Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,844 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,523,888
Pageviews Today: 1,707,741Threads Today: 258Posts Today: 3,345
08:00 AM

Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
Message Subject Why are there no photos of the Florida sinkhole that swallowed the guy in his bed?
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
I don't get it. Here is what I am finding wrong with this story:

1) Where's the hole?
2) The guy's "brother" shed no tears when interviewed the other day on TV. Another crisis actor.
3) First thing that is done today is the flag being taken down? What is the meaning of that??
4) The "brother" has a stuffed lamb. Could this lamb be a symbol for the sheeple to believe this hoax? Lamb=Sheep
5) There is another perfect photo op of the brother "grieving".
6) I read somewhere else that the condemned sign on the house is actually a sign used for condemned drug houses. WTF??
7) Why are some of the windows boarded up with cardboard?
8) They rushed to demolish this house, but now they are only going to work an hour or two today and come back tomorrow to finish the job? Do they want to do it during the day so that not too many bystanders will be able to watch this because the bystanders and tv viewers will be at work?
9) The names in this story are very strange; Jeff Bush, and Larry Madrid?
9) The hole is supposedly 20-30 ft wide? That house is too small to have a bedroom that large.
10) No photos!!

This is definitely a very fishy story.

 Quoting: Anonomus Koward

One thing I wanted to bring up was an interview he did (perhaps the same one you all saw, unless he's done many)...he brought up how difficult life had been, working two jobs etc.
how this situation had just leveled him and how he lost everything --- his brother (r.i.p.) and his home -- next, the interviewer asked him if he had insurance on the house....

as he framed the question in his head he missed a beat or two and then answered 'yes' it was insured but that the house wasn't his anyway.
it belonged to his father-in-law. here i thought his answer was going to be 'no' (thus the overwhelming grief he was overcome by, compounded with the death of his brother).

So my friends, I understand his grief and I feel for him but why insist that he had lost absolutely everything? he still had his wife, child and father and the insurance to count on.....
so what exactly is 'everything'??
if it was solely his brother he lost in this wouldn't he have just said so??? very odd.
Please verify you're human:

Reason for reporting: