Users Online Now:
1,180
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
298,568
Pageviews Today:
484,152
Threads Today:
140
Posts Today:
2,731
05:53 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Another pair of actors in Sandy hoax exposed. 100% BUSTED!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 25459792:MV8yMDgzNDg5XzM1NDA3MDYyXzk0MUUwRUI2] :rant: Going to be long - buckle in, I'm addressing so much of the entire thread I've been watching... You know what baffles me - is just how many people will apply circular or blind logic here. The very same details being used to compare people is the same thing being used to say they are different! I've followed GLP forever now, never saw fit to comment until this behemoth of a mess. Example: Person A has the same jaw, hair, etc. etc. as Person B, therefore they are the same! Counter-Example: Person C MUST be the same but they have altered their jaw, hair, etc. through makeup and surgery, see how their nose is the same! Either looking the same is proof, or looking different is proof, which is it here? The "Phelps" DO look act like actors and look the same - but saying her hair is the same is NOT proof. You know how popular that hairstyle is? *I* have it right now. Longer side-swept bangs with layered hair. It's a copy-cat of KATE MIDDLETON - the one people are copying right now (though I must have been ahead of the times, because I've had this cut for a couple years). Seriously, it's the #1 style right now, pick up ANY magazine. Or just go here for a Google search of just "Hottest Hairstyles": https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+hairstyles&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=geW&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=etTlUPK4JfSO2QWSu4HgBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1366&bih=641 I'm seeing far too many people pick a person from the shooting files and then scan the same album looking for the closest match (and even then might still be really far off - considering the distance between the eye corners and bridge of nose are WAY off, things you CANNOT change with makeup or surgery). That doesn't work - why? Because for one, A LOT of this is based off ONE album. Show the lack of info for prior history OR show the prior history - what about media photos? Has anyone done property records searches in PRIOR states for the victims families names? I don't see ANYTHING like that here - we need to get it and show it to prove these actors had no prior real life existence. This thread started off loopy with the same commenter/OP spamming the same links over and over, got really good in the middle and now just looks like a bunch of people pasting up any photo they can find of anything and pointing and saying "See, see, see?" and waiting for someone to either say "I SEE IT!" or "I don't see it!" to respond back with "SHILL!!!!" You know what "they" say - if someone else tells you what they see, they'll see it too. Classic ink-blottage. Or for an audio example, the same "EVP" from a ghost hunt will sound completely different to two independent people, but when one person says "Hey, listen and see if you think it says "I'm coming for you" and tell me what you hear", that's what someone else will hear. Remove the power of suggestion. You want some explanations, I'll give you the LOGICAL ones so we can get back on track to talking about the original couple and a FEW small others. #1 Absurd thing: The "only" photo of the kids on a timeline. You know why? The rest are set to private. You can go to anyone's Facebook page that has it on lockdown and see only what they select to be seen - only one of my family photos is public and it doesn't have all my kids in it, does it mean the others don't exist? Absence of YOU being able to see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or the whole point of GLP is moot. That said, also of COURSE someone would make something private/invite if they are being harassed one way or the other! Given the veracity in which people like 4chan exist, if someone is constantly harassing you AND you have lost a child, do you let it keep going on or do you just stop the madness? It *alone* is NOT indicative of whether someone is hiding something. Given how long this thread had gone on AND the outright post stating people had posted something like this on their blog comments - do you really think someone would let that stay? Imagine for a moment you are one of the real families who lost a child - and someone was making fun of you and your dead kid... you just stand by and give them free reign? If you removed it and it kept coming back and those posts were only meant for friends and family anyway, do you leave it open to ridicule? We don't know what was all posted on there and given the reach of this thread, even more vile things that "You are so and so" could have been said. A little critical thinking here folks. Do you sit around on your own personal space just letting people call you a liar, a fraud, etc.? Just because something goes private doesn't 100% "prove" anything - it can be a [i]point[/i] in the scenario but isn't standalone proof. I deleted a hateful comment on my blog that exposed the US's semi-traitor status of Gaddhafi - does that mean the comment was true? If that is the logic, then some of the hatefulness here to people who might not agree 100% with everything means the OP and those who agree are wrong. Circular logic and it doesn't work when trying to prove anything because it just means people will argue the point in circles and there is no definitive answer. #2 Absurd thing: The age of the kids. I have FOUR kids under 10 years old. Those kids DO look to be about 4-5 years old. I've got one turning 2 this month and is nearly half their size and he is in the 50th percentile for heigh and 56th for weight so fairly average... not to mention the fact of my own children, I have worked in daycares most of my life. Anyone saying those are toddlers has never seen most kids. I do have a friend who's one child is 18 months younger but towers over my kid, she's the exception and in the 98th percentile for height and 96th for weight. #3 Absurd thing: Location of the kids photo = padded room. With metal interlock walls? Really? That's an RV bed where the upper wall folds down usually the extra above the driver on an older RV. Note the slide bar on the far right of the photo. #4 Absurd thing: The Soto photo comparison. Do you people not have kids or know a teacher? Regardless of the other photos, this one was laughable: http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/SOTOfail_zps9a01340f.jpg Why? Because, for one the "summery dress" matches the other little girls in the photo, they are wearing light dresses/ short skirts (look at the girl in the very front row with the sleeveless summer dress on). Pics are normally taken in September, with retakes in October and the weather reports show it was a warm Sept. in New England - which also helped eventually fuel Sandy. Why is her "pro-photo" the same? Because it was taken the same day for the yearbook. Class photos are done usually in the gym or the front steps of a school. Individual shots (complete with the cheesy Lifetouch backdrop), are done somewhere else. Not to mention, it's not the same photo. The class photo would show both ears if they were exposed, the individual shot would not have shown her right ear (our left). Also, over her right shoulder in the class photo has more hair, while the individual shot shows less hair with it fanning out over to her arm. #5 - not so absurd, just not really rational thing referenced: The little girl/Obama photo. The dress is the same, it's the sisters. A family friend lost their child to cancer and the younger son actually wore his older brothers suit to the funeral - I suppose it was to be "like" or "closer" to him. It's obviously ill-fitting. And yes, it's okay to smile after a loss - when my grandmother died of cancer, the Priest made a few jokes at her eulogy, because that's the type of woman she was. After the wake, we were laughing and smiling and she died in one of the worst possible ways I can imagine. Now, given if any parent loses a child and the fact they were in the middle of an international media shoot with Obama - I'd think at least for the sake of cameras, they'd put on a faux face, if nothing else for the other kids in the room who might been affected. They are supposed to be sisters... of COURSE they look alike. My brother is a stretched out carbon copy of me and he's a guy! If he put on 40lbs, and grew some boobs and lost a winkie, we'd be identical and if you put his photo next to my father's - they look like identical twins too. Saying a family member looks like a family member - not proof. And in applying that wrong circular logic, saying a family member looks nothing alike isn't proof either. We look like our dad, our mom - not ONE bit and she birthed us! (The same goes for a side snaggletooth in some of the photos being used as proof - it's a common thing to have and most people don't get it fixed - but it's one of the easiest things to change so either the teeth being the same is proof or being different is not - again, a PIECE of proof, not 100% if it's the only proof). Get back to the start of this and work on the real comparisons that have been found and pick those apart FIRST instead of adding more questionable people on the pile with the same faulty methods. A quick side by side doesn't help. Use the side by side, use words/font underneath each photo and note WHERE that photo came from, via what news station/story, then the comparison photos. I think that's what some people in the middle were asking for - where did this come from? "The same album" doesn't help, which page? Which photo? Which album? Don't zoom in and pixelate everything, I've seen that too much which distorts features that cannot be changed and there is no way to make a judgment at all. One of the earlier comparisons shows a quite clear girl and the other a very, very grainy zoom in. If you think it helps, add it as a set of THREE side by sides. Calling people shills because they say "Nope, don't see that one" doesn't help either, completely derails the entire purpose. Foster meaningful thought and discussion, don't close your eyes and say "I'm right, you're wrong and since I'm right - YOU are the shill!". Frankly, the more you scream shill at even the slightest moment someone even ASKS a question (which I saw twice heavily) won't help and makes you look like the shill trying to derail us from getting to the very heart and a point of agreement - don't let the people talk, they won't put it altogether and figure out WHO is the actor. The only way to get to the bottom is to ask questions, get solid info THEN take it to the media and the internet. If you say "See, A and B are the same person" with nothing else, no way to find it, no idea WHY it matters, no one will listen. EACH person in this needs their OWN reply with EACH photo and EACH document added to it. It's all over the place and about 3/4 of the way in, I lost who was supposed to be who and where they were found or seen before. Example: Person A is on TV as Mr. Smith as a parent of Little Guy Smith. Person A is actually Mr. Green. He was said to live in X city before, lived in Newtown for X months/years. He ACTUALLY was in X city and is shown as the Father of Person B, Cousin of Person C, and nephew of Person D. On CNN: Link to video On Person C's album "Thanksgiving", page 6, third from the right, fourth down as Mr. Smith Link to Photo Also in Person A's album "Christmas", page 4, first from the right, second down as Mr. Green Link to Album/Photo Here is the side by side from Thanksgiving album and TV Link to the photo Here is a 3 set of photos, going from left - TV, Thanksgiving, Christmas Now, that said, go ahead and proceed to call me a shill or whatever buzzwordy name for calling for people to use a little bit of logic here and stop with the overarching. There is too many things fishy with the whole thing and a few nuggets in here that are worth debating and getting into more depth. Those nuggets shouldn't be lost in circular logic or anyone that needs convincing, won't be. As for adding to the discussion... The "Emilie Parker Fund" set up on Facebook was set up by a "friend" left back in Ogden. It was set up within 15-20 minutes of the first report of "a shooting" itself asking for cash to assist the Parkers - this was before the shooter was even confirmed dead, let alone if there were casualties or how many, or even where in the building it was. In fact, many people on the page with the first posts questioned how they could even know Emilie wasn't hiding somewhere and surmised it was a scam page. Given how many bullets went into each child as the story (IIRC, each new version said no victim had less than 11 shots into them), my guess is she wouldn't have been recognizable to give a positive ID in all the mayhem and mess. Not only this, but the parent's would have A) known all the above info, and B) got a hold of a friend in Utah FIRST and not other family or wait for confirmation? ...who then within seconds deemed it appropriate without knowing the family's finances to set up a donation fund and put up 5 or 6 photos? May not be 100% proof, but I certainly don't think friend in any other state has that type of photos... if they pulled them off say a personal page through the download function, it certainly would have taken longer than that to do. I have serious reservations about Robbie/Emilie Parker. The shooting happened IMO. The question is, which families were in on it (perhaps most of those who spoke to the media) and which were truly hunted down. If you want to control the gun debate - it has to happen IRL to SOME extent - there has to be a trail. You can't pick a school and say "Gee golly, kids are dead now move along". There's multiple social media photos taken by neighbors of the scene, dozens of different news crews and dozens of photos from bystanders who came up to the area and took their own photos. It's far too much to risk to go wrong here for such a large issue like disarming people to be slaves, but the risk was mitigated by the fact that not so many kids died. In all these types of national events, they DO happen - to some extent, but likely planned and supplemented by actors, faux death counts, etc. They HAVE to have some real people for "memorials" later, they still exist while the ones in on it later say "No comment" and other media can walk up to the home later and say "It's been a year, do you miss so and so". If everyone disappears, it's too much to pass off. So some real people have to be casualties. [/quote]
Original Message
Two parents "Nick" and "Laura Phelps"
[
link to edition.cnn.com
]
"Nick and Laura Phelps also are struggling with what to tell their two children, a first-grader and a third-grader."
"When I saw those teachers, I locked eyes with them separately. If I could go back, I would embrace them," Nick Phelps said, "because I had no idea what they had gone through."
[not the guys in the video in that article]
-------------
Know whatch this video from 1:35 on:
Then look at this picture
from Dallasgoldbug who didnt found this out yet ;) (If you read that DGB - FIRST :P)
Look at the lower left side above the young boy the couple with the kid in the middle
:
[
link to wellaware1.com
]
The woman I know is Jennifer Greenberg. The guy Im not sure of his name. She plays many other characters(just check wellaware1.com)
Now tell me that these two are not the same couple!
I say 100% match!
The conclusions are mindblowing!
Check also the other fake actor. The medical examiner:
Thread: Fake examiner
Now I dont know if this means that everything is fake but it certainly shows that this is a
planned event
.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>