Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 2,194 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 2,129,850
Pageviews Today: 2,959,018	Threads Today: 697	Posts Today: 14,017
10:22 PM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject Salon article debunking sandy hook conspiracy

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

[quote:TruthNow88:MV8yMTE0NzE5XzM1NjY4NDA4X0Q5N0U2MjhB]
[quote:Anonymous Coward 8685274:MV8yMTE0NzE5X0Y4RUJDMzQ5]
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory/

I'm posting so that both sides get an equal share of time. We need skepticism here so that this site may remain in reality and because there is no representation from the "hoaxers" on this article's comments and elsewhere. Don't hate skepticism because it just might stop you from making a fool of yourself.

I have to say, most of the arguments for the coverup are easily explained. We need self-critical people here and on other sites. The reputation of the conspiracy theorists is under attack and it's mainly caused by you crazy people who either took too much medicine or not enough. Always remember, a shill could be a person skeptical of conspiracies, but more often could be those that make us look delusional.

Lets figure out what anomalies to concentrate on and give up on the bullshit. Even if you think something is true, if you can't prove it, then you're making us look bad.

PS: I need some help on the comments section here and elsewhere. Thanks.
[/quote]

This Salon article is an excellent example of how strawman arguments are used by the MSM to try to discredit conspiracy theories by cherry picking (weak) theories to target, or by giving very vague (just true us) type answers to sway public opinion (as most people completely lack critical thinking skills).

[color=darkblue][b]1. Why aren’t the adults sadder?[/b]
...Theorists have zeroed in on Robbie Parker, who they say wasn’t grieving hard enough for his slain 6-year-old daughter, Emilie...

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
People mourn in many different ways... Time and again, a grief-stricken person’s expression would change from dejection to laughter and back...[/color]

This is true BUT what they fail to mention is the total lack of wear shown in the victims families faces. I have been to funerals before and understand sometimes relatives of the deceased will crack a smile from time to time, but you can still see signs of wear in their face and eyes. Their eyes are puffy and red, their cheeks are puffy and tear stained, and when recalling memories of their loved ones tend to have a very hard time not breaking down into full tears, even when trying to avoid crying. This wear can only somewhat be covered by makeup, but the overall signs of lack of sleep, extreme emotions, and recent crying should still be very apparent. The fact that they are not over several different days time, and with several different people, is odd to say the least.

[color=darkblue][b]2. What about Emilie?[/b]
The “proof” is a photo purportedly showing her with President Obama when he visited the school after the shooting...
Other websites take issue with the family portrait, alleging it was Photoshopped for some reason, pointing to the fact that the Emilie is making a “devil’s horns”...

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
The girl on Obama’s lap is Emilie’s little sister...
And there’s no evidence or even motive given for why the portrait would be Photoshopped....[/color]

I agree the girl seen with Obama is not Emilie, but instead is the middle sister Madeline (wearing her sisters dress)... I know I will likely be called a shill but whatever. If you do a similar fadeover from a slightly different angle using pictures of Madeline, it also matches up 95%+ to the girl with Obama. Fadeovers can be very misleading to the eye, so just use special judgement with this one. I do however believe Madeline was told to wear that dress that day (very public event) specifically to draw attention to this conspiracy theory so it could later be attacked like it has been in this Salon article (pre-created strawman).
The picture in question can be found at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1679461078440&set=pb.1594937268.-2207520000.1358471385&type=3&theater. The issue is the Salon article focuses in on the devil horns as the focal point (which I don't find the important piece of this image). They completely draw focus away from the fact that the far left daughter (Madeline) has no legs in this photo (photo manipulation), and this oddity they of course do not mention or give an explanation for. Oddly enough most MSM news sites that posted this image cropped it off like this http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1080973!/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpeg so the area in question was not visible (go figure). Why this is altered I have no idea, but the fact they don't address that oddity and instead focus on the horn hands is convenient. They also don't touch the fact that the Soto class picture has another impossible natural oddity. http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2012/12/23/news/web_photos/web_sandy_school--525x429.jpg Directly to the left of the boy with the blue/white striped shirt is a vertical (almost tan) shadow. The issue is this vertical shadow directly left of his elbow, overlaps a darker background shadow, and at this point the lighter shadow isn't transparent which it should be (natural impossibility). Go figure they won't attack some of the more obvious (and harder to explain) evidence of photo alteration being used.

[color=darkblue][b]3. Why do they all look the same?[/b]
Numerous websites juxtapose pictures of people from Newtown against pictures of similar looking people from Aurora, Colo., and assert they are the same actors.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
Not all women with brown hair are the same person.[/color]

For those who have never heard of this (weak ass) theory before here is the basics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1zRA9iNsL0. I agree that they are not the same person, but again I see this argument as another  pre-created strawman designed specifically to gain traction to then be discredited. The majority of conspiracy theorists I feel do not believe in this specific piece. Some of the people involved do however somewhat look like the Greenberg family, but that is very opinion based, and therefor should be treated as that (opinion not fact).

[color=darkblue][b]4. But what about the rifle?[/b]
Alleged shooter Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle as his primary weapon, but conspiracist have seized on footage of police removing a long gun from the trunk of Lanza’s car.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
Actually, the gun shown being removed from Lanza’s car was a shotgun he never used. Lanza brought three guns inside the school — the AR-15 and two handguns — all of which were found inside the school.[/color]

Fact is the media has changed the gun story so many times, that it's been hard to keep up. They now have settled with this final version (1 AR + 2 pistols in school, 1 shotgun in trunk) BUT over the last few weeks we have heard TONS of different gun variations cited by the MSM as if all of them were true (AR in backseat, no wait in trunk, no wait in school, no it is in the trunk, well actually its the school again - then its 2 pistols, no wait 4 pistols, no wait it is 2 pistols - then its a shotgun in the trunk, no wait its an ar, no wait its a shotgun again)... The fact is if anyone is to blame for "conspiracy theories" surrounding the weapons used, the MSM is the primary blame for their lack of fact checking before reporting tons of constantly changing weapon variations. If you ask any regular person on the street what weapons were used, I bet not only will you get 10 different answers, but none of them will likely include a shotgun being involved (even not used). The media is the only one to blame about all this gun confusion.

[color=darkblue][b]5. How come the memorial pages were created before the shooting?[/b]
One of the most cited pieces of “hard evidence” in the hoax theory is that memorial pages for the victims were allegedly created before the shooting even took place.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
Actually, this is a very common glitch for constricted-date Google searches. [/color]

I work in the field of SEO (search engine optimization) and have a good knowledge of the online world, and can tell you that every case of these pre-dated blog posts, charity pages, facebook comments/posts, tweets (little more complex but doable), vimeo/youtube videos, RIP pages, google indexes... were not created before Dec 14, 2012. If you understand how indexing as well as timestamps work you would understand that timestamps can be VERY misleading when dealing with dynamic content (editable content). Timestamps are created when something is originally created (static), while content itself in some cases can be altered (dynamic). What happened in EVERY CASE I have seen so far is that someone basically went back to a previously posted piece of content, and edited it to have updated Sandy Hook related info (while keeping the original timestamp and index timestamp).  Basically they were posted after Dec, 14 2012 BUT were done in a way (on purpose) to appear to be pre-dated. I STRONGLY feel (and have been saying for weeks) that this timestamp argument is an obvous strawman being created, as it is very easy to mislead the average conspiracy theorist into believing they have hit "gold" with this theory, when really its poisoned well water. This is perfect example of a pre-created strawman argument designed to make us look bad. And just to be clear, I don't think it was an accident that so many different sites/platforms had pre-posted Sandy Hook content as I believe people went out of their way (edit old content instead of reposting as new) to post stuff to LOOK like it was dated before the event took place (to lure conspiracy theorists into the trap).

[color=darkblue][b]6. What about the car?[/b]
Early on, theorists latched on to the notion that the black Honda Accord driven by Lanza was not actually owned by his mother, as police say, but by a man named Chris Rodia, who was mentioned on a police scanner at the time of the shooting.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
BeforeItsNews, a conspiracy website, obtained the police audio definitively debunking the myth (Rodia appeared on the scanner because he was getting pulled over in a traffic stop miles away, but his license plate doesn’t match Lanza’s car).[/color]

This still doesn't prove the fact the car belonged to Nancy Lanza in any way. Here is a REUTERS photo of the car in question being towed http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/was-killer-diagnosed-medicated/car-driven-by-connecticut-school-shooter-lanza-is-towed-from-sandy-hook-elementary-school-in-newtown/ showing the same 872 YEO license plate (showing the plate # is in fact attached to a black car, and not the green car Rodia claims to of been driving at the time). It should be quite easy to prove this car/license plate is in fact registered to Nancy Lanza, but I have yet to see any MSM provide any actual proof of this.

[color=darkblue][b]7. What about the man in the woods?[/b]
Theorists have seized on helicopter footage of a man getting chased by police through the woods behind the school as evidence there was more than one shooter. Who is this man?

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
It was Chris Manfredonia, the father of a 6-year-old who attends the school. He was on his way to the school to make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard gunfire and smelled sulfur, so he ran.[/color]

I have a few issues with this. First he claims to be there to make gingerbread houses with a 1st grade class. The issue is the class wasn't scheduled to start making gingerbread houses for another 5 hours (2:30pm). Yes he could of been their early to help setup or something due to being a good dad BUT if that were the case and he was such a good dad, why when he heard shooting inside a school that his daughter was in... would he run away from the school and not TRY to do something to help her (most parents would be Ramboing through the windows to save their kid...)?

[color=darkblue][b]8. But there was another man in the woods (maybe):[/b]
Eyewitnesses saw a second man in the woods wearing camouflage pants and a dark jacket...

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
Actually, he was, according to the Newtown Bee, “an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town” who heard the gunfire.[/color]

I find it funny they use the word (maybe) yet then follow it up by showing evidence that it is true (wtf is maybe about it???). The article in question is http://newtownbee.com/News/2012-12-27__14-58-27/Police%20Union%20Seeks%20Funding%20For%20Trauma%20Treatment which states from a "reliable local law enforcement source" that he was found in the woods behind the school, armed, and was briefly detained (this is the guy brought to the FRONT of the police car, as eyewitnesses have stated). You would think an ARMED out of town L.E.O. being found near the scene of the crime minutes after a massacre it would be mentioned on the news quite a bit especially coming from a "reliable local law enforcement source". Why is it that this piece of the story got no press the day of the event? Even if it isn't related to a 2nd shooter, why did they totally dodge making this info widely known publicly (only heard about this from the 1 MSM source), and not announce it at all until over a week after the event? Also why if this guy was right at the scene, and an experienced law enforcement officer, and armed, did he not try to assist in stopping the event. You would think he would basically treat the situation as if he was a first responding on-duty police officer and try to help stop the event as its happening?

[color=darkblue][b]9. What about the third man at the firehouse?[/b]
Children fleeing the school said they saw a man pinned down on the ground in handcuffs outside the firehouse.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
...this man was briefly detained by police in the hectic aftermath, but quickly released when it was determined he was just a passerby...[/color]

I really haven't heard much about this specific arrest so I won't add my comments due to lack of info.

[color=darkblue][b]10. Then why did some eyewitnesses report multiple shooters?[/b]
Theorizers have parsed conflicting media reports and interviews with eyewitnesses saying they saw multiple shooters.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
In the stress and confusion of a situation like a mass shooting, misreporting is not just common, but the rule.[/color]

Interesting wording... misreporting in these situations is a rule huh? Anyways... what this Salon article clearly goes out of its way to avoid is the fact that the police scanners of that day report that they are looking for a possible suspect vehicle believed to be tied to the Sandy Hook Elementary event. The police mentions a purple van with a window shot out, 2 suspects wearing masks, and one is dressed like a nun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ztCRDi5ww. This was never mentioned in the MSM, and never mentioned anywhere outside of alternative media since. This is one of those small points that debunkers won't touch as lack of MSM mention of this in itself is suspect. And they wonder why multiple shooter theories exist... maybe because to many facts point to it, facts that they specifically decide to dodge.

[color=darkblue][b]11. What about that Gene Rosen guy?[/b]
Rosen sheltered six children during the shooting, but theorists have alternately claimed that Rosen’s accounts are suspiciously too consistent in various interviews he gave, or suspiciously inconsistent.

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
Rosen did invite the bus driver inside and she helped him contact their parents. An early AP report erroneously reported that he sat with the kids for hours, but he told us that the children were only inside his house for about 35 minutes.[/color]

Gene Rosen's account for that day doesn't really make a lot of sense. First at no point has he or anyone else said that he ever called 911... that in itself is very odd. Additionally he lives right near the firehouse, which is where MASS police response arrived minutes after the event. Why did he not take the children to the safety of the fire house? why didn't he just wait outside and bring them to one of the police on scene? Also many early reports were that the children that tried to escape the Soto class, were shot and killed when they tried, yet at the same time we were being told that those same 6 children were the ones found at Gene Rosen's house. They later updated the story to the 6 children that ran out of the class past the gunman did in fact get away without being shot. My point is they created an inconsistency yet for some reason wonder why people have questions...

[color=darkblue][b]12. But how was the dead principal quoted?[/b]
...a quote on the shooting in the Newtown Bee from a Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, who died in the shooting...

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
The Bee quickly posted a retraction and an apology: “An early online report from the scene at the December 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School quoted a woman who identified herself to our reporter as the principal of the school.[/color]

This is true, but doesn't anyone find it odd that some random person claimed to be the principle shortly after the event, and gave specific details about the event (info insert) at a time when details were VERY limited (yet wasn't the real person, and this wasn't questioned at the time). Makes you think, how much fact checking did they do for the other people they quoted and interviewed (the only reason they were caught in this case, was because the person in question was dead...). Just shows how easy it would be for anyone to pretend to be anyone that day (as very little fact checking was done to confirm their identities/stories).

[color=darkblue][b]13. What about the LIBOR connection?[/b]
Early theories posited that the fathers of both Lanza and alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes were set to testify before the Senate on the (real) LIBOR banking scandal...

[b]Salon Answer:[/b]
...determined there was “no evidence” to support any of the assumptions in the LIBOR theory.[/color]

This appears to be another strawman argument which was created based on a lot of assumptions early on (it doesn't necessarily mean it's a popular theory). I personally haven't looked into this theory much so if anyone else has more details to add, feel free.

[b]Below are a few details that the MSM & debunkers tend to avoid.[/b]

-Nearby (State Level) Active-Shooter Drill (happening at the same time)
[i]By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning, the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (“ERT”) happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and [b]team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school[/b]...[/i]
http://southeast.patch.com/articles/sheriff-putnam-officials-to-talk-school-safety-this-afternoon

-Nearby (Federal Level) DHS/FEMA Training Course (9am-4pm)
[i]"The goal of the course is to enable participants to improve their community’s mitigation and emergency operations plan specifically regarding the needs of children. The course will provide them with the information needed to [b]address the unique needs of children prior to, during and following disasters[/b]. It will also provide them guidance and direction on how to form coalitions and how to become advocates for the unique needs of children in all aspects of emergency management."[/i]
http://www.ct.gov/demhs/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=CAC9C6C9CD83CDC9C7

-Lack of wounded victims. Everyone (except 1 person) hit was killed, which is highly unlikely even based on similar past shooting events (lots of wounded). From what I can see we have yet to hear the eyewitness account of this "lone survivor", and very little details about her have been given.

-24 hour Police protection provided to all the victims families after the event. This has never been done in past school shooting events, so why start this now.

-Was there video? The question of if any of the event was recorded is an important one. If no, why is that as even very poor schools tend to have cameras... this was a fairly rich area... do they not exist, were they broken/turned off, do they not record? If no video exists then we want to know how/why as it seems unlikely. On the other hand if it does exist then tell us (even if the evidence is withheld for months). We at least have a right to know either way whether it does or does not exist. The fact that no one has stated this point either way (yes or no) is very suspicious.

-The off-duty out of town L.E.O. that was detained in the woods shortly after the fact deserves a lot more questions. The fact that this was hardly reported is one thing. The fact that he was armed (no mention of type of gun), at the location (woods behind the school), at the time (~9:30am), and had skilled shooting experience, should make him a suspect at first no matter what his credentials, so why bring him to the front of the squad car when you detain him? Why only question him for a short period of time especially when the one shooter found dead inside the school appears to be an unskilled weakling (likely not acting alone)? What just because he is a cop and says "I didn't do it" they just instantly trusted him, release 0 info on the event, and let him go? Again very suspicious.

-The purple van, 2 suspects, ski masks, dressed like nuns mentioned as suspects possibly related to the Sandy Hook event, were not touched by the MSM at all. They like to pretend that in all the chaos inconsistency happens (which is somewhat true) but they know better then to touch this one using that "confusion" logic. Again this info was never mentioned again and opens up 1000 different questions, yet asking any of them gets you instantly called "mentally ill".

-The fact that they are using this event (whether real or hoax) as a political ploy to further disarm the population, demonize guns, and start creating the basic template for what soon will be termed "homegrown extremists". The goal of this is to create mass protests in the coming months, and then instigate them to violence (using gun incidents) as a way to further attack the 1st and 2nd amendment, and in a sense create somewhat of a "checkmate" situation.

-The fact that they are using the aftermath of this event (again whether real or hoax) as a media ploy to start attacking the 1st amendment, by saying the average person (conspiracy theorists) can no longer be allowed the power to disseminate "false" and "misleading" info. This is going to lead to attacks on specific websites (like GLP), filtering being added to major websites (such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter), censorship via Major Search Engines, and the scapegoat of attaching the label of "mental illness" to anyone that questions anything that matters (making you a danger to your community). Ever wonder why they were testing Adam Lanza's DNA? The "mental illness" label is going to be a very wide brush very soon, painting a lot of people as nuts (which will be used to limit your rights even further).
[/quote]

Original Message [link to www.salon.com]

I'm posting so that both sides get an equal share of time. We need skepticism here so that this site may remain in reality and because there is no representation from the "hoaxers" on this article's comments and elsewhere. Don't hate skepticism because it just might stop you from making a fool of yourself.

I have to say, most of the arguments for the coverup are easily explained. We need self-critical people here and on other sites. The reputation of the conspiracy theorists is under attack and it's mainly caused by you crazy people who either took too much medicine or not enough. Always remember, a shill could be a person skeptical of conspiracies, but more often could be those that make us look delusional.

Lets figure out what anomalies to concentrate on and give up on the bullshit. Even if you think something is true, if you can't prove it, then you're making us look bad.

PS: I need some help on the comments section here and elsewhere. Thanks.

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>