Debunked: Sandy Hook Newtown Conspiracy Hoax

[hopstoopid]

Pete, i would like to congratulate you on a specific response .
I also would invite you to look through my few(maybe long) posts and you would see that i never put out any generalizations or big picture hypothesis together. I am just trying to figure this out as I go along. I am asking specific questions about specific inconsistencies . I wouldn't really expect you to know that, since i am fairly new here. I am looking for a good discussion. So far I've pretty much had to believe I am "conspiracy monger" or having people tell me what i am really thinking. or implying between the words i am saying, or having to defend every CT on the internet.

I think the insinuation is that "they're not telling us everything!" therefore they must be lying about the whole event. But they're not even being given a chance to do their investigation before people are baying for a finalised version of events.
It is just a case of internet investigators scouring for anything that can conceivably be at odds with a police statement to cast suspicion on the whole event. The suspicion is there before-hand, then evidence is sought to support it.

Well , in general, I guess you got me there. But if "we"prove over and over they're not telling us everything, or fudging truths. Then in fact the whole event should be looked at in a new light(anderson cooper maybe will do this ? LOL!)For example, you can read my gene rosen questions. or the nurse in the closet questions, i have raised here. Those at an initial thinking seem to me like, gene rosen is a liar(is this an independent liar or part of the "script") and the police messed up. was it incompetence? hard to say, since it seems like they don't want to talk about it. Is this conspiracy mongering or a healthy skepticism(i thought the point of this site)

The ruse is "we want our community to heal, leave us alone, we told you the WHOLE story already, leave our sad community be" In my first post i allude to this, then go on to say ,

This Sandy Hook thing has a life all of its own.All these people/families in SH should be respected and treated as they seem to want to be treated. If they have something to say I would love to hear it,but if they want their privacy I fully support that. The Police/Responders/officials involved/FBI/reporters are fair game , and they should answer any and all questions the public has on the issue of inconsistencies in reporting and public responses, and should be open and truthful as to the suspects, pictures, 911 tapes, video(it doesn't need to be graphic or personal)

if the authorities are actually looking into all this quietly . i can understand that, and would love to see what they say as the FINAL OFFICIAL STORY. It does seem like things are still being uncovered by us "internet investigators" although I don't really consider myself and investigator, since i have a hard time finding these little tidbits on my own. But since there doesn't seem to be any "real" investigation by our beloved, bought and sold , main stream media, unfortunately this is all we got. we take the good with the bad. Hopefully the stuff that 'sticks' will be the stuff , that helps us find out if their story holds up.

thanks again pete. I would love to hear more from you.

[Pete Tar]

Thanks! Yes, sorry I didn't specify, but your questions are certainly more rational ones that aren't seeking a pre-determined conspiracy narrative, and there's no reason to not initially ask them.

But there's not much constructive that can be done at this point, other than logging 'things that need to be resolved', and being patient. Hopefully a list of (reasonable) questions will be noted by the press and the investigators, and when the final report is done they will be thorough in addressing them all.

I do think the lack of addressing information has been very unfortunate in allowing the suspicion and mistrust to reach some disturbing levels of callousness by some extremists, and it can be contagious regardless of its truth merit. I think the amount of nasty cynicism around this event was honestly something the police never expected in the first place, and this has taken them off guard, otherwise perhaps they would have been more deliberate in their statements. But they can still fix this and hopefully will.

I also think there is a lack of understanding of the realities of a criminal investigation by the general population who expect everything to be open to them straight away, and this is leading to a lot of gun-jumping. Some things will need to be covered up at first as that is the nature of a criminal investigation, and people often jump to conclusions with statements like "Police are questioning soandso in connection with the massacre" when that connection could be relatively benign yet still informative to the investigation.

I think Gene Rosen is obviously very affected by the whole incident- who wouldn't be? - and this has led to a certain over-emotionality that has been used against him by some really horrible people, unjustly. I think he is possibly in a bit of shock about it all, even though he was just a bystander, and an event like this happening so near to anyone would blow their minds for a while. And he may even be 'enjoying' the attention in a completely non-sinister way, and finding himself with this amount of attention has made him very talkative, at first. I think he regrets it now, with the amount of hatred he's getting from a portion of the lovely American public.
To say his interview statements about a highly traumatic and exciting event have to conform to court-level evidence is just unrealistic.
The version of events his brain has locked into place may not even be the right one, but that's just human. When you retell something you re-order things to make them tidier, you may embellish to give a greater sense of the emotional impact of the time, while not particularly having a forensic telling of events as your first priority.
His story is purely emotional, and has value on that level, but shouldn't be held to a high information standard.


In general, it is amazing how much information errors are being repeated as proof of something nefarious. It seems hard to be that misinformed unless people are only looking at highly selective information that ignores other acounts and corrections of mistakes. Their 'investigation' is purely agenda driven and all relies on repeating the very earliest chaotic reports as fact.

You are unfortunately going to get a lot of people's general disgust with this subject if you are seen to be needlessly questioning every discrepancy (and I guess the definition of 'needlessly' is a subjective thing). Of course there is a huge story to be revealed here, but we can only wait really. We of course shouldn't blindly accept the story that is revealed, but we can use a balanced judgement to decide if it is a reasonable reality. And we should also trust that they are doing their job to actually uncover the true sequence of events, unless we have reasonable evidence to doubt that is what they are doing and are trying to cover up something or protect the 'real' perpetrator.

Some people already have made up their minds that they will under no circumstances believe the final report, because the already know as fact what really happened, but of course that's just a huge bias to blind them to reality.

Just some thoughts and ranting - I did burn out on this subject in the weeks after it happened through my disgust at people's lack of humanity, not sure I can be bothered delving back into it too much. Though I guess I still have a fascinated horror for it.

[jvnk08]

I think the insinuation is that "they're not telling us everything!" therefore they must be lying about the whole event. But they're not even being given a chance to do their investigation before people are baying for a finalised version of events.

This is exactly what is happening, and regardless of the final statements people will still try to find evidence that validates their suspicions that existed before the event even occurred.

The suspicion is there before-hand, then evidence is sought to support it.

Thank you for summing up the "truther" version of critical investigation better than I ever could.

there doesn't seem to be any "real" investigation by our beloved, bought and sold , main stream media, unfortunately this is all we got.

I wonder why it seems like that to you? Let's just ignore the numerous independent publications who applied a modicum of logic and arrived at the rational conclusion that while the event is being unnecessarily politicized, it is not likely that it was a conspiracy.

You're kidding yourself if you think no-one in those organizations considered the evidence of a conspiracy floating around, that no-one had the thought cross their mind.

i really don't get why they wouldn't just say we found 2 guns in the car. this wouldn't change 'their' 'official' story

It would definitely contradict their story:


http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

Is this conspiracy mongering or a healthy skepticism(i thought the point of this site)

In a sense, yes. But we can just as easily apply skepticism to the claims and supposed evidence that support the false flag hypothesis as well as follow through with the logic involved. We've found the vast majority of the evidence is bunk. We're left with inconsistencies in news reports and eyewitness accounts as supporting evidence. Thinking these inconsistencies indicate deliberate deception completely ignores the fact that such a thing has always occurred after significant but unforeseen events. I invite you to learn about Source Amnesia. There is no other actual evidence to indicate the incident was orchestrated or that there is something about the story being hidden from the public, instead we have people lambasting MSM for inaccurate reporting while simultaneously relying on their reporting to support their claims.




With just a bit of logic, it's obvious that a false flag, hoax, coverup, "more to the story", whatever you want to call it, is extremely unlikely:

• What was the motivation? Couldn't be gun control, because that would imply that the same people who orchestrated a false flag attack involving 20 dead children didn't do the slightest bit of research beforehand. Are there any other possible motivations you can think of?
• If eliciting support for gun control was the aim, why wasn't it much worse in order to ensure that outcome? It easily could have been.
• Why wasn't there a consistent media narrative from the start which would have avoided all of this suspicion in the first place?
• If this was indeed a botched operation, it is well within the government's capabilities to selectively censor any and all discussion of the hoax online. Most conspiracy folk haven't even heard of encryption, much less grok it enough to use it effectively. There are various trivial things the government could do to cut off access to conspiracy information for >99% of people. Why wouldn't they have headed off all discussion of the subject by doing so from the start?

You could go down the rabbit hole here and say they slipped up on purpose, but that gets illogical pretty quickly.


I won't bother responding to your earlier gish gallop, Hopstoopid It eschews basic logic in favor of generating questions from contradictions that originated from sources that are known to be faulty.

[hopstoopid]

"I wonder why it seems like that to you? Let's just ignore the numerous independent publications who applied a modicum of logic and arrived at the rational conclusion that while the event is being unnecessarily politicized, it is not likely that it was a conspiracy.

You're kidding yourself if you think no-one in those organizations considered the evidence of a conspiracy floating around, that no-one had the thought cross their mind."

MORE opinion from the person with terrible reading comprehension and who loves to 'imagine' things.

"It would definitely contradict their story:"
Not if they originally stated they found 2 guns in the car, as i was alluding to. again, its the reading comprehension that's not all there with you.That was evident about you on the very first response to my post. YOU missed the point entirely, again, rushing through my posts so you can say something profound and important.

i really don't get why they wouldn't just say we found 2 guns in the car. this wouldn't change 'their' 'official' story.

"But we can just as easily apply skepticism to the claims and supposed evidence that support the false flag hypothesis as well as follow through with the logic involved". So now you've admitted to making things up AND only applying skepticism to critics and not the authority. why aren't you skeptical about something that is real. cops missed a closet. is that fact or conspiracy? so be skeptical and think of why vance would claim that when it most certainly was not true. FACT. you will ignore that,or call it silly,or tell me its not even worth responding to, or make something else up, i'm guessing. ?

"With just a bit of logic, it's obvious that a false flag, hoax, coverup, "more to the story", whatever you want to call it, is extremely unlikely:"
or whatever you want to call it! You keep bringing up these terms, and avoiding any and all real discussion.

What was the motivation?

what was the motivation of your made up scenario? I have no idea. Why don't you try this. instead? What was Adam Lanza's motivation?

• "If eliciting support for gun control was the aim, why wasn't it much worse in order to ensure that outcome? It easily could have been.
  
• Why wasn't there a consistent media narrative from the start which would have avoided all of this suspicion in the first place?
  
• If this was indeed a botched operation, it is well within the government's capabilities to selectively censor any and all discussion of the hoax online. Most conspiracy folk haven't even heard of encryption, much less grok it enough to use it effectively. There are various trivial things the government could do to cut off access to conspiracy information for >99% of people. Why wouldn't they have headed off all discussion of the subject by doing so from the start?"

I really don't know. you tell me why? I don't remember asking anything close to this. show me. these are all you counter points to made up questions. nice.

I won't bother responding to your earlier gish gallop, Hopstoopid It eschews basic logic in favor of generating questions from contradictions that originated from sources that are known to be faulty.
I thought Gene Rosen and off VANCE were reliable. what sources did i use? I'm mostly generating questions from video and 911 tapes. ? how is that faulty? show me something other than your bad reading comprehension and your responses to theories that as far as I know you just made up.

question 1. Do you think Gene Rosen is honest in his interviews and why?
question 2. Why did Vance tell us something that was positively untrue. ?

answer those questions honestly and thoughtfully. without using the words conspiracy theory or hoax, or without telling me what I'm implying by asking. JUST ANSWER and discuss. that is the point. Having different ideas is ok. we are not in a contest. we are supposed to be talking this out. Why is that so hard. ?

[hopstoopid]

sorry pete, meant to respond to you, but I get so frustrated with the lack of discussion and thought to most of these that i just start typing.
But there's not much constructive that can be done at this point, other than logging 'things that need to be resolved', and being patient.

Enh, there's stuff getting done, but its slow. People are going through time analysis of video, which raises a whole other set of questions. analyzing the videos. we can see gene rosen, for example and most likely place him at the firehouse at 1030. Many eyes are on this(no not katy couric or anderson cooper) we can now say for sure there are 6! people in the woods. what does that mean and who are they. we can only still speculate. but did people on the internet notice this, or did cnn? and why?

but alas, no one here thinks that is important enough to discuss. why can't we speculate as to what that means.? was someone looking to run to the parking lot passed the woods ato the shopping center. We don't really know. we don't know if there are cameras in the parking lot. why because people are more interested in saying i have an agenda then actually trying to do streetch the old brain and think .Its easier that way. Lets NOT be satisfied by with the very broad strokes the people in charge are still painting for us. WHy so little detail. ?

Hopefully a list of (reasonable) questions will be noted by the press and the investigators, and when the final report is done they will be thorough in addressing them all.

That is extremely optimistic of you. I hope you are right, but I won't hold my breath. (i'm sure many in this forum would like me to) How do we help make a list like that? well maybe by vetting out theories on a very smart website that encourages(in theory) critical thinking about the details people(crazy interweb folks) are thinking and finding out about.

I also think there is a lack of understanding of the realities of a criminal investigation by the general population who expect everything to be open to them straight away, and this is leading to a lot of gun-jumping. Some things will need to be covered up at first as that is the nature of a criminal investigation, and people often jump to conclusions with statements like "Police are questioning soandso in connection with the massacre" when that connection could be relatively benign yet still informative to the investigation.

yeah i get that. but we are just discussing this, not bringing it to court.Why can't we call out Vance for being uninformed or incompetant. please read my other posts as to why i think that. Also what if they keep brushing this under the rug , while we all sit tight and wait.At least we vetted amongst ourselves what questions we would still like to see answered, WHY? well because this is where we are supposed to go to discuss these things.
I"ve already proved today that the man who runs this site, makes stuff up without anything to back up what he said. He won't respond other to tell me I'm not worthy of a response because i have "weak, banal" questions that he can't answer using his own thoughts. Why , because snopes hasn't debunked anything i've asked yet, and it seems he doesn't know where to go to form his response. therefore the condescending attitude and lack of serious discussion. what a joke!

" And we should also trust that they are doing their job to actually uncover the true sequence of events...
again you are more optimistic about this than I am.

unless we have reasonable evidence to doubt that is what they are doing and are trying to cover up something or protect the 'real' perpetrator. "
Well that basically where I'm at, I will admit it. I am looking for reasonable evidence, and asking questions about it that haven't been covered ad nauseum everywhere else, I thought i could open up that discussion here with no luck. I think in the last week or so, I am fairly convinced of gene lying and cops missing the closet. IS that a conspiracy? NO. Is it reasonable evidence or at least does it have enough of merit to keep looking. YES! well if I think gene is lying I obv believe obama set this up to get the guns! LOL. and wtf is a 'truther" someone looking for the truth, and now this is a bad thing? sigh.

Some people already have made up their minds that they will under no circumstances question the final report, because the(y) already know as fact what really happened, but of course that's just a huge bias to blind them to reality.
see how that can go both ways. just sayin' can i dare say, warren commission and 9/11COMMISSION report . just to say some people believe those 100% and some don't.

I have no idea, but do most people on this site believe those 2 or not? I have a guess.

Just some thoughts and ranting - I did burn out on this subject in the weeks after it happened through my disgust at people's lack of humanity, not sure I can be bothered delving back into it too much. Though I guess I still have a fascinated horror for it.

Yeah well people do things we cannot comprehend. (shooting up kids) I am going to beg you to reconsider. look through some of my posts and think about what i'm asking and why. I haven't made one theory up yet. I am having a hard time finding a good old fashioned debate on here, Not that I was looking for one, But if I can find one poster who can make his point, not call me names, and not pull stuff out of their ass, i would be grateful. I'm really not sure what you think about this, but it does seem like you are coming from an honest, and a open minded place. turn your digust to people who don't forward this conversation. people who derail, make stuff up and name call. i'm not interested in going to gene's house and confronting him. but I am going to keep looking at things that have been digging into a little of gene's past. It's out there, but what does it all mean? I don't know, that's why i came here.... in theory.

[Pete Tar]

...why because people are more interested in saying i have an agenda then actually trying to do streetch the old brain and think .Its easier that way...

It is wrong to assume that because some people aren't as fervent about the questions you find compelling it means they aren't thinking for themselves or are passive consumers of authoritarian dogma. They just see no reasonable reason to go to that level of doubt yet.

It is true that you find yourself in a position where people will not have a lot of patience for the dialogue you are trying to start, and you may be judged as having an agenda alongside the worst examples. I do see you tried to show that you weren't being disrespectful or callous.
But this subject IS offensive. Mostly because of the leading nature of the scepticism surrounding this event which has a very definite reality to push. Which is justified by saying that there is an official reality that is being pushed. I don't think it is to the extent that people think. Politicking, and media mirroring (or invention) of 'public opinion' is obvious, and easily ignored.

The thing is, if this event turns out to have happened more or less how it has been presented, with all discrepancies proven to be just irrelevant data, then I really hope these people who have taken the doubt to such lows of callousness have the decency to feel ashamed. Some won't, and will simply re-write reality to suit their ego.

I"ve already proved today that the man who runs this site, makes stuff up without anything to back up what he said. He won't respond other to tell me I'm not worthy of a response because i have "weak, banal" questions that he can't answer using his own thoughts. Why , because snopes hasn't debunked anything i've asked yet, and it seems he doesn't know where to go to form his response. therefore the condescending attitude and lack of serious discussion. what a joke!

I think to most of the seasoned minds here that have seen conspiracy theories or pseudo-scientific claims fail to respect actual reality so many times, this subject is just another example of self-enforcing flawed conspiracist thinking, therefore the relative lack of intellectual stimulation you were hoping for.
Most here or into investigative scepticism have a general understanding of the biases and failings of the human brain in processing reality and the mistakes we make in thinking, as they've had to deal with it for years in investigating claims, and that may lead to the general shrugging of shoulders you might be getting.
Maybe it's your perception you should be investigating, it's a fascinating topic, and it's amazing how much comes back to us being responsible for the discrepancies we project outward onto the world, and forever seeking the culprit in vain. http://youarenotsosmart.com/

I think your particular enthusiasm for this topic, which is not a bad thing necessarily, isn't shared by everyone. So what satisfies them as to a reasonable answer, may not satisfy you. But then you don't really have a basis for a conversation, you just have a dialogue that tries to convert or berate people (on both sides). But most unresolvable stuff ends up like that on here anyway. It can be entertaining, but exhausting if you invest too much in it.

Can any of your questions actually have a resolution, or will you just need to keep chasing them? Obviously you have a reason to ask them. What are you looking for? Is there a need to prove something that this provides an opportunity for? (rhetorical, but we all have stuff like that, it's good to find out what's driving us so it doesn't influence our perception in a negative way)

I was relatively satisfied with the discrepancies I saw cleared up, there was another article before Snopes that listed the discrepancies that satisfied me as reasonable explanations. But then, I'm obviously easier to please on this topic than you.
Mistaken for brother, wrong photos used, Manfredonia, guy in woods, Gene Rosen retired psychologist and pet-carer is not actor Gene Rosen, Chris Rodia, nuns in van, media ineptitude, the mysteries of web coding and google search dates, fake facebook groups, serial killer fans. Not major mysteries. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like more details for some, but there's nowhere really to go from here for now so I can let it go.

Gene Rosen's story doesn't add up? I don't care, he's allowed to get excited and remember stuff wrong.
Kids legs aren't in photo? Don't care.
Sister looks like her dead sister? Don't care. (actually that's quite touching and sad)
Sister looks older than her older sister in 'some' photos? Don't care.
Kid is sucking fingers and making sign of satan? I REALLY don't care.
No crime scene gore footage? I don't care.
People think the father was faking his grief? Actually I do care, that disgusts me.
The helicopter footage of the scene looks like a movie set? I don't care.
Not enough 'action' at the scene? I don't care, that was obviously later in the day.
Kids are too calm? Some were freaked out, others would have had no idea what had just happened, and were probably stoked to be getting out of school early.
The teacher in the closet? Definitely an interesting story. But didn't she say something like she deliberately hid there as long as possible, and only came out when the police showed identification under the door?

What guns were in the trunk? Reasonable question, any conclusions made from watching the night time footage should be very tentative and held in reserve until the official story, and then seen if it reasonably matches. My guess is it's just the shotgun, and whatever else is just the magazine or something else in the boot. If there WAS a second rifle, and they have failed to mention it, it is weird; unless it is because identifying another weapon meant that a third party who had a connection to that weapon would get spooked and might run off? (speculation)
But the report he was found with the rifle which was used for the shooting and two handguns, and NOT four handguns, was fairly early on (the second day maybe?) and all reports since have been consistent with that. People freaked out when they saw what looked like a machine gun being taken out of the trunk, but it was the shotgun.

Principal was quoted as a source after her death? Very dodgy, details behind that mistake should be confirmed. Did someone actually misrepresent themselves, or was it just poor communication? Still, most likely not proof of anything other than a mistake.

Bullet holes outside? Very conceivably could have been from through the walls. What were the walls made of? Apparently bullets from an AR through cinder blocks wouldn't be a stretch? The bullet hole in the car looking like an exit hole was proven to my satisfaction by someone else's close examination to just be the way the metal buckled as it went in.

The comment on the scanner about him possibly having a shotgun? Maybe they saw the front entrance had been shot with a shotgun, shotgun shells on the ground? And then he put it back in the car? The shotgun was the 'tool' for getting through the door, the AR was the 'tool' for the destruction of bodies? Speculation only.

I'm really not sure what you think about this, but it does seem like you are coming from an honest, and a open minded place. turn your digust to people who don't forward this conversation. people who derail, make stuff up and name call. i'm not interested in going to gene's house and confronting him. but I am going to keep looking at things that have been digging into a little of gene's past. It's out there, but what does it all mean? I don't know, that's why i came here.... in theory.

Don't write off the others on this site, they usually pack more real information into their comments than I do, mine just tend to be rambly meta-analysis from the sidelines. I'm amateur, they're big-league.
I think other's responses to you have been reasonable and have at least attempted to answer questions, but people do eventually get frustrated when a reasonable answer isn't accepted as a reasonable solution and start to suspect there's something you are trying to prove. (As you suspect they have something to prove by providing you with such unsatisfying answers.)
I just think honestly that this subject has people's patience and tolerance for what seem to them obvious cognitive biases, if not outright delusions, running shorter than usual.
Mick did a pretty good summing up of the thinking behind this movement which I do agree with.
I think perhaps there is a perception of a personal need to prove a certain narrative that is frustrating the satisfying debate you seek.


Sorry if this has been long-winded, thanks for your other points.

[jvnk08]

there doesn't seem to be any "real" investigation by our beloved, bought and sold , main stream media, unfortunately this is all we got.

I wonder why it seems like that to you? Let's just ignore the numerous independent publications who applied a modicum of logic and arrived at the rational conclusion that while the event is being unnecessarily politicized, it is not likely that it was a conspiracy.

You're kidding yourself if you think no-one in those organizations considered the evidence of a conspiracy floating around, that no-one had the thought cross their mind.

Is this conspiracy mongering or a healthy skepticism(i thought the point of this site)

In a sense, yes. But we can just as easily apply skepticism to the claims and supposed evidence that support the false flag hypothesis as well as follow through with the logic involved.

So now you've admitted to making things up AND only applying skepticism to critics and not the authority.

That's a funny form of logic you've got there. As I mentioned before, it's not as though these things have not crossed everyone's mind, including the independent press. However merely following through with the logic proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not deception afoot here.

• What was the motivation? Couldn't be gun control, because that would imply that the same people who orchestrated a false flag attack involving 20 dead children didn't do the slightest bit of research beforehand. Are there any other possible motivations you can think of?
• If eliciting support for gun control was the aim, why wasn't it much worse in order to ensure that outcome? It easily could have been.
• Why wasn't there a consistent media narrative from the start which would have avoided all of this suspicion in the first place?
• If this was indeed a botched operation, it is well within the government's capabilities to selectively censor any and all discussion of the hoax online. Most conspiracy folk haven't even heard of encryption, much less grok it enough to use it effectively. There are various trivial things the government could do to cut off access to conspiracy information for >99% of people. Why wouldn't they have headed off all discussion of the subject by doing so from the start?

I really don't know. you tell me why? I don't remember asking anything close to this. show me. these are all you counter points to made up questions. nice.

The fact you can't adequately answer them only goes to show that there is no logical basis upon which the conspiracy theories are formed.

what was the motivation of your made up scenario? I have no idea. Why don't you try this. instead? What was Adam Lanza's motivation?

Is that relevant to determining if there was deception in the official story?

Why don't we look at the motivations of other mass shooters? If we find they aren't really adequate(and they typically are not) does that then imply there was deception in those stories as well?

question 1. Do you think Gene Rosen is honest in his interviews and why?
question 2. Why did Vance tell us something that was positively untrue. ?

answer those questions honestly and thoughtfully. without using the words conspiracy theory or hoax, or without telling me what I'm implying by asking. JUST ANSWER and discuss. that is the point. Having different ideas is ok. we are not in a contest. we are supposed to be talking this out. Why is that so hard. ?

#1. I think Gene is an old man who is being interviewed on national television for the first time in his life after an incident that completely shook his world. I think he exaggerated the timeline which was then taken as the truth verbatim by news agencies. I don't think he spent hours in the house with the kids, or even any significant length of time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better subject than Gene to witness Source Amnesia firsthand. The Screen Actors Guild connection is bogus too.

#2. When did he tell us something untrue? Can I see the police reports you're referring to that mention 2 guns found in the car? I can find no such thing, nor even news reports that might have initially reported that.



As was pointed out in another thread, anyone can nitpick any incident and dredge up contradictions. It doesn't mean those are well developed questions from a critical inquiry perspective.

[JRBids]

In this video you can see how the Fire Station itself was made to look as if it were the school. Notice all the ambulances and emergency vehicles were blocked in, so they couldn't be used, even if they were needed.

The fire station was "made to look as if it were the school"?

[JRBids]

So, IMO, I think they did not look into every nook and cranny and search the school 4x over. So what does that say? Does that mean we shouldn't believe anything that Vance tells us anymore? was it a communication break down? This is a very serious question to ask him. HOW could you over look 2 people in the closet of the school after you tell the whole world that you cleared the school, the woods,and every other school in the area? Didn't this guy participate in the 'biggest drill in the history of conn" ? Does the WHOLE dept need to be trained again? Is someone from the dept ever going to explain this? seriously isn't this a huge WTF?

Do you think there may have been some confusion in the first 1-6 hours? There was a lot going on, wouldn't you agree?

[JRBids]

You counted 6 children as well? Most of the people in the video are NOT swat police or EMS personnel and even if Sandy Hook only had 456 students (according to your link), WHERE ARE THEY? What were all those people doing in the video? They sure as hell weren't there to pick up any children.

If its not a dummy, what is it?

I don't see a dummy. Where are you looking? What quadrant of the photo? The lady in the chair, sitting, talking to the men? The pile of stuff at the upper left? Where?

[JRBids]

he is on the right in his blue jacket, you can see light shirt, belt light pants. sunglasses. balding head.

Seriously, I don't think I would be able to identify myself in that photo! How can you tell it's Gene Rosen?!

[jvnk08]

Seriously, I don't think I would be able to identify myself in that photo! How can you tell it's Gene Rosen?!

I think it is him, but what I don't understand is why it is considered suspicious in any way. He lives directly adjacent to the fire station, he could easily see the commotion out his window.

[jvnk08]

In this video you can see how the Fire Station itself was made to look as if it were the school. Notice all the ambulances and emergency vehicles were blocked in, so they couldn't be used, even if they were needed.

The fire station was "made to look as if it were the school"?

Yes, this is really grasping at straws. You'll note that after the immediate response the press were allowed nowhere near the school. You can see them in the chopper videos across the street from the fire station.

Of course they film a sign with "Sandy Hook Elementary" on it, seeing as they can't even see the school from the road.

[LogicAndSanity]

Yes, this is really grasping at straws. You'll note that after the immediate response the press were allowed nowhere near the school. You can see them in the chopper videos across the street from the fire station.

Of course they film a sign with "Sandy Hook Elementary" on it, seeing as they can't even see the school from the road.

For you guys who still believe the official story of Sandy Hook. I think I question your intentions now more than anything else. We're only a month and a half in, just wait until an official documentary is put together in the near future. This is the sloppiest false-flag operation I've seen in my lifetime.

[MikeC]

Your inability to come up with credible evidence to support your conspiracy theory is also not evidence that anyone else has nefarious motives!

[LogicAndSanity]

Your inability to come up with credible evidence to support your conspiracy theory is also not evidence that anyone else has nefarious motives!

You cannot show me one tear, one drop of blood, one body. You are the conspiracy theorist. Lets get that straight.

[MikeC]

I don't have to show you anything - you are thee one making claims that the "official story" is false, despite grieving families and small coffins at funerals

You cannot prove that no tears were cried and no blood was spilled.

Edit:

Here you go

[plane852]

You cannot show me one tear, one drop of blood, one body. You are the conspiracy theorist. Lets get that straight.

Instead of resorting to calling Mike a conspiracy theorist, how about you provide credible evidence? Everything you've presented has been explained and had enough holes poked in it to make your claims doubtful. You have not done so for the official story.

[jvnk08]

You cannot show me one tear, one drop of blood, one body. You are the conspiracy theorist. Lets get that straight.

Honestly I'm not surprised conspiracists think the absence of those things means something. What I don't get is why they think the government is full of idiots, who literally winged it and didn't do the least bit of planning or coordination for an operation involving 20 dead kids.


Well we'll likely never see blood or bodies, and that is not unusual for a case of this nature. In fact it is par for the course.


Tears, on the other hand....well, you must simply not be looking very hard(if at all).

[JRBids]

For you guys who still believe the official story of Sandy Hook. I think I question your intentions now more than anything else. We're only a month and a half in, just wait until an official documentary is put together in the near future. This is the sloppiest false-flag operation I've seen in my lifetime.

Yeah, just wait until it's all sorted out. I wonder how many of the people making disgusting comments on the FB memorial pages will apologize. I wonder how many of you will admit you were wrong.

[katsung47]

Allison Wyatt was said a victim of Sandy Hook shootings.



Mother says her daughter’s photo is stolen.

[jvnk08]

Allison Wyatt was said a victim of Sandy Hook shootings.

Mother says her daughter’s photo is stolen.

And what is it that this implies?

[John Dillinger]

I think it's possible they purposely put wrong info there to keep people occupied with conspiracy theories"

Which seems more likely to you:

Lanza was a patsy/scapegoat, and they killed him on Thursday. Then they dutifully wrote down his correct age of death and put it in the publicly accessible SSDMF(Social Security Death Master File), completely giving away the false flag.

Or, since SSDMF has an astronomical error rate because they rely solely upon manual data entry, it is an error.


There is another thread about this subject already.

http://metabunk.org/threads/1090-SSD...-Hook-massacre

[jvnk08]

I think it's possible they purposely put wrong info there to keep people occupied with conspiracy theories"

To keep people occupied in order to distract them from......?

Check out this other thread which discusses this rabbit hole:

http://metabunk.org/threads/1121-San...disinformation

[Unregistered]

See this video at 07:33 for her description of the timeline. Agains she says 1:15.


I don't have any real reason to suspect she's lying.

The Glenn Beck interviews also confirm this, and suggest that the police actually thought the school had been cleared.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...gnant-stories/

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that police can clear a building and "miss" to adult females in the main office closet, but you are seriously mistaken. I am a trainer of and was a police officer, after Columbine all US first responder training was updated and changed. If the officers on the Sandy Hook scene did not find the women until 4 hours after the building was cleared, they should be fired for sheer incompetency.

Also, the official recording has an officer at the school declaring the building 'clear' just minutes after they went in, this is patently impossible as other officers were still in foot pursuit of other reported suspects. The same officer then reports a shotgun, handguns and long guns were found inside. Again, patently false and verifiable.

Next, officers are now reporting that some students "still had pulses" but EMS was not allowed into the school. That is basis for negligence and possibly even manslaughter charges against those officers and civil liability for the Department if true.

Now, there is not one picture of any student being taken out of that school, reports are from 400 to 600 people in the school, that kind of evacuation does not take a few minutes there should be video and hundreds of pictures of the evacuation, there are NONE, NOT ONE. The one that is shown was taken from a drill conducted earlier in the month. Also, the recording of the radio traffic proves no survivors were taken to any Hospitals and no admissions to any ER, where did the wounded go?

The high-def helicopter footage clearly shows Gene Rosen walking around the fire station parking area while he was at his home giving punch and cookies to the 6 survivors from Victoria Sotos class.

As a trained and experienced crime scene investigator and former police officer, this story is utter non-sense and your rebuttals are weak, reaching and mostly bull crap, just like the official story.

Good day.

[Mick]

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that police can clear a building and "miss" to adult females in the main office closet, but you are seriously mistaken. I am a trainer of and was a police officer, after Columbine all US first responder training was updated and changed. If the officers on the Sandy Hook scene did not find the women until 4 hours after the building was cleared, they should be fired for sheer incompetency.

Also, the official recording has an officer at the school declaring the building 'clear' just minutes after they went in, this is patently impossible as other officers were still in foot pursuit of other reported suspects. The same officer then reports a shotgun, handguns and long guns were found inside. Again, patently false and verifiable.

Next, officers are now reporting that some students "still had pulses" but EMS was not allowed into the school. That is basis for negligence and possibly even manslaughter charges against those officers and civil liability for the Department if true.

Now, there is not one picture of any student being taken out of that school, reports are from 400 to 600 people in the school, that kind of evacuation does not take a few minutes there should be video and hundreds of pictures of the evacuation, there are NONE, NOT ONE. The one that is shown was taken from a drill conducted earlier in the month. Also, the recording of the radio traffic proves no survivors were taken to any Hospitals and no admissions to any ER, where did the wounded go?

The high-def helicopter footage clearly shows Gene Rosen walking around the fire station parking area while he was at his home giving punch and cookies to the 6 survivors from Victoria Sotos class.

As a trained and experienced crime scene investigator and former police officer, this story is utter non-sense and your rebuttals are weak, reaching and mostly bull crap, just like the official story.

Good day.

Perhaps they should be fired. People mess up sometimes. So you have a 100% perfect record?

Regarding your other claims, perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence, like exact quotes with sources?

[Mick]

There were only two wounded, Natalie Hammond, and one other person.

Content from external source:


Lanza shot Hammond through the door, in her leg and arm. She was later treated at Danbury Hospital.^[27][29] The police reported that a second adult was wounded in the attack, but that individual has not been identified.^[6]

[SR1419]

Now, there is not one picture of any student being taken out of that school...NONE, NOT ONE

Any thoughts?

[Mick]

Why would there be more pictures?

There are very few because the school was isolated along a narrow road, and the press was kept out of the way. The children were mostly taken to the nearby fire station, which also had very little press access.

[jvnk08]

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that police can clear a building and "miss" to adult females in the main office closet, but you are seriously mistaken. I am a trainer of and was a police officer, after Columbine all US first responder training was updated and changed. If the officers on the Sandy Hook scene did not find the women until 4 hours after the building was cleared, they should be fired for sheer incompetency.

Who says she was the only one?

Also, the official recording has an officer at the school declaring the building 'clear' just minutes after they went in, this is patently impossible as other officers were still in foot pursuit of other reported suspects.

Unless that was the police chief, I fail to see how "clear" in the school could be construed as an "all clear" for police activity in the entire area....

The same officer then reports a shotgun, handguns and long guns were found inside. Again, patently false and verifiable.

Please provide sources for this claim.

Next, officers are now reporting that some students "still had pulses" but EMS was not allowed into the school. That is basis for negligence and possibly even manslaughter charges against those officers and civil liability for the Department if true.

Source? From what I understand, a few students did have pulses but later died at the hospital.

The one that is shown was taken from a drill conducted earlier in the month.

No it wasn't.

Also, the recording of the radio traffic proves no survivors were taken to any Hospitals and no admissions to any ER, where did the wounded go?

There were several wounded taken to area hospitals. As others have pointed out there are pictures of people evacuating, including children. Your observations are patently false.

The high-def helicopter footage clearly shows Gene Rosen walking around the fire station parking area while he was at his home giving punch and cookies to the 6 survivors from Victoria Sotos class.

Is that strange? You can see his house from the fire station. You are basing the timeframe off of his likely exaggerated accounts.

As a trained and experienced crime scene investigator and former police officer, this story is utter non-sense and your rebuttals are weak, reaching and mostly bull crap, just like the official story.


Good day.

Feel free to provide any contrary evidence to the debunkings & rebuttals offered here. I personally don't think you're a trained CSI or police officer - you're just using the title to establish credibility. Stand by your claims if you truly believe them.

[Unregistered]

More and more questions not answer. So not a single kid or person injured, everybody died right away ? No testimony on who found the dead "killer" and all the kids bodies and where they were?
They would be at least 450 other kids who would say the heard gun shots none of them ever been seen so far ,always the same 20 persons. If 26 persons died it has to be at least 26 bullets that been shot.When i was a kid we had a bomb threat at the school.No real bomb it was just a prank call but it went on the news guess what we saw on the news, police cars ,firetrucks and yes about 600 kids outside.



I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a media skeptic.

[Mick]

More and more questions not answer. So not a single kid or person injured, everybody died right away ? No testimony on who found the dead "killer" and all the kids bodies and where they were?
They would be at least 450 other kids who would say the heard gun shots none of them ever been seen so far ,always the same 20 persons. If 26 persons died it has to be at least 26 bullets that been shot.When i was a kid we had a bomb threat at the school.No real bomb it was just a prank call but it went on the news guess what we saw on the news, police cars ,firetrucks and yes about 600 kids outside.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a media skeptic.

Yes, there were no injured children. No, no testimony on who found Lanza, but of course it would be the police.

The kids were on lockdown in their rooms, then they were moved to the firehouse. Then their parents collected them. The media was not involved in this.

What are you skeptical of? Surely if you think the media is lying, then you suspect a conspiracy.

[MikeC]

More and more questions not answer.

...snippage....

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a media skeptic.

And so what is it you think these questions are evidence of? Media incompetence and/or willingness to publish ASAP without getting confirmation of the facts? Not publishing info they didn't actually have?? What?

[Cairenn]

Do your REALLY want a bunch of reporters asking little kids for "What did you hear? " "Where you afraid? " "Do you miss 'Emily or ????'? ' Are you telling us YOU would allow them to question your traumatized children? Just so the 'conspiracy folks ' will be satisfied?

Those children will need enough counseling as it is. But you would subject them to more damage, just to satisfy your distrust of the government.

Sorry if this is a little harsh, but kids of that age don't need an assault by media

[katsung47]

You're talking about dead bodies being removed from the school? The medical examiner Wayne Carver said in his press conference that all bodies were removed and transferred by 1am on Saturday morning in 3 disguised "unmarked" vehicles to "foil" the press. He said this literally.

This is the full version of his VERY bizarre press conference. At the 1:30 mark is where he talks about the bodies being transferred by 1am, and the autopsy's being completed at 1:30am (in a tent?). At the 14:30 mark is where he talks about how they used disguised unmarked vehicles to foil the press.



Here's the more condensed version, this guy is an unprofessional creepy weirdo and notice how he can't even answer almost ANY of the questions.

With my own experience, if the Feds try to frame a case with a murder, they used to choose an area they controlled. In my case I found theycontrol three factors: Police, coroner, and judge. Here is my observationwritten in 2003. To cover up a murder case, they need the help of the coroner.Here is how they replaced the local coroner with one of their own. (148. Regime change in San Jose Police, “169. Development of Regime changein San Jose Police”, “170. Suspends Coroner (10/11/2003)”, “171. Extort judge(10/16)”)


170. Suspends Coroner (10/11/2003)

Same day (10/3), on the same page of reporting the death, illness,accident, resignation of San jose police force, (see message #169) there wasalso an article about the suspension of a coroner. re:
"County suspends coroner
Reasons unclear for paid leave of at least 2 weeks. Gregory Schmunk, SantaClara chief medical examiner, hired four years ago to clean up a troubledcoroner's office, was put on paid leave indefinitely Thursday after recentcriticism over an old theft charge against him." (S.J.M.N. 10/3/03)

The article and the article in next day (10/4), said Schmunk had beenaccused of stealing more than $400 in medical books when he left his job asbrown County medical examiner four years ago. But the charge was dismissedafter he sent a $406 check to his former employer.

He was also accused of failing to disclose, as required by law, that he hadbeen involved in a lawsuit when he applied a gun permit in 1999. The lawsuitwas a civil complaint in which he threatened a Sacramento co-worker. But hepaid $2,500 in 1995 and had settled that dispute.

Another accusation is he spent $42,000 in travel expenses over past threeyears. "That raises question about his judgement, given the county'sbudget situation."

The San Jose Mercury requests Schmunk to resign based on these chargeseither is on minor matter or is unnecessary.(10/10) Arnold Schwarzenegger hascommitted more serious offenses of series groping women but inside group canstill send such a villain to be a Governor. Schmunk, just like former GovernorDavis, made no offense, is being ousted because Feds need a patsy of theirown.So Feds can commit a plot.

At same time they also indicted a judge and an ex-cop of conspiracy. Whenthe newspaper was full of these unusual reports, I can feel Feds activate alarge resource to extort the judicial system in San Jose area. From judge,police officer to coroner, they try to c

[Mick]

Kat, I'm going to ask you to focus on on piece of evidence only, and not move on from that until you've reached agreement about its significance with other people here.

I see from your web site that you like to provide an avalanche of data, often from things that have no real relation to the topic at hand. Well this is not the place for that. Debunking is about examining evidence to see if it is bunk, and then removing it if it is.

So pick one piece, and we can discuss that.

To let you think about it, I'm banning you for 24 hours.

[angryjock]

This is a brilliant overview of the career of the coroner on the Sandy Hook case, Dr. H. Wayne Carver. The video maker goes to great lengths (one hour to be exact) to prove the guy is real and truthful. http://youtu.be/RWcqrgpiuAs

[katsung47]

Any thoughts?

My thought is it is another government mind control. They let you imagine what has happened. Does it prove a 27 death shooting? It's no other than another picture "situation room"



the only though I have is there is no ambulance at the entrance of school. Maybe that's the reason why there is little field pictures release. Too many flaws could be exposed so they have a censorship.

[Mick]

I asked you to pick one piece of evidence to discuss. Are you picking that photo?

[katsung47]

More to see there was no ambulance.