text:
1 chrishernandezauthor on April 6, 2014 said:
Okay, now I have some time. I'll hit your questions point by point.
1) The fact that the teacher's car was parked out of view of the targeted classrooms does not mean it couldn't have been shot from inside (I'm taking your word on the car's location, as I don't personally know where it was parked). Is there some reason Lanza couldn't have shot it from the school's entry door?
Regarding the car, I'd say that if there is no evidence of a second shooter, no witnesses reporting a second shooter, no spent shell casings associated with weapons others than Lanza's and no weapons recovered no associated to Lanza, then the reasonable conclusion is that Lanza shot the teacher's car at some point during the attack.
2) The other suspects detained outside the school were addressed in the report.
"At the date of this writing, there is no evidence to suggest that anyone other than the shooter was aware of or involved in the planning and execution of the crimes that were committed on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street. From the time an unknown male was encountered by the Newtown police outside of the school during the initial response, until well after the staff and children had been evacuated, the thought that there may have been more than one shooter was a condition all responding law enforcement worked under as they cleared the school. Individuals located in the wooded areas surrounding the school as the searches and evacuations were taking place were initially treated as suspect and handled accordingly (including being handcuffed) until their identity could be determined. The circumstances surrounding all of these individuals were fully investigated and revealed no additional shooters. DNA testing of evidence recovered from both the school and 36 Yogananda Street also revealed no potential accessories or co-conspirators."
I understand the names of those detained aren't included in the report, as they shouldn't be, because they were determined to be uninvolved. I realize that many people simply don't believe the report's conclusion. My counterpoint is that if this was a conspiracy perpetrated by the police, there would have been no reason for them to detain the "actual" shooter.
It is not odd that someone would be able to breach the outer perimeter of a crime scene, especially during the first phases of the incident. Towns like Newtown don't have huge numbers of police officers immediately available. I worked for one town that had 6000 people and 10 officers, and another town with 13,000 people and 23 officers. In my blog post "Just another night on Smith street" I described a murder scene I worked where three people were shot and approximately 400 people were going crazy on the scene, and we had four officers to work it (until off-duty and other agencies' officers arrived). In a major incident, officers are going to spend a long time focused on the immediate crime scene, the outer perimeter will be established and strengthened as additional resources and manpower become available.
2.5) The picture you're describing of the students being evacuated is, as far as I know, from the actual event. Where is the evidence that photo was tweeted a year earlier? I'd bet that claim comes from a conspiracy web site, with no facts to back it up.
I'm going to call BS on the story on the gag order over the entire town, and that every family had an officer assigned to live with them. In this country court orders don't apply to entire populations, they apply to individuals. And I don't mean this to be disrespectful to you, but I'm not going to Google anything to prove the point YOU want to make. I welcome disagreement, but I don't have to prove anyone else's claim. If you have real evidence of a gag order or officers being assigned to every family in Newtown, please lay it out.
Thanks and I hope you continue to comment here.
2 Wayland on April 7, 2014 said:
I have been waiting in anticipation of your reply to Crimson's questions because they are far more challenging than the ones you originally answered. Your response to the question about Louren Rousseau's car with the bullet holes is disappointing because rather than google "Sandy Hook green car bullet holes" which would provide a wealth of info and photos for you to examine you say "(I'm taking your word on the car's location, as I don't personally know where it was parked)".
Anything you say after that is conjecture rather than opinion based on evidence you could easily have looked up. The holes are on the wrong side of the car for a start. They appear to be a larger calibre. The fact that the owner of the car was reported as shot by the gunman makes it look more like the car was targeted rather than shot accidentally. One might even want to investigate if this was where the victim was shot.
I think people can make up their own minds about your investigative police skills.
Wayland,
You seem to forget, as all "conspiracy investigators" do, that I don't have to prove your point. If you or anyone else has evidence that the bullet holes prove something, lay it out. And I don't mean posting a link to a conspiracy web site video. Show me some actual evidence.
You set this challenge for yourself when you chose to answer Halbig's questions. You titled your article "refuting-a-sandy-hook-truther". To refute you have to reference evidence and provide reasoning. You also chose to attempt Crimsons questions.
Running away from your own blog with "I don't have to prove your point" when you already started to tackle the point is cowardly of you.
You accuse me of directing you to a conspiracy video when all I did was suggest you google a term. Make up your own search term and chose the pictures you want to look at.
The fact that you refuse to look for evidence in case it proves to you that the bullets which hit the car did not come from inside the building is a piss poor response.
If the bullets came from inside the school then you would be able to show that, I know because I have seen that there is enough evidence to figure this bit out.
Effectively you are saying "LALALALA I Can't hear you", pathetic.
Just fucking look at the evidence you weak little coward 😉
Seriously you need to grow a pair.
Wayland.
You are a funny man. I commend your sense of humor.
I opened myself up to argument with my post? No kidding. That's what my intent was. It worked very well. I also responded to Crimson's questions; NOT to prove any point he was trying to make. If he (or you) can actually lay out some evidence to back your claims, I'll address it.
This ridiculous mentality you have, "If you don't research the claims I make, you're a coward!" just shows your own stupidity, your own narcissism, your own lack of even basic understanding of real investigation.
You're extremely moronic, so I'll spoon-feed you some reality: If YOU make a claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up.
Know what this means? It means that if YOU'RE claiming the bullet holes in a car at a massacre mean there's a conspiracy, YOU have to prove it. I don't.
Oh, and if it makes you feel better, I'm very hurt that you called me a coward. I live for your opinion.
I'm sure you are a very brave moron.
I assumed that since you did not want to go to a conspiracy theorists website or video that you would have to look at evidence that you could chose yourself. Since I am a conspiracy theorist I am either honoured that you would look at something I would put together or I am wasting my time because you would refuse to look at it based on the reasons you have already given.
However someone else has already put together a much better version of this info than I am prepared to do. Since you are prepared to look at something I would put together would you instead accept some work that someone else has done which I am happy to accept as the same as I would have produced for you?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread911333/pg1
You can right click the photos for a bigger version. It seems the car was facing the right way but one of the holes is an exit hole which is weird. The holes look too big for the rifle. It is unlikely or even impossible that the car could have been hit with more than one shot and no other cars hit.
Of all the teachers in the school and all the other cars which could have been hit by stray bullets then it's unlikely that just this car was hit and the owner killed too. With about 36 cars in the car park and one shot and 6 staff killed that's about 1 in 6 chance that the car hit would belong to a killed member of staff. If we say that hitting that particular car and no others had a 1 in 6 change also then that's a 1 in 36 chance of that happening. Add the suspicion that the ballistics don't match then it's reasonable to investigate whether the car was shot directly and not with stray bullets.
7 brian neal on May 11, 2014 said:
in early reports i heard that 3 cars were shot but i don't put much in early reports . also there are photos showing the car parked and the angle from where the shots came from, in the released photos from inside the school it shows the window that was shot and the window frame that the bullets went thru ,, in the photos of the car with the bullet holes the shot thru the door is at an angle and not a straight in shot , and concerning the exit hole is it possible that the bullet went in behind the mirror up the left windshield post hit what ever may be in the post and ricocheted out forming the exit hole
8 Wayland on May 12, 2014 said:
It's significant that the car shot belonged to a teacher who was shot. This could be seen as two attempts to target the teacher. The bullet holes are larger than a .223. I saw no other cars shot but I do find early reports interesting so maybe more cars were shot. It seems unlikely that this car alone would have been his if bullets were coming through the wall or window of the school. The car is shown parked with others which would have been very close to the path of the bullets. If the bullets were not aimed then some would have hit other cars. How strange that early reports make more sense than the later ones 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le50gJ2kbro in this video it shows the gunshot hole being analyze which shows them going in an angle thru the window frame going towards the teacher car
10 crimsonmafia on April 7, 2014 said:
Thank you Mr. Hernandez sir for taking the time to respond back to my questions. Also thanks Wayland for providing the link to the "bullet holes in the car" that was the first time that I had seen that, and I see that many others there were asking common sense questions and trying to get common sense answers. I believe that most of them did come to the conclusion that the bullet holes could had been made from the shots fired inside the school, I think most of them agreed that the bullets fired would had to have traveled in an exactly specific line to reach the car and land the way they did. Here is the only part they left out, and this is a important part, classrooms 7 and 8 were the child victims were found are not located per the sketched layout of the school, meaning it would had made it near impossible to hit the car, but hey these are just people like you and me discussing it, as Mr Hernandez mentioned, it could had been from the shooter when trying to enter the school. I think we can agree it's odd, but in no way does it point to this as being a hoax.
I agree with you that the gag order or assignment of police officers for each of the victims families is BS. This is one of many BS topics that leads normal people like myself to even question this event. I mean it takes a sick s.o.b. to question parents who have just went through such a tragic event that many of us will fortunately never experience in our lifetime, at least I hope not. I have a beautiful 6 year old daughter, that would turn my life upside down if I had to encounter this with her. I also am sensible to understand that until you are in that position, you do not know how you would react.
I don't think I would want a strange man in my home immediately after while my family and I grieve. I'm not even sure I would want family and friends there. I can't say for sure, I would hope that me a 38 year old man would be strong enough to hold my family together to get through the first few days, but again I was born and raised here in the south and that's how we are raised here, but you can't speak for others. Now why did I just type out my expression of how I believe I would had handled it? It's because I don't think you Mr. Hernandez would had handled it any different than the way I said I would have. Below is an article from the AP, I agree with you also that if we're discussing this to use replicable sources when posting a link, no conspiracy BS. I have much I will post later, that I am not sure that you maybe aware of regarding this tragedy. Such things after reading made me think. I find it strange that in this article that Gov. Malloy, and the police chief made this decision for the families on their own, I also find it strange that not one of the victims families choose not to opt-out of the decision made for them. Does this article point directly at this being a hoax? Of course not, but I can also see how it could make the conspiracy theorist point to this as being able to control what gets out to the media for the days after the shooting occurred. Thanks for your time, and I will post more to discuss later.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/newtown-families-form-tight-bonds-troopers
11 Scot M on April 7, 2014 said:
First of all, wow. What an amazingly good article. That someone could take from that that the police liasons were part of a "gag order" or somehow controlling the families is beyond mean, and downright distasteful. Despite not having a precedent for doing something like that, I think that was an incredibly touching gesture on the police CO's part.
Chris may have a different opinion based on his experiences, but for me as a civilian, that sounds just like what a community-oriented, caring police force should aspire to. I agree with you crimson, that if something like that ever happened to me or my family, I'd most likely be devastated as well, but one thing I do know about small communities and people in general, is that bonding and having someone there for you goes a LONG way in the healing process.
Lastly, there is no indications that any of the families did, or did not opt out of their assigned liason, or that the liasons were in the families homes or with then 24/7. So I think its unfair to say, or rather assume, that this was forced upon the victims families.
Im still in the process of looking for the "gag order" I have a video link of Officer Vance in a press conference saying that any misinformation reported in print or social media could face criminal charges. I am looking for a paper article from a reliable source, I did run across this from early on about how tight sealed this case base been from the beginning. You would think that this would be simple and straight forward case with 1 shooter, and body of single shooter at crime scene. Open and closed case, I remember when reading this the day it was released really got me thinking that there was more to this shooting than what was being told. Also Mr Hernandez, I'm not sure if you mentioned before the day that you began following the SH headlines that lead you to believe that no question this tragic event happened without a doubt. I am not sure with so much time that has passed since this article, and other information that has been released since that this article still has the same effect that it did the day it was released. Anyway I found that reading it that day it was released, contained some interesting language.
http://m.ctpost.com/policereports/article/Sandy-Hook-affidavits-remain-sealed-4150259.php
Here is the link, keep in mind this is 2 days after the shooting, this is about the time people were really scratching their head and starting to ask questions. If you read the article it sounds as people were posing as the shooter, or harassing the victims families, and they could have been, I was not there or know any particular details that he was talking about. I just find it odd, that 2 days after the shooting, he is calling a press conference threatening anyone and everyone, that they could be facing charges over what they are posting on social media (miss information). Have you ever witnessed this during any of the cases you have worked? I know this was not your everyday day crime, but I have yet seen this in other national tragic event, before or after SH
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1221554
Crimson,
I think you misunderstood me about something. I wasn't calling BS on the gag order and officers living with the families in the sense of "it was wrong for them to do that", I meant "those things didn't happen". Yes, officers can be assigned to families as liaisons. That doesn't mean they're being forced on the families. For that matter, nobody can force a police officer to live with another family, especially one that doesn't want him there. And gag orders don't cover entire towns. That's not how laws work in America.
I tried to watch the news conference, but your link took me to the main NY Daily News page. Do you have a better link?
15 Priscilla on June 6, 2015 said:
I, too, am wondering if that is standard procedure. Since I am not in law enforcement, I don't know. I'll have to do some research, I guess.
16 Michael LeJeune on May 13, 2014 said:
One thing I didn't understand when either reporters entered the scene a young guy in camp gear was walking out of a field near the school and stated immediately that he did not shoot anybody. Who was that? That didn't make sense.
17 brian neal on May 13, 2014 said:
with no time stamp on the video where it was reported that they had a man in the car that said he didn't do it , it would be hard to say who that was , or the time of day ,, thru out the day people were detained for being to close to the crime scene ,even reporters were detained that day , being in the wrong place at the wrong time can make you a temporary suspect , but a suspect doesn't make you a shooter, , years ago i was detained after a robbery/shooting because it was 2 a.m. and i was where i shouldn't have been at that time
19 NotYerX on June 3, 2014 said:
Hi! Why are you trying to even attempt to explain this to the Sandy Hook Hoaxers? These are deeply mentally ill people and no matter how much you explain to them, they will grasp onto their conspiracy theories because it makes them feel important, and they are missing something in their brains that makes them think correctly.
You are absolutely correct. They keep screaming "we need to see evidence!", and eventually when those crime scene photos are leaked they'll scream "those are fake!" and move the goalposts even further. I know arguing doesn't change them. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, so maybe I just have a thing for lost causes. 🙂
21 David on December 13, 2014 said:
Did you deliver innocent citizens to CIA to be tortured? I guess I'm nuts for asking that quest as well Merry Christmas.
Dumb question. The CIA delivered them to me.
23 Lynn on July 6, 2014 said:
Chris, I spend a lot of time in Newtown helping my niece with her kids. There were no officers at her house after the tragedy in SH.
Dawn Hochsprung lived in the same condo complex that I do. There was a State Trooper stationed outside her home 24/7 for at least a week to protect her families privacy, from people like Halpig that would heartlessly pound on their door demanding to see Dawn.
Thanks for the info, Lynn. I'd really like to interview several people who lived in Newtown at the time, and write a book putting all this conspiracy BS to rest.
25 Robert Vlad Shveytser on November 14, 2014 said:
The cop refuting these point doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Where are the death certificates? Why was the school abandoned and used for storage in 2008? Why is Robbie Parker laughing it up on the video. Why are most of the parents smiling and happy days after? What's with the Porta-Potties at the school? Why zero Christmas decorations in December? What's with all the aliases of Nancy, Peter and Ryan? Why no record of Adam existing? Not one lawsuit in an age when that's automatic? Why did Gene Rosen film several interviews with different stories? Where are photos of the 500 or so children being evacuated? Why the staged photo of the conga line? The list goes on and on. Total fucking hoax.
26 Steve on November 14, 2014 said:
PRATT.
27 Sam Browning on November 24, 2014 said:
The death certificates will be on file in the clerk's office in Newtown CT which is the town which Sandy Hook is a part of. While they will not provide the social security number on these certificates per CT law, they will let a visitor confirm their existance and see the non-SSN section of the form.
As far as a lawsuit goes, one was threatened by Irving Pinsky who is a New Haven Attorney, and was either filed and withdrawn or never filed. Given that the door was locked and AL had to shoot his way into the school it was hard to allege that the school had been negigent by letting AL enter the property.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/01/update-death-threats-and-legal-obstacles-lawyer-withdraws-100m-newtown-lawsuit/
That's two of your points.
"Ballistics don't match"…. wayland, have you ever see the hole a .223 can make in an aluminum sheet??
29 Wayland on April 7, 2014 said:
I have shot holes in all sorts of things. I have seen what a 22 bullet rifle can do and a 22 airgun. The holes are about the same but the thickness it will punch through is different. I am familiar with holes through steel which is more relevant to the car than through ally. So don't play the expert with me, you can see the holes are too big. Mind you that's not even the point, the point is you never even looked at the pictures.
I looked at your link, which didn't even claim to "prove" the rounds weren't from Lanza. Several commenters thought the holes were too big to be from a .223, others thought they weren't. I don't think they're too big to be from a .223. The size of the holes depends on several different factors; specific type of round (hollow point/soft point vs FMJ, for example), angle of impact, velocity at time of impact, or partial sideways impact from the round tumbling after hitting something else first (or just tumbling from being crappy ammo; Wolf ammo has tumbled from my M4 after traveling less than 15 meters).
Again, you're posting accusations, not evidence.
Wow, a 22 rifle and 22 airgun… who's the expert now? I suppose then, that you know that some rounds will tumble, or wobble in flight, therefore causing an impact hole to appear larger than the diameter of the round? And I appreciate your attempt at omniscience, but in reality, I did in fact look at the pictures. That's why I felt compelled to say what I said.
32 Wayland on April 19, 2014 said:
A .22 and a .223 are about the same calibre. Looking at the hole in the steel of the car you can see the mar the bullet made when it went in. This looks exactly like the sort of holes I used to make with my air rifle. The holes were consistant with the size of the pellet. What you are saying is that the small .223 calibre would make a larger hole. Surely it would have to be going sideways, which you can see from the hole it was not. It is obvious the hole was a larger bullet and also obvious that the bullets would not have escaped from the school and only hit this particular car. You can say otherwise but then to agree with me would blow your mind. You have no options.
Your absolute ignorance is showing again. A .22 and a .223 are the same caliber, but the amount of power behind the projectile is vastly different. Here's another spoon-feeding session for you: Imagine you're standing next to a car, holding a cannon ball. You lob the cannon ball into the fender. The fender gets a dent. Then you move out of the way, and a cannon fires the same size cannon ball into the car. The car is destroyed. You would look at the car and say, "A cannon ball doesn't do that much damage! I hit a car with one once and it only made a dent!"
You need to swim back to the shallow end of the pool.
34 flyingtigercomics on April 8, 2014 said:
American Free Press radio debate CW Wade versus Halbig. It proves two things. Firstly, Halbig is a fast talking conman. Secondly Halbig is now pretending to be career LEO. Which he isn't.
Link?
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=16408
Take your blood pressure pills first though. Seriously.
Just listened to about 90 minutes of it. Godz. He was actually asking the guy pointing out all his flaws to give him money. Is he a scam artist or what?
38 flyingtigercomics on April 17, 2014 said:
Yes, he is a fraud. And a compulsive one. I could link to Liespotter etc. or the FBI advisory on such things but really- as someone said on a Jack the Ripper board the other day- when both experts and those with direct experience agree on a topic and someone STILL persists in their folly, one is dealing with religion, not reason.
Glad you listened though, because coming up in early May, so the current story goes, Halbig, and maybe Fetzer, and maybe Shafquat aka Smallstorm will taking their snake oil caravan to Newtown itself.
I'll believe it when I see it, but I am sure were it to occur it will truly be educational. One way or another.
39 Bob Walterson on April 19, 2014 said:
Sorry, I couldn't get past # 6.
Maybe I'll try back later, but I was disappointed by your lack of authenticity, imo, ie.
Halbig says 8 minutes, but you quote him at 11. That's not even the main issue. Almost 30 bodies, and only minutes after being shot, yet all of them declared dead, and that doesn't bother you as the least bit premature.
You compared that to your experience of declaring someone dead who had obviously been dead for several days, or someone else whose head was decapitated. Really?
Paramedics work on people who they realize might already be dead all the time. That's what they do, and sometimes, they actually are not dead.
To declare almost 30 people dead within minutes and not allow paramedics to do their job is highly suspect, no matter how you try to rationalize it. I'm trying to catch my breath here. I feel punched in the gut.
To say that there was no way to make room in the school parking lot of for trauma copters is just silly. To presume that the copters would have taken longer than ground ambulances is ridiculous without knowing the logistics involved. Do some research if you're going to refute something. Halbig is doing research. You're just talking out of your nether regions.
To say that there weren't enough so most would have to go by ground is subterfuge. If there were some worse than others, the worst cases could have been flown if they were there in time, which we would never know because they were not even called.
They weren't called because someone made the decision not to call them because of a group pronouncement of everyone dying within minutes, that turned out to not even be correct.
Some time later, presumably days (it was weeks when I first learned it), it turns out there were 2 teachers who survived. Some mystery ambulances got them to the hospital more than an hour later. One of them is Natalie Hammond, and the other one is evidently not known, but were told she or he exists.
So if everyone was pronounced dead but two adults survived and made it to the hospital an hour later, is it possible a child or two or more out of 20 might have been languishing and was misdiagnosed ad dead also?
Does it still make sense to leave the ambulances a half or quarter mile away and not allow a single trained medical person into the scene? Nothing suspicious about that at all? Seriously?
And if you had a child shot, you would have no problem not being allowed to see him or her for yourself. It would be peachy keen to just look at picture. 40 out of 40 parents all went for that.
The coroners press conference had no red flags for you at all, I suppose.. The cryptic reference to hoping the people of Sandy Hook wouldn't have it coming crashing on their heads didn't seem peculiar, in the least. Or the laughing, the non sequiturs, and homage to his great photographers or the almost orgasmic reaction to recalling when the tent was erected. That all made a lot of sense.
As did Lt Vance threatening people with arrest for spreading misinformation on the Internet.
Halbig not being able to get a single official to answer a single question, and then getting threatened with arrest for opening FOIA requests is not surprising to you in the least?
The bizarre reactions of every single parent and family member is fine by you? Robby Parker laughing, psyching up, and forgiving the shooter within 24 hours and sending his love to the shooters family — All believable in your book?
All closed casket funeral, except on where the eyes were seen through a cloth with eye holes cut out. That's all par for the course, business as usual for you too. Huh?
Gene Rosen's story changing every time he told it. Sometime with a bus driver. Sometime not. Sometime being coached by a voice off camera. Nothing out of place about Rosen at all. Right?
The sign, flashing, EVERYONE MUST SIGN IN. That makes a lot of sense? Get a traffic sign set up and have everybody sign in? Really?
What does make sense is that online instructions for people attending drills says that everyone must first sign in as soon as they get there.
The kid being interview on Dr Oz mention they were having a drill and then changed it up quickly.
All the people, waiting to hear about their kids, just walking around and around in the fire station building and parking lot, like atmosphere players in movie. Makes perfect sense.
Well, it makes as much sense of there would be no way to land a helicopter in a parking lot.
I believe some people are paid to post online that they can't believe it's a psyop, and that other people just can't face it because it's too jolting to their world view.
I put you in the second category.
40 A mother on April 19, 2014 said:
A lot of misinformation in your reply, as in Halbig's original assertion. For example – who said none of the parents saw their child's body and who said all the funerals were closed casket? Simply untrue. Yet one of many myths out there and it's just not true.
The coroner had his photographers take photos rather than let the parents see the bodies. There is video of him saying that. There are a number of points in Bobs post. We can see from the videos there were no ambulances rushing about. Just parked waiting. We can see from the videos how people went round in circles. We can also see video trickery and wrong video footage shown on TV. We also saw Facebook donation pages with creation dates earlier than the event.
On a human level what do you think is behind all the conspiracy theory effort towards Sandy Hook? Why are people bothering, what is the point?
42 Brocky on April 22, 2014 said:
"Crimson's questions because they are far more challenging than the ones you originally answered"
Many of Crimson's questions are not at all challenging, they are mistakes or lies by others, I'm not accusing him of starting them. Misinformation runs rampant on hoaxer sites and U tube videos about SH.
Like A Mother has already pointed out, Bob's comment is full of misinformation.
Your comment Wayland, is also full of misinformation. Get the facts correct one by one and you might begin to see that there is very little or no reason to doubt the massacre happened.
The Coroner did not ever imply that the parents would never see the bodies of their children. He gave a short explanation of how seeing photos makes it easier on the families and said… there is a time and place for up close and personal in the grieving process…If you wish, you or I can go to the video and put his exact words in quotations. If you go it might help start you on the way to getting the basic facts correct before you post something.
Noah Pozner had a cloth covering his lower face, not eye holes cut in the cloth, because his lower jaw was blown away.
Jack Pinto was buried in a baseball uniform.
Emilie Parker had a viewing of her body the evening before her funeral at the families home town in Utah.
All three were open casket and I haven't looked but there is not any reason to believe that there were more. There is a video of Grace Macdonell's mother saying that she questioned maybe wanting to see her but then thought that Grace would have wanted her to remember how beautiful she was. I think that is very understandable for some people. Not all parents would want to remember the last image of their child with a gruesome head wound. Noah Pozner's mother wanted the Governor to see what an assault weapon did to her child. One paramedic that was in the school to triage and pronounce the victims dead said that in one room there was only one child victim without a head wound. There is no video or article or known statement of any kind that says that the parents were not allowed to see their children in person. It was their decision if they did or didn't.
This wrong idea that the parents weren't allowed to see their children begs other questions: If they weren't allowed (untrue) to see them what does it mean? That they are still alive somewhere? Kidnapped? If the children never existed in the first place then why do Hoaxers wrongly say the parents weren't allowed to see them, since they weren't there to be seen anyway? So many holes in the hoaxer's reasoning.
Why would there be ambulances rushing about? The two ambulances with the 3 victims left for Danbury hospital shortly after 10:00. The first helicopter video that is seen of that morning arrived nearer to 10:30 according a time analysis of shadows, the ambulances had already arrived at the hospital before 10:30.
You cannot see from the video how people went round in circles. In order to see people going around in circles you have to watch the U tube hoax video where the poster looped the video over and over again to make it appear that people were walking in circles. If you watch the original video you can see that the people left the back building of the firehouse and walked around to the front street to enter the firehouse front building. It took the crowd 1 minute and 10 seconds to walk around to the front of the firehouse and they did so only once.
There was no video trickery on that morning. Sandy Hook school was shown live from the helicopter, why would the media need to trick people? For what reason? The video footage of another school may have been mistaken for SH by the helicopter doing the filming or file footage which the media uses often for convenience and for subject matter. All the Newtown schools went into lockdown that morning after the first reports of a shooting at Sandy Hook and sending police to check them is not devious, nor is airing a video of them doing so. Have you looked for the explanation the media gave for showing it?
Facebook pages were already created with another completely different topic that had nothing at all to do with Sandy Hook, lets say someone's vacation. After the massacre the owner of that facebook page changed the content to a memorial for Victoria Soto. When someone changes the content of the page the date that the original page was created on remains. The date can also be changed if you know how to do it. When this page with the prior date of the shooting was first discovered the owner of the page explained that he created the memorial page on one that had already existed. The same thing happened with someone else who also created a donation facebook page on a page that already existed with other content.
There is a technique used in astronomy where two photos of the same stars are swapped alternately. Any moving stars or comets immediately show up as movement.
What you are seeing in the videos is a technique to show the general flow of people. You can see a one way flow of traffic in a circle with perhaps a few people going against the flow. There is undeniably a flow. Rather than you accept that there is a flow but say that it's meaningless you instead try to deny there is a flow by. Stating the obvious, that the video is looped it is clear that you are a fool for trying to lie to yourself.
45 Maya on May 9, 2014 said:
The point is, this event is traumatic and too difficult for some people to handle. Others' first thought when they heard of it was for their gun rights and they're engaged at that level. I think a great many "truthers" are in denial. It's too much to take. I'm sorry about that—you have my empathy and my prayers and so does this poor man, who found some of the escaped kids on his porch:
"I don't know what to do," sighed Gene Rosen. "I'm getting hang-up calls, I'm getting some calls, I'm getting emails with, not direct threats, but accusations that I'm lying, that I'm a crisis actor, 'how much am I being paid?'" Someone posted a photo of his house online. There have been phony Google+ and YouTube accounts created in his name, messages on white supremacist message boards ridiculing the "emotional Jewish guy," and dozens of blog posts and videos "exposing" him as a fraud. One email purporting to be a business inquiry taunted: "How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the 'shooting.' What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov't sponsored hoax anyway?"
The parents are also getting this sort of scrutiny, only for them, it's much more personal.
46 Wayland on May 10, 2014 said:
Yeah Gene Rosin is under attack. Same as if he was found to be a paedophile who had escaped justice. It happens. Some people obviously feel he is guilty and has got away with it. What would you expect? Do you expect someone like me who feels he is guilty to feel sorry for him or ashamed at what others who feel he is guilty decide to do to him? He made his bed when he hammed up his performance in front of the media, milking it for all he could.
47 Maya on May 11, 2014 said:
So, you're willing to call this man a liar because his way of expressing his emotions didn't meet with your approval?
Wayland, honey, I'll keep you in my prayers.
Yes, I do not like the way he talks and his body language. You are woolie headed if you would ignore such signals. I bet you would not ignore signals if it was affecting your own child's safety.
what many people don't realize is that the aerial views are at least a hour or more after the shooting was over , by that time the kids were inside the firehouse and the ambulances were not needed , and what is the longest video clip from a helicopter have you seen ? only a few minutes here and there ,i'm sure a lot happen between the video clips that the theorist show
You make a very good point about the limited amount of video footage. Maya said that the police were limiting coverage and the coroner was controlling the photography of the bodies. However there is a 10 minute helicopter video clip with the radio audio showing the scene.
The media even resorted to using library footage of a drill at another school and claiming it was from Sandy Hook. They are not beyond faking things when they feel the need.
1) Hate Dr. Wayne Carver all you want, but at the time he was Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner. We have not had Coroners in Connecticut since the 1970s when the county coroner system was abolished.
2) As someone who has visited the ME's office in Farmington, I can tell you that there are no viewing rooms for the deceased in the basement where autopsies are carried out. There is a walk in refrigerator and a large autopsy room. The ME's would not want to bring the parents down to the work area where they would have been doing multiple autopsies at the same time. Escort the parents in see their child while they were being cut open, and then escort them out.
What would happen if a parent refused to leave their now dead child's body? What would happen if they "melted down" in the autopsy room, and needed to be removed because their breakdown was stopping work? The work areas of the ME's office are not set up for such visitors.
Bodies are also processed without visitors, in order to avoid trace evidence being left on them by people who had nothing to do with the homicides. Once the bodies are autopsied and processed they are then turned over to the funeral directors chosen by the families.
52 Redblues on November 26, 2014 said:
Ambulances do not 'rush about'. They get to the scene, pick up the patients, and transport them, usually within normal speed limits. I don't remember if 3 or 4 people were transported. But those ambulances would have been long gone before the news cameras showed up. There were probably one or two on scene to treat people for shock as needed. They would have been parked somewhere near the scene, again, not 'rushing about'. I don't get the hoax loon's preoccupation with ambulances, coupled with complete ignorance of EMS procedure. If you all find it so fascinating, why haven't any of you troubled yourselves to become certified EMTs? I know why. It would cut into your YouTube time, you'd have to help people instead of 'helping' them, & you'd have to respect their privacy. It would interfere with your self importance. In any case, every single thing any of you have said about EMS that day has been entirely wrong. Everything you know, you learned from bad movies.
The problem is that Chris is so stuck in his world view that he uses his position as the basis of addressing Halbigs questions.
I am afraid I do the same thing. How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move.
How do I know SH is a false flag? It only takes one discrepancy in the official story and I will know it is. Obviously to satisfy myself I have to have a really good look at it but as I have already made up my mind they just confirm what I already know.
Chris is in the opposite position. He knows this was a real event because the people he respects say so. All questions can be refuted with the flimsiest and most illogical of reasoning because he has already made up his mind.
If you have a loony coroner then that's just the emotion from examining all the dead children
If you think smiling parents is suspicious that's because you are not a psychologist.
If they show fake footage of men with guns at the wrong school at the wrong time of day that's because the media scrabble to put anything out which is as it should be.
Vance threatening people who post false info on the Internet is all correct and good. Obviously only the 'authorities' have the correct info.
Chris is incapable of investigating this subject because it would shatter his mind. He is incapable of even seeing his own bias. I know I am biased because I can see how I used to be biased the other way.
However the difference with me is that when I was presented with solid facts which refuted the official explanation then I was able to investigate to find the truth. Chris has been challenged with some excellent solid evidence but he has been unable to learn from it. Most people don't get that opportunity because the MSM just feed them crap so they can be forgiven for not knowing.
You nor any others have not given any solid facts. Repeating false information is not giving solid facts. People walking in circles because of ridiculous looping of a video is not excellent solid evidence. How could you not quickly realize that it was looped? You clearly have not done any investigating to find the truth. You would have known the reason for the memorial page dates if you had, it's been common knowledge for over a year and easily found.
I am aware of the given excuse for the predated memorial pages. Pages, not just one example of this. If I were attempting to convince myself that this were not as fcked up as it appears then I too would have come out with the explanation that the pages had previously been set up with different content. However one person may have found this a convenient and fast way of creating a memorial page on the same day as the event but other people would have felt a new page would be more appropriate than trashing a perfectly good web page.
This is another example of wishful thinking. Maybe I want this to prove SH was fake, maybe you want to think that there is nothing dodgy about SH?
Can you please explain your conspiracy theory about us?
"However one person may have found this a convenient and fast way of creating a memorial page on the same day as the event but other people would have felt a new page would be more appropriate than trashing a perfectly good web page."
I don't know if anyone said they were perfectly good web pages. They apparently were pages that had gotten no where and near empty. The person that put up the Soto page explained something to that effect and I read in another explanation somewhere that pages have to be under a certain amount of views or entries to be changed.
Regardless, good page or bad, people have done a test and saw that the date does not change.
I don't find the prior date memorial pages dodgy in the least, just like I don't find people walking from one building to another dodgy. We can look at everything Bob said one at a time, some points are completely false and others are can be completely explained. There is a lot more garbage out there connected with SH and none of it gives any evidence of any kind that it was a hoax.
I'm convinced hoaxers do not attempt to think logically and with reason. They hear something and no matter how ridiculous or false they repeat it.
I appreciate you don't find the flow of people dodgy. This to me is due to your motivation not to find any of this stuff weird. Your motivation being that you are invested in your world view which is also the mainstream world view. Safety in numbers and in the familiar.
Your theory that the 'hoaxers' simply hear something rediculous and possibly false but repeat it anyway is interesting. What would be the motivation for us latching on to these theories?
Possibly similar to yours, in that we don't care if is false or not as long as it supports our world view.
Since no one here has any first hand experience of SH and we are simply talking about something recieved electronically, we are all basically talking about fiction.
There is nothing dodgy about the flow of people. Children were brought to the back rooms of the fire house. Parents went to the back to find their children. Because it was so crowded and chaotic in those small rooms, they moved the children to the front of the fire house (the bays where the trucks are kept) so they could be lined up by class and signed out by parents to be taken home. All adults were asked to leave the firehouse and go to the front so they could sign out their children. That's what that main flow of adults it – going from the back to the front so they could get their child. There is nothing dodgy about it – it's simple fact.
When yoiu explain it that way it seems very reasonable that the parents would assemble their children at the back of the fire station before taking them home. I can't argue with that.
What is still unexplained is why we see this flow of adults round the fire station in the video. It's obviously not to do with assembling children at the station because we see no children.
Could you address the evidence and not invent a story.
There is no "invention". This is what actually happened. But as a hoaxer, you are unable to see the truth as what it is, because at your core you refuse to see anything for what it truly is.
Children were evacuated to the firehouse. They sat by class in several of the back rooms. Parents tried to find their children. It was chaos. It was then announced that the classes would be moved to the front bay so that it would be easier for parents to find their children and sign them out. The children then went from the back rooms to the front bay – they walked through the firehouse, not around – while parents went around to the front. That was the biggest flow of people on the video.
Anything else was just smaller pockets of people or individuals going outside at different times because sometimes you just needed to get outside and away from the talking inside.
I won't talk to you any more on this topic. What I have told you is true – there is nothing more to say. It was real, it happened, we are all still trying to find a way to deal with our losses. You hoaxers add a level of insanity and pain to something that is already too hard to deal with. What is it you hope to accomplish, other than harassment and pain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztlVGDtL0E please what this video , it might explain a few things
Brian, no one denies that you can rename an old page and the create date stays the same. A similar thing can be done with YouTube titles so it looks like you predicted something.
The point is that so many of the memorial pages were created by family members before the event. Mostly the page is less than a month old, often just a few days old. Some of the pages were created on the day of the event.by the family as the events were unfolding. I know people get a bit obsessed about putting things on Facebook but it seems wierd that they would be creating any sort of page on Facebook whilst learning the shocking news that the child has been murdered.
It also seems strange that people would have had spare Facebook pages hanging around waiting to be renamed and edited. I understand that when forming a company you often start with a 'shelf company' that's one where all the paperwork has already been done since it saves time and gets your company running quicker.
I have not heard that setting a new Facebook page is difficult and editing an existing one is easier. I have not heard of a good reason backed up with evidence why an existing page would be edited in preference to starting a new one. Also is there any evidence why so many people had a Facebook page which was a few days old, was Sandy Hook having some sort of Christmas Fayre and people were setting up shop to promote the event? These sort of explanations would counter the claims that the Facebook memorial pages were set up in advance because the event was a planned hoax. I see none of this.
A reasonable person would conclude that lacking any other explanation then the pages were part of the hoax.
There is an undeniable flow. A migration. A movement from point A to point B. Not a complete circle. I said there were no people walking in circles or in a circle.
So now is it meaningless? There was a reason behind it. Let's say it was lunch time, I don't know, I wasn't there, but there was a reason. The bulk of the people were in the back building, maybe to establish their names on record and who was still without their child. They were gathered there for some reason and then were told to move to the front building of the firehouse. Maybe police were about to hold a meeting with them in the front building. We see them start to come out of the building and walk around to the front and enter from the street side and then that's it. They moved from building A to building B. Call it a flow if you like. They flowed from A to B and stopped at B. So please tell me why the significance?
Trying to lie to myself? That confuses me. Say what?
The looping in the video makes people think that the flow continues. It makes "some" people think that it continues into a circle and that the circle of people goes round and round. There was no circle and no going round and round. You have to show people the video without the looping and show them that the flow, or migration, started at point A and ended at point B one minute and ten seconds later. You can see a few more people enter from the front later. Late comers to the police meeting that may have already started. Some others go from building A to B through the two adjacent doors at the back. Perhaps this more direct route had some kind of bottle neck or confined space, maybe they had to walk through an office or crowded equipment room and is why the bulk of the crowd were directed to take the long way around to the front. You can see a few people motioning to others to go around to the front.
"Some" people said they go round and round to make it look like there are more people there. For what reason would anyone wish to make it look like there were more people?
What in the fuck does this have to do with if it was a hoax or not?
I am watching this one of them going in circles.
You can see there is a lot of movement and a definite flow if you ignore individual people and look at it as a fluid. To what purpose?
It looks like a film set of say a Sherlock Holmes bakers street scene where people with prams and horses and carriages and top hats and cains are walking past in a very busy purposeful way but never the less looking rather fake.
This is the problem. It's not proof but it's clear if you are awake.
Have you ever been in a situation in which something—an accident say— had happened and you were part of a group who had to wait for the situation to change or be clarified? The adrenaline from the event keeps you from sitting still—even if there were a place to sit. So you do exactly what some of these people are doing—you go into a holding pattern like an airplane waiting to be allowed to land.
I've been in situations like that more than I'd like. Waiting. Pacing. Going from here to there until someone comes out to tell you something and you have purpose and someplace to go.
You know what the problem really is? This situation was unprecedented—for everyone involved. No one had training equal to this. Yet, some of us have trouble believing that SOMETHING couldn't have been done to stop it, change it, fix it and that if we can only find THAT SOMETHING, we will know who to blame.
Adam Lanza was to blame. His indulgent mother was to blame. Why do you want to blame the government?
66 Wayland on May 3, 2014 said:
We have had several descriptions of these videos on here. One is that they are not circling. You agree with me that they are circling by saying they have gone into a holding pattern like aircraft waiting to be allowed to land.
My explanation is that they are extras in a movie scene which you reject with your own theory.
Another explanation is that the videos shows the children being assembled at the fire station. The problem being that the video is not showing any children.
On the one hand you ask if I have been in such a situation and speak of it from experience. On the other you say it was unprecedented. Yet the media and politicians would tell us "never again, we have to take the guns to stop these things keep happening".
We have had a great deal of theories from the people supporting what they imagine is the current official version but these seem to come down to "the most rational" version rather than addressing the evidence.
We have not had an answer as to who these people are waiting at the fire station when there are hundreds of children in the school. Since we see no children they must be the victims parents. The rest of the children must already have been taken home by their parents. When you look at it that way then there are too many parents.
What we don't see are children being taken home. There are two photos and a hand full of interviews showing children and hours of footage showing adults. It's a school, there should be children everywhere and school buses etc. Going home time is a massive event at a school.
The evidence does not match the official story. If anyone is keen to believe a particular version of events, it's those who want to go with the official version when it conflicts with the evidence.
I agree that the version in which the government staged it is crazy but that's where the evidence points. What is really crazy is to make up versions of events which don't match the evidence simply because you would prefer it over the other version.
Not sure how you misunderstood my point about the situation. I was asking if you'd ever been in the sort of situation in which you were agitated, scared maybe but had to wait. I've been in those situations. It's impossible to sit still. You pace, you walk, you may feel you've misunderstood where you're supposed to be so you keep checking different places along your route.
The situation IS unprecedented. We had never had this sort of horror before.
But look at the questions you're asking. They don't make sense. Why don't we see chidden in these particular shots? Because every effort is being made to shield them from public display. I saw children in the early footage of the CNN and MSNBC feeds. Why didn't you see them?
Why weren't more children interviewed on TV? Perhaps because their families felt they'd been through enough trauma. I saw several interviews with children, but the children aren't the ones who are petitioning the government to do more with regard to controlling the prevalence of guns in our society. Why wouldn't you expect to see more adults being interviewed?
You ask where all the buses were at going home time. Wayland, the shooting was just after 9:30 AM not at going home time.
And this is where I have to wonder if you're not just having a good time yanking the chains of us emo types who go into paroxysms of grief when children are harmed or killed. Is that it? You like to stir up the emos and watch them writhe?
If you're going to try that, at least get your timing right.
Why would the government stage this? And why would they stage it, then screw it up by having too many "extras" milling around?
I've looked at the evidence. What I've seen so far is either questions about things with obvious answers, outright falsehoods, and evidence (children with their faces covered, ambulances waiting for injured rather than "running around") that doesn't lead anywhere toward a conspiracy theory.
One last thing: neither the President, nor the Sandy Hook parents, nor the Everytown groups are saying "take guns away". They're simply asking that we handle the guns we have with far more attention and care.
Maya,
You miss the point, that is we really don't see many children. OK so you have a theory why that is, because they are hiding from the media. We are talking about the evacuation of 1731 pupils, less the ones killed (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtown_Public_Schools). In which case they would still have been in the school if they were actually hiding. At some point they would have had to leave, we don't see any footage of that. OK so you have a theory about that also but it's a fact that we don't see it. Did the school day carry on as normal after the shooting and the children left at the end of the day as usual but the media chose not to video it? The media were there when it got dark so presumably if the children ever left the school they would have had a chance to film it.
You equate my questioning as something intended to hurt peoples emotions. That some questions are off limits because of the harm they cause.
Are there some questions that should not be asked because they are potentially harmful? There may be. But you're not just asking questions, Wayland. You're aggressively advancing a theory based—not on fact or even on rational extrapolation from recognized human behavioral patterns and known circumstances—but on the certainty that this event could not have unfolded in a way that gives fodder for the gun-control debate.
Here's what you're positing: that the US government a) faked the whole thing using actors or b) faked the whole thing using real families or c) actually murdered those children and d) did one or the other for political gain. You are positing that this is a MORE LIKELY scenario than that a depressed, mentally unbalanced kid with a safe full of weapons decided to commit a headline grabbing suicide/massacre.
Do you see the problem of scale in that scenario? This is where Occam's Razor is very useful to cut through the weeds. 1) We've seen this sort of thing happen before—repeatedly—though never to this scale or with this loss of children. There is a known pathology by which individuals do this. 2) Everything you claim to see in the videos, etc, can be explained simply and rationally and in ways that fit the circumstances WITHOUT the need for wild plot lines and dead-end conspiracy theories, such as the need to essentially buy off a whole town or populate it with Stepford families. I'm a science fiction and fantasy writer and I wouldn't even trot that out in one of my more lurid stories because there are simply too many ways it can come unglued.
I was watching the news compulsively after the story broke. I saw groups of children being led away by teachers and law enforcement officers then, though probably not enough for your standards of reality. But if you'll recall, there was some fear that there may have been more than one shooter. That meant law enforcement officers would want to remove people from the school as quietly and carefully as possible. Please ask this when questioning why more evacuations weren't caught on camera: why would news cameras be allowed to film in areas that the police had cordoned off as a live investigation?
Yes, on TV cop shows we get to see all that stuff because it's fiction and the viewer is allowed to go everywhere with the characters. But this isn't an episode of Law and Order. In this scenario (as I'm sure Chris Hernandez could tell you) the police had very professional, rational reasons for keeping media out of areas where they might have been able to film mass evacuations.
Look at the timeline: First, you have an unknown situation; then, you have a live shooter; then you have a dead shooter, but the possibility that there are more; once all that is ruled out, you have to evacuate the children safely; after that, you have to secure the crime scene so that it does not become contaminated. Is there any part of that that you imagine any law enforcement team worth its salt would allow the media to freely enter?
Can you even seriously ask if school carried on as usual after the shootings? It's that sort of question, Wayland, that makes me doubt your intentions and your information.
Back to your first question: by all means ask questions; feel free to indulge in idle speculation; write a book, but do consider how much hurt your speculations and theories are doing IF YOU'RE WRONG.
Maya, I appreciate the emotional and gut instinct feeling you have about this. I know what you mean by going with what is more likely and using ocams razor to cut through the complexity. However we should not have to go with gut instinct and chance as you are suggesting. OK so you don't like my conclusions but then I don't agree with you'rs either. Why should we have to go with your instincts about this or even my instincts.
You have concocted a theory why we don't see the mass evacuation of 1700 children. A plausible theory, a nice theory, one that won't upset any grieving relatives. What this theory does not have is evidence backing it up, because the theory is circular. We don't see the children because the children were smuggled out of the school becuase tehre could have been a second shooter.
OK, so you did not go for them staying in the school, you feel the same way as I do, that it would be crazy for them to crry on their school day as if nothing happened. This means they must have been evacuated and not seen in large numbers. Or they were not there in the first place.
OK, so I can't prove they were not there, but you can't prove they were. This is why we end up with arguing about who's version is kinder to the relatives.
It's no good talking about what is most plausible when you also state this is unprecedented.How unprecedented? Normal enough that you can predict peoples behavior? Or so unusual that you can't expect parents to shed tears? That everything you would expect to happen actually is turned on it's head. If you are arguing that then you really can't say that one theory is better than another unless it fits the evidence better.
1700 children smuggled out of a school and taken home without being videoed? Or simply not there in the first place?
You can hide things from the media but you can't hide them from a town? Who was on site that day? The media were. Were people from the town there or had the police cordoned it off so they could not get a good view?
I suggest you don't let your judgment be coloured by the scale of the crime if this were a staged event. They say the bigger the lie the easier the sell. (Hitlers Martin Borman said that I think).
Wayland, I'm not using "gut instinct" Occam's Razor is about reason and that is the best tool for use here.
I have not "concocted a theory". I have simply looked at the situation, taking into account the well-documented procedures of police investigations. When I say that the police aren't going to let civilians—with cameras or otherwise—into an active crime scene, I'm speaking from what I know of police procedures through observation and research. Ask Chris Hernandez—he'll tell you the same thing—neither townsfolk (except for families of children) nor reporters are going to be allowed near enough to the scene of the crime to see the very things you find "suspicious."
The police would have cordoned off the area—why is that so hard to understand? Do you have evidence that the rest of the 1700 children were not at school that day? Have you interviewed their parents? Talked to other townspeople?
As a writer, if I were to try to turn this theory of yours into a book, the first roadblock would be the number of people who would have to be silenced in some way. Every parent of every child; every teacher; every worker associated with the school, everyone who might drive past the school, every one in every house or business near the school, anyone who knew the families of the school children intimately, their neighbors, all of the law enforcement officers, EMTs, volunteer firemen.
At this point, if I were writing conspiracy thriller, I'd change my mind and write a science fiction novel with aliens who can mind-bleach everyone (It's a cookbook!) or a fantasy with witches, wizards or a dark Pied Piper of Newtown.
Stop being an armchair detective, please. You obviously have no idea of how a police investigation is conducted or what measures law enforcement personnel would have taken to keep the rest of the students and the townspeople safe. Other students were reunited with their families, I don't know why you've seen no videos of that. I've seen videos of survivors, but perhaps because I was watching coverage of the events from right after it happened well into the post trauma political drama with the NRA.
You're not alone in your beliefs, of course, but I truly hope you weren't one of the "truthers" who went to Newtown and confronted the families and friends of these children, accusing them of being duplicitous or hired actors.
I've yet to see anyone offer an even half-credible or logistically feasible scenario in which all of those townspeople and folks associated with the school and the families were induced to go along and why no one has uttered a peep. If the parents are actors or their children are still alive somewhere, for them to remain actively in the public eye working for gun safety is to court repeated opportunities for exposure. Anyone with enough savvy and power to buy off a whole town would certainly be smart enough to have the parents conveniently go into very private mourning—maybe even move away from the area unable to see the places they enjoyed with their child.
You're not thinking rationally, Wayland, and you're not working from even a rudimentary understanding of how the police and other law enforcement operates in this sort of situation. Please stop, now.
You seem to want it both ways;
"When I say that the police aren't going to let civilians—with cameras or otherwise—into an active crime scene, I'm speaking from what I know of police procedures through observation and research. "
"The police would have cordoned off the area—why is that so hard to understand? Do you have evidence that the rest of the 1700 children were not at school that day? Have you interviewed their parents? Talked to other townspeople? "
"Stop being an armchair detective, please."
"You're not alone in your beliefs, of course, but I truly hope you weren't one of the "truthers" who went to Newtown and confronted the families and friends of these children, accusing them of being duplicitous or hired actors. "
So you are saying I should not comment on it without interviewing the people but if I do interview the people, which the police won't allow, then I would be accusing them of conspiracy.
I get the message, "back off".
And the other message, the media did show selected interviews with parents and children and were gracious enough not to show the 1700 pupils leaving.
You are also saying that it could not be kept from the people of Newtown even though you say the police were very effective at stopping the people of Newtown seeing what was going on or taking photos. Having it both ways again.
It's too late for you 😦
No, Wayland, I didn't say you should interview the people (unless you're making statements about what they are hiding behind their tears and anger). I'm saying if you're going to ask questions that indicate you know little or nothing about how police investigations are conducted, perhaps you should perform due diligence and talk to police officers or ex-police officers or read up on the subject—I recommend official Law Enforcement handbooks.
I said the people of Newtown were not let near enough to the school as long as it was a live crime scene. But in order to pull off a scam of this magnitude, they (whoever "they" are) would have to do much more than that. You don't seem to grasp the enormity of the task.
Each of the families who lost children had neighbors who knew them. People they socialized with, other parents at the school, people they went to church with, worked for or were in business with. Their home purchase are on record both with real estate agents and with the county. They pay taxes, they have jobs. Their children had friends at the school.
In other words, their lives leave an imprint on the people they are in contact with and they leave a paper trail.
When people write books and make movies about this sort of hoax or conspiracy, they intentionally distract the reader/viewer from those sorts of questions and suggest that the hoax took place in a near vacuum. The reader who's willing to suspend his disbelief goes along with the story. Others—like me—ask questions like: "Wait a minute. If these people are actors, no one would know who the heck they were. No one would remember their kids going to the school."
You'd probably suggest that "they" paid other people or actors to verify that they knew them. But there's more to it than that. Now you've got more people whose paper trails have to be established and who must have people who know them or your hoax ends very quickly because there are too many witnesses to the fact that the other 1700 children never came home, or never went to school that day, came home as usual.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Those 1700 kids and all their parents, relatives and friends have to be accounted for in some way and their stories have to be made to dovetail.
I'm not having it both ways at all. I'm simply taking into account the larger community and the hundreds and hundreds of people in the town who were part of the events of that day. You might hide what happened in the school; but you can't hide the existence or lack thereof of the 26 people who died and all the people who either knew or didn't know them.
You have no evidence to the contrary. You just say the task would be too big. You are not one of the families who's children went to the school. You are just an onlooker shown what the media show you. It has been noted that the families of the dead children nearly all moved to the area more recently than 3 years. I don't actually know if that is true and nether do you so you could discount it as untrue or discount it as unimportant but it tallies with your suggestion that the people would have been well known by their neighbors.
This is not true about the Lanza family. No one seems to know them. Except one of the staff at the school told a reporter on camera she recognized Adam Lanza because his mother worked there. So even the Lazas were known, fitting in with your version. Later the story was changed and neither Adam or Nancy were connected with the school, fitting in with the version that these people were brought in for this.
At least you accept that it's strange about the 1700 pupils not blowing the cover on this scam. I say it's because the 1700 pupils did not exist. Only the people we see on video exist. This cuts down the number of people in the conspiracy considerably. That and the police preventing videos and photos from being taken, according to you.
The police chief warned that anyone providing information about SH that did not come from his office would be arrested. Either he knew a load of people were making up stories about this or he knew people were trying to get the truth out.
75 A mother on May 12, 2014 said:
Wayland – crawl back into your hole and go away. You were not there. I was. My child was killed. But no matter what I say, you will continue to believe you're own made up hypotheses and bull rather than accept the truth. It is not worth the effort for anyone to respond to you any longer.
A Mother, this is a tough one. There is no way I can ask you to prove you are one of the mothers without asking you to do something unacceptable like tell us who you are. I am sure you can appreciate that were this a conspiracy then it would be the easiest thing in the world to pretend to be you.
Since other posters say they can find evidence proving the official version with a five minute Internet tour yet don't do so I have no expectation that you can shed any light on the events.
You've found just about every way possible to miss my point. The town exists. The people in the town exist. About 30,000 of them. If there had been no students in that school some of that 30,000 would have known it and blown the lid off the thing.
Have you ever been to an American town (or even an English one) the size of Newtown? You are aware that people interact and talk to each other and have friendships and buy things and leave paper trails, right? That they have networks of friendships and relations and coworkers that go beyond the people in the videos?
More and more I suspect that you are a troll and do not believe a word of what you're saying. It's inconceivable that you can't grasp that this did not take place in a vacuum.
It's strange that no one blew the cover on this "scam" because it really happened. The only people claiming it's a scam are people were nowhere near the situation. A Mother has posted that she was there. Why are you wasting time poking at me when you could be debunking her? I would think she'd be exactly the sort of person you'd want to go after?
Re the police chief—yes, there were a lot of stories being made up about the situation—some misinformation got passed around early on about the shooter and his family and his connection to the school. So, given that, it makes sense that the police chief would clamp down on communications as the situation was unfolding. It's rational and reasonable that he would do that for that reason. The reason you give is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.
It would be easier to take all this seriously if the conspiracy theorists could agree on what exactly was being covered up and why, but I've noted that there are theories on top of theories that have one thing in common—denial that this horrible thing could really have happened as it did.
Who would they tell about this?
How do you know they have not already told someone?
Sweetpea, if this was a hoax or a conspiracy that involved 1700 kids who were all home from school that day, then you've got the members of hundreds of families who know there was no one at school on December 14. A group that large could tell just about anyone: a judge, the DA, the newspapers, a tabloid, MSNBC, FOX News, etc.
Given the zeal with which some media outlets jump on this sort of story, it would be all over FOX at the very least, and that's how I know they have not already done this—because the story would have blown wide open by now and would not have come down to Halbig and company ranting before the Newtown School board with very little media attention.
If you doubt that the media would explode this if there was anything at all to it, look at the George Washington Bridge scandal or any other situation where even attempts to hide something were skewered by a handful of zealous reporters just doing their jobs.
I've been watching this exchange from afar, but I have to comment on this. This comment shows bottom line of why the truther movement is so ridiculous. Understand something, Wayland: if YOU are making a claim, it's up to YOU to prove it. Maya doesn't have to prove a negative, she doesn't have to convince you nobody in Newtown has spoken about the alleged conspiracy you say they're involved in. If you have evidence that a conspiracy exists, present it. Questions aren't evidence. Ridiculous refusals to accept easily understandable explanations aren't evidence either. In a year and a half, not one truther has presented one shred of evidence showing that any single individual carried out an act in furtherance of this gigantic conspiracy.
If you have evidence, lay it out. If not, stop wasting everyone's time.
"Almost 30 bodies, and only minutes after being shot, yet all of them declared dead, and that doesn't bother you as the least bit premature."
No, it doesn't. I'm not surprised when officers conduct quick triage, which is exactly what we're trained to do in mass casualty situations.
Yes. People don't have to have been dead for days or decapitated to have obvious "injuries incompatible with life". Children shot at close range with a high powered rifle can be expected to have those injuries.
True. But in situations where there's still an assumed lethal threat, those paramedics generally won't even enter the scene.
"To declare almost 30 people dead within minutes and not allow paramedics to do their job is highly suspect, no matter how you try to rationalize it."
Not allow paramedics to do their jobs? Where does that claim come from? Please, show me evidence that EMTs and paramedics were not allowed to do their jobs at SH.
"I'm trying to catch my breath here. I feel punched in the gut."
If that's the case, you're far too sensitive.
"To say that there was no way to make room in the school parking lot of for trauma copters is just silly."
How would the parking lot have been cleared? Would officers have found keys to all the cars and moved them? Would wreckers have dragged cars away? How long would that have taken? Would ambulances have gotten casualties to hospitals before all that was done?
And besides that, helicopters won't come in to an area where there's a threat of gunfire. So they would have had to land a safe distance away. Which means the casualties would have to be loaded into vehicles, transported, unloaded, then reloaded into helicopters.
As I wrote in my essay, I've only seen helicopters called in a few times. One of my best friends has been a paramedic for years, and has seen the same thing. Helicopters are a great tool, but the conditions have to be right for their use. The conditions weren't right in Newtown.
"To presume that the copters would have taken longer than ground ambulances is ridiculous without knowing the logistics involved."
Right. So YOU know all the logistics involved?
"Do some research if you're going to refute something. Halbig is doing research. You're just talking out of your nether regions."
Um…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Have you heard your hero debate CW Wade? He did the same thing you're doing: ask stupid questions, make overt appeals to emotion, and disregard actual documented facts by claiming the entire report is a lie. He's not doing "research". He's presenting NO evidence to substantiate his claim that no children died that day. When Wade asked him for his evidence, know what he said? "There's no dispatch log report about a shots fired call at Sandy Hook." Even though the dispatcher was recorded calling out shots fired, even though officers obviously responded to a shots fired call, Halbig insists it never happened because it wasn't logged by the dispatcher. That's his "evidence". That's his "research".
So go ahead. Send him your money.
All of them could have been flown if enough helicopters had been there in time. They weren't called because of conditions on the ground. Bad call? Maybe. Evidence of a conspiracy? No.
Okay, so let's assume that's true. Someone made a bad decision, which led to a bad result. Do you mean to tell me people experiencing horrible stress in a chaotic situation sometimes make bad decisions? And that those bad decisions lead to bad results?
"No, that's just too shocking to believe. It had to be a conspiracy. Because people never, ever make made decisions under stress.
If you're talking about the two teachers who were hiding in a closet for hours, well, when they came out of the closet they were kind of mobile, conscious and talking, which is pretty clear evidence they were alive. That's not quite the same as an unconscious, unresponsive child with horrible injuries from a high powered rifle.
But you're right, a child may have been misdiagnosed as dead. That can happen in a mass casualty situations, especially when the location hasn't been cleared. That's one of the bad things that can happen in a horrible situation. It's not proof of conspiracy.
EMS agencies have protocols which forbid them from entering dangerous areas. I've seen this myself as a cop, and I've been on the other side when I went through an EMT course several years ago. Cops frequently get pissed off about it (and I recently heard one account of an officer at SHES getting angry that ambulances wouldn't approach SHES, which meant he had to run 500 yards with a wounded child to the fire station).
So no, it doesn't make sense to leave the ambulances 500 yards away. And I think it was a bad decision. That's not evidence of a conspiracy, it's evidence of people following a bad policy.
But again, you're claiming EMS was prohibited from entering the scene. Prove it.
Murder victims' bodies typically aren't released to family until after the funeral home prepares them. I've never been on a murder scene where we cops let family see a murder victim. I've never heard of our medical examiners allowing family to see victims either, although maybe it has happened.
Do the coroner's statements (which I haven't heard) prove the officers and EMS personnel lied? What did he actually say, and where can I see either video or read a transcript? And don't give me a conspiracy video as proof.
Same deal. Show me what he really said.
Nobody owes Halbig shit. LE has released an official report with thousands of pages of documents. They're not required to answer all of Halbig's questions, or to satisfy his sense of "justice" And I love how you guys buy Halbig's claim that he was threatened with arrest. What source other than Halbig can substantiate that claim?
Bizarre reactions of EVERY SINGLE PARENT AND FAMILY MEMBER? Oh, brother. Please give some evidence for that.
Don't care about Gene Rosen. The officers and EMS on the scene have made statements. Anything Rosen says does not disprove those officers and EMS personnel.
Yes, it does make a lot of sense. It's protocol required by the National Incident Management System. As the scene is stabilized, a command post is established, access to the scene is restricted and everyone present is required to sign in. I've cited the NIMS manual and page with sign-in requirement elsewhere in the comments.
Yes, that would probably happen at a drill. It would also be done if people were following NIMS protocols. I personally think first responders get way too wrapped up in NIMS when they should be just handling the scene. But is that proof of a conspiracy? Nope.
Oh, I love this. So these kids knew it was a drill, but they're lying about it to make sure the conspiracy succeeds? Does that masterful government conspiracy depend on 6 and 7 year old kids maintaining the cover story for the rest of their lives?
Do you conspiracy bozos really think the government would make children the critical lynchpin?
Yeah, like atmosphere players in a movie. Right. It couldn't have been parents showing up, being led to one area, being told "Everything possible is being done and kids are still being removed from the school", waiting for more information, and finally being told "your child has been killed". Right, that makes no sense. The parents were supposed to charge past crime scene tape, run 500 yards to the school, fight their way past all the cops on the scene, and search the school themselves until they found their kids. Because that's what a rational parent would do.
I really shouldn't bother with this since I answered it already, and because you're making a deliberate attempt to simplify the situation. But what the hell. I'll spoon-feed you, since you obviously know nothing about the realities here. When I was in Afghanistan, I was in some fights where we had casualties. Sometimes we couldn't bring in helicopters. But gosh, there was open area all around, it doesn't make sense that we couldn't bring in helicopters! Well, this might have had something to do with, oh, incoming enemy fire, or something minor like that. At SH, yes, there was space for a helicopter. That wasn't the only freakin' consideration. You conspiracy guys blatantly oversimplify everything, decide it doesn't make sense (even though you know fuck-all about any of it), repeat each others' stories, and claim everything must be a conspiracy. Which is why nobody with a brain does or should take you seriously.
You're wrong. I'm a paid CIA/NSA shill, remember? Your conspiracy buddies already decided there is no other explanation.
So, how about we do this: if you have evidence, present it. Actual evidence. Not questions, not suppositions, not ridiculously stupid misunderstandings (a sign-in at SHES proves it was a conspiracy!). Actual evidence. If you have it, lay it out. If not, please go away.
Hey Chris. There was a check in sign like you already know and probably for reasons that you have mentioned. NIMS protocol. But, like I showed in a photo about a month ago there was no check in sign on the Friday of the massacre. The Hoaxers claim the check in sign on that Friday morning indicates a drill. They claim many things but never have any supporting evidence. They always get the facts wrong. Here is an interview of a woman in front of the firehouse on Saturday morning and still no check in sign.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?i…
I just posted the news story about Halbig and his companions making their case to the school board on my Facebook page. Here's a response I got from a friend who knows one of the Sandy Hook parents. I have deleted the terms he used to refer to the truthers because I feel the invective is counterproductive. He wrote: "About a month before this happened, I was emailing with a mother of an autistic girl, helping her figure out how to administer some medication successfully. That girl was killed in Sandy Hook. I don't know what kind of sickness leads a person to decide a tragedy like this is faked or a conspiracy, but they should not get to inflict this on the people who had to deal with it through loss or the aftermath."
This is the sort of interconnection I've been trying to get Wayland and others to understand. Every person who was near that situation is a hub at which hundreds of other lives connect. If you want the truth, look to those connections.
Facebook already explained about the donation pages – so I suggest you research that properly.
As someone who was there, I know this happened and I know the loss we suffered and continue to suffer every day. We weren't just circling around aimlessly – there were so many people, there for so many hours, not many rooms in the firehouse and sometimes you just needed to get outside, breathe air, find a friend, call a family member.
Parents may have chosen not to go to the coroners's office themselves that night and I completely understand not being able to take the shock of seeing your 6 year old' child that way. I couldn't do it. But I could take seeing my child in a casket – as many did – which was hard enough as all the mortuary makeup in the world can't cover up bullet wounds. And why criticize any parent for then choosing to have a closed casket? Why criticize or even have the gall to ask why organs weren't donated? Why think just because you don't see parents crying their eyes out on TV that it means they don't cry every day and CHOOSE not to cry on TV, or even to ask the producers to edit out the moments when they do break down (which most are kind enough to respect). Why believe BS claims like 26 Christmas trees already bring ready for post 12/14 display, rather than the simple fact the firehouse has Christmas treses available every year in the run up to Christmas – dozens and dozens of them – waiting to be purchased. It's an annual event in Sandy Hook! So where is the conspiracy in them taking 26 trees from their ample stock and putting them out for the memorials in the week after? Why criticize someone's religion, which practices forgiveness and compassion, for the fact they chose to forgive the shooter and/or his family?
Conspiracy theorists don't bother taking the time to review reports/evidence (or suggest it's faked anyway) and claim they know how every person in a town would/should react after something like this. They harrass people, which just makes us close down more and not want to talk to you.
Sandy Hook was not faked, was not a false flag, was not a drill gone wrong, was not a government conspiracy and cover up (for what agenda, anyway?) It was and continues to be horrible, so many of us are suffering from trauma and different stages of grief and PTSD. We'll be dealing with this as individuals and a community for the rest of our lives, nevermind the worry of trying to ensure our surviving children learn ways of coping with this. The conspiracy bull just adds another level to the horror – so it is better to ignore conspiracy theorists as there are way more important things to be concerned with. Goodbye.
A Mother. I hope your goodbye didn't mean for good and you come back here sometime. Hoaxers only repeat things that they see and hear on forums and hoax U tube videos without ever looking into what is true and not.
I was just wondering if you understand what hoaxers mean when they say the people at the firehouse were circling around aimlessly? Here is the video of the walking in circles. You can see it's looped back and forth in an effort to show people circling from the back of the building to the front. Pretty sad how hoaxers can't understand what they are really looking at. You can also see the same people looped to go out one door and into the adjacent door near the inside corner of the building repeatedly. One woman in white always makes the same gestures and a woman in red approaches her before they go into the other door.
Below is the original video. Around 0:45 people have started to come out of the back building and round the firehouse corner and walk toward the front street to enter at the front of the firehouse. At 1:55 you can see that the people rounding the firehouse corner has stopped. People moved from the back part of the building and around to the front in 1 minute and 10 seconds and they did so only once.
We had an event in our town that looked really serious. Fire engines and police and ambulances. Men in orange suits and breathing masks. Oddly no helicopter. It turns out a man gassed himself in his car to commit suicide. Maybe that explains the lack of the helicopter, that thing comes out for almost every incident.
They pulled all the stops out for this dead man. Yes it is odd that they did not do the usual effort at SH but the TV were there in force unlike our suicide which was first reported on Facebook then a little mention in the online local paper.
"Yes it is odd that they did not do the usual effort at SH"
Usual effort? One of the protocols I found for Lifestar is that it is not to be called for transport under 30 miles if ground transport is available except under certain circumstance. The 12 mile ambulance trip was made to the hospital in 13 minutes. It would have taken the helicopter 20 minutes to reach Sandy Hook and could take as long as 5 to 10 minutes to land and load according to Lifestar themselves. This is another thing the Wolfgang lied about, he said he talked to Lifestar at Danbury and they were waiting to go. There is none in Danbury. Lifestar is not sent to an active shooting incident when the first 911 call is made, a patient in need of transport has to be discovered first. And the patient has to be alive and not already pronounced dead after SMART Triage and an EKG machine.
Yeah I agree, the reason they sent no chopper is because there was no one needing it. However that in itself is odd. Lanza must have made a very good job of making sure all he shot were dead rather that trying to shoot as many people as possible. I have seen no mention of his modus operandi. Simply people stating either that it was odd so few were injured or that it was entirely predictable that so few were injured. No attempt to find the reason why this was the case.
The deceased victims had between 3 and 11 bullet wounds each. One paramedic stated that in one room there was only one child found without a head wound, this was after one injured child victim was already removed from that room. Yes it is to be expected that none would survive. Two did for a short time. The reason they sent no chopper is because ground transport was available and already there for the 13 minute trip to Danbury hospital. It would have taken Lifestar 20 minutes before they even got to Sandy Hook. What would you choose to do at that point? Get the kids to hospital by ambulance in 13 minutes or call Lifestar, wait 20 minutes for them to arrive plus 5 to 10 minutes to land and load the patients plus time in the air for the flight to Danbury?
Well Brocky, it's strange that Lifestar would not already be on their way but I suppose different countries have different customs. One advantage that the could offer is rapid transport to further away hospitals which might offer specilist treatment or if the local hospital was too busy with so many gunshot wounds. You make it sound like helicopter rescue is a bit of a waste of effort but in my experience it is faster than road based. People on the ground would have cleared a space for them to land before they got there, it's not a huge deal. One of the advantages of a helicopter is that you only need one to cover a vast area. Essex England is a very large county and very populated. We have one Air Ambulance base in the centre of the county.
However you miss the important point that there was over 100 bullets fired at the school so you would expect to need lots of medics to save lives. Does it make sense that they would want to wait to see if they were needed before setting off? What were they saving petrol or something? Getting so many bullets into so few targets is not what you would expect at a mass shooting but in your haste to accept the official version you are willing to say that unusual things are perfectly normal and that everyone would naturally know that hardly anyone would need medical help.
This fact that they seemed to know that the victims would all be dead before they sent the ambulances is something we find suspicious but you think is as natural as Robby Parkers smile.
I think you may be twisting my words. No one knew the victims would be dead before they sent the ambulances. Interesting that you say "it is fact they seemed to know the victims would all be dead before they sent the ambulances. That is not fact at all. So therefore there is nothing suspicious is there? But thanks for the demonstration on how inventive hoaxers can be.
No, everyone would not naturally know that hardly anyone would need medical help, I didn't say or imply that nor did the official story.
I was referring to after the event, and what we know now, after it was discovered that there were 3 to 11 bullets per little body and that most had head wounds. With that information we can conclude that there is a higher probability that there would be more deaths and less only injured. Few, if any, surviving is to be expected.
"However you miss the important point that there was over 100 bullets fired at the school so you would expect to need lots of medics to save lives. Does it make sense that they would want to wait to see if they were needed before setting off?"
If 100 bullets were fired into a hundred victims then yes, I would think it safe to expect lots of injured. And there were lots of medics at the triage area near the school and by the triage area at the firehouse. I'm pretty sure it is protocol everywhere to first discover someone in need of medical attention before an ambulance is called. Lifestar is a limited resource and being such would certainly not respond to an active shooting incident immediately when the first 911 call comes in. It has to be requested and there has to be a known patient in need of transport.
Of course people on the ground clear an area for the helicopter to land and according to Lifestar it takes 5 to 10 minutes to land and load a patient. Helicopter transport is a waste of effort if ground transport can respond to a scene and get the patient to hospital faster.
Getting so many bullets into so few targets at a mass shooting is an unusual thing?
I didn't realize mass shootings have set normalities to be carried out by the shooters for the same usual results.
Your 'experience' leads me to believe you have no experience at all. Once again, a helicopter in Hartford that is a half hour flight away from a town with ambulances in it, which are in turn a 15 minute drive from the nearest hospital, is not 'faster'. Do the math. Lifestar is not automatically dispatched in any situation. It must first be requested, from a scene prepared to receive it, for a specific purpose. I don't understand the 'no lifestar?!?!' rants from any of you loons. None of you look at maps. Connecticut is densley populated. Very few people live work, or go to school more than a 15 or 20 minute car ride away from a hospital. The fastest & best care for an unstable patient is the closest hospital, not the closest trauma center. Once the patient is stable, a transfer to a specialized trauma center (such as a burn unit) may aid in that patient's recovery. That is how the 2 lifestar helicopters in this state are generally utilized.
A mother, you describe what you say happened at the fire station with the children but where are the children in these videos? This is what I mean by you making it up. If these people are guilty of a hoax then they deserve all the harassment they get. When did all the children leave and where is it on video? Who are the people still hanging around the fire station and why are they there?
You might want to use the internet to find stories related to how some of the other kids got out. Some escaped through windows during the shooting, some were hidden by their teachers until they got the all-clear from law-enforcement.
Do you only believe what you see on video—even though video can be faked? Interesting.
Why don't you want to believe this horrific event happened the way authorities have pieced it together?
Follow this link, please, Wayland. It goes into what some of the parents have faced from other Sandy Hook "truthers".
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/01/maybe_sandy_hook_truthers_should_see_for_themselve.php
I read the article from your link. It's very emotional having been written shortly after the event. It's quite understandable that people would feel this way. It's also understandable that someone who is very left wing would see the problem in terms of the right wing. That they would see the access to the weapons as a major factor and see the solution involving the removal of the weapons.
The author admits to having no doubt this happened as reported and so has no wish to see the evidence. On the flip side they imply that if the did doubt it then they would want to see the gruesome pictures. Yet those who doubt it are condemned for doubting it and condemned for wanting to see the pictures.
The article makes perfect sense if you are only capable of seeing one side. Just as confronting the people you believe conspired to create this is the right thing to do if you believe that side.
Clearly Gene Rosin has been given a hard time. I know you would not want a conniving piece of scum to get off lightly and if that's what he is then he deserves far worse. Your problem with the truthers is that you believe they have it all wrong.
So no, I am not really interesting in hearing the whining of evil people because they deserve the pain they are getting. If they are innocent then yes, what they have suffered is terrible. How about you provide some evidence that this happened rather than a guilt trip about the pain the SH Truthers are causing?
97 Steve on May 10, 2014 said:
Wayland, are you accusing Gene Rosen of being a pedophile? If you have evidence, please contact the authorities. If I were you I'd hate to have his next victim on my conscience.
Otherwise, shut up and stop libeling this man.
Because, as Chris points out, since the truthers are the ones making the extraordinary claims, it's up to you to show extraordinary evidence.
The evidence that this happened is buried in the Newtown cemetery. It's in the reports filed by the law enforcement officers and EMTs involved. (I forgot to mention that, if you're going to perpetrate a hoax of this scope, you also have to pay off or intimidate the entire police force, EMTs, ER staff—any doctors who would have treated the kids, trauma specialists and psychologists whom the survivors are in counseling with.
You seem not to recognize how many people would have to be "in" on any hoax.
So that's convenient, you believe it's real so you don't need evidence. It would take you 5 minutes according to you. Obviously a bogus claim or you would have done so by now.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim that the information can be found in 5 minutes yet you trust me to look it up for you. I have looked, it's not there. Prove me wrong.
100 Maya on May 12, 2014 said:
No, Wayland, I don't believe it's real and therefore don't need evidence. I believe it's real because of the evidence I've seen to date.
What five minutes on the internet will get you—depending on your search terms—is a long list of links that you can then spend time studying objectively. I'm not the one who needs to review the evidence—you are. I've looked at "truther" links, too, and what I've found is denial, wild speculation, and absurd questions (why was one child's face half-covered at his funeral if this was real? Really?)
And no, I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. You are. You're claiming that a town of 30,000 was somehow co-opted into a government conspiracy or hoax with no clear outlines (were the kids not real, not really killed, killed by someone other than Adam Lanza, killed by accident and it covered up, or killed on purpose to allow a President who's never shown any inclination to grab your guns to grab your guns?).
All I suggested is that you put as much effort into following the original story a you do to following the conspiracy theories. And apply some reason. There's a plethora of information out there about this which is as accessible to you as it is to anyone else. If you cared about the truth, you'd be looking at that in addition to the various conspiracy theories. If you care about truth, you look for it everywhere.
101 Wayland on May 12, 2014 said:
Chris set out to answer the questions which Halbig did not have answered by the authorities. Chris at least gave a half hearted attempt alothough from the perspective that he already knew what happend. You have simply stated you don't even need to look at this, so why are you here?
I HAVE looked at it Wayland. That's what I'm saying. I've looked at Halbig's questions, and his claims, and the supposed evidence that there's something wrong with the way Newtown law enforcement handled this that makes them thing the entire police, emergency services and court system in that town was co-opted.
All I see are questions. Some of which are absurd on the face of it, and some of which are answerable through even a meager application of reason. In the final analysis, the truthers can't even agree, really, on what conspiracy their "evidence" supports. And no one, not even Halbig, seems to understand the larger implications of the question I keep asking you and which you dodge every time: How did whomever perpetrated this hoax buy off everyone connected to the situation—the entire law enforcement establishment, the emergency services personnel, the school board and all the other school district staff and students who would have known of the existence (or lack thereof) of Sandy Hook Elementary?
You say the only people involved are the ones in the videos. I'm sorry, but given the way people's lives intersect—especially in a town of that size—that's not feasible. I lived in a community about the size of Newtown in Northern California that was frequently the scene of movie shoots. Except for shut-ins, everyone in town knew when there was a crew in town because they had to be housed, fed, they left a foot print. Everyone in town also knew where all our schools were because they were clearly marked. My kids played with kids from other schools. The school district certainly knew which of their schools had students attending and which didn't.
I have to ask: do you have family? Friends? Does your life touch on and leave its marks on anyone else's? I'm beginning to think not, if you think that 1700 fictitious people (and perhaps even a fictitious school) would go uncommented on by the other thousands of folks in the neighborhood.
As to why I'm here—three reasons: I have hope that something I say might draw a "huh, I hadn't thought of that". And, as I said, I'm a writer. Everything I hear and see and experience goes into my stories. And I also find human psychology completely fascinating. Helps me create more nuanced characters.
103 Jack on October 8, 2014 said:
I am very sorry you have been duped, and continue to be duped by whoever perpetrated this disgusting hoax.
However, you clearly are not learning.
I am an expert on the subject. I know, by my guess 15000% more about than you do. I don't care what the outcome is. I just know all there is to know about it.
As an expert, I am telling you that my conclusion is that it was a staged event. I discovered at least 244 separate, distinct reasons that illustrate this. Many of them are incredibly damning.
As a scientist, the truth matters to me. If the numbers are wrong, even slightly wrong, a pharmaceutical medication can become toxic.
It did not take long to deconstruct this event into its constituent parts. Since you have not yet done this, I would suggest you do so, because your emotional arguments are worthless.
Most of you are stretching, reaching, desperate to find some way to make this circus of nonsense fit into some semblance of plausibility.
You can quit doing that. I spent two weeks doing that. It's no good.
It's a hoax. I'll save you the time.
104 chrishernandezauthor on October 8, 2014 said:
Please keep commenting. With every statement you make, you prove you're the opposite of an "expert".
By the way, you might want to explain your alleged expertise. I could use the laugh.
105 Maya on October 9, 2014 said:
I repeat: http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/05/14/truthers-vs-writers-time-freeze-frames-connections-and-back-story/
The conspiracy theories don't stand up to simple real world logistics, Jack.
What is your particular theory? Happened, but covered up; never happened, kids are alive; there were no real kids; there was no real school?
What rationale do you propose would make a conspiracy of this scale a viable means of achieving a political goal? It has to justify the expense and time and effort. Then I'd like you to answer the questions I raised. How do you seal off every man, woman and child in the area and get them onboard with the conspiracy? Remember, you can't leave a trail of paper or electrons, so agents have to go to every person secretly and in person, and none of the people they approach can squeal.
Please. I'll take notes.
106 Maya on May 9, 2014 said:
A Mother, I think you said a mouthful. The "truthers" seem not to have done their homework—not even taking a five minute tour of the internet to look for the "missing" pieces, or attempting to understand how law enforcement protocols affect who gets into an active crime scene (certainly not reporters or looky-loos.)
Still, I think that for some of these folks, it's their own grief—or rather a primal urge to dodge grief—that drives them to deny that this could have happened. I feel sorry for them.
Thank you for posting.
5 minute Internet tour looking for the missing pieces? I know you won't find any of the missing pieces for us in 5 minutes, nore do you think you need to. You don't need to see the missing pieces to know the truth. Not worth 5 minutes of you time to show us what we have been missing in months of looking.
Who said five minutes? I've been following this story since it broke. Reading different accounts, listening to and watching parents, friends, and other children speaking about it. Reading and hearing the reports of the law enforcement personnel.
In your frenzy to find something that's not there, you're missing the forest for the trees. You're so tightly focused on the events at the school that you seem to have forgotten how many living human beings have been involved in this before, during and since the events.
Newtown is not a fiction writer's construct. It is an actual town full of people whose lives have intersected _since before the SH massacre_. People whose lives have left a paper trail. Records. Photos.
Because you're focusing on what you believe are inconsistencies caused by conspiracies rather than the natural outcome of a chaotic, unscripted situation that's being reported on from different viewpoints, you've failed to notice that every person involved has a HISTORY.
That history can be researched. The pieces are only missing because you haven't been looking for missing pieces. You've been looking for conspiracies.
You said 5 minutes is all you need to find missing evidence;
Maya on May 9, 2014 said:
Now you are 'forgetful' which is a bit daft since it's written in the forum. Clearly you don't have the missing evidence, like footage of hundreds of pupils leaving the school. Or the hundreds of parents coming to collect them.
What I said was this: The "truthers" seem not to have done their homework—not even taking a five minute tour of the internet to look for the "missing" pieces.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say it would take only five minutes to find the truth. I said the truthers have not even bothered to do that much. And to be clear, I'm not just talking about looking at accounts by the people who were there, but going to law enforcement sources to understand how their protocols answer some of the questions you're asking.
You don't understand how the any of that works, Wayland. The only reason I do is that I've done research into how law enforcement handles crime scenes. The more you know about how the world works in general, the better chance you have of not falling victim to this sort of hysteria.
So anyone looking at this who does not have your knowledge might come to the conclusions I have? Do you think your opinion of this even would have been different had you not had the crime scene handling knowledge you say you have?
Well, knowing how things work is helpful, yes. If I was ignorant of police procedure, I might ask some questions that sounded inane to people who were better-informed than I was.
But, because I know how law enforcement is likely to handle a crime scene, it doesn't bother me that no reporters or camera crews were allowed to get close to the school while the crime scene was being investigated. Nor does it bother me that the emergency vehicles had to keep their distance until the LE officers were sure there wasn't a live shooter present. If you don't know how the police are likely to work, you won't "get" why that might be and things will seem "odd" to you that aren't odd.
It's like a kid who's afraid of the dark because he's convinced that the shape in his closet is a monster, not the stuffed animal he'd see if he just turned the light on.
If you want to have some of the same information on law enforcement procedures that I do, Google Law Enforcement Handbook then order one and read it. Or do what I did, talk to detectives about how police departments are structured and how they handle murder investigations. I interviewed cops from the LAPD and SDPD as well as our local DA while I was researching a detective novel. I also purchased a copy of a Law Enforcement Handbook which lays out all sorts of procedures.
Despite what you see on CSI or Broadchurch, it takes longer to investigate a crime scene than the ten minutes or so that it gets on TV. Especially when there are so many dead, the forensics work is going to take a long time. And during that long time, no reporters or cameras are going to be allowed in.
According to Wikipedia the school has over 1700 pupils. Whilst the media were prevented from poking their cameras into the crime scene they would have had to film something, like the people milling around the firestation, which we see, or the 1700 children evacuated to the firestation, which we don't see. How is that so?
Obviously any question which hints at a conspiracy will be seen as absurd to you because the whole idea is absurd. That still leaves the question unanswerable by you which bothers me but does not phase you because you simply explain it away without evidence.
As for how they were able to carry out this hoax, I think we have a long way to go. It's probably not best to start with the conclusion but start with the evidence and keep following it.
114 brian neal on May 13, 2014 said:
where are you getting the school had over 1700 students , Wikipedia states that the high school had 1731 students and S.H. had 575 students ,, and you want to know why there is no aerial view of the evacuation , if the evacuation started around 10:00 and the helicopters didn't arrived until around 11:00 it would be hard to video the event, and lets estimate that half the kids were picked up by their parents at that time , the other 200+ kids were in the the back part of the building waiting for their parents who might not have know about the shooting until later ( people work without radios or tv on, or they don't all have phone alerts ) , and what time did the major ground media arrived to video or photograph them , there is no hour or more video from the copters being shown only a few minutes here and there , in other words NO CAMERAS = NO VIDEO
Yeah you're right I read the wrong line, Elementary School 575, which is still a large number of children to deal with and all the parents who would turn up. It's interesting how long I was able to quote the 1700 number which others also referenced in their answers before you picked up that I had got it wrong. I am sorry I don't know the timeline for the events. What is clear is that the versions of events posted here do not tally, children hiding in the firestation and children still in another part of the school. It's more fitting with the evidence that they were still in the school than they were in the firestation which we see they are not.
Wayland, you started with the conclusion—didn't happen this way.
Re: the fire station video: this footage was taken after EMTs, parents, LE and others had arrived on the scene. The kids who escaped from the school began their escape, according to the teachers who evacuated them, while the shooting was still going on and before even the police arrived. There were no journalists there to shoot footage of their escape.
Maybe they left the school whilst the shooting was happening. We have evidence that some children left because they went to Gene Rosins house. However the correct figure is 575 children, but they did not all go to Genes house or the fire station. Maybe the parents got there before press. It's possible. You don't know and nore do I. Just presuming.
That's what I said. The testimony of the teachers was that they began getting kids out while the shooting was still going on. Eleven children escaped while he was reloading.
The fire house is in easy reach along a shielded road. I'd certainly use that as an egress. There are also other escape routes they used. There are living people who have that information. It is not critical to my understanding of the situation. It may be critical to yours.
Since you admit that its possible that the kids escaped along the back trails out of the school, and that the press wasn't there from the beginning (obviously) and wouldn't have had a chance to film a number of the things you've questioned, why do insist that this massive group of people is perpetrating a hoax at the bidding of a president that surely they did not vote for?
Where's the connective tissue?
119 Brocky on April 23, 2014 said:
Strange the two videos appeared when I posted the two links.
120 Bridget on May 7, 2014 said:
And the circus continues….
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Newtown-school-board-greets-Sandy-Hook-skeptics-5458643.php#photo-6267855
121 Bryce keller on May 12, 2014 said:
I commend your attempt here, although I am sure you realize that no matter what you say, people will believe what they want to, regardless of facts.
To those who believe this is some vast conspiracy, I ask you to use some common sense. Here are just a few points I would like to make, some of which have already been covered by Chris.
1. Cover up. The amount of people who would have to be involved would be in the thousands.
The police, fire department, hospitals, parents, kids, teachers, media, including producers of television stations, reporters, basically the whole town of newton, investigators, etc etc.
Now say that they were able to pull this off. The PTB were able to convince these people, through threats, cash, etc. to be part of the cover up. To think that there would not be one person who leaked information on it, is just absurd. for arguments sake, let's say they were able to. Who knows, maybe they brainwashed them.
My question to you is, why is there any conflicting evidence? Why is there any mention of the so called letter "addressed to the kids of sandy hook"? Why do some DNA results , specifically on the gun and letter, not match Adam or his mother? You have already convinced a thousand people to be in on the conspiracy, but you can't convince the lab you send it to, one that is getting paid, to alter the results?
Come on, if you believe there is a cover up, these people would be probably the most important people in the cover up and the easiest targets.
2. Different accounts of what happened.
I recently read an article that explained why there are some discrepancies in the official story, some holes. The fact of the matter is, there really is no "official story". There is no one account of what exactly happened. The official story is pieced together through witness testimony. I believe the number of witnesses they used to piece together the story was almost 200 people. Not one single person witnessed the whole thing from beginning to end. So investigators have to piece together the testimony of over 200 people and write a final conclusion of what happened. I'd say, they did a pretty darn good job.
3. Facts in the case.
I have seen a lot of people pointing out evidence that contradicts the official story. A lot of the so called conspiracy evidence has been thoroughly debunked, here by Chris and on other sites.
One example is the witness who's name matched a man who was in SAG. It since has been revealed that they were two different people. There are also many other claims that also have been debunked, but no matter how many of those claims get debunked, conspiracy people keep on looking for new evidence.
I ask myself, why are there so many lies being spread by conspiracy theorist. They are distorting facts, using photoshopped photos, I.e. Adam Lanza mug shot, to collaborate their theory. What motive do they have? Why would anyone alter evidence, take things put of context, or just make things up to prove a point. It reminds me of a sleazy lawyer, distorting facts to make their client look innocent. IMO, one this happens, all credibility is lost.
If you think this is a conspiracy, I challenge you to do the following. Look at ALL the evidence. Instead of trying to prove it is a conspiracy, try to prove it isn't. The evidence overwhelmingly favors that it really happened. Are there holes, yes, but there are holes in any investigation.
I wonder how many people here think OJ Simpson was guilty, or Casey Anthony? I challenge you to look at any murder case where someone was found guilty or innocent. You will find many holes, much of the same ones that you find here. Bad DNA samples, contradicting eyewitness testimony (remember Cato from OJ), etc, but as in SH, the evidence overwhelmingly proves the official story is actually happened.
Now you can ask Chris, well what about ________, and he will probably be able to answer it, then you will say, ok, but that doesn't explain why ________, and maybe he will answer that too. My question to you is, how many things does he have to debunk until you start to ask yourself, well, maybe I am wrong, maybe there isn't a conspiracy here. At this point, you one can determine whether they have any common sense. If you still blindly believe there is a conspiracy, then you obviously lack the ability to think for yourself. No matter what evidence is produced, you will never believe the official story. If a video was produced showing the whole thing, that video would be a Hollywood production, I.e. Moon landing.
So in conclusion, I would like to commend Chris once again on his article. I admire that he actually has the patience and cares to put the time in to answer everyone's questions here, but as the article about the school board above me about states, no matter what they say or answer, another question will pop up.
I would like to end this from one of my favorite and most ridiculous reason why OJ's attorney claimed OJ didn't murder Nicole Brown Simpson. "If the glove doesn't fit, you have to acquit" I believe that statement sums up almost every ridiculous conspiracy out there.
**DISCLAIMER: I am not being compensated by the CIA, DOD, OR ANY OTHER PERSON. These views are mine and mine only. I also do believe the government covers up some things and even may let some things happen. I think JFK was a conspiracy to some extent, and I would not rule out that some people had prior knowledge to 9/11 and thought that letting it happen would be benefit them in some way. Also that Malaysian airlines dissappearance is highly suspicious.
Generally the evidence provided for the orthodox view is piss poor. Chrises debunks are pretty poor and illogical too. The only thing supporting the orthodox view is how crazy it would be if they actually did hoax it. It would turn the world upside down. I admit that my view of the world is upside down compared to yours. For instance I did not know that the DNA samples did not match. This does not phase you because it goes to prove that the event must be real because holes in the investigation are normal. But your argument is also that if it was a conspiracy it would be perfect. Yet another argument that must be accepted at the same time even though it contradicts your others is that if it were a conspiracy this large then it would not be perfect.
Which is it,
1. a perfect conspiracy
2. an imperfect conspiracy
3. an imperfect investigation?
Pointing to the imperfects as proof that it was not a conspiracy when we would point to them and say it is evidence of conspiracy is not a sensible argument.
When are there enough holes in the official version to cast doubt? According to you the more hole there are the more believable it becomes.
Clearly if it were a conspiracy they DID NOT get it perfect nore was it even necessary to do so. When you believe there are 1700 pupils at the school you don't need to see them leaving. However when you believe the school was empty you look for any proof that the school was occupied. The school is not even there anymore! 1700 pupils got swallowed up by surrounding schools very easily.
Wayland, if the school had been empty, the school board and any number of other people—including law enforcement and the EMTs would have known it. Likewise, if there was a large group of complete strangers in town hanging out at an empty school, don't you think someone would have wondered about it? Especially when it then drew so many emergency resources and law enforcement?
And when the story came out later that this known to be empty school had been the scene of a mass shooting, no one made a peep?
I'm sorry, sweetie, but that makes zero sense. Again, you're forgetting that this wasn't done on a movie set in a town in which no people lived. Several of us have tried repeatedly to get you to look at the reality of the situation.
You say the inconsistencies in the story "prove" it's a conspiracy, but if every story of every witness jived perfectly, wouldn't that be a lot more suspicious and hint at scripting? Of course it was an imperfect investigation. There were human beings involved. Terrified human beings who were in terra incognita—they'd never experienced anything like this before and any one of which only saw a portion of what happened. The people who really know what happened are dead.
Of course, you believe that (phew!) no one died—a common thread among many deniers. The people we think died are just actors whose pictures appeared in the papers. No one really knew them. Their coffins, in that case, would be empty. Why don't you try to convince a judge that they should be exhumed? Empty coffins would prove your theories, would they not? But even that is a source of inconsistency in the truther view—some of you say all coffins were closed, others that the open coffin ceremonies had anomalies. Which is it? You can agree on only one thing, it seems: that you do not want to believe this really happened. I get that. I empathize. I'd like to believe it never happened too.
in the video where the poster ( sherrie quwstionall ) uses bing maps and claims the school was closed because of an empty parking lot , but in the same video she doesn't mention that the HAWLEY SCHOOL also had an empty parking lot , and if you were to use the bing maps birds eye view and go to the firehouse house you would see a FEW christmas trees being sold making it close to christmas time meaning the school would have been on chritmas vacation
My kids went on Christmas vacation on the 20th and came back after the New Year. The 14th is too early for Christmas vacation for most school systems.
what i was trying to say was that the poster was claiming the school has been closed for years , because the bing maps are not up to date , and that at the firehouse there were only a few trees left for sale meaning it was very close to christmas if you used the bing maps on ST. ROSA SCHOOL and switch between aerial and birds eye view you can see newer buildings in the aerial view proving the birds eye view is from a previous year , i hope i said this right
"Why don't you try to convince a judge that they should be exhumed?" What a joke. You think my suggestions are daft, that's got to be just about the most stupid suggestion yet. There is zero chance that you could prove your case that way if you were right and there is zero chance I could prove my case if I thought they were empty. In ether case they would never dig them up. You are such a fool.
Wayland, I note that the only names I've called you are "honey" and "sweet pea"—same names I call my kids. Now you're calling me names? Don't you think that's a bit childish? My mom taught me that when people start calling you names they've basically conceded that they got nothing substantive to say.
Yes, my suggestion was daft, an intentionally so. But it is, after all, the only way to prove that those kids didn't exist and weren't killed. Are you up for some grave-robbing, Wayland? If not, you're in a situation in which the real proof of your theory is very conveniently out of reach.
Please, find a new hobby.
"If not, you're in a situation in which the real proof of your theory is very conveniently out of reach." same for you so it's pointless to suggest it.
I'm not demanding proof. You are.
131 alabama9608 on May 13, 2014 said:
You seem to have some comprehension issues, which is far from surprising, seeing your views here.
I said every single case, murder or whatever, has inconsistancies in it, that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy, unless everything is a conspiracy. This isn't a conspiracy because there is overwhelming evidence that supports the official story. Most DNA evidence points to that, as do eyewitness accounts, evidence at AL's home, etc.
Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that supports there is a conspiracy? You didn't even know about the DNA evidence, so I question if you really know anything, other then what that kook Alex Jones post.
Post your evidence and later today I will respond.
132 chrishernandezauthor on May 12, 2014 said:
Bryce,
I'm getting more and more convinced that conspiracy theorists buy this crap because it feeds some deep-seated psychological need. The conspiracy doesn't have to make sense at all; it just has to make them feel better about themselves. That's why some people even buy the fantastically stupid theory that Jeff Bauman, who lost both legs at the Boston Bombing, was actually an Afghan War vet who had already lost both legs (right after the bombs exploded, the war vet rushed to the blast site, took off his fake legs, spread fake blood around and then laid there like he was really hurt. Honest!). These conspiracy theorists desperately want to be "experts" at something, even if they know absolutely nothing about any of it. And they get to claim they're so much smarter than everyone else, because everyone who believes the "government's story" are deluded fools, sheeple, whatever.
These guys really make me sick.
I think that the ring-leaders especially may get a buzz out of being part of a group with "secret knowledge", but honest to God, I think most of them are suffering from massive denial because the reality is too horrible for them to face emotionally.
I can't help but notice that what many of the conspiracy theories have in common is that no one "real" was actually harmed in the making of this conspiracy. The real harm is to nameless, faceless gun-owners or whomever the hoax is "really" targeting. And of course, that harm never actually occurs.
So, the denier believes that no Jews, children, runners, Americans etc were actually killed. No innocent blood was shed. No single human being could have been so evil as to have done that. Instead, it must be a very clever cabal with resources massive enough to be able to buy off an entire town or pull off a hoax massacre at a school that no one in town knew had no students.
I honestly feel sorry for them, because their passion and anger is wasted and even potentially harmful to other innocent human beings. It could so much better be spent trying to find ways to keep this from happening again.
Thanks for your blog, Chris. You are a hero of the Evolution.
Hero of the Evolution? I'm not even sure what that means, but thanks! 🙂
The reality that some kids got murdered? Who gives a fuck? It happens every day. Try again with better reasoning. Try the one about not wanting to be a fool. It's the reason you stick to your version, because you think ours is foolish.
Basically are you not saying the same thing. It's very possible that your perception of the world is completely wrong, correct? I probably can debunk any so called proof you have that a conspiracy was committed. I more than likely can do that with any conspiracy out there. So give me some facts that a conspiracy exist, please.
The Facebook memorial pages created before the event are pretty good indicators of conspiracy. It has been shown that this is not proof because it's possible to alter an existing page and keep the original creation date.
It has not been explained why people would do that or whether they actually did or not. If you do want to use Occam's razor then the simpler explanation is they created the memorial pages before the event rather than deciding to alter an existing page created a few days before.
However there are times when a complex explanation is required. That this is a massive conspiracy is a complex explanation but I believe is the correct one.
A simple motive for creating a memorial page is that they have donation buttons. Who knows how to add a donation button to something unless they have done so before? I can understand some families needing to raise some cash for a funeral, but they have raised millions, which the dead children will never benefit from. For whose benefit is this money?
Some of these same families were given pride of place at the Boston Marathon when the bombs went off. What was that all about? Someone milking it for political purposes?
You want cut and dried proof of everything but let me remind you, there are usually a lot of holes in these things as you would expect of a real event, it does not mean that the general thrust of the conspiracy theory is wrong. After all there will be a lot of noise in the evidence as the conspirators try and cover their tracks.
Ah, and now we come to the foul language part of the program. It goes with the ad hominem attacks.
We don't have "our" version, Wayland, We have the facts insofar as investigators have been able to ascertain. I don't think you're foolish. I think you're in denial that something this awful could happen on American soil, perpetrated by a single young American with a lot of guns, an indigent mom and an unmedicated mental condition.
Please, face it, pray about it, cry about it, throw up—however you react to grief, then help change things.
Well you need to think again. It happened at Columbine. Babies and children are murdered all the time. I only worry about the ones I am responsible for. If not then I would be fretting about things like drone strikes and abortions, nether of which do I have direct experience so for all I know just fear mongering and not real.
If anyone is fretting about the tragic children it's the people duped into making these familes donation funds huge.
Wayland, if you are unfortunate enough not to care about any children you're not "responsible for" (whatever that means to you), then why are you pursuing this so zealously?
You mention the donation funds. Is that what bothers you? The money? Wow.
Why ARE you pursuing this?
No real harm, are you kidding me? Tell that to the victims who have been harassed by you people. Tell that to the teacher that is being called a liar or to the parents who read the crap about their kids being alive. You are delusional.
It certainly looks like he took his false legs off. The bigger the lie the easier the sell. You could never live in a world where he actually did that, so you live in the world as you prefer it to be.
Where did the legs go? If they found his prosthesis, then I'm perfectly willing to believe he took them off. People do odd things to get attention, don't you find?
Yeah where did his legs go, good question. Why no blood from his legs? Look at the footage of the actors looking for places to lie on the ground and be injured. Look at the video of the benches that were OK after the bomb went off that were smashed in later pictures, like scene creation. It stinks.
That is pretty much the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. I'm at work, I'll write more later.
Yeah it would be stupid. The stupid thing is this theory has legs;-)
See how face this stuff is. Either faked by someone to make it look like a hoax or faked by the conspirators.
Thank you for posting that video. It shows the unbelievable stupidity of the truther movement far better than I could have. To make this video, or believe it, requires such a low IQ that I'd be surprised anyone associated with it hasn't died from forgetting how to breathe.
Let's just look at the mechanics of this alleged conspiracy. I wrote about it before in another post, so I'll just quote myself:
"Since Jeff Bauman must have already lost his legs before the bombing, he showed up to the Boston Marathon wearing fake legs. He stayed a safe distance away from where he knew the bombs were; he had to have, if he had been too close he might have been killed. Then, when the bomb detonated, he rushed over, took his fake legs off to expose "moulaged" fake injuries, and laid down among other injured people. Also, according to some conspiracists, he or someone else spread red paint near him. Someone else must have also grabbed his fake legs, hidden them in a bag or something and left. Actual legs, with injuries that matched Bauman's, would have to have been left at the scene, since that bomb was not powerful enough to completely destroy every last bit of his legs and someone might have looked around and said, "Hey, this guy's legs were blown off. Shouldn't they be around here somewhere?" Also, his face must have been quickly made up to appear as if he had been near the explosion, and his hair moussed to appear that it had been affected by the blast (it would have been sorta difficult to walk around the Boston Marathon with a blackened face and hair blown sideways without attracting attention).
At this point, after Bauman rushed to the scene, laid down and removed his fake legs and spread fake blood, and after someone else removed the fake legs and left real ones, and quickly made Bauman's face and hair appear affected by the explosion (and all of this without being noticed by either bystanders or cameras), Bauman started acting like a real victim. Then Arredondo came to his rescue, helped tourniquet his legs and put him in a wheelchair, and with others pushed him to an ambulance.
One of the others who helped was apparently an EMT, according to the patch on his jacket. I attended an EMT course several years back. It's not advanced training, but an EMT can identify a minor injury like, oh, someone having their legs blown off. So why would this EMT have played along by treating and evacuating someone for an injury they didn't really have? Either he wasn't really an EMT, or…wait for it…he was part of the conspiracy.
Then, while they were pushing him to the ambulance, they happened to run across a photographer who took the famous photograph above. This was fortuitous, since all this conspiracizing would have been for naught if nobody took pictures of it. The pictures are what grabbed everyone's attention.
But what if it the photographer's presence wasn't a happy accident? Maybe the photographer was waiting on the route he knew they would take, so he could take a picture of injuries he knew were fake. Maybe the photographer was…oh my god…part of the conspiracy.
So they arrived at the ambulance. The paramedics in the ambulance, of course, would have been able to identify fake injuries. So would the doctors and nurses at the hospital. But the paramedics, doctors and nurses treated injuries they knew were fake, they didn't protest or tell the press "this guy wasn't even hurt", because…well…actually, why would doctors and nurses play along?
You guessed it. They had to be part of the conspiracy."
Tell me, Wayland, have you ever been moulaged? I have. It was a long time ago, but I was made up as a casualty for a military mass casualty exercise. It's not an instant process.
And, oh, how many actual EMS people are looking at these pictures and claiming they're fake? How about the EMTs and paramedics who treated Bauman that day? Were they tricked by the moulage, or were they part of the conspiracy? What about the doctors, nurses, ER techs and everyone else who treated him at the hospital? All tricked? They can't recognize real traumatic amputations, but you, with your amazing hoaxer skills but no actual experience with trauma medicine, can?
For real, player?
I get it, Wayland. You really want to be important, to have secret knowledge that the rest of us poor, deluded sheep don't. And you want this knowledge without having to, say, dedicate your life to police work, or EMS training, or journalism, or anything that would impart actual skills and knowledge. So to make yourself the repository of wisdom, you buy into the stupidest, most moronic conspiracy theories out there, resist any infiltration by logic or reason, and insist everyone else is wrong while you're oh so right.
You've had your say on this site, Wayland. You've posted 70 comments, none of which I've censored or deleted. But that's enough. You want to spout absolutely stupid theories like the bullshit on that video, do it somewhere else.
And all those thousands of people standing near the finish line didn't notice any of this happening? Amazing.
I'll tell you something I tell my writing students: when your point of view character walks out of the scene or turns his head, the people he leaves behind or those he is not looking at do not freeze in place until he chooses to look back at them. They continue to move and interact and hear and see and perceive things and communicate with each other about those things even in your character's absence. They are not virtual ciphers who exist just to populate the page or your virtual reality. They are independent people.
I watched the footage taken as the bombs went off, Wayland. I bet you did too. I saw people bowled over. I saw later footage of a man being wheeled away on a gurney with blood all over his legs. This was immediately after the explosion.
Has it occurred to you that what you've seen in the time since is what has been created? If not, why not?
I couldn't agree more. The funny thing about the sheeple comment, is they are the actually the sheeple. They post unchecked information or site sources, such as Alex Jones, which can be debunked in about 5 minutes with a simple google search. Of course if someone who doesn't believe there is a conspiracy corrects them, then they usually will either ignore the post, or call you a government agent.
I post over at ATS sometimes and some of the post there are insane. I question the IQ of some of these people. The lack of common sense is appalling.
They refuse to look at the whole case and just want to look at small discrepancies, such as conflicting witness accounts, which are common in chaotic and tragic events. They want the case to be perfect, any inconsistency immediately means there is a conspiracy.
My point on the post above was there are inconsistencies in every case, it's normal, so why do they only choose certain cases and call them conspiracies? I believe the answer to this is that if they can blame the government, then they will call it a conspiracy.
I believe that the vast majority of conspiracy theorist have miserable and unsuccessful lives. They want to blame someone for this and the government is an easy target. It's understandable, politicians are in general liars, but I believe a majority of our population is good. To think there would a whole town involved in a cover up is borderline insane.
Now there are some conspiracy people who are intelligent. Alex Jones, for one. He has found a way to profit of a naive people. The funny thing is, I bet he doesn't even believe the crap he writes. I actually challenged him to take a lie detector test to show if he actually believes the conspiracies he spreads. Of course, I never heard back, even though I offered to pay for it. He knows he can exploit the naive and has made a living on it, much like all the people who wrote books on 2012.
So you have phone a picture where you can see some tears. He did not say no one cried. However most did not have tears and some even seemed full of joy (which usually brings tears but did not).
Rather than trying to convince yourself their emotional response was normal should you not be more concerned how weird it was. I know the standard response, I am not trained or experienced in human emotion so I am not equipped to judge. I have given your response for you because I have heard it trotted out so many times. It's why we think you're deluded.
Have you watched the video of the alleged father laughing? It barely shows him smiling and saying something as he steps up to the mic. Have you ever lost someone close to you? Have you ever been to a funeral and seen or given a eulogy? I have and I can tell you, I try to put my mind on something else, to distract myself from the pain of loss.
If you watched the video, you would see that poor man break down, right when he starts to speak, which would be exactly right when his mind triggered the event of losing his daughter.
Man, you either naive or just plain stupid.
Wayland, when my father died when I was fifteen, I didn't cry until my mom and I were leaving our home at Offutt AFB for California. I had to go down to the barn to say goodbye to my horse—the horse my dad let me buy with my carefully scrimped pennies when I was 14. On the flight to CA for my father's funeral, I was so quiet and dry-eyed, my mom wanted to give me medication.
I didn't mourn my father until I was about 26. I saw a man on TV in a blue dress uniform and began sobbing uncontrollably. It took years for me to be able to look at a man in uniform without breaking down.
I didn't cry for my father for ten years. You might think that mean I didn't love him. Far from it. I loved that man with all my heart. He was the best father a child could have asked for. Losing him at that age dropped me head first into PTSD. I shut down emotionally. So much so that my high school friends called me Gibraltar.
People respond to great loss in different ways. And grief goes through many different phases. I shut down the moment I looked out our front window and saw that car with my dad's superior officer and the base chaplain in it because I knew what it meant. I'm experienced enough in human emotions (being human, after all) enough to know that not everyone processes grief the same way. Or even processes it the same way from one loss to the next.
What is the normal response to loss? You admit you don't know. How can you then sit in judgement of these people after having seen only brief images of them in public settings? Having never seen their private moments of despair.
FYI, laughter is not always evidence of joy; it can also be evidence of hysteria.
Just so you know, I quit approving Wayland's comments. They were getting more and more ridiculous, and I gave him more than enough opportunity to make his point. He posted 70 comments here, that's enough.
And you're right, people show grief in different ways. But to a truther, humanity is a mystery.
Point 6: "Why did the FBI classify the Sandy Hook massacre? "
"I don't know anything about the FBI's report."
Ah. And YOU know something about the FBI's report?
I don't know about the FBI report. It goes to show that his questions are not easily answered.
I need to expand on this. Truthers' constant harping about the FBI report is yet another illustration of the dumbassery of the truther movement. The SH massacre was handled by local LE. Local cops responded. Local and state cops investigated. Local and state cops released a report with thousands of pages of documents. The FBI report is not required in order to prove this event actually happened. And when it is released, you truthers are going to claim it's a lie anyway. So shut up about the FBI report. The FBI also classified the Columbine report, and didn't declassify it until 2002. Do you claim Columbine never happened either?
It's pointless. This guy has his mind made up, he doesn't even have his facts straight. As soon as he used a the Facebook donation page as an example for this to be a conspiracy, I knew to just give up.
My guess is he is aged between 18-25 and has zero life experience in anything, yet he believes he has is all figured out.
I guess I could ask, what good did committing these conspiracies do? Gun laws haven't really changed, the boston marathon bombing didn't make us lose any of out civil liberties. At least with 9/11, the "truthers" can claim that was carried out to give the US a reason to occupy the Middle East.
Yeah, I know. I like to think my arguments aren't for him, they're for people on the fence. Then I think the people on the fence are too far gone already.
Thanks for the backup, though.
160 Kerensa Gwir on May 17, 2014 said:
The real issue is uncomfortable, but fairly straightforward: there were too few ambulances, and too many police, in the first hour. As NPD Chief Michael Kehoe stated, "EMS was quickly overwhelmed." Children were likely transported to Danbury in police vehicles, as a result, and as multiple police have stated both on and off-record. Parents of one child called a meeting with police last August to ask whether their child was transported to the hospital via ambulance that day. Nowhere in the 7000 page final report is this issue critiqued–it is not, in fact, mentioned. In fact, the report is all but silent on the EMS response to the Sandy Hook School shootings. Compare this to VA Tech's and Columbine's report; the difference is startling.
161 Sully on May 21, 2014 said:
Only 4 children were transported all the others were dead.
Kerensa,
In my opinion, EMS failed at Sandy Hook. They also failed at the Aurora theater shooting, and at the DC Shipyard shooting. I have to note that I'm not an expert on EMS operations, and don't have the standing to critique specific tactics and practices. However, I believe that in those cases, EMS followed protocol and maintained far too much distance, even after there was no reasonable belief another shooter was present. I attended a presentation by the incident commander at the DC Shipyard shooting, and clearly remember one thing he said: "Not only could we not get EMS to go to the building where the shooter was, we couldn't even get them to come onto the base."
There are times, like during an active shooter incident, when first responders should disregard protocol and assume more risk in order to help protect the innocents we've all pledged to protect.
163 Stewponey on May 19, 2014 said:
Interestingly, when Halbig and his collection of deluded morons descended on Newtown, they, to a man (and one equally deranged female) used the word "tragedy". A tragedy? When no one died? What happened to their usual rhetoric? "False flag" "fake" "hoax"? Gutless liars. One comedy moment though, when the knuckle dragger from "Infowars" described SH as a tradegy! Is this really the "truther" nutjob's frontline?
I noticed that too, but more than that, I realized from watching the video and reading commentary that this truther group—like many others—is composed of people with different (sometimes vastly different) takes on the same event or process.
In this case, one man didn't feel it was a hoax, but rather a coverup of an actual shooting. Several others didn't address whether it was a tragedy so much as they saw it as a reason for an attack on their 2nd Amendment rights. One fellow candidly said he really didn't care about the kids—he guessed it was sad that they died, but dammit, my guns! The woman seemed to be concerned with the mental state of the shooter and to be suggesting that she could help screen out others with the same malady.
If you read or listen to people from other conspiracy groups, or from the Cliven Bundy and American Spring groups, you'll get the same impression—they're not all on the same page or even in the same book. I think that's why, for example, there's been so much infighting in some of the groups. At Bundy's ranch the Oathkeepers are out because they believed the government was sending drones to kill them and left; meanwhile other contingents almost came to a shooting war. In the SH truther's case I saw part of a video on youtube in which one SH truther completely bashed Halbig, questioning his credentials, the truth of his assertions about helping the authorities with Columbine—you name it. What it came down to was that Halbig did not support the same conspiracy that this fellow did and apparently the two theories are mutually exclusive.
They play to their audiences. When they're around fellow morons/truthers they say it never happened. Around normal humans they say "It was a tragedy, and gosh, we just have questions about it." It's just another indication of their lack of integrity.
166 bill Moody on May 19, 2014 said:
I am a Sandy Hook parent. My family was friends with four of the angels who died that horrible day. I personally witnessed the pain and agony of that day as I had to pick up my child in that madness. I attended funerals, as did thousands of others. One child even had an open casket. My wife volunteered and helped clean some of the families homes and provide them meals, as did hundreds of others in our town. I remember seeing comments that the xmas trees were another lie. I drove by those trees every day, and i continue to drive by Sandy Hook school,my daily reminder of just how twisted people can be. I also had the misfortune of being next door when the police closed the road to thru traffic and the families of all the victims came down to take mementos from the trees. I have had truthers ask me why i didnt film that. Why didnt i film it? because i lived it, because i was crying my eyes out, because some things arent meant to be on tv.
Thank you Chris Hernandez, i too am former military and i appreciate you standing up against this nonsense.
Sincerely, Bill Moody
Sandy Hook resident
Thank you, Bill. I pray that your words might give some of the truthers pause.
Thank YOU for commenting here (and I apologize for the delayed response, I've just had a lot of writing to do lately). I'd ask you guys to please hang in there, I think most truthers will eventually get distracted by a squirrel or suddenly have to find a job when mom kicks them out of the basement and won't have time to spout their nonsense. If I can help you guys to tell your stories, and put some of the truther BS to rest, please let me know.
This should clear things up for the cool aid drinkers, but it won't
http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/wolfgang-halbigs-16-questions-asked-and.html
It should clear things up, but you're right, it won't…
171 Mogga on May 23, 2014 said:
These fools do not have belief in their own convictions. When the crazy gang bowled up at the Newtown school board meeting, they, to a man (and one deranged woman) began referring to this "hoax","fake", "false flag", as a tragedy! ("Tradegy" in the case of the Infowars bonehead). Ultimately, of course, the board had it right in ignoring the idiots….To "truthers" EVERY response is part of the conspiracy.
172 Jean Baptiste Zorg on May 30, 2014 said:
A house is sale date is the date it is recorded and registered at the court house. Who paid off almost all of the mortgages in the areas on 12/25/2009? When the court house and all govt. offices were closed? That's how you pay off an entire town. That's between 200,000 and over 500,000 per family. That's the smoking gun for me.
173 alabama9608 on June 1, 2014 said:
Jean Baptiste Zorg, if I can prove why your smoking gun is not a smoking gun at all, would it change your mind? Or would you believe it was a conspiracy no matter what information I could share with you.
174 bill lommey on June 5, 2014 said:
Zorg, only a complete idiot would believe the mortgages were all paid off. Zero and christmas date are frequently used as default values in databases. Besides, a person could make millions exposing this "conspiracy". Only an idiot would take small change when they could make a lot more writing a book. So far I haven't seen any books. Just a bunch of nutjobs on websites. This leads me to believe what you're saying is total BS and that your brain is being eaten by worms.
175 chrishernandezauthor on June 11, 2014 said:
"Only a complete idiot would believe the mortgages were all paid off." That's exactly why they believe it.
176 leerhiggins on June 8, 2014 said:
Here are my stories on the Newtown massacre and ATF probe:
https://leerhiggins.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/newtown-massacre-coverage/
177 Endless Mike on June 9, 2014 said:
Acually there's a single point, that proves all the twoother rubbish to be total bs. The same one, you can use for 9/11: Thousands of people are wilingly lying??? In case of 9/11 for over ten years now??? Not a single guilty conscience??? Impossible!
These dumbasses obviously don't know, how a successful comspiracy works. They think it has to be ubercomplex with a thousand different stages and half the nation involved. The kind of ficitonal Dan Brown type of conspiracy. You can not involve a million people in a thing like that and expect them to keep their mouthes shut. Just don't happen! Never did, never will!
It's like that Kennedy thing. Now without saying it was or it wasn't a lone gunman, THAT is how a conspiracy works. You got one to three shooters and one to three people planing and ordering the hit. That's is two to six people. With that little man power, the chance of some blabber mouth is serioulsy reduced. The less people the better.
Every, EVERY conspiray theory that involves multiple different goverment agencies and hundreds or in this case even thousands of accessories – B f'in S!
I feel the same way. Truthers always point to operations like the Manhattan Project as "proof" that secrets can be held for years, but they always ignore that those kind of projects were carried out in isolated areas, under constant supervision, away from the public, by people who had been cleared and vetted. That bears no resemblance to something like SH, which would require thousands of regular people to actively participate and keep their mouths shut about it forever. It's just stupid to think a conspiracy on that scale would be successful.
179 Steve on June 11, 2014 said:
They like to play "heads, I win, tails, you lose." If there are photos and video, it proves the conspiracy. If there aren't photos and video, it proves they're hiding something.
Being a conspiracy theorist means never having to say you're wrong.
180 brian neal on June 16, 2014 said:
Steve, you forgot to mention that if there were photos or videos , they all would have been photo shopped or CGI or even staged , i don't think the theorist would believe anything at this time except what was said in the early reports which in most cases are never 100% correct
Yes, there's that, too.
182 Lynn in CT on June 16, 2014 said:
First, good article. Who the hell is Halpig to demand that the CT State or Newtown police answer his stupid questions? He sounds like a mall cop who thinks he's a real special OPS member.
Dawn Hochsprung lived in my condo complex. There was a State Trooper stationed outside her home 24/7 after the murders. Oh, that was part of the conspiracy, too?
Halpig had said he was coming here in March to demand answers. Well, it's June and I haven't heard anything about him being here. Probably because the coward knows there would be a lynching!
183 Scot M on June 16, 2014 said:
Lynn,
He was there, but you probably didn't hear anything about it bc your local officials basically let him rant in some sort of hearing, but gave him nothing. Didn't reply, didn't respond. Once. At all. Must have been infuriating for the bastard!!!
184 misstrust on June 17, 2014 said:
All I can say about all this "evidence" is simply common sense as a mother. If one of my little boys was taken from me, murdered brutally, the love of my life, I would want answers. I wouldn't be concerned about a donation page, I would be demanding answers from the school, police, medical examiner and politicians. If I did have all my questions answered I would go to every one of the hoax believers and show them thousands of pictures of my baby and the evidence and testimony to know it was real and brutal and to give up such a waste of their time.. I would have met wolfgang at the school board meeting and spit in his face. But thats not what happened….not one parent was so outraged to file a lawsuit? So mad at truthers they went on every national channel to let them know my child was dead and this violence MUST be addressed. (Not the occasional soundbite of gun control but an indepth interview of this is who my child was, this is how the school went wrong, and this is how we can learn to do this and that differently) Its all been platitude and rhetoric. I would be beyond consolation, and I certainly wouldn't be so quick to be just happy he's an angel the very next day. Not one of these parents acted like a parent…not a single one….and that is why people MUST WAKE UP and feel okay to talk about it.
Well, that's you. People display grief differently and have different ways of dealing with it.
I hope nothing like this ever happens to you. I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but what makes you think that whatever behavior you might display in that situation would stand up to the same scrutiny you're giving them? Would you be OK with people on the internet picking apart your every word, facial expression, gesture and action, looking for telltale signs of fakery?
1: you don't dictate how others are allowed to express grief.
2: who hasn't "woken up" and doesn't feel free to talk about it? People are talking about it all over the place. That moron Wolfgang Halbig won't shut about it. He's even spoken about it in Newtown. So who doesn't "feel okay" to talk about it?
187 Redblues on November 25, 2014 said:
Stop saying 'I would' all the time. You might do what you think. You might not. You will never know what you WOULD do in any horrible trauma until you are in the situation. Every single person on the planet thinks s/he KNOWS how s/he would react. Chances are, every one of those people is wrong & will surprise him or herself when that traumatic moment comes. I can tell you that from personal experience handling my own traumas & being on scene during other people's horrible traumas. You don't get to dictate your own projected reactions as being the only possible reactions, much less the only correct ones. Come back & tell us about your personal experiences with your own child's pointless slaughter, not just a bunch of arrogant assumptions about how people you do not know must properly grieve in order for you to refrain from insulting their integrity and dismissing their children's murders.
188 Ross Elder on June 22, 2014 said:
Reblogged this on Ross Elder and commented:
I don't usually reblog things but during my own Sandy Hook debunk today I came across this post. It is a must read for those looking for truth.
189 JustGonnaJumpInHere on July 5, 2014 said:
@chrishernandezauthor: I've been quietly following this thread for a while now. Had some free time, just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts/questions, then see what people on both sides have to say.
1) I completely understand and can agree that people handle stress and loss in different, weird, sometimes unexpected ways. It's reasonable to say that out of 40 people who experience a drastic, catastrophic loss, such as their child being gruesomely murdered, one, maybe two may have very strange reactions/coping mechanisms. such as, talking/joking casually about the event or person lost, seeming to completely skip multiple steps of the grieving phase and end up in the acceptance phase within 24 hrs of the tragedy, be able to coherently talk about the loss with a smile on their face, with make up on, hair done, making jokes, etc. however, for ALL of the families of the victims to act like this to me, just from being human, and being around humans, is very weird and hard to believe. very hard. I don't accept that explanation of "their just in so much shock they cant even cry and are smiling and joking out of hysteria"first of all, because your cant have both – if someone is literally in so much shock that their body finctions stop working, i.e. cant produce tears even when incredibly sad, they are not also coping well and acting normal and able to talk and smile and act sensibly and take care of themselves, doign their hair, make up, clothes clean, etc. c'mon. if you're so messed up in the head that when you are talking about your loss your hysterically laughing randomyl at inapropriate times, and not able to cry, you are going to be acting strange, crazy almost…unstable…they arent acting like that….they are acting like people who are being interviewed many years after losing the loved one and having all that time to heal and get out their greiving…but it's 24, 48 hrs after the event. They arent acting in shock so they cant make tears, or they are laughing hysterically…they arent hysterical at all. I also dont buy this rebuttal, because they ARE "crying" at least, the type of "crying" anyone can do if they're acting, however there are NO tears….and there are actually STILL no tears in the photos you provided as "rebuttal". it's very very hard for me to believe that every single person in photos and on camera has this same, weird reaction to trauma, sadness, loss and bereavement where they act strangely. wiping away tears that arent there (what are you wiping??? theres no tears…none….bone dry….why would you bring your finger to your eye and "wipe" away non existant moisture, unless you are going through the motions of someone who's "crying", i.e.acting. people dont wipe unless there is snot/tears from their faces when theyre crying. because it's not just some auto-reflex some generic hand gesture you make when your sad, you ONLY do it if theres salt water coming out your eyes, running down your face, smearing your mascara, going inside your nose, running out your nose and into your mouth, etc. we've all cried…we all know this…you dont bring your finger to your eyes and wipe away completely dry skin…who does that?? and what are the odds that so many of the ppl grieving this event would do it?) Like I said, I understand people handle loss in different ways – smoe may crawl inside themselves and become catatonic, others may cry uncontrollably non stop and randomly, others may suddenly become very busy with useless tasks and act like everythings fine to the point of crazy and hysterical. non of these people are acting like this – theyre just acting like noral people who lost a loved one a long long time ago and have had the time to heal and reach the "now we can reminisce and joke and have fond memories and think clearly and set up a memorial page, etc" I just dont buy it.
Thats the only part of your original post I want to address, just t keep this convo from circling around the same topics. S I'd like to introduce in some fresh questions:
1) why Gene Rosen, like everyone else, why cant he actually cry? and what is HE so hysterical about? he saw no bodies, no wounds, just saw some kids sitting on grass and invited them in for lolly pops and drinks (< really?) so here we have yet ANOTHER person who seems to cry A LOT, but with absolutely not one single drop of a tear, apparently he is grieving in a shocked/weird, incredibly overlydramatic "made for TV" way as well. but that's not the question. the question is: why can Gene Rosen be seen walking around in footage at the firehouse milling about with everyone else during the time when he was supposedly at home with 4 (6? the story changes) children?? If he did at some point go tot he firehouse AFTER the children were brought there…why isn't that in his official story…he just left that really important fact out? how does one forget that?
2) are you aware that shortly before sandy hook shooting, the medical examiner had a statute passed that no autopsy results of pediatric (and pediatric only) cases were to be released to the public…why? coincidence?
3) In a conversation made to the medical examiner'a office, when the coroner's secretary is asked about noah pozner, she refuses to give ANY information, and acts strangely, especially at one point where she whispers something to someone (who is she talking to???) and can audibly be heard saying the name "noah". she is obviously talking to someone and mentioning that the caller is asking about noah pozner, yet she maintains that the coroner is doing autopsies and isnt around to talk….so who is she talking to? herself? someone else? he only has one secretary. why was the caller calling about noah?…see #4.
4) are you aware that either the coroner MUST be lying, or the parent of Noah Posner MUST be lying? because she states very clearly that Noah did NOT have an autopsy done. and the coroner implied he did it himself. who's lying and why? why cant they get their facts straight about something so clear cut and important. did your kid have an autospy or not?
5) just watch the video of the parents and responders milling about at the firehouse for almost an hour, with unbiased, open ind. pretend you didn't know anythign about it, just saw it for the first time. and somone asked you "what do you think is going on here?" i would NOT think that "someone open fired int he school, killing almost 30 people, and no one knows yet whether their chid or loved on was one of the dead and theyre waiting to find out" based on the behavior of the people. it's just not normal/natural. I would think "bomb scare" "fire" or "drill". the people are milling about calmly, with no purpose, not panicked, not in terror and running, hectic, pushing shoving, tryignt o get in, trying to get information, approaching fireman and police with photos of their kids saying "did you see him/her??!! this is my kid, please tell me is he/she alive??!!" this is how real people would act in this real scenario. In the footage, you see people walking around, some talking, some on their phones, some brought their pets? <wtf? "honey, theres been a shooting at school, timmy might be dead or slowly dying a painful death, let's go! hey, do you think we should bring Max along too?, i mean, he needs the excercise, and you know how he sometimes chews on stuff when we leave him…" its' just not realistic. and some of the people are eating refreshments, << REALLY?? "is your kid dead? "i dunno, havent found out yet…is yours?" "yeah same here,…hey try these cupcakes, theyre serving them inside, theyre GREAT!" some can be seen casually talking and smiling…this is how people act during this kind of emergency/tradgedy? I'm sorry, bt it's just so unnatural/strange to me.
6) why do they need SO MUCH MONEY??? I can understand if some of them had been poor and needed money for a casket/funeral. but 27 MILLION DOLLARS??? does this help witht he grieving process?? this is a wealthy very affluent area… NO ONE should have had trouble with the 10 grand or less it takes to have a decent funeral. what is the millions for?? much of it went to police department…WHY??? what for???
If you could please address these questions/points, I'd really appreciate it. thanks.
190 brian neal on July 5, 2014 said:
#1 ,I will admit that Rosens reactions were a bit overboard in his interviews , but in a few of his interviews he did say that after the parents came to pick up their kids which took about 45 minutes he went with them to the firehouse ,,, #2, the bill that everyone says that Carver help pass was his ideal , but then why would write a letter saying it was redundant because CT. law already prohibited the release of records and autopsy reports of minors , btw the bill was pass in the beginning of 2011 ,,,#3 can you post the link to the conversation ? #5 the side building of the firehouse is 40 x 90 feet that 3600 square feet , if the 450+ kids were in there taken up about 3 sq, ft, that would only be 1350 + SQ FT plus plenty room for parents to arrive at get them , the aerial view of the earliest chopper was at least an hour or more after the shooting ,, was the video you saw a hour of continued filming or only a few minutes at a time of people walking around and having no ideal of who they may be ,, parents or non parents , people who might just want more info , or people offering any help that they could do , you can't tell from a helicopter who most of them are
Gene Rosen can be seen in the firehouse live footage feed from helicopter DURING the time he was supposedly with the kids. around 10am-1030am. there is no way the kids ran to his house (which is one version of his story, another is a school bus driver dropped them off, another is he came outside and they were being yelled at by a cop to calm down?) at 945 or so, sat on his yard for a while, then went inside his house and (per his testimony) 20 minutes in began talking about what happened…they spoke for a while, then, for some very odd reason, going against what any other adult would do (or would have done from the MOMENT they discovered the kids on their lawn talking about their dead teacher!, he calls…there parents? instead of police? "our teacher's dead she was killed we cant go back!" " ok, kiddies, there thee come inside for creepy cookies and lemonade, and even though you just told me your teacher was murdered, im not going to call the cops, instead, let's play with toys" < it makes zero sense, isnt plausible. THEN (and this is how we know hes lying) he says that right after he dropped the kids off, or their parents picked them up or whatever, supposedly some random mom shows up at his house at noon (according to his testimony), which means no time to go to fire house and wander around for a half hour in circles, and then come back home before she gets there. the whole thing is so stupid and unbelievable – why in gods name would some random bus driver just drop 4 or 6 kids off in some random yard, to be left unnattended, doesnt even knock on the door liek "hey this is whats up please take care fo these kids"…no, just randomly picks a house, drops them off and drives away…"good luck!" and they had to drive by the firehouse, which was obviously where the ambulances and everything were gathering….why would they bypass the firehouse to go get dropped off in a random yard to sit alone for god knows how long? who does that? no one. its completely not believable and ridiculous. makes zero sense. and conveniently he "cant mention the name of the student who the lady was asking about because its just too horrible" in anther interview he "couldnt remember the name, hed have to check the list"…yeah, ok Gene.
I thought the number of kids who supposedly attended SH was closer to 750/800…but let's go with the 450 number…its not "where are they, do they fit?" its "how come weve only seen all of 10 of them. a few here getting interviewed, like 10 walking in a line wearing 80's clothes, one of the girls is smiling, and thats about it. no wave of kids ever gettign released from firehouse, no hundreds of kids getting into cars, walkign through parking lots….ever seen a fire drill at a school? there should be a LOT of kids walking out of that building. i see, in the whole footage, maybe 1 or 2. doesnt make any sense. did they just hold them all there for no good reason until after the helicopter was gone and then "ok, eveyrone…go rushing out now durign a window that no one happens to be filming or taking photos conveniently!"….c'mon….hundreds of kids, panicking, crying, supposedly covered in their classmates blood….where r they?
the video i saw is not a few minutes at a time, its continues footage and its not believable…watch it again….like i said, if this were truly hundreds of panicking parents, thinking their babies, the love of their loves may be dead or dying….they wouldnt be slowly milling about, talking, walkign in circles. i know my parents wouldnt. they would fight the police trying to get in there and find me and my sister. nothing could stop them. and when they found us, theyd be balling and hugging us and tears everywhere and barely able to speak. and if they didnt find us, theyd prolly loose their minds right there in the parking lot, fainting, screaming, crying, in disbelief, probably droppign to their knees or falling onto ground….like a normal parent who just found out theyre never seeing their kid again….this seen shows a bunch of people looking like theyre waiting outside to buy tickets to something. people have more urgency and emotion on black friday. its just unbelievable to me, sorry, if we disagree, we disagree, but this isnt normal human emotion/behavior…picture yourself as a director casting a scene of parents waiting to find out about the fate of their children…is this what youd direct? "ok everyone, walk around in figure 8's and circles, some people smiling, some people hug, some people walking dogs, other eating, walk in that door…then out that one…then back in that one….GREAT!" no, youd say "i wan tto see people running, crying, pestering officials for answers and info, desperate looking, in their work clothes because they came stright from work…lets make this more beleivable people!!" c'mon ask yourself if that seen looks believable, it just doesnt…
one other point i totally forgot to ask about: why are there exactly 26 xmas trees behind the firehouse in the footage, when they reported that they were dropped off days laer by a good samaritan to honor the dead. they are clearly seen on the day of.
video of convo with carver's secretary ask you requested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDJuzNjS8Og
and I dont know why he would go back later and say it was redundant, maybe to give the appearance of it not benefiting him? all i can say is that doesnt take away form the fact that it happened, not too long before incident, and im wondering WHY?
192 Brocky on July 11, 2014 said:
Carver didn't go back later and say it was redundant. He said it the first time in the 2011 letter he wrote. He said it was redundant because pediatric autopsy reports of homicide victims were not then or have ever been released to the public. Another good example of how the hoaxers never get the facts right. They just chase their tail over and over on this one. What they say is a letter by him asking that the reports not be made public is actually him saying that the reports already are not made public. I don't know how they could get this so wrong. They take one line way out of context and completely fail to read a few beneath it. Do you know what the real facts are now? The medical examiner DID NOT have a statute passed that no autopsy results of pediatric (and pediatric only) cases were to be released to the public. It's nothing but a so called "coincidence" that does not exist. It was made up by the Hoaxers. If you read the whole Bill you might understand why he wrote the letter against the new Bill and the detailed changes some people wanted to make.
You seem to be very confused about Rosen's story. I see you confuse yourself about it a bit from your own fault also. You contradict yourself in your reply to Brian.
First you said "Rosen can be seen in the firehouse live footage feed from helicopter DURING the time he was supposedly with the kids. around 10am-1030am."
Then you said "THEN (and this is how we know hes lying) he says that right after he dropped the kids off, or their parents picked them up or whatever, supposedly some random mom shows up at his house at noon (according to his testimony), which means no time to go to fire house and wander around for a half hour in circles, and then come back home before she gets there."
If he was filmed at the firehouse at 10 – 10:30 then it would still give him an hour and a half to make it home before the mother arrived at noon. Yet you said: "which means no time to go to fire house and wander around for a half hour in circles," Do you realize how you are creating a discrepancy out of this? According to your own timeline he had over an hour and a half to be at the firehouse yet you say he had no time? Which is it? And no one was walking in circles at the firehouse BTW.
Do you know that Rosen's house was right beside the firehouse? Say 1 minute for him to make it home? The helicopter didn't arrive until after 10:30. Rosen and the bus driver started to call the kid's parents shortly after they were in the house, it took 45 minutes for the last to arrive and Rosen said he went to the firehouse with the last of them. That puts him there at probably before 10:45 or lets say 11:00 for good measure. He could have been there until 11:45, walked the minute to his house and fed his cats still leaving plenty of time to be home when Jesse Lewis's mother came looking for her son. Rosen could have been at the firehouse for only half an hour leaving at 11:15, getting there at 10:45. His story is completely believable. And he said he wanted to check the list to see if it was her son that was one of the victims.
Rosen didn't give different versions of his story. Some interviews were short and some were much longer. Anyone can give 10 interviews ranging between a couple minutes and 15 minutes and you will not hear all the same information in all of them. In the longer interviews he gave more information, which hoaxers take as different versions of his story. He never gave conflicting information. Saying he saw a man talking loudly to the kids saying "it will be alright" in one interview and not mentioning him in another interview are not different versions of his story or a discrepancy. Hoaxers have also taken what he said and added in their own ideas or words. They have assumed he said things that he did not. Let's look at what you said for example.
"there is no way the kids ran to his house (which is one version of his story, another is a school bus driver dropped them off, another is he came outside and they were being yelled at by a cop to calm down?)"
Rosen never said a school bus driver dropped them off. That is only a false claim that Hoaxers made up from assuming. Rosen said when he found the kids a school bus driver was with them. He also said in addition to the bus driver there was a man with them all when he first saw them. This is the first time I heard it was a cop so I assume it is your own addition to the story.
Of course the kids ran to Rosen's house. The bus driver confirmed it in a police report. One woman confirmed on video interview she saw a group of kids running away from the school. Another woman on video interview said she saw kids running past the firehouse. Another woman called into 911 and said she stopped a small group of kids < on a road which was past Rosen's and she took them to the police station. There was no one gathering at the firehouse yet when the kids made their escape from room 10 of the school.
"for some very odd reason, going against what any other adult would do, he calls…there parents?"
Certainly not odd or against what any other would do. The kids wanted their parents. The cops were already streaming down the road past the firehouse by the time Rosen started talking to the kids. He would have known the cops were already alerted so why call them? The kids were crying and distraught so he gave them something to drink and some toys to help sooth them, and they calmed down after a while. So what would you have done? Call them all liars and give them nothing to drink?
"why in gods name would some random bus driver just drop 4 or 6 kids off in some random yard, to be left unnattended, doesnt even knock on the door liek "hey this is whats up please take care fo these kids"…no, just randomly picks a house, drops them off and drives away…"good luck!" and they had to drive by the firehouse, which was obviously where the ambulances and everything were gathering….why would they bypass the firehouse to go get dropped off in a random yard to sit alone for god knows how long? who does that? no one. its completely not believable and ridiculous."
I think it is unbelievable and completely ridiculous how you can take a few known facts and embellish and twist it into such an untruthful rant.
No one ever said the bus driver dropped the kids off. Nor did anyone ever say she left the kids alone with Rosen. In Rosen's interviews he said that the bus driver helped him make the phone calls to the kid's parents. She was running some errands in her car and happened to be driving past the fire house when she saw the kids running, knew something was wrong, pulled over and called out for them to stop. Some did, just passed the firehouse which happened to be Rosen's driveway, and some kept running that were stopped by another woman down the road a ways.
You say you only saw two kids leaving the firehouse? But then you said a lot of things. How come I saw more than two? The media got there between 10:30 and 11:00 and there wasn't a program in place to video each of the 420 kids that went to Sandy Hook but if you watch the media videos of that morning you can see dozens and dozens of kids leaving with their parents.
Your description of the people at the firehouse in the video you saw is mind boggling. Figure 8s and circles is of your imagination only. 'some people walking dogs, other eating' ??? Please.
Start by getting the basic facts right and you will discover that everything about Sandy Hook adds up.
194 chrishernandezauthor on July 7, 2014 said:
1) You're making a HUGE claim. ALL of the families acted the same way? You can prove that not a single family member of a murder victim cried? If you can, prove it.
1B (you listed two 1s)) I don't really give much of a damn about all the alleged controversy involving Gene Rosen. When you've got multiple police officers and other first responders saying "Yes I was there and yes I saw 26 murdered children and teachers", why should I care about conflicting reports about Gene Rosen? I'll address this more later, but it comes down to this: the choice is either a) believe that someone has badly misunderstood Gene Rosen's actions, or b) all the cops, firefighters and EMS personnel, all the parents, all the cool staff, and about half the town of Newtown are actively participating in a massive conspiracy to fake a massacre. Option a is likely, option b is impossible.
2) If that's true, it doesn't bother me. In how many states are pediatric autopsies released to the public? How often do you see crime scene photos of murder victims right after the crime, much less child murder victims.
3) See the choice between options a and b. Now the medical examiner's office is part of the conspiracy, right?
4) I'll guess that you conspiracy guys are badly misinterpreting what the medical examiner really said. In every state, murder victims are autopsied.
5) Is it possible that some families were already out with their pets, and rather than go home they went straight to the firehouse? No, that couldn't be it. "Crisis actors" must have hung around the firehouse with pets, because these ultra-professional actors being directed by above top secret government agents were told to bring pets, right?
Here's the deal: most conspiracy types seem to know jack shit about actual human behavior. They think people are supposed to be hysterical just like in movies and on TV, but in real life that's usually not the case. I've been on murder scenes where everyone was very calm, I've handled a scene where a woman died of natural causes in her apartment and when her husband arrived he was in a quiet state of disbelief. Shocked, but completely cooperative. When the SH parents arrived and were told "The area has been closed off, officers are handling it, the students have been evacuated and we need you to wait here until we can take you to your children," do you think they were supposed to go insane and charge the school?
6) Where do you get the money figures from? There were 26 victims, and if they really did get 27 million total that's about 1 million per family. I can see donations reaching that level. I agree that people shouldn't get showered with money for being crime victims, but it happens, like it did with 9/11 victims.
The problem with all these "arguments by anomaly" is that the choices always fall between "this anomaly could probably be rationally explained" or "this anomaly proves that a gigantic conspiracy exists that involves thousands of disparate people, from numerous walks of life, including very young children, with no apparent motive to participate, and in a year and half since this event not a single one has broken and said 'this event never happened.'" So you're making a claim about a minor point ("Gene Rosen doesn't act like I think he should!") and using it as reason to believe in the logical equivalent of "The moon is made of green cheese and an all-powerful clown lives on the dark side."
and sorry, one more thing just to back up my point about how easy it is to "fake emotional crying" and how you would "wipe away tears that arent there" I would like to point you toward the video of the young kuwaiti girl telling lies about how she witnessed iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and throwing them on the "cold floor to die" in this video, she appears to be all broken up and crying and goes through the motion of wiping a tear from her face..except there were no tears. she was fake crying, but she actually does a MUCH more convincing job than these parents…i would have beleived her, and many people did. except its now been proven fake….thought you might appreciate it since it lead up to a sensless war in iraq, and it illustrates the "fake tear wiping" that im talking about. its easily youtubed.
and another gem i forgot (sorry im bombing your page) in a video interview with brendon hunt, who i actually dont like that much), there is a part where he knocks on a SH residents door to question them. it is the guy who said on news camera "there was a guy who walked by in handciffs, looked us right int he eye and said he didnt do it" < that guy, rememebr? well, brendon knocked on his door and wanted to ask him to describe the guy he saw, and he said basically "no i dont want to get involved, not with all the FBI been comin to people's houses and what not" or something to that effect < basivally saying "im keeping my mouth shut because FBI have been coming around here" so what to make of this? im not sure fo the link, can probably locate it, but it's i think part 2 of brendan hunts visit to SH videos and toward the middle or end i believe, check it out….thanks
sorry in advance 4 typos, fractured wrist and sleep deprived 😉
197 Steve on July 6, 2014 said:
Just curious, before I attempt to answer your questions, does every single one of them need to be explained to your satisfaction for you to accept that this was not a false flag?
well, that depends i guess on which one it is. for me, there are too many that all combined together dont make sense. for instance: if it were ONLY the xmas trees and nothing else, id say "weird coincdence" if it were ONLY Gene Rosen acting like a total loon, id say "weird guy trying to get 15 minutes of fame". if it were ONLY that they didnt have a proper biohazard team clean the area, id say "ok, maybe when you demolish a building, its ok not to"…but when theres so so many discrepancies, its hard not to see them add up. but, give it what you got i guess, im open to facts 😉
I just want to understand the rules before you have me playing whack-a-mole. If after every time I answer a question, you say "Well, what about this? and what about that?" You're just wasting my time.
Tell you what. Since you're the one who is claiming this was a hoax or false flag or whatever, why don't you prove that?
Find the smoking gun, the government insider who knows what really happened and is willing to go on the record about it.
The idea that dozens of federal, state and local agencies, along with several different media outlets and thousands of individuals would all go along with some elaborate plan to fake a mass murder is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.
A list of anomalies or coincidences is not evidence.
200 Lynn on July 7, 2014 said:
Thank you Steve! These hoaxers really anger me, as they are ugly people who disrespect those 26 lives that were cut down and also disrespect the people that knew and loved them.
One the subject of anomalies:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-conspiracy-theorists/
""If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomolies [sic], the law of statistics PROVES that they can't all be just "coincidence".
Actually, statistics demonstrate that apparent coincidence should happen all the time. The conspiracy theorists are simply wrong here. They are following their naive gut reactions to apparent coincidence, when statisticians can rigorously demonstrate that such events are common place.
They also ignore the power of confirmation bias. When you are looking for anomalies, you will find them. People are good at pattern recognition. Further, "anomaly" is a very open criterion. Just about anything can be considered an anomaly."
first thing is the 26 trees theory has been debunked , , but the main thing is do you believe what is in these you tube videos or do you take that information and do more research on it , how do you know that the aerial view of ROSEN was between 10 and 10:30 as you mention earlier did you take the posters word for it or did you research do see if he was correct or not http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/wolfgang-halbigs-16-questions-asked-and.html check out this link it might give you answers if you are willing to believe the answers
What you say about the many discrepancies in the stories is simply not true. There are some but no more than there are in any other kind of reported event. The rest of the so called "discrepancies" are made up, mistakes, misinformation, lies that were created by Hoaxers. They take words and lines and meanings and facts out of context. See all these for what they are and you'll discover that there aren't many left to be alarmed about, there always are some in every case.
These so called discrepancies grow by leaps and bounds by people such as yourself every time they incorrectly repeat what they have heard. You give a very good example of it here, you said:
"why are there exactly 26 xmas trees behind the firehouse in the footage, when they reported that they were dropped off days laer by a good samaritan to honor the dead."
I have seen links and the videos and comments about the Christmas trees but this is the only time I have read that they reported that they were dropped off by a good Samaritan. Is this bit your very own addition? Can you see how the truth gets twisted by people like yourself? It was reported that someone called in from NC and that they wanted to pay for 26 trees as memorials for each of the victims. The Hoaxer story goes that there were 26 trees already behind the firehouse, conveniently to save time when the call came in and that it was all pre planned. You can go to the U tube hoax video about the trees and see for yourself that the count the poster made is far off. There are far more than 26 trees there that Friday. The firehouse sells Christmas trees there every year. Click on "older comments" at the bottom and see comment 223 and 224 to prove it is an annual sale.
204 flyingtigercomics on July 6, 2014 said:
Chris- Halbig has taken down his facebook page… Maybe his grift is done
Tiger,
Awww, that's so sad. How's he going to beg for donations now? 🙂
oh don't worry man, his GoFundMe is still up.
207 Mogga on July 22, 2014 said:
"Truthers" have had 19 months to reveal ONE single truth. All of their so called questions have been answered or revealed as bullshit. Come up with one single fact to support your demented crap, or shut the fuck up.
"What evidence do you have Mr Halbig?"
"Well your Honor…We thought the porta potties were a bit early…….."
208 Redblues on August 10, 2014 said:
I can add a few things to this. I am a certified EMT in Connecticut, in a town.a few miles away from Newtown.
Point 1)EMS is trained to be sure that the scene is safe before we can enter it. In fact, when taking the practical licensing exam, when given a scenario, the first question.one MUST ask before proceeding, is: 'Is the scene safe?' If one does not ask this question first, one flunks automatically, no matter what one says or does after that. There are two reasons for this. The first is that our job is emergency medicine, not fire safety, not law enforcement. We are not trained for those highly skilled and very different jobs even though we end up on the same crime and accident scenes as FD and PD. If the scene is not safe, any additional people in it are at best 'clutter'. Responding PD have no way of knowing if we are suspects or on-duty professionals. This is dangerous for the victims, us, and for PD, Assuming either one of us makes a mistake, there could be more casualties, or an EMT could be taken hostage, or killed by the perp, or accidentally shot by police officer, or just get in the way of the responding officers. The other reason is that if an EMT is injured, we become an immediate liability. Not only are we then unable to do the job we came for, but we BECOME a job for someone else; another patient to transport, or body to move, The entire ambulance crew is immediately out of service and a new one must be dispatched, thus further delaying emergency care for the victims. Newtown has, I believe, two ambulance crews on duty at a time. So half of the town's EMS would be out of service and backup crews from other towns would need to be dispatched, if possible. Yet another treatment delay. When every second counts, the risk is too high and the possible benefits are limited if they exist at all.
point 5) No, Connecticut law does not say that only a doctor can declare people dead. Paramedics can declare people dead on scene. It happens all the time. Even a first responder or an EMT can declare OBVIOUS death, such as a decapitation, a bloated corpse, or an equally obvious unsurvivable trauma. Most of the victims were obviously dead on scene. Medics probably checked for vital signs once on scene, and made the 'official' pronouncements. Ambulances in CT are by law forbidden to transport dead bodies. If someone dies in an ambulance, they are transported to the hospital where the ER staff would make the pronouncement. (We are legally forbidden to stop CPR once it has begun, which is why we do not declare death in an ambulance.) If the victim is DOS, the coroner removes the body, not EMS. This prevents an ambulance from being taken out of service unnecessarily, as well as any unnecessary contamination of our equipment..If you read the accounts from ER staff that day, they were all on alert for mass casualties who never arrived. All of them knew this meant that the victims were dead on scene. Most of them describe 'that sinking feeling' that came on as they realized there were no live victims to treat.There were so many victims that a temporary morgue was set up on scene.
point 3) I can only assume the Conspiracy Loon has never been to CT, or even looked at it on a map. There are 2 Lifestar helicopter on duty at all times in this state. They are dispatched out of Hartford and Norwich, about 50 and 65 miles away from Newtown, respectively. They fly within a 150 mile radius and bring patients to the closest designated trauma hospital. There are 13 designated trauma centers in CT (https://www.facs.org/search/trauma-centers?state=CT ) 9 of which are closer by ambulance than the Lifestar helicopters are to Newtown. All 13 trauma centers *receive* helicopters, but only the ones in Hartford and Norwich *dispatch* helicopters. (Loon seems to be operating under the assumption that all designated trauma centers in the state also have Lifestar helicopters. They do not.) In other words, before a helicopter could even be on scene, the patient would have already been receiving definitive care at a local facility. The closest one, Danbury Hosptital, is a 15 minute CAR ride away. An ambulance could probably shave about 3 minutes off that time. Even if Danbury Hospital had its own helicopter, it couldn't get to the scene as fast as the the EMS already *in* Newtown. And, like an ambulance, Lifestar does not transport victims who are already dead. Most of the work they do in CT involves transferring a stabilized patient from the hospital where they are located to a specialized center (such as a burn unit) in the region. That is because we are a densely populated state with emergency rooms a short ambulance ride away for everyone. Lifestar helicopters are not 'automatically' dispatched *anywhere* in *any* situation, at least not in this state. They must be specifically requested, for specific reasons. To do otherwise would actually DELAY care, as well as be a tremendous waste of resources. They do *not* provide 'the quickest and best' care for patients in all situations, only in certain situations, which mostly do not occur in such a densely populated area.
As for point 16) I refer you to CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/01/justice/connecticut-sandy-hook-lawsuit/)
Most of Loon's 'evidence' can be debunked by your average 4th grader. Frankly, I have a hard time believing his credentials are anything more than a product of his fevered imagination, since he seems to know so little about emergency servicesor crime scenes. He probably thinks 'chemtrails' have been sprayed across the entire state that cause both mass amnesia AND false memories. What a miserable waste of humanity.
209 Lynn on August 11, 2014 said:
Thank you Redblues for a very logical rebuttle to Halpig's disgusting allegations.
I also am very suspicious of this morons credentials.
You should probably be suspicious of your own judgment.
211 brian neal on August 18, 2014 said:
thank you for you information, but i was wondering how long it would have taken the helicopters to arrive at the school, including from step one when the police or EMTs call their dispatcher to the time they could land
Far longer than the ambulances already in Newtown. 'Step one' is *not* dispatching Lifestar, which is only ever specifically requested, on scene, by EMS, not automatically dispatched along with responding EMS. The nearest Lifestar helicopter is 50 miles away in Hartford. Even traveling 100mph it would have been a 30 minute *flight*, not including take-off, landing, loading patients, taking off, flying to the nearest receiving hospital in Danbury and landing again. Furthermore, there was no place for them to land, unless I 84, the nearest highway, was shut down for a landing pad. They couldn't have landed at the school which was full of parked cars, emergency vehicles, and people. I 84 is farther away from the school than Newtown EMS. The ambulances would have to have loaded patients, driven in the opposite direction from the hospital to the helicopter & transferred them, which is not how EMS works. The patients, had there been any to treat, would have been receiving definitive care at the hospital before Lifestar ever got to the scene. And what difference would it make anyway? Lifestar was not needed, and thus never requested. Local EMS is much closer, and the victims were dead. By law, neither Life star nor ambulances carry corpses, only live patients. As previously stated, Lifestar does not provide the 'fastest and best treatment' in all situations. Lifestar is seldom, if ever, faster than ground transport in CT. Most of the time CT Lifestar carries stabilized patients from a hospital to a specific type of trauma unit within a 150 mile radius. I'm wondering why you're wondering about Lifestar. You may as well be fixated on the brand of shoes the responding officers had on. Purely an irrelevant, academic, issue.
sorry if i came across as a hoax believer, i'm on your side, i just wanted you to show how long it would have taken if Lifestar was requested , i posted the Lifestar info link on a couple of you tube video and still got negative comments. btw thanks for the info
Sorry. A helicopter travels about a hundred miles an hour, give or take. Nearest Lifestar copter is 50 miles away in Hartford. When you clutter some Loon's YouTube rants with facts, and they respond with negative comments it means two things.
1) Facts are not relevant to them, feeling smarter than other people is important to them.
2) They look like fools, and they know it, so they howl louder.
In other words……it's working.
I forgot to cite a couple of sources. Here is one for CT Lifestar:
http://www.harthosp.org/lifestar/AboutLIFESTAR/default.aspx
Here are the laws regarding pronouncement of death in CT, including when emergency medical providers are obligated to begin CPR and the laws regarding dispostion of remains:
Click to access 2010_07_Guidelines_for_EMS_Determination_of_Death.pdf
Since all of this information is available online, I find it shocking that Halbig has gotten away with repeating such easily refuted statements, much less that anyone is gullible enough to listen to them..
I'd just like to add one more link, an article about Peter Lanza, the shooter's father, from March 2014:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/17/the-reckoning
217 Steve on September 6, 2014 said:
Some observations about Sandy Hook hoaxers:
http://thesoapboxrantings.blogspot.ca/2014/07/5-things-ive-noticed-about-sandy-hook.html
It is sad you are so far behind, this late in the game.
219 Steve on October 8, 2014 said:
220 Mike Knox on September 14, 2014 said:
Your refutation to Halbig's question of WHO declared all those children dead within 11 minutes is WHO CARES? First of all, let's try to envision the crime scene, 26 small children huddled in corners and some in a closet with multiple gun shot wounds and blood everywhere and you expect us to believe that a bunch cops have the medical expertise to determine if they are dead or barely clinging to life? All the while keeping the paramedics at bay? ONLY a medical doctor can declare someone dead in the state of Connecticut.
221 brian neal on September 14, 2014 said:
http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/wolfgang-halbigs-16-questions-asked-and.html MIKE read this report , it might give you the answers you want
222 chrishernandezauthor on September 14, 2014 said:
Yes, my question is who cares. As a cop on the scene, that question is functionally irrelevant. If I show up on the scene you just described, and the scene isn't secure, I have to triage; if victims reasonably appear dead, I report them dead and being searching for the suspect. I've been on many, many scenes where I reported someone DOA and called for an ambulance. That doesn't mean I officially declared them dead, it means I reported what was apparent to me. That's not sinister, or illegal. It means the cops at Newtown saw many people with horrible wounds, "incompatible with life" as EMTs say, and reported that fact.
"All the while keeping the paramedics at bay?"… you obviously gained your medical expertise by watching TV. On TV infuriated paramedics disregard callous cops ordering them to stay clear, make impassioned statements like " Screw the danger, they need us in there!" and rush past police barricades to save innocent lives. In real life, EMS "stages" away from the scene until it's declared safe. At Aurora, Colorado, police reportedly couldn't get EMS to approach the theater, which forced police officers to evacuate most of the wounded. I recently attended a presentation by Washington DC police commander Daniel Hickson, who was the incident commander at the DC Shipyard shooting. According to Hickson, "Not only could we not get EMS to the building where the shooting was going on, we couldn't even get them to come into the shipyard." That's because EMS protocol is to stay away from the scene until police declare it safe. When we take the EMT certification practical exams (I took them in 2006), the first question we have to ask is "Is the scene safe?" If we fail to ensure the scene is safe, we fail the exam.
Officer William Chapman found one young girl at Sandy Hook who was barely alive. He took her outside and called for EMS… who wouldn't come to the scene because it wasn't secure. Chapman had to run 500 yards to the fire station with the girl, who didn't survive.
And no, doctors are not the only people in CT who can declare someone dead. Most states (probably all) have emergency protocols that give first responders authority to declare death in certain situations. "Redblues", whose comments are just a few comments prior to yours, gave this link:
In that link EMS guidelines for determining death in non-mass casualty situations are spelled out. I don't have the mass casualty guidelines yet; however, the guidelines Redblues provided show that EMS can in fact determine death in specific situations. A doctor isn't always required.
What you had in Newtown were first responders reporting obvious death while they secured the scene. Again, nothing sinister. But you conspiracy guys are so desperate for a nefarious plot you ignore obvious logic and actual truth, and instead search your brains for all the bullshit "knowledge" you gained from TV, movies and other "truthers". Then you decide there MUST be a conspiracy, because YOU don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
223 Brocky on September 21, 2014 said:
Room 8 had fourteen 6 and 7 year olds lying in a row on the floor and in the bathroom when the paramedics entered, one stated that only one child was without a head wound. The cop, Cario, that laid those bodies in a row one at a time checked each for life signs as he removed them from the bathroom, the last 3 he was able to check without removing, was also a 30 year EMT. Yes indeed he had the medical expertise to determine death. He found one boy that was barely clinging to life and another cop, Chapman, found a little girl in room 10 barely alive. Both were taken to Danbury hospital in different ambulances but died.
"All the while keeping the paramedics at bay?"
No, not at all. Paramedics were brought into the school while it was still deemed unsecure, because of another possible shooter, and they followed all protocol and pronounced the remaining victims dead. Paramedics can and do pronounce death in the state of Connecticut.
If you believe everything you hear from Hoaxers you are going to lose every time.
Not a single one of those children were taken to a medical facility of any kind. Doctors, nurses, surgeons, drugs, life-support, trauma-centers, nothing.
Not a single one of those kids' parents were upset about this. Not a single one of them sued the school or took any kind of legal action.
Can you imagine any situation where there was NOT a desperate attempt to save even the life of a single person? Let alone TWENTY SIX YEAR OLDS?
This alone should be enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of the event.
What reason could there possibly be for parents to collude in the deaths of their own children? No, not just parents, a whole town, all visitors to the town, the surrounding communities, every law enforcement officer, EMT and other person anywhere near.
What's their motive, Jack? If there's one thing I learned by surveying the conspiracy theories out there, it's that no two theorists have the same idea. It runs the gamut from "it was a tragedy followed by a cover-up" to "no one died, the kids are still alive and in hiding", to "the kids never existed", to "the school had been closed and had no students."
All of these conspiracy theories fail to supply a real motive that makes any sense, given the scale of the event. And they ignore a central reality: there would have to have been thousands of people involved in such a broad blanket of conspiracy that it would be impossible for the conspirators to have gotten to everyone—and they would have HAD to get to everyone who lived in or near Newtown. *Everyone*. Leave one person out—even a tourist or a family member home for the holidays—and your whole conspiracy is shot. Only in episodes of the Twilight Zone is it possible to seal a town off from outlying areas and media, and other towns.
So, let's suppose it was an anti-gun pantomime. That means that every single person living in or around Newtown would have to be approached to take part in the game. That presupposes that everyone is on board with the agenda and/or willing to be bought or threatened. Try to wrap your mind around the scale of that operation on the ground. The telephone calls, the emails (oops, that leaves a mark), the personal visits. How much time it would take, and resources.
But that's beside the point: can you think of any situation where everyone in a locale feels the same way about any issue—let alone gun control? Nancy Lanza wouldn't have gone for it.
I write for a living—I write SF and fantasy—this means I often have to work plot lines like this out because they have to be believable to my readers. I couldn't get my readers to suspend their disbelieve on this scenario were it in one of my novels. They'd pick it apart for the very reasons I cite above.
I've worked with fiction writers who have the same blinkered view of the world as the Sandy Hook truthers. In fact, I've blogged about it. (http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/05/14/truthers-vs-writers-time-freeze-frames-connections-and-back-story/)
In their minds, only the people onstage really exist. To walk out of frame or out of a scene is to be frozen in place or to cease to exist and interact with other people who are not in the scene. These theories work the same way. The thousands of ways in which people's lives touch and in which they interact OFF CAMERA are forgotten by such theories.
Short form: it makes no sense logistically, logically, or otherwise.
They were not taken to medical facilities of any kind because they were already dead on scene. Ambulances transport live people, by LAW. They do not transport dead people. Hospitals treat live people. People who are DOS are removed to the morgue by a coroner, not loaded into an ambulance, and driven to a hospital. Once again, whoever told you that by law only doctors in CT are permitted to declare death is wrong. You can look it up. Either he is ignorant of the law, or he is lying about it. I'm a Connecticut EMT. I see medics declare people dead on scene all the time. Any first responder, including myself, can declare obvious death on scene. The PD were the first responders, they declared the obvious deaths on scene. A handful of still living patients were taken to Danbury hospital. I think 2 of them died there. No conspiracy. As for whether or not anyone else had any medical treatment of any kind afterward, there is no way for you to find out. It would be a HIPPA violation for any treating facility to release that information. I imagine some ( not physically wounded) people were treated on scene with oxygen for shock and later treated by their private physicians for emotional trauma. It would be up to the individuals. You watch too many movies if you think EMS desperately tries to save the lives of people they know are dead. Multiple gun shots to the head produces very fast, very obvious death. You can't save a life that is no longer there. And yes, there were some parents who filed a lawsuit, which was later dropped. The attorney's name is Irving J Pinskey. Look that up too. Or you can read what I already wrote & follow those documentable, verifiable links to CT laws, Lifestar, & CNN. Not one of those links will bring you to a youTube video of an insane self appointed expert ranting about his ignorance.The school didn't murder the children, one insane heavily armed teenager did it. I suppose if he hadn't shot himself & his mother people might have filed suit against them, but that was not possible. They were dead too.
227 Buzz Miller on September 24, 2014 said:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Wow when you want to discredit someone…You Better Quote Your Hero Saul. I don't know Mr. Halbig and to me it does'nt matter what he says or his theory on what happened. It's all about what I see and I believed those children and adults were killed. The innocent children were all a sick blood sacrifice to the enemy, You know the one who roams the earth like a roaring lion, looking for some to devour. I have many questions about what really happened here but I do know this SH was one SORRY A$% pathetic PHYSOP that didn't work. A autistic….Oh wait a HIGH FUNCTIONING AUTISTIC ( what does this mean he was able to tie his shoe laces and a reg autistic can't) with so called countless hours of playing call of duty on his ps4 ( oh you too can be a super soldier with 1St shooter games) was able to negotiate a secure door, ( oh yeah he shot the glass out like rambo and did a combat roll) get in and shoot dead not wound ,but dead 20 children & 6 adults and then turn the HARD TO SHOOT AR15 on his high functioning self, all in 4 minutes. Wow a Navy Seal, Delta force, or Merc,someone above your pay scale with high high speed training would love to have that body count record, all in 4 MINUTES. The one thing that is beyond belief is not one parent LAWYERED UP !!!! Now that does not happen in the land of way too many, so many that the U.S. surpasses every country in the WORLD. The homeland tyranny crisis actors was a good touch. Most of the bread and circus lame brains in tv land really believed that. To them it was better than a reality show.
What I don't understand is that you believe everything that your were told
really happened.Also you sound like the schooled witness for the prosecution.
228 Steve on September 24, 2014 said:
Chris knows much more about weapons than I do (so, Chris, please correct me if I'm wrong), but I've always been under the impression that one of the advantages of an AR15 is that it does not require an unusual amount of skill or physical ability to fire accurately. When the targets are too young to know what's going on and they're in a confined area, it's not that hard to hit them.
Chris answered the question about why they weren't "lawyered up." That you choose not to accept that answer is not his problem, or mine.
Quite frankly, I wish one of those parents, particularly Robbie Parker, would "lawyer up," not to sue the town or the school system, but people like you who feel the need to attack their character and mock their grief.
229 Redblues on September 25, 2014 said:
'A sick blood sacrifice to the enemy'?!? What 'enemy'? Sorry to inform you that ancient Roman gods who demand human sacrifice never existed, and the believers who gave them sacrifices all died out centuries ago. There is no 'enemy roaming the earth', although I'm sure you could provide us with some amusing photos claiming to document said beast's existence. I have no idea what a PHYSOP is. Autistic people can and do function well and live normally. Most of them can tie their shoes, hold jobs, and write coherently. You seem to be confusing autism with mental retardation. And at least one family did hire a lawyer (Irving J Pinskey) and file a lawsuit, which they later dropped. Nobody else 'lawyered up' (in your fevered, TV-crime-drama-speak) because they didn't need lawyers. They weren't being investigated, much less charged with crimes. In Conspiracy World do innocent people hire lawyers? Is hiring a lawyer an undisputed sign of innocence? Do people keep lawyers on retainer and then fire them after committing a crime? What I don't understand is why a bunch of Conspiracy Loons believe whatever outrageous fantasies any passing 10 year old would reject. 'Homeland tyranny crisis actors'?!? (Where does one apply for *that* job?! I wonder how well it pays. I also wonder how those 'actors' avoid being recognized. Or did they move to Newtown years in advance and have children they then 'sacrificed', so that nobody else in town would be suspicious?) And you think you're *smarter* than everyone who is a) sane b) living in Connecticut c) actually working in law enforcement and emergency services d)aquainted with the victims and responders on scene and e)well- educated enough to write coherently, which not one of you seems to be able to do?!?
Take your meds, turn off the teevee, climb out of mommy's basement, and lay off the video games. You're not brilliant and insightful. You're crazy and incoherent.
I notice the people who comment the most about this subject are the people who know the least about it.
If you wanted to know about it, you would ask an authority. You would not ask an auto mechanic about particle physics.
There are a vast number of auto mechanics here, including the author of the article.
I am an expert on the subject. It makes no difference to me either way what happened. There is no agenda, nothing to be gained by studying Sandy Hook. There are simply facts, and you can either choose to ignore them or not.
As an expert on this subject who has studied this thing backwards & forwards, heard every tape, every interview, every video, read articles from both sides, my conclusion, objectively, is that there is an extremely low chance that anyone perished at that school.
This is not what I WANT to find out, or HOPED to find out, this is what the facts reveal.
If you can't understand how science works or what facts are, you should stop talking about this subject. The evidence is massively in favor of the minority side.
While I would iike to believe that a bunch of kids were murdered on Dec 14th, 2012 in Newtown, CN, there is hardly any evidence to suggest it.
Why are nearly half of you so stuck on believing something there is hardly any evidence to support?
Really. Well, lay the incontrovertible evidence out, Mister Expert.
232 Lynn on October 9, 2014 said:
Jack, you are a scary stupid person. You are what kind of expert? Oh, an "expert" like Halpig?
You would "like to believe that a bunch of kids were murdered"? I'd like to believe they weren't murdered, but sadly that's not the case.
As an expert, where do you think those 26 children and adults from SHS are today?
I know a CT State Trooper that was on the scene that horrible, tragic day. Do you know anyone that was actually there?
Dawn Hochsprung lived up the street from me and was principal at the Bethlehem school where my cousin's daughter was a student. I can verify that Dawn was a real person.
Where are your facts, Jack?
233 brian on October 9, 2014 said:
Jack you mention in an earlier comment that no child was treated or taken to a medical facility ,, what about the 2 children that were carried out of the school taken to the firehouse and transported by ambulances ( with EMTs aboard ) to DANBURY HOSPITAL, If you are the expert as you say you are by reading or viewing all the reports and videos ,why do you not know about this information , that was in reports and videos ,also if there were no attempt to treat the victims in the school, why would the first responders request more EMTs from nearby communities to come to the school, and yes by the time some of them arrived it was determined that they were not needed and were told to stand down as seen in the aerial video from the school
234 Maya on October 13, 2014 said:
Come on, Jack. Read my other comments on your remarks and get back to me about how was accomplished. How did the Government (which part?) achieve buy in from all and sundry?
You would LIKE to believe the kids were murdered? Somehow I doubt that. I think you're trying very hard not to believe it. But the alternatives require magic. I would think the bodies of the slain would be sufficient evidence, no?
235 Kay on October 11, 2014 said:
Hey, it's settled. The FBI says there were no murders in Newtown in 2012, whereas it does reflect the Aurora, Co. movie theater murders.
Some folks here have remarked how heartless it is to question whether or not these children were really killed. How painful it is to put them through crazy questions of the tin-foil hat people, but I haven't seen anyone remark how selfish it was that Obama dragged those grieving parents around the country and put them on display to push his gun control agenda. Talk about being insensitive.
I used to be one of those non-thinking zombies that believed what I was told on the evening news and that my government would not lie to its people and it has the citizens best interest at heart but those days are gone. I wasn't there at SH, so don't really know what really happened but it does look like a drama acted out by 3rd rate actors.
Now a very appropriate quote from Mark Twain. "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."
236 chrishernandezauthor on October 11, 2014 said:
Yes, it's official that the FBI denies anyone was killed at SH. Call the FBI right now, and they'll say "nobody died at Sandy Hook." It couldn't just be an anomaly in the way they performed their statistical analysis. And it means that all the parents, cops, paramedics, neighbors and school employees are lying.
Funny how you conspiracy people discount all the government documents detailing how Lanza carried out the massacre as lies, but find one supposed official "disproof" and yell "See! A government document says it didn't happen! And government documents are always right!"
237 Steve on October 11, 2014 said:
So you trust the FBI now?
I was talking to Kay.
239 Lynn on October 11, 2014 said:
Kay, so you used to be a non-thinking zombie? Seems like you're still a zombie. You discovered the government lies a lot and now you are just going to believe the "truthers"?
I couldn't find verification for this FBI report that is making the rounds on many sites, but did find the CT State Police site that reports crimes in the state. It makes numerous references to the 26 murders at Sandy Hook.
Read Maya's posts here, as she explains better than most how logically impossible it is for the SH tragedy to be a hoax.
Except that Mr. Obama didn't drag those parents around the country, and they'd be the first ones to tell you that. Grief that deep often results in the grieving taking action in some way that reflects on their loss. The woman who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the man who began America's Most Wanted after losing his daughter to a rape/murder. These parents needed something to do with their grief and anger and if their choice offends or annoys you, I'm sorry, but the ones who used their grief as raw fuel for social activism did it of their own free will.
Frankly, I doubt anything the president did or said could have stopped them. Again, it's helpful to the discussion to have some idea about human psychology as well as logistics. The conspiracy theories around Sandy Hook are there to protect the theorists from having to face horrific reality. These things happen, and trying to negate them by pretending that they didn't happen helps no one.
241 Debbie on October 24, 2014 said:
I blame a lot of this on the media. They're more interested in being first to report, even if they don't have anything but speculation, instead of being accurate. It's pretty clear that this shooting happened incredibly fast. I'm sure it was an incredibly chaotic scene. I have one question: what is the story regarding the school's security system? Was there a camera? Is there a picture of Lanza shooting out the glass? Thanks.
242 brian on October 24, 2014 said:
There are many hoax videos saying the school had a new state of the art security system ,because the principal started a new security policy on who and how they enter the school,, the school only had a monitoring camera system,not a recording system , the staff can look at two monitors to see who was at the front door and to buss them in
243 Mr Levi on November 17, 2014 said:
Your rebuttal did not convince me that Halbig is wrong on the conspiracy of a false shooting. Lots of rhetoric and police fluff if you ask me. I think he is correct, the whole thing was planed by our government to force gun control so they can control Americans. Another sad day for Americans.
244 Steve on November 18, 2014 said:
Ok. so where are all the new gun control laws?
245 Lynn on November 18, 2014 said:
The state of CT government had helicopters over SHE, no planes. Idiot!
246 Maya on November 18, 2014 said:
Mr. Levi, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a proposal of logic that science takes as a benchmark: In a nutshell, it's that given a variety of explanations for something the simplest is most often the truth. Put another way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
In line with that please read some of my earlier comments and this: http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/05/14/truthers-vs-writers-time-freeze-frames-connections-and-back-story/
That is, if you are really interested in reason and reality and not just dogmatically accepting Halbig's extraordinary claim (which is one out of a diverse array of truther theories that don't match up).
I'm not asking you to buy "police fluff" as you put it, but to think logically about the larger situation.
1) In order for a hoax of this magnitude to work, every man, woman and child in Newtown, all the EMTs, the police, business people, relatives visiting for Christmas, people who don't live in Newtown but work there or visit on a regular basis—ALL—would have to be in on the hoax.
2) In order to be in on the hoax, the hoaxers would have to have contacted them and they would have to have done it in a way that does not leave a paper or electronic trail. So, no email, no phone calls, no letters. Every person who might possibly be involved or engaged in this, would have to have been contacted face to face.
3) That means that government agents would have to locate and speak to everyone who might possibly be in or around Newtown prior to during and after the hoax.
4) The time needed to concoct and prepare such a huge hoax would be immense. It could take years—while people moved in and out of Newtown. (People still exist when they walk off-camera and their lives go on.)
5) All of these people—every one of them, regardless of their political leanings or feelings about gun control—would have to AGREE to be part of the hoax. If even one person rats out the hundreds of government agents that it would take to do this, the whole thing goes south.
6) All of these people would have to be prepared carefully to fulfill their roles in the hoax. Coached on what to say to reporters wandering their neighborhoods.
Can you even imagine the size and scope of such an effort? Do you really think it even remotely possible that the gun owners in Newtown would have participated in this hoax?
What I'm trying to tell you, sir, is that this is so fantastic that I could not get readers to suspend their disbelief if I put it in one of my novels. Indeed, I couldn't work out all the logistics in order to even make it work on the pages of a book, let alone in real life. Just the fact that there were gun owners and gun rights advocates living in and around Newtown who would have blown any attempt to organize a hoax of this scope out of the water, militates against believing that this was orchestrated by the government—the same government that barely functions on a day to day basis. The same government that can't keep secrets about the NSA, yet you believe kept this one.
Halbig's "theories" are poorly thought out and do not operate in a real world with real people.
247 chrishernandezauthor on November 18, 2014 said:
We disagree on a thing or two, but…Maya completes me. 🙂
Thanks Maya!
"Rhetoric & police fluff". I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. The facts, which several people who actually know them have documented here, with citations, not youtune rants, are that children were murdered by an insane, hateful, teenager. You remain unconvinced because, well, I'm not sure why. Because you'd like to believe you're smarter than other people? Because the crazy kid lived out your own fantasies & your envy prevents you from admitting you're not special after all? Because maybe you sent $ to Halbig & don't want to know it was wasted? Because it made a bunch of irresponsible gun nuts look bad? What IS your reason for spewing crazy lies, insulting grieving families, and denying reality?
250 Criminals With Badges on November 20, 2014 said:
Just another lying cop.
How about you tell me what I'm lying about, bro?
And I'm just another lying EMT, another lying friend of people in the building during the shooting, another lying friend of the lawyer hired to file a lawsuit you all erroneously continue to insist not a single parent filed, another lying Connecticut resident who actually drives around here & knows how long it takes to get to the nearest hospital from Sandy Hook, another lying former librarian who actually knows how to conduct research, cite primary sources, & distinguish between primary sources & YouTube rants produced by basement dwelling loons, another lying individual who has personally experienced grief & trauma & thus does not dictate how all other people must experience & act it out. Right. And what is YOUR self-described 'expertise', background, & source of inside 'knowledge'? With the exception of Halbig, (who's proudest acomplishment was that he once gave a graduation speech, about 30 years ago) not a single one of you 'experts' has even bothered to make up any background or credidentials that would qualify you to claim a conspiracy so vast it wouldn't even make a convincing bad novel. I've got no skin in this game, other than standard human decency, which every one of you seems to lack. And you all lack an answer to a simple question: If this was a 'vast conspiracy' & a 'hoax', what was the purpose? What did it accomplish? Did someone pry the gun from your cold dead fingers? Did pod people invade your basement, confiscate your computer & lock you in jail? Unlike many people here, who kindly give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't think that you prefer not to believe that something so horrible could ever happen. I'm sure you know it did. I'm sure you know that you compound the suffering of the victims & take pleasure in that. I'm sure that you'd happily inflict as much suffering as possible on innocent victims. I'm sure you'd happily commit the same atrocity, if only you could avoid personal consequences for doing so. Lucky for the rest of us, you are a bigger coward than the mass murderer at Sandy Hook.
Redblues completes me. 🙂
Amen! Basement dwelling goons is an excellent description!
If it was on YouTube, it must be true. Idiots and morons. Sad and scary to think these sewer scum "truthers" walk the same planet we live on.
255 zam on November 28, 2014 said:
In this phone conversation the editor admits taking the photos of the "dead" children for the paper implying before the "shooting"
That was just Stupid. The depths of cruelty from you Truthers never ceases to both anger and sadden me. May God have mercy on your heartless souls.
1) There is no mention of pictures of dead children in that conversation. The photo mentioned by the caller is of the children being evacuated from the school.
2) No evidence is presented by the accuser.
3) You, sir, are a fucking idiot.
258 Genius Intelligence on December 3, 2014 said:
After years of carefully watching and studying these Fema/DHS Drills called I.C.E. Integrated Capstone Event (look-it-up) it's quite obvious to me all these sick and twisted and bizarre events were created and managed by the united states government to gradually brainwash people into giving up their rights and weapons. Don't take a genius to see how they try to use fear and intimidation to achieve their agenda. And i might also add it has worked great so far but now the people are waking up to the truth and i think it's about time for you to also wake up and realize it's your rights as well that are being hijacked by these cruel tactics. Best advice is to do your own research and you will come to the same conclusion if you have half a brain left.
259 Steve on December 3, 2014 said:
So what rights have we lost since Sandy Hook? What laws have been passed to take away people's guns?
260 Maya Bohnhoff on December 4, 2014 said:
Yes, they would be sick and twisted if they were logistically possible. Please read: http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/05/14/truthers-vs-writers-time-freeze-frames-connections-and-back-story/
It's in a blog on writing, but it applies. I also deal with some of the points more in depth above in this thread.
Not only is a hoax or ICE as comprehensive as what you and other conspiracy theorists propose impossible to pull off for purely real world logistical reasons, but Steve makes a great point. No one has lost on iota of their rights since Sandy Hook—not even related to gun ownership.
But let's suppose for a moment that this administration was able to marshall the resources (completely in secret, mind you) to pull off such a hoax. Don't you think it unlikely that they would not use the opportunity to press gun laws to the wall? An overwhelming majority of Americans polled want stronger background checks, yet an administration you claim can bend the laws of human nature and physics was unable to make it happen even with the support of 70 percent of NRA membership.
It fails on logic alone.
261 Steven on December 8, 2014 said:
Thanks for providing this blog and a location for debate, albeit sometimes a little weird, a debate nonetheless. I have a few questions in regards to Sandy Hook that I have a little trouble wrapping my head around. I have seen you make mention of it a couple of times and thought I would bring it up for debate.
First let me say that I have been in law enforcement for 29 years with 16 of those years as a Detective/Investigator. I have performed countless death investigations with approximately 36 of those being homicide investigations.
While I have never been involved in an investigation of the SH magnitude, I have been involved in multiple "multi-death" homicide investigations, 2 of which received national attention. I have received instruction under Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden as well as many others and graduated from the FBI National Academy.
I am aware that individual policies vary from department to department with respect to an active shooter but IMO, there was a great deal of negligence concerning the victims of Sandy Hook and more importantly, the hasty decision to determine expiration before adequate vitals could be performed.
I spent a great deal of time working on and finally commanding an ERT. On at least 2 different occasions we responded to a convenience store and check cashing location robberies where multiple people received injuries and a there had been a confirmed 2nd shooter at each location.
During both incidents, members of the ERT (after it was a little safer) escorted EMTs onto the scene to begin to administer aid. It was never our policy, upon entry, to determine if someone was dead but rather, count the number of injured so that EMTs could be better prepared. (I would never leave it up to a police officer to determine death when his/her first priority is a 2nd shooter and his/her body is pumping with adrenalin…why, because there is too much room for error.)
In my 29 years of law enforcement, I have NEVER seen fresh bodies be allowed to remain unchecked while qualified individuals were basically on scene. It shouldn't matter how bad they are shot up as there is ALWAYS a chance
Dr. Carver said he and his people were the only people to see the children when they arrived much later. (in his video)
I could be wrong but even after it was determined that there was no 2nd shooter, EMTs were still not allowed to enter the scene. see below.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/20/16026666-you-feel-helpless-first-responders-rushed-to-school-after-shooting-only-to-wait?lite
But then I see an article like the one below…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/sandy-hook-school-girl-plays-dead-survives_n_2315947.html
To be sure if this little girl emerged from the school unharmed, someone had to believe there was a 2nd, 3rd or 4 student that was alive…right?
Dr. Carver had the opportunity to view the bodies (entry/exit wounds) post mortem…law enforcement did not. LEOs saw the children fully clothed and could not have made a intelligent diagnosis with respect to their condition given the time restraints, the condition and the fact that some bodies were laying atop each other. How did they determine death?
In the litigious society we live in today, it is hard for me to believe that not one law suit has transpired. I know the "maniac" here is Lanza, but in the absence of someone tangible to place blame, people naturally turn to someone…anyone else to harbor that blame.
262 brian on December 8, 2014 said:
http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/wolfgang-halbigs-16-questions-asked-and.html Steve please read questions 5 and 6 , they might answer your questions
263 chrishernandezauthor on December 8, 2014 said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking (as it relates to the entire SH Conspiracy thing). I've never argued that EMS handled that scene perfectly. I'm simply saying, "The Sandy Hook Massacre actually happened." I've frequently criticized EMS for bunkering up and not going into a scene until they're absolutely positive it's secure, and according to a paramedic friend of mine there's significant debate about that within EMS as well. I've heard the incident commander from the Washington Navy Yard shooting talk about EMS on that scene: "Not only could we not get them to come to the building, we couldn't even get them to come onto the base." And I've heard the same thing about the EMS response to the Colorado theater shooting. Officer Chapman, one of the officers who responded to SHES, criticized EMS for refusing to approach the school even when he was calling for help for a wounded little girl. He eventually had to run 500 yards to the fire station with her, and she later died.
So I'm not saying this incident was handled perfectly by anyone. I'm just saying it did in fact happen.
"He eventually had to run 500 yards to the fire station with her, and she later died."
With reporters across from the fire station and 1000 cell phone cameras on scene not to mention a chopper in the sky…I find it very hard to believe this photo was not captured as it would have been, without a doubt, on the front page of the NY Times, Time Life, U.S. News and World Report and countless others.
Chris…where did you get this info regarding officer Chapman?
And once again Chris and Brian…Do you find it a little strange that there is no photo of the above officer with child running 500 yrds?
"He returned to Soto's room, moving from child to child, checking for a pulse. He found one in a young girl, and shouted for officers to provide cover while he brought her out of the school. 'I began running across the parking lot towards Dickinson Drive with the girl in my arms praying that she would live and telling her that she was safe, that Jesus loved her, and that I was protecting her,' Chapman wrote."
http://articles.courant.com/2013-12-28/news/hc-sandy-hook-1229-20131228_1_sandy-hook-school-dickinson-drive-adam-lanza/2
My understanding is that he ran to the fire station with her, which was 500 yards away.
Gotta be honest with you, bro. You sound like a conspiracy theorist claiming to be a cop. If you really are a homicide investigator, you know that the existence or nonexistence of a lawsuit after the fact means frig-all about whether or not the murders happened, or who was guilty.
Also, according to at least one report I've read, the majority of the victims at SHES had massive head wounds and were obviously dead. Another reader who is an EMT in CT cited the law that allows officers to pronounce death in mass casualty incidents. The officers apparently saw horrible wounds, didn't know if the scene was clear, and called the victims dead.
Chris…my question was: why has there not been 1 single lawsuit filed for dereliction of duty? (I know you really cant answer that question)
I've seen lawsuits against photographers for not getting the perfect photo at a wedding.
I've seen lawsuits for coffee being too hot.
I've seen lawsuits against people for feeding birds too close to motor vehicles.
Here we have the Coroner or ME (Carver) who states that he and his people were the ONLY medical personnel to see the children…much later.
And, an article published a week after the incident saying that EMTs were denied access to the children.
All these children and adults died and not 1 parent, wife or husband files any type of litigious action??
Brian…I appreciate your response but my point is, answers 5 & 6 are one account of what transpired and I provided another account. When you have conflicting accounts…this opens the doors for lawsuits and when a death occurs, lawsuits almost always happens.
When a death occurs and it's been reported that EMT's were denied access to help children….lawsuits ALWAYS happen…usually within a day if not sooner.
Chris…in your 20 years in law enforcement do you not find this strange?
Brian…Do you?
Steve, EMTs were told to stand down, as stated by a few of them, but the reason is that after the first responders ( police and emts ) enter the school and did what they had to do , ,there were more request for more EMTs from other communities to come and help ,( as heard in a release recording of the calls ) the sad thing is by the time some of them arrived it was determined that they needed anymore , if police are called to a robbery in progress and 5 cars respond but the robber is caught by the first 2 responding does the last one come running in with his gun drawn ( i hope you get what i'm trying to say ) also many mistakes are made in the hoax videos because no one tried to figure out the time line of events , when were interviews recorded, what time did the emts arrived there is one story from a EMT who was told to stand down ,but that time was about 10:15a.m. a good 30+ minutes after the first responders arrived
1 Wolfgang Halbig: Fraud and Consummate Con artist | Wolfgang Exposed
2 Please Donate to Wolfgang Halbig's Traveling Clown Show! | iRON MiKE
3 NeuroLogica Blog » Newtown and FBI Crime Statistics
4 Wolfgang Halbig | Critical Thinking and Sandy Hook
5 The claim that News 12 Connecticut chopper footage shows people walking in circles/recycling around the firehouse. | Sandy Hook Hoax Debunking
6 Among Real First Responders, Sandy Hook Hoaxer Wolfgang Halbig is Persona Non Grata | Newtown Post-Examiner