More acting or lying from Sandy Hook - Gene Rosen, PhD dog groomer?

If the children were there for 1/2 hour, he obviously didn't call the police. He describes someone bringing the children to his driveway but never explains why they would pass the firehouse to do so. All you have to do is look on google maps at the satellite view and you can see that there is really no way to get to his driveway from the school without passing the firehouse.
He was at home in sleepy town, he was feeding his cats, he was coming home from a diner, and he encountered children sitting in a semi-circle in his driveway who told him their teacher had been killed and a grown man can't process the details? Come on.
I kinda think this guy figured out a way to sell a book or something. Nothing about his account makes any sense at all according to the rest of the story.

I might add, he also can't seem to remember whether he was feeding cats, heading out to a diner, going for a walk, or coming back from said diner when they approached. He also somehow saw the casualty list far earlier than most people('later that day'), and somehow seems to have completely overlooked the 'man/woman' who brought the kids to his house in the first place(Where the fuck did he/she go in this story? He claims he wasn't going to ask them what happened, but he could have easily asked this individual...).

Never said there was no such thing as "crisis actors."

"The only conspiracy is that some of these promoting these ideas are probably plants."

So you criticize others for thinking that a conspiracy might have occurred in Newtown, yet you project your own conspiracy theory in suggesting that some of us are plants to disrupt some kind of arbitrarily defined good flow of discussion from good DPers like yourself?

Come on. Sandy Hook is a current event. Let people discuss it without slandering them. The weeks following events like this usually bring out the strangest material. We are trying to get to the bottom of some questions. We are not content with letting government entities declare something truthful without investigation from without.

This is a big deal if it is false. As big as anything else.

It is not logical to say that because there were actors posing as eye witnesses on 9/11 that Gene Rosen was acting in these interviews. Quite frankly it is beyond lazy to make that leap and you are playing into the hands of the people pulling the strings. Did you ever think by jumping on the band wagon of this actor nonsense that you could actually be hurting the quest for what really happened?