Urgent please Pin, Sandy hook student that died Emily Parker 6 years old captured in photo with Obama days after the shooting!

So who is this guy holding Emilie????



IMAGE ( [link to i48.tinypic.com] )

This page has photos of Jesse Lewis:

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

The boy next to Obama does seem to have the same smile as Jesse Lewis.

I agree with Legendary.

See also further arguments on: [link to terraherz.at]

And there is one more argument:
See: [link to s7.directupload.net]
I took that composition of user Legendary and focussed on the form of ears. Emily's father (we are told he is) has ear lobes that are accrued. The same is true for Emily and for her smallest sister. Emily's mother has 'free' and 'fat' lobs of her ears. So has Emily's 4 years old sister on mother's lap.
The little girl on the Obama-photo has definitely accrued(!) lobs of the ears - as the Emily on the family photo. I made also a circle around the ear of the boy right of Obama, so you can compare with a 'fat' and 'free hanging' lob of ear.

Also: On [link to www.examiner.com] we read that Emily's two little sisters are aged 4(!) and 3(!). To me that little girl on the Obama-photo is never only 4(!) years old but 6 years old.

Also see for that strange video-session of Emily's father: [link to www.youtube.com]

Something seems to be wrong.

@ rubyblue 12/29/2012 06:33 PM

I don't know why my link after "Also see for that strange video-session of Emily's father" is not working.
So, just help youself by giving "youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=urrRcgB581w" into your browser an then put a " [link to www."] before it.

She might have already been wearing her hair that way during the two years since the 2010 Christmas photo. And The Christmas dress that Emily wore two years ago now fits the younger girl.
There are two Parker girls in the photo with Obama, not three, since Emily is gone. Case closed but it was an interesting idea.

it is obviously the girls sister

Everything about what happened at Sandy Hook is odd. Nobody is speaking, victims' families, surviving victims, etc.

It is a mystery where the only story we will ever hear will not be the truth.

The only way that the dress would fit the younger sister so well is if a couple of years had passed between the two photos.

However, the youngest girl, the little one, has definitely NOT aged 2 years between the two photos.

Emilie Parker is NOT DEAD. She is alive and well and smiling in the photo with Obama.

This thing was a staged event to try to whip up support for the gun control agenda, as well as more spending on police and homeland security.

Why would Robbie Parker participate in such a thing?

His Linked In page shows that he recently worked for a company that sells some sort of new "perimeter radar" technology for schools, homes, and companies.

[link to www.linkedin.com]

School shootings not only whip up support for gun control, but they also whip up business for security companies ... like companies that sell perimeter radar equipment.

Just look at the videos of Robbie Parker getting into character before his press conference. The guy was laughing and joking around, very happily, and then he suddenly "got into character" for the cameras. Everything about his demeanor changes. Suddenly, he goes from laughing and joking, to crying and distress.

This whole thing is a HOAX. I am now certain of it.

Level 1 - Total Overview

In a "Scripted Reality" you would view the picture of a "Messiah" who just "raised the dead" successfully. Reason for much joy that would be.


Next:


Level 2 - Details

"A picture says more than a 1,000 words" they say. Let's find some other words ...

[link to postimage.org]


Namaste,

Deckard666

So, they stage this elaborate hoax (and I mean it would have to be ELABORATE.) They send out Parker as the first parent to talk about his dead kid, plaster her face all over the airwaves and then they send that supposedly dead kid into a photo-op with Obama? And no one but anonymous armchair detectives on the internet notice?

I wish I had some of what you guys are smoking.

i just uploaded my new 2hour+ DOCUMENTARY on the sandy hook event which you can watch here: [link to www.brendanhunt.com]

@ rubyblue at 12/29/2012 06:33 PM

There is even more wrong with "Emily Parker". See "The straw that broke the camle's back":
[link to www.youtube.com]

… and now this:

There is even more wrong with "Emily": If you raise the "gamma" to 3.2 (take the 'black' out of the photo, if you want so) we see a pattern of Emily's blouse on her breast that is not possible in a natural photo. See the photo (with gamma raised to 3.2) here: [link to s1.directupload.net]

The supposed design of her blouse is absolutely SQUARE!
But little girls have a round body. Also the absolutely square pattern even reaches over onto Emily's left arm (to the right of her body). But little girls have round(!) arms.

THIS PHOTO IS DEFINITELY FABRICATED!

Correction
Emily's top (blouse, t-shirt or pullover) is plain black, of course, and has no "pattern".
What I mean is that he pixel quality of this rectangle over her breast is different to the rest of the photo, which seems to indicate that this area was worked over later and is not original.

Best retard post ever...

even if sister (it is same dress) it is still FREAKY to see any kid smiling/happy/carefree after just supposedly losing a sibling so soon.

How many children of that ages do you know who can fully comprehend grief?

[link to s14.directupload.net]

Strange how O-man is smiling. I thought psychopaths did not smile...

Yeah it's weird, because no kid EVER wore her sister's hand me downs.

We have often been manipulated with staged events.
We hear this in several videos related to the Sandy Hook massacre: They mention 911, the murder of Jack Kennedy (I think that also something was wrong with the murder of Bob Kennedy and that of Martin Luther King), the explosion of this Spanish boat at the beginning of the US-Spanish war, the Golf of Tonking hoax and so on.

Little is known that they have just fooled us lately with this ambassador Christopher Stevens gag. See: [link to s1.directupload.net] .

In Germany they also fooled us with a school massacre ("Winnenden") - that more or less had the same blue print as the Sandy Hook incident (If You understand German see for example e. g. [link to www.medienanalyse-international.de] ).

it appears that the actors are goobergomers drawn from the enlisted ranks, though there may be a few officers playing parts as well or, to be more accurate, as poorly. but, they all look and act like dumbasses so definitely it's shit run by the military. lol. seriously

I don't understand the point about a perfect square. All the pixels there are square, that's just the resolution. The probability of getting a small squarish pattern is quite reasonable.

But the fact that the pattern of 100 or more pixels and multiple colors (hence, many thousands of possibilities -- if it's 5 colors, it is 5^1000 possibilities assuming each pixel is independent of the others) is IDENTICAL to the pattern on her supposed sister's dress, that is OVERWHELMING evidence that the photo is faked.

The number of possible patterns in the identical areas is something like:

5^1000 = 10^1000 / [2^1000]
= 10^1000 / [(2^10)^100]
~ 10^1000 / [(10^3)^100]
= 10^1000 / [10^300]
= 10^700
= (googol)^7
= an astronomically big number.

and to get a match by chance is impossible. Full stop.

Corrections and additions to the previous post.

If the matching area is 100 pixels (not 1000) then the number of possibilities, supposedly equally likely, fof the area in question is

10^70 = googol^(0.7)

just divide everything by 10. I accidentally used 1000 in the calculation not 100.

And someone could say "yes I know the match is very unlikely, but you got to choose which area matched. There are a lot of areas and a match in at least one of them is fairly likely." This would be a reasonable and correct argument, if only the number of possibilities calculated just above were not so enormous.

Say the picture is 1000 x 1000 pixels (I am sure it's less than that) and the matching area is 10 x 10 (I believe it's larger than that) or any other grouping of 100 pixels in total. How many such areas are there in the picture?

Well it's no more than

(1000 - 10 + 1) x (1000 - 10 + 1) even allowing maximum overlaps, which is about

1000 x 1000 = 10^6 areas, that is one million

and we want the probability of getting one match, one event with a probability of 10^-70.

The probability of NOT getting any matches is

(1 - 10^-70) ^ 10^6

which to first order (the only order that matters) is

1 - 10^6 * 10*-70

= 1 - 10^-64

and so the probability of getting a match is

10^-64

which is written more simply as

0.


Even erring each time in favor of credibility, blindly and ridiculously so, I conclude it is quite impossible for that to be a genuine photo.

How many ADULTS can comprehend grief? No one can FULLY understand such a thing. There are many levels...but the first one is usually shock followed by anger or sadness. MOST people do not go on with purposeful reorganization and a need to 'move on' until much later in the process no matter what these people that orchestrated this tragedy will have you believe.

Children, especially wallow in the first stages for awhile. People will have you believe that kids bounce back quick from something like death. They don't. My daughter lost her great-grandpa, her dog, her cat, and her turtle(all of them were pretty old except for the turtle) just a year ago. It took a couple of weeks for her to stop crying it about it every time she saw a picture of grandpa, dogs, cats, and turtles for EACH of them(they didn't all die at once). A year or so later she still tears up every once in a while when we reminisce.

So don't tell me that children don't comprehend grief. They do. And they don't brush it off as quick as you think.

@Anonymous Coward at 01/10/2013 08:12 AM

A photo of a real(!) camera - even a digital one - does not produce fat rectangle areas over a little girl's body (breast) and even reaching over to the left arm without bending in the least bit, while the body rounds back - and ends - and the left arm rounds forward.
So: There has been a painting over.

My reference to pixels was that - yes - if a digital photo video is of bad quality they get 'chunky'.
You can wilfully produce a loss of quality by loading up a picture and then save it with - lets say - 5% quality. And than load that up again and again save it with 5 % quality (and so on and on). My old "faststone" (freeware) is only a photo showing program and not a Photoshop program. But it has a few devices of real Photoshop programs and allows me to do this.
If you do so you will see that sooner or later a formally high quality photo will show several square or rectangle chunks of the same colour or the same black. This is so because the digital photo runs out of enough information for a lot of individual pixels.

And now to my point. First: Here is my photo manipulated with gamma 3.2 again - this time without my inset: [link to s14.directupload.net] .

And now watch of what excellent quality the background is - the green bush and the red leaves behind Emily. Even if you enlarge my manipulated photo you need some time before you see squares and rectangles in the bush or the red leaves.
Also all persons are of excellent quality. Only the mother 's skirt and the smallest sister's left arm shows some little squares/rectangles. But this is nothing compared with this 'brutal' rectangle on Emily's breast.
So this definitely shows that this rectangle on Emily's breast (and left arm!) is of a lover quality than the rest of the photo. And this is only possible because there has been done some painting over - with a lower (information-)quality than the rest of the picture has.

For real professional photo analysis see Neal Krawetz:
[link to www.911myths.com]
[link to blackhat.com]