|
You've been debunked.
Can you accept that and admit it? Yes or no. Simple question.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||01/27/2013|
[quote]These have been crackpot conspiracies for decades but most are coming to light as truth.
Which "crackpot conspiracies" do you include in this list?
Let's start here and just unravel the rest of your statements working backwards.
This is a good place to begin.
You say that most are coming to light as truth.
A simple list of the crackpot conspiracies and those that have been revealed as the truth.
Keep in mind that there are dozens...Philadelphia Experiment, Montauk, HAARP, tsunami bombs, chemtrail theories, Pan Am 103, TWA 800, New World Order, Columbine, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, JFK, RFK, MLK, Ron Brown, John Lennon, the Clinton Body Count, Birtherism, Holocaust denial, Eurabia, Vril Society, DTV transition, AIDS denialists, Bokemian Grove, Trilateral Commission, Illuminati, Le Cercle, Tavistock, moon landing, KAL 007 ...
You'll come back with Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin.
No, you won't be able to show that "most" or even a substantial number have been proven true.
If anything, you simply cannot deny that the vast majority of these conspiracy theories are simply nonsense.
But, please, this should be fun.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||01/27/2013|
[quote]Look at all the press conferences and a complete lack of grieving or tears since you require some instruction on what to look at profound one.
Wow. This girl is some actress.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||01/27/2013|
Oh, the tedium.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||01/27/2013|
I happen to be a search engine expert, and I confirm what R9 said.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||01/27/2013|
You just know that "You'll Find Me" is furiously typing away as I type this.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||01/27/2013|
What did Nosferatu say about Sandy Hook?
|by Anonymous||reply 91||01/27/2013|
OP, you're a fucking libertarian asshat who's life is so vapid and miserable that you need to blame the government to make you feel superior.
People like you, OP, make everything WORSE and you deserve all the scorn you get here. I hope it makes you feel really lousy. You deserve nothing but the worst.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||01/27/2013|
And R92, my crime is?
|by Anonymous||reply 93||01/27/2013|
Being stupid. REALLY stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||01/27/2013|
By doing what?
|by Anonymous||reply 95||01/27/2013|
OP - you're paranoid and insane. Seriously, get help.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||01/27/2013|
So chemtrails theories are consipiracies. HAARP does not exist. New World Order does not really exist. 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Bohemian Grove doesn't exist. The Trilateral Commission does not exist. Tavistock does not exist. The illuminati doesn't exist. JFK died of natural causes along with RFK. And the last one I'll comment on is the AIDS denialist. Now I could tackle all these but I'll only deal with one purely as an example. The patent for HIV is U.S. patent # 4,647,773. The patent for the cure is U.S. patent # 5,676,977. I would gladly keep going and show you most of the conspiracies you mentioned are in fact true but there is no hope for the blind and ignorant. An apology should be in order after you read these patents, if indeed you are capable. Let me also remind you that part of the conditions of being granted a patent is that your invention has to do what it is intended to do or the patent is not granted.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||01/27/2013|
Call them "hookers"
|by Anonymous||reply 98||01/27/2013|
Again, OP: You've been debunked. Can you accept that? Yes or no.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||01/27/2013|
I don't agree with the idea that OP is presenting, but its the rest of you that are coming off as crazy and insane.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||01/27/2013|
crazy and insane?
|by Anonymous||reply 101||01/27/2013|
I don't need to be debunked. I was just putting it out there. Again. I never said I believed it.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||01/27/2013|
Fortunately for us all, you were debunked. Thanks for stopping by.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||01/27/2013|
So, HIV was patented in 1984 by Gallo?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||01/27/2013|
By nature you can't debunk a question. There is no statement being made to debunk. Yes HIV was patented by Gallo. Glad to see it's approaching common knowledge.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||01/27/2013|
Tetrasilver tetroxide inhibits HIV transmission according to the patent. It does not claim to cure AIDS.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||01/27/2013|
In 1984...NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR. Years, maybe decades after the first person carried the virus. Which makes it unlikely he created it, as the conspiracy theorists argue.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||01/27/2013|
Especially given that he stole it from Luc Montagnier and his team at the Institut Pasteur in France. There's a reason why Montagnier has a Nobel Prize and Gallo doesn't.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||01/27/2013|
Hilarious. So I show you the patents which document the creation of a virus and you send me something back saying someone could have carried the virus for decades. Do you understand how intellectual property works? Do you understand the purpose of being granted patents? You do not receive a patent for finding something, only for what you create. And in your case you completely ignore the irony in patenting a virus in 1984.
To 106, you will read in the first damn sentence that it destroys the AIDS virus yet you send me something completely skipping that saying it does not claim to cure AIDS. The damn title of the patent says "Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices". You see the word curing in that right?
|by Anonymous||reply 109||01/27/2013|
The voice of the night,
Nice work. I do remember that controversy and I'm shocked that Gallo still has not received a Nobel yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||01/27/2013|
I see lots of things, conspiracy theorist. I see that you are a typical conspiracy theorist who knows just enough to misinterpret things like patent applications.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||01/27/2013|
You see lots of things huh? You just can't see the title of a patent application nor do you know anything about intellectual property. There are some people that know though. Some of us are pursuing our own patents for things that actually help people instead of assisting them in death. Don't talk about things you don't know about and if you can't read a patent just say so and somebody will be glad to narrate to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||01/27/2013|
There is something very, very wrong with you.
[quote]The patent for HIV is U.S. patent # 4,647,773. The patent for the cure is U.S. patent # 5,676,977.
#4,647,773 was filed on April 23, 1984 and granted on March 3, 1987 based on Gallo's research throughout the epidemic. It relates to the development of additional test, vaccines and treatments.
The patent refers to a method of reproducing the HIV-1 retrovirus from an already-infected individual. The patent says absolutely nothing about creating the pathogen.
Learn to read,
Re: 5,676,977, "Tetrasil (or Imusil) is a substance containing tetrasilver tetroxide. A patent held by Dr. Marvin S. Antelman claims that this simple chemical compound cures AIDS by electrocuting HIV. Dr. Antelman admits his approach to AIDS is non-conventional and he does not trust viral load tests: Accordingly we have patients who display viral load reduction and those that do not who are nevertheless cured of AIDS, he has said. Tetrasilver tetroxide is more commonly used for disinfecting swimming pools. After it was promoted as an AIDS cure in Zambia the government banned Tetrasil because it has no proven benefits for people living with HIV."
So there's another theory of yours shot to shit.
[quote]but there is no hope for the blind and ignorant. An apology should be in order after you read these patents, if indeed you are capable. Let me also remind you that part of the conditions of being granted a patent is that your invention has to do what it is intended to do or the patent is not granted.
The standard for patenting non-pharmaceutical medical treatments is low.
The study on which the patent application was based has been thoroughly debunked.
[quote]I would gladly keep going and show you most of the conspiracies you mentioned are in fact true
Keep going. I'll shoot you down point by point.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||01/27/2013|
thank you r113. good god this op is insane.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||01/27/2013|
Tetrasilver tetroxide is a pesticide.
Good luck with that.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||01/27/2013|
More on the five-person "study" in Honduras which was used to substantiate the patent.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||01/27/2013|
Neem is also a pesticide and so is rosemary. Garlic is too for that matter. What is your point? If it will kill a virus, sure it will kill pests. You're coming from the stance that all pesticides are bad, which simply is not the case. There are natural insecticides and pesticides and silver is one of them. You can put a silver dollar (if indeed it is real silver) in your milk or water to keep it fresh longer. Sailors used to do that decades ago.
As for my AIDS patent friend, you can't shoot anything I submit to shit homie. You submitted something that explicitly tells they were curing people no matter the viral load.
"Accordingly we have patients who display viral load reduction and those that do not who are nevertheless cured of AIDS, he has said."
I suppose you are now going to tell me where AIDS really came from since the explanation I offered wasn't good enough. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||01/27/2013|
[quote]I don't agree with the idea that OP is presenting, but its the rest of you that are coming off as crazy and insane
Come on now. There's a guy on here who thinks the moon landing was faked.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||01/27/2013|
[quote]"Accordingly we have patients who display viral load reduction and those that do not who are nevertheless cured of AIDS, he has said."
See links at r116 and above.
[quote]I suppose you are now going to tell me where AIDS really came from since the explanation I offered wasn't good enough. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
I don't know but it emerged many decades before Gallo's work. Lots of possible theories but we'll never know for sure. Most likely zoonosis.
But the patent you refer to makes absolutely no reference to the creation or origin of the pathogen.
You can read it over and over and over again but it does not change that fact.
But, look, you don't want to accept that these notions, which you parrot with such conviction, are wrong.
You are much too heavily invested in them to accept irrefutable facts.
But this is a good thing because it shines a bright light on the insanity which drives conspiracy theories and their cult-like believers.
And it underscores in a very strong and convincing manner how utterly ridiculous your claims regarding Newtown are.
And that was my goal. Just to let you throw enough out there to show that the emperor has no clothes.
I do not owe you an apology but I certainly owe you thanks.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 120||01/27/2013|
Thanks for an interesting read people.
My humble opinion: there are most likely some conspiracies in the world -- but the slaughter of these children isn't one of hem.
But like Rahm said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." So there are those using this opportunity to push their agendas through (enhanced gun control) while ignoring the mental health and "Really Stupid Mother" issues in this sad event.
Many conspiracy theorists make some nice change pushing books and websites that encourage the more gullible amongst us; don't forget that little detail.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||01/27/2013|
The PDF file about how to talk to kids about the shooting was created late night on Dec. 14th. So your theory's silly, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 123||01/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 124||01/28/2013|
WHET the OP?
Can only post on weekends?
|by Anonymous||reply 125||01/28/2013|
This is just the beginning. Pretty soon their gonna be knocking on you're door demanding your guns. Sandy Hooke was just a goverment plot to get hour guns!
|by Anonymous||reply 126||01/28/2013|
Parody post fail
|by Anonymous||reply 127||01/28/2013|
hardly. the op was not trying to be funny.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||01/28/2013|
Vile vile vile.
Father of Newtown victim heckled at hearing.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||01/28/2013|
r128, I meant r126
|by Anonymous||reply 130||01/28/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 131||01/29/2013|