Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,721 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,070,638
Pageviews Today: 1,408,625Threads Today: 324Posts Today: 4,987
09:51 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31145264
Slovenia
01/16/2013 06:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go:

First off the guy that created this video is Alex J.Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...

Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.

Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: [link to edition.cnn.com]

Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. [link to i.imgur.com]

Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: [link to www.politico.com] Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.

Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook ( [link to www.google.com (secure)] ), listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well shit, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.

__________________________________________________________

I don't necessarily believe in this, but i think its good to present both sides of the story, so that people can get a more objective view on the topic.
Cleanhomes

User ID: 22228605
New Zealand
01/16/2013 07:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
There are holes all over your theories .

Check out the new YT clip floating round .. The name is changing constantly as it keeps getting taken down .

I found it at SH cons a load of proof ( expand the words out ) . If you are a spectic watch this .. Then come back and discuss what you think .

Good work tho :)
TheoristGod
User ID: 32380277
United States
01/16/2013 04:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
okay you state in your article that google has wrong dates but you never said anything about the facebook pages that were made days before the incident, facebook and google are two opposite things, you sir are full of bullshit and probably on the governments side trying to cover this up as well as possible but i have my eye on you.
Smurphy77
User ID: 32398929
United States
01/16/2013 10:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
You can also create a page with a Facebook account and put any date as the date of creation and change it at any time. Try it! I did it with mine. Your hoax evidence is just questions and not facts. There may have been false reporting by media and misinformation but your conspiracies are formed because you fail to believe that a gun owner was irresponsible and let their mentally challenged son have access to them. Your theories will get you nowhere unless you plan on opening fire on the government with your precious guns. I support ownership of guns but you "truthers" are claiming that not only are all the parents of victims actors, but the children and community as a whole is all in on it. The government has enough power to push any agenda with out staging a fake shooting that a whole community is in on. Get a life.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32398929
United States
01/16/2013 10:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
You can also create a page with a Facebook account and put any date as the date of creation and change it at any time. Try it! I did it with mine. Your hoax evidence is just questions and not facts. There may have been false reporting by media and misinformation but your conspiracies are formed because you fail to believe that a gun owner was irresponsible and let their mentally challenged son have access to them. Your theories will get you nowhere unless you plan on opening fire on the government with your precious guns. I support ownership of guns but you "truthers" are claiming that not only are all the parents of victims actors, but the children and community as a whole is all in on it. The government has enough power to push any agenda with out staging a fake shooting that a whole community is in on. Get a life.
Hawk-02
Hawk-o-Holic

User ID: 897951
United States
01/16/2013 10:43 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
shill
WAR INSIDE MY HEAD.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24964115
United States
01/16/2013 11:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Go ahead, keep trying to cover it up saying its been debunked! I for one know personally one of the people that are saying was killed, got news for you dumbass, alive and well! So you go fuck yourself and quit defending the crooked ass government!!
Light to Go

User ID: 8545334
United States
01/16/2013 11:25 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
PAID SHILL
Truth Seeker
A Predatory Species of Human Animals Have Created A System That Gives Them Power & Control Over All Others.
"Eugenics is their signature, bureaucracy their cover" - John Lash
"The United States Congress is Israeli occupied territory" Patrick Buchanan

What is your agenda? Here's mine...
END DUPLICITY-Explore the Narrative

Gaia-Sophia's Correction
Gaiaspora.org
IceJunkie

User ID: 21160554
Canada
01/17/2013 12:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Definitely a shill. Probably not even getting paid. How does it feel doing others work for free? Grab some sunscreen and take a walk outside, leaving your Wi-Fi zone isn't dangerous.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Children of the Atom

User ID: 20257839
United States
01/17/2013 12:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
There are holes all over your theories .

Check out the new YT clip floating round .. The name is changing constantly as it keeps getting taken down .

I found it at SH cons a load of proof ( expand the words out ) . If you are a spectic watch this .. Then come back and discuss what you think .

Good work tho :)
 Quoting: Cleanhomes


^this...


Cause we know the Sandy Hooks story...

legit3
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8410224
United States
01/17/2013 12:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go:

First off the guy that created this video is Alex J.Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...

Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.

Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: [link to edition.cnn.com]

Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. [link to i.imgur.com]

Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: [link to www.politico.com] Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.

Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook ( [link to www.google.com (secure)] ), listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well shit, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.

__________________________________________________________

I don't necessarily believe in this, but i think its good to present both sides of the story, so that people can get a more objective view on the topic.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31145264


You are a fucking idiot.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25028055
United States
01/17/2013 12:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Go ahead, keep trying to cover it up saying its been debunked! I for one know personally one of the people that are saying was killed, got news for you dumbass, alive and well! So you go fuck yourself and quit defending the crooked ass government!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24964115


Tell us what you know.


If the media says the man is dead and he is not, were is he now, and what does HE think of everything happening?
Holden
User ID: 29226394
United States
01/17/2013 12:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Thanks OP. Every single point in the cideo can be debunked or explained.



Does anyone else have any concrete evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was anything other than the official story?

NO I DIDNT THINK SO.


What has been done with this incident can be done with 100% of incidents that would receive this much attention and involve this many people.


The conspiracy here is that this incident is being exploited for ulterior political motives - ie. people control/ rights infringement.
UseLess RepEATER
Those who know the least obey the best: G.F.

User ID: 31123477
United States
01/17/2013 12:50 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Allow me to be the first to hoist the:

bsflag
Real Eyes, Realize, Real Lies
~U.R.~

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
~H. L. Mencken~

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
~Plato~

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations,
the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
~Dresden James~
TruthNow88

User ID: 28724521
Canada
01/17/2013 02:36 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go:

First off the guy that created this video is Alex J.Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...

Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.

Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: [link to edition.cnn.com]

Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. [link to i.imgur.com]

Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: [link to www.politico.com] Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.

Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook ( [link to www.google.com (secure)] ), listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well shit, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.

__________________________________________________________

I don't necessarily believe in this, but i think its good to present both sides of the story, so that people can get a more objective view on the topic.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31145264


1. That is actually not 100% correct and is more of an assumption people have made. Fact is that multiple people were detained that day and the parent you speak of (Chris Manfredonia) was only one of them, but he was not the only one detained that day (he was detained shortly after police first arrived at the scene).

The man found in the woods and brought to the (front) of the police car (several minutes later) was...

According to a reliable local law enforcement source...
A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source.

[link to newtownbee.com]
(this mans name was never publicly released)

Him being in the front of the car starting to make a bit more sense now (as you joke about credentials)? I think the poor assumption by people here is that only 1 person was detained/questioned that day. This is how the media is portraying it for the most part, and because of this deserves attention.

2. People simply question the gun situation as it has changed MULTIPLE times for being such a static factor (no real reason for any confusion). Also the fact that the story changed via the MSM to NO AR USED (4 pistols) after the medical examiner stated that all the wounds he say were caused by an AR. The police feed from that day also states "Be advised we have multiple weapons, including longun(s) & shotgun(s)" which currently goes against the official story being told (yet came from first arriving on scene police). The MSM for the most part has over time changed back to the AR story (+2 pistols), but the fact they reported tons of different variations of weapons, contradict original on scene reports, and still in some cases can't get their facts straight about such a static detail days/weeks after the event deserves attention.

3. I think the main issue with the nurse (Sarah Cox) that people have, is not necessarily that she is not in the database (which may or may not be true... haven't cared to check myself yet), but instead that her story has changed over time (2 different unique experiences when seeing the gunman) & her story doesn't match the official stated timeline of events as she says she was hiding in the school for ~4 hours after the event, while officially the school was locked down, and fully searched within the first few minutes (her not being found for 4 hours makes no sense). Inconsistencies & oddities are common signs of spotting a lie (ask any cop), so the fact that people question a persons story when it changes or has oddities shouldn't be a surprise. The fact that simply questioning these inconsistencies/oddities gets people called nuts, while never actually getting the question answered, deserves attention.

4. I somewhat agree that it is proof of nothing, but does seem odd / out of place. The main issue with this is not only HIS reaction to this event, but the majority of family members shown on the MSM. The McDonalds, Sotos, Parkers just to name a few, all seem way to cheerful and positive with no physical signs of wear. You may see people at a funeral lightly laugh or break a smile... but you can still see the wear in their face... you cant hide that. Also most funerals you have been at were likely not for 6-7 year old children, or the victims of a mass murder. Again I agree it isn't definite proof of anything, but again this same "lack of real emotion" appears in a lot of cases surrounding this event (if there are real emotions being shown the MSM sure is going out of its way to avoid showing that evidence to the masses) and because of that, this deserves attention.

5. I agree with this, that Emilie Parker was not seen with Obama after the event. Fade overs can be very misleading to the eye and can make close matches look like identical matches. I believe the girl with Obama was in fact the middle daughter (Madeline) as if you do the same fade over from a slightly different angle it matches her just the same (which I did try).

That being said I have a lot of issues with the Parker family photo used in that comparison/fade over which should be the real question. The question is, where is Madeline's (far left daughter) legs in this (from what we are told) completely legit and real family photo? This alone should raise questions... again I am not saying it means anything... I am just saying people should get an explanation for something like this that seems off and doesn't have any logical answer.

[link to www.facebook.com]
This picture use to be posted everywhere but now is VERY hard to find. Don't believe me? go try to find it yourself using google images (It was originally posted by the Telegraph.co.uk but I misplaced the link, if I find it (higher res) I will replace the link).

Coincidentally (of course) most the other versions of this picture still online are posted like this...
[link to www.ctvnews.ca]
With the bottom conveniently cropped off

OR

Like this with some random image/word covering most of the part in question.
[link to pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com]

As an add on I figured I would also bring up the Soto Class picture which contains another impossibility without some form of photo alteration being involved.
[link to www.nypost.com]
Notice directly to the left of the boy in the blue/white striped shirt is a light vertical shadow (Tan colored). The issue is directly to the left of his elbow, it overlaps a darker background shadow. The issue is the vertical shadow isn't transparent at this point... Again people wonder why things are being questioned?

Just saying they act like they are shocked people are questioning anomalies, yet no one seems to be giving any explanation for them in any regards. I work with Photoshop quite a bit so I can easily spot these editing errors and because of these natural impossibilities with pictures that were/are posted on major MSM sites, I believe this deserves attention.

6. This is likely true, but have you noticed that 99% of all footage of the event (photo & video) do not show much ambulance response? My point is if there was a massive ambulance response, then the MSM sure as hell went out of its way to avoid showing any evidence of it (other then a few small scatter pieces... 99% of all others show next to no response). The fact that this part of the story (ambulances) seems almost un-witnessed via media (photo/video) itself should draw suspicion (even if there was in fact large emergency response the MSM sure is going out of its way to make it seem like there wasn't for the most part (by showing VERY little evidence of it in 99% of all pictures)). The fact there is such lacking photo/video evidence (for the most part) of this hard to miss response taking place (whether it did or not) in the MSM seems odd, and because of this deserves attention.

7. I agree the timestamp theories are poisoning the well. I work in SEO and know the online world quite well and understand how (Static) timestamps vs (dynamic) content works (not just on Google, but social media, blogs and general websites as well (twitter is a bit more complex, but tweets can originate from other sites/platforms which are editable, and when done using this method even tweet timestamps can be effected the same way)). I could myself replicate any of these seemingly pre-dated Sandy Hook examples using any of the platforms used (facebook, twitter, youtube, viemo, blogs, comments blah blah blah). I do however understand that for this to happen you have to intentionally go back to a previously posted piece of content (that you control) and alter it (instead of posting it as new), to make it overwrite the old data with updated (Sandy Hook) data, while keeping the old original timestamp (to appear to be pre-dated). The fact that this has to be done purposefully, and was done ON MASS using a HUGE AMOUNT of different sites (literally tons) makes me think this was done intentionally, specifically to gain traction via the conspiracy world to later be debunked (to make us look bad). Because of how small a chance that this could be done so wide spread by accident, I feel it stands out as VERY odd, and therefor deserves attention.


Basically in conclusion I just want to point out something most people don't seem to be mentioning much (whether you believe in a conspiracy at Sandy Hook or not)... However you look at it, the MSM are presenting the info/media about the event in such a way to force people to ask question (tons of inconsistency, tons of oddities, tons of coincidences...) to make people come to various different conclusions of what happened that day (depending on what combination of MSM they absorbed)... then at the same time are turning around and saying anyone that questions anything to do with this event is mentally ill. No matter what you feel happened that day this should stick with you no matter what... The MSM has done everything they can to MAKE people question this event, while at the same time calling those people mentally ill... and I think that is far from an accident (I think the legal term is "entrapment"). Some might not understand what I mean just yet, but you might in time.

Problem, reaction, solution.

Last Edited by TruthNow88 on 01/17/2013 10:00 PM
"Fuck the American regime change policy... Pardon me... I mean fuck our gift of democracy!"
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
[link to soundcloud.com (secure)]
TruthNow88

User ID: 28724521
Canada
01/17/2013 03:33 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Also here is a coincidence you won't hear much on the nightly news.

~9am-10am | Dec 14, 2012 | Putnam County/Carmel, CT
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 team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school...
[link to southeast.patch.com]

9am-4pm | Dec 14, 2012 | Bridgeport, CT
"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 address the unique needs of children prior to, during and following disasters. 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."
[link to www.ct.gov]
"Fuck the American regime change policy... Pardon me... I mean fuck our gift of democracy!"
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
[link to soundcloud.com (secure)]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4222154
United States
01/17/2013 04:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
"It wont be long before the bottom falls out of Sandy Hook because "we" conspiracy theorists are about to show hard core EVIDENCE that will destroy the "conspiracy" by replacing the "theory" with cold hard PROOF."


Can't wait... vindication
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15064108
Romania
01/17/2013 04:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
shill
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32374823
Australia
01/17/2013 04:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
debunk fail..try again sorry
Stickywicket

User ID: 24551634
01/17/2013 05:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go:

First off the guy that created this video is Alex J.Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...

Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.

Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: [link to edition.cnn.com]

Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. [link to i.imgur.com]

Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: [link to www.politico.com] Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.

Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook ( [link to www.google.com (secure)] ), listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well shit, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.

__________________________________________________________

I don't necessarily believe in this, but i think its good to present both sides of the story, so that people can get a more objective view on the topic.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31145264


1. That is actually not 100% correct and is more of an assumption people have made. Fact is that multiple people were detained that day and the parent you speak of (Chris Manfredonia) was only one of them, but he was not the only one detained that day (he was detained shortly after police first arrived at the scene).

The man found in the woods and brought to the (front) of the police car (several minutes later) was...

According to a reliable local law enforcement source...
A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source.

[link to newtownbee.com]
(this mans name was never publicly released)

Him being in the front of the car starting to make a bit more sense now (as you joke about credentials)? I think the poor assumption by people here is that only 1 person was detained/questioned that day. This is how the media is portraying it for the most part, and because of this deserves attention.

2. People simply question the gun situation as it has changed MULTIPLE times for being such a static factor (no real reason for any confusion). Also the fact that the story changed via the MSM to NO AR USED (4 pistols) after the medical examiner stated that all the wounds he say were caused by an AR. The police feed from that day also states "Be advised we have multiple weapons, including longun(s) & shotgun(s)" which currently goes against the official story being told (yet came from first arriving on scene police). The MSM for the most part has over time changed back to the AR story (+2 pistols), but the fact they reported tons of different variations of weapons, contradict original on scene reports, and still in some cases can't get their facts straight about such a static detail days/weeks after the event deserves attention.

3. I think the main issue with the nurse (Sarah Cox) that people have, is not necessarily that she is not in the database (which may or may not be true... haven't cared to check myself yet), but instead that her story has changed over time (2 different unique experiences when seeing the gunman) & her story doesn't match the official stated timeline of events as she says she was hiding in the school for ~4 hours after the event, while officially the school was locked down, and fully searched within the first few minutes (her not being found for 4 hours makes no sense). Inconsistencies & oddities are common signs of spotting a lie (ask any cop), so the fact that people question a persons story when it changes or has oddities shouldn't be a surprise. The fact that simply questioning these inconsistencies/oddities gets people called nuts, while never actually getting the question answered, deserves attention.

4. I somewhat agree that it is proof of nothing, but does seem odd / out of place. The main issue with this is not only HIS reaction to this event, but the majority of family members shown on the MSM. The McDonalds, Sotos, Parkers just to name a few, all seem way to cheerful and positive with no physical signs of wear. You may see people at a funeral lightly laugh or break a smile... but you can still see the wear in their face... you cant hide that. Also most funerals you have been at were likely not for 6-7 year old children, or the victims of a mass murder. Again I agree it isn't definite proof of anything, but again this same "lack of real emotion" appears in a lot of cases surrounding this event (if there are real emotions being shown the MSM sure is going out of its way to avoid showing that evidence to the masses) and because of that, this deserves attention.

5. I agree with this, that Emilie Parker was not seen with Obama after the event. Fade overs can be very misleading to the eye and can make close matches look like identical matches. I believe the girl with Obama was in fact the middle daughter (Madeline) as if you do the same fade over from a slightly different angle it matches her just the same (which I did try).

That being said I have a lot of issues with the Parker family photo used in that comparison/fade over which should be the real question. The question is, where is Madeline's (far left daughter) legs in this (from what we are told) completely legit and real family photo? This alone should raise questions... again I am not saying it means anything... I am just saying people should get an explanation for something like this that seems off and doesn't have any logical answer.

Sorry for the shitty link with small picture...
[link to ruthiedean.com]
This picture use to be posted everywhere but now is VERY hard to find. Don't believe me? go try to find it yourself using google images (It was originally posted by the Telegraph.co.uk but I misplaced the link, if I find it (higher res) I will replace the link).

Coincidentally (of course) most the other versions of this picture still online are posted like this...
[link to www.ctvnews.ca]
With the bottom conveniently cropped off

OR

Like this with some random image/word covering most of the part in question.
[link to pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com]

As an add on I figured I would also bring up the Soto Class picture which contains another impossibility without some form of photo alteration being involved.
[link to www.nypost.com]
Notice directly to the left of the boy in the blue/white striped shirt is a light vertical shadow (Tan colored). The issue is directly to the left of his elbow, it overlaps a darker background shadow. The issue is the vertical shadow isn't transparent at this point... Again people wonder why things are being questioned?

Just saying they act like they are shocked people are questioning anomalies, yet no one seems to be giving any explanation for them in any regards. I work with Photoshop quite a bit so I can easily spot these editing errors and because of these natural impossibilities with pictures that were/are posted on major MSM sites, I believe this deserves attention.

6. This is likely true, but have you noticed that 99% of all footage of the event (photo & video) do not show much ambulance response? My point is if there was a massive ambulance response, then the MSM sure as hell went out of its way to avoid showing any evidence of it (other then a few small scatter pieces... 99% of all others show next to no response). The fact that this part of the story (ambulances) seems almost un-witnessed via media (photo/video) itself should draw suspicion (even if there was in fact large emergency response the MSM sure is going out of its way to make it seem like there wasn't for the most part (by showing VERY little evidence of it in 99% of all pictures)). The fact there is such lacking photo/video evidence (for the most part) of this hard to miss response taking place (whether it did or not) in the MSM seems odd, and because of this deserves attention.

7. I agree the timestamp theories are poisoning the well. I work in SEO and know the online world quite well and understand how (Static) timestamps vs (dynamic) content works (not just on Google, but social media, blogs and general websites as well (twitter is a bit more complex, but tweets can originate from other sites/platforms which are editable, and when done using this method even tweet timestamps can be effected the same way)). I could myself replicate any of these seemingly pre-dated Sandy Hook examples using any of the platforms used (facebook, twitter, youtube, viemo, blogs, comments blah blah blah). I do however understand that for this to happen you have to intentionally go back to a previously posted piece of content (that you control) and alter it (instead of posting it as new), to make it overwrite the old data with updated (Sandy Hook) data, while keeping the old original timestamp (to appear to be pre-dated). The fact that this has to be done purposefully, and was done ON MASS using a HUGE AMOUNT of different sites (literally tons) makes me think this was done intentionally, specifically to gain traction via the conspiracy world to later be debunked (to make us look bad). Because of how small a chance that this could be done so wide spread by accident, I feel it stands out as VERY odd, and therefor deserves attention.


Basically in conclusion I just want to point out something most people don't seem to be mentioning much (whether you believe in a conspiracy at Sandy Hook or not)... However you look at it, the MSM are presenting the info/media about the event in such a way to force people to ask question (tons of inconsistency, tons of oddities, tons of coincidences...) to make people come to various different conclusions of what happened that day (depending on what combination of MSM they absorbed)... then at the same time are turning around and saying anyone that questions anything to do with this event is mentally ill. No matter what you feel happened that day this should stick with you no matter what... The MSM has done everything they can to MAKE people question this event, while at the same time calling those people mentally ill... and I think that is far from an accident (I think the legal term is "entrapment"). Some might not understand what I mean just yet, but you might in time.

Problem, reaction, solution.
 Quoting: TruthNow88


This is excellent analysis. I can't really add much more except that in regards to Sally Cox: one big problem is that an idiot female reporter from Channel 2 News mentioned that the school nurse "met eyes" with the gunman (She never said this in her live interview) and also that she knew Adam Lanza's mother to be a "loving kindergarten teacher". As far as I've learned, Nancy Lanza did NOT teach at Sandy Hook and may not have ever been a teacher anywhere. Where did this reporter get her misinformation? It seems to be geared towards creating a motive to connect the gunman with the school.
Shill super shiffer
User ID: 29256639
Netherlands
01/17/2013 06:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
I sniff a shill here ... were? were?

Oh look it's the OP!!

These posts do not belong at this site!
Ban the @#$%^& idiot!

When there is so much proof Sandy Hook is actually Sandy Hoax!!
Why would you want to debunk the fact tha Sany Hoax was a staged scene?
Only if you get paid to do so!!

Shiff Shifffff

Yes it's clear to me...

I SMELL A SHILL here.


ps... OP get lost! go do a Lemming at a 400 ft cliff!

bsflag
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 31145264
Slovenia
01/17/2013 08:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Since no one has really taken the time to debunk this here you go:

First off the guy that created this video is Alex J.Now that that's out of the way let's look at the content of the video...

Theory 1: The first thing the video tries to allege is that there is a second shooter. They love to grab early media footage and then use that as "evidence" of their claims, as if the media's first reporting is somehow golden. Odd that conspiracy theorists distrust the media, then turn around and use its raw reporting claims as evidence. Anyway, you can easily google and figure out who the guy in the woods was.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

He is the father of a student there and the athletic director at the highschool. He was on his way to the school to help make gingerbread houses with 1st graders when he heard the shots. He was unarmed, arrested, detained, questioned, and let go. The story of the guy in the woods was a dead end, so the media dropped it. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle, they will report any lead they get before sorting out facts. However, this is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

The video even makes the ridiculous claim that since the guy was sitting in the FRONT of the police car, that he must have some "crazy" credentials. Yeah, what is more likely...that this guy was a concerned father or that he was a man with some "crazy" credentials on a black ops mission to shoot up a school but he just didn't have the skills to properly vacate, and so he ended up getting himself captured by lowly local law enforcement, AND broadcast on national tv, potentially exposing his super secret black op? C'mon.

Theory 2: The gun discrepancy. This can be chalked up to contradictory reporting, which is going to happen when the media competes with itself to be the first one to break any new details. There have already been articles clearing up the discrepancies: [link to edition.cnn.com]

Theory 3: The nurse is fake and does not exist. This is completely false, and has been debunked with evidence: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Theory 4: The laughing/crying father. This means absolutely nothing. No one can judge how a father copes with the loss of his daughter, and it's offensive that people are criticizing him for it. I have been to several funerals, I have witnessed family members and friends switch in and out of laughter and tears. They think of fond memories of the one they lost, they tell stories, they laugh, and they cry. People grieve in different ways. We do not have the right to criticize his reaction, and it's not evidence of a conspiracy.

Theory 5: Emillie Parker is not dead. This is the most absurd thing I have seen so far in the video. The video alleges not only that the girl is not dead, but that the parents were so stupid they brought out the wrong sister for the photo op. What? Do people honestly believe that? [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] It's a picture of her sister. Obviously. They look alike because, you know, they're sister's. This guy uses the same photoshop trick as the conspiracy video and gets the same effect. [link to i.imgur.com]

Theory 6: One piece of footage of the crime scene does not show many ambulances and shows no children. The author claims this means this was all staged. He goes on to say that only one ambulance was there the whole time and they quickly blocked off all exits. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, there are several pictures of multiple ambulances: [link to www.politico.com] Secondly, this footage that the videos author is commenting on is likely taken well after the shooting took place, which easily explains why there aren't a bunch of ambulances around and no one is panicking. More things taken out of context because they fit the authors narrative.

Theory 7: Time stamps on the webpage set up for donations state the page was created before the shootings took place. Google search results do not always accurately reflect the date the content was published. Example) Here is a date restrictive search of sandy hook ( [link to www.google.com (secure)] ), listing all articles that appear to be published before the shooting took place. Well shit, according to google this there are articles and videos from these dates talking about the shooting: Jan 14, 2012 , Jun 19, 2012 , Sept 16, 2012 ..well before the shooting took place. Debunked.

__________________________________________________________

I don't necessarily believe in this, but i think its good to present both sides of the story, so that people can get a more objective view on the topic.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31145264


1. That is actually not 100% correct and is more of an assumption people have made. Fact is that multiple people were detained that day and the parent you speak of (Chris Manfredonia) was only one of them, but he was not the only one detained that day (he was detained shortly after police first arrived at the scene).

The man found in the woods and brought to the (front) of the police car (several minutes later) was...

According to a reliable local law enforcement source...
A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source.

[link to newtownbee.com]
(this mans name was never publicly released)

Him being in the front of the car starting to make a bit more sense now (as you joke about credentials)? I think the poor assumption by people here is that only 1 person was detained/questioned that day. This is how the media is portraying it for the most part, and because of this deserves attention.

2. People simply question the gun situation as it has changed MULTIPLE times for being such a static factor (no real reason for any confusion). Also the fact that the story changed via the MSM to NO AR USED (4 pistols) after the medical examiner stated that all the wounds he say were caused by an AR. The police feed from that day also states "Be advised we have multiple weapons, including longun(s) & shotgun(s)" which currently goes against the official story being told (yet came from first arriving on scene police). The MSM for the most part has over time changed back to the AR story (+2 pistols), but the fact they reported tons of different variations of weapons, contradict original on scene reports, and still in some cases can't get their facts straight about such a static detail days/weeks after the event deserves attention.

3. I think the main issue with the nurse (Sarah Cox) that people have, is not necessarily that she is not in the database (which may or may not be true... haven't cared to check myself yet), but instead that her story has changed over time (2 different unique experiences when seeing the gunman) & her story doesn't match the official stated timeline of events as she says she was hiding in the school for ~4 hours after the event, while officially the school was locked down, and fully searched within the first few minutes (her not being found for 4 hours makes no sense). Inconsistencies & oddities are common signs of spotting a lie (ask any cop), so the fact that people question a persons story when it changes or has oddities shouldn't be a surprise. The fact that simply questioning these inconsistencies/oddities gets people called nuts, while never actually getting the question answered, deserves attention.

4. I somewhat agree that it is proof of nothing, but does seem odd / out of place. The main issue with this is not only HIS reaction to this event, but the majority of family members shown on the MSM. The McDonalds, Sotos, Parkers just to name a few, all seem way to cheerful and positive with no physical signs of wear. You may see people at a funeral lightly laugh or break a smile... but you can still see the wear in their face... you cant hide that. Also most funerals you have been at were likely not for 6-7 year old children, or the victims of a mass murder. Again I agree it isn't definite proof of anything, but again this same "lack of real emotion" appears in a lot of cases surrounding this event (if there are real emotions being shown the MSM sure is going out of its way to avoid showing that evidence to the masses) and because of that, this deserves attention.

5. I agree with this, that Emilie Parker was not seen with Obama after the event. Fade overs can be very misleading to the eye and can make close matches look like identical matches. I believe the girl with Obama was in fact the middle daughter (Madeline) as if you do the same fade over from a slightly different angle it matches her just the same (which I did try).

That being said I have a lot of issues with the Parker family photo used in that comparison/fade over which should be the real question. The question is, where is Madeline's (far left daughter) legs in this (from what we are told) completely legit and real family photo? This alone should raise questions... again I am not saying it means anything... I am just saying people should get an explanation for something like this that seems off and doesn't have any logical answer.

Sorry for the shitty link with small picture...
[link to ruthiedean.com]
This picture use to be posted everywhere but now is VERY hard to find. Don't believe me? go try to find it yourself using google images (It was originally posted by the Telegraph.co.uk but I misplaced the link, if I find it (higher res) I will replace the link).

Coincidentally (of course) most the other versions of this picture still online are posted like this...
[link to www.ctvnews.ca]
With the bottom conveniently cropped off

OR

Like this with some random image/word covering most of the part in question.
[link to pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com]

As an add on I figured I would also bring up the Soto Class picture which contains another impossibility without some form of photo alteration being involved.
[link to www.nypost.com]
Notice directly to the left of the boy in the blue/white striped shirt is a light vertical shadow (Tan colored). The issue is directly to the left of his elbow, it overlaps a darker background shadow. The issue is the vertical shadow isn't transparent at this point... Again people wonder why things are being questioned?

Just saying they act like they are shocked people are questioning anomalies, yet no one seems to be giving any explanation for them in any regards. I work with Photoshop quite a bit so I can easily spot these editing errors and because of these natural impossibilities with pictures that were/are posted on major MSM sites, I believe this deserves attention.

6. This is likely true, but have you noticed that 99% of all footage of the event (photo & video) do not show much ambulance response? My point is if there was a massive ambulance response, then the MSM sure as hell went out of its way to avoid showing any evidence of it (other then a few small scatter pieces... 99% of all others show next to no response). The fact that this part of the story (ambulances) seems almost un-witnessed via media (photo/video) itself should draw suspicion (even if there was in fact large emergency response the MSM sure is going out of its way to make it seem like there wasn't for the most part (by showing VERY little evidence of it in 99% of all pictures)). The fact there is such lacking photo/video evidence (for the most part) of this hard to miss response taking place (whether it did or not) in the MSM seems odd, and because of this deserves attention.

7. I agree the timestamp theories are poisoning the well. I work in SEO and know the online world quite well and understand how (Static) timestamps vs (dynamic) content works (not just on Google, but social media, blogs and general websites as well (twitter is a bit more complex, but tweets can originate from other sites/platforms which are editable, and when done using this method even tweet timestamps can be effected the same way)). I could myself replicate any of these seemingly pre-dated Sandy Hook examples using any of the platforms used (facebook, twitter, youtube, viemo, blogs, comments blah blah blah). I do however understand that for this to happen you have to intentionally go back to a previously posted piece of content (that you control) and alter it (instead of posting it as new), to make it overwrite the old data with updated (Sandy Hook) data, while keeping the old original timestamp (to appear to be pre-dated). The fact that this has to be done purposefully, and was done ON MASS using a HUGE AMOUNT of different sites (literally tons) makes me think this was done intentionally, specifically to gain traction via the conspiracy world to later be debunked (to make us look bad). Because of how small a chance that this could be done so wide spread by accident, I feel it stands out as VERY odd, and therefor deserves attention.


Basically in conclusion I just want to point out something most people don't seem to be mentioning much (whether you believe in a conspiracy at Sandy Hook or not)... However you look at it, the MSM are presenting the info/media about the event in such a way to force people to ask question (tons of inconsistency, tons of oddities, tons of coincidences...) to make people come to various different conclusions of what happened that day (depending on what combination of MSM they absorbed)... then at the same time are turning around and saying anyone that questions anything to do with this event is mentally ill. No matter what you feel happened that day this should stick with you no matter what... The MSM has done everything they can to MAKE people question this event, while at the same time calling those people mentally ill... and I think that is far from an accident (I think the legal term is "entrapment"). Some might not understand what I mean just yet, but you might in time.

Problem, reaction, solution.
 Quoting: TruthNow88

The last paragraph is undoubtedly true. The problem i have with lets say your analysis of that photo is that the vertical shadow could from an overhead light striking an edge above or smth...i am no expert and wouldn't know..thats what i mean..we conspiracy theories need experts, like we had with 9/11 where engineers etc. were on our side
Me
User ID: 29050924
United States
01/17/2013 04:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Explain the FEMA and homeland security simulation for children in disasters or whatever it was 20 minutes from the school, set for the same day as the shooting from 9 am to 4 pm..look it up...it's on their website
Da fuq

User ID: 16258666
United States
01/17/2013 04:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
siren2shillsiren2ogrrr
Medical Examiner
User ID: 32459388
United States
01/17/2013 04:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
What about the nut of a medical examiner?
Me
User ID: 29050924
United States
01/17/2013 04:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
So the autopsy report said that there were wounds from a 223 rifle...how?when the weapon was in the trunk and not taken out until that night. The media screwed that up??? Plzzzzz use your brain
emanuelG

User ID: 32432594
Germany
01/17/2013 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
What an ingenious "Medical Examiner" !
How can the "medical examiner" make 26 qualified autopsies at the alledged place of the murder within hours and nevertheless be so funny? I think an autopsy should need some time and instruments in an appropriate environment. He seems to be a genius who is worth his salary of 300k$/year !
KaratHead
User ID: 16322190
United States
01/17/2013 04:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
I truly believe that this will get exposed for what it really is. Jesse's argument about the government pulling it off without problems is a joke. To compare JFK to a school shooting is totally different. Also, we had more intelligent government back then. Now, the government thinks it intelligent, but they are just a bunch of spoon fed egotistical power hogs.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 54970
United States
01/17/2013 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
https: // www. google. com/ search?q="sandy%20hook"%20shooting&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=uMD​tUPLKMYnyigLN_4DYDg&ved=0CCEQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_m​in:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/12/2012&tbm=

[link to www.google.com (secure)]

Look at the query "cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/12/2012" and then go to google and search for "sandy hook" shooting and you get different results.

Now, take the original URL query and make some date changes. Try this one,
https: // www. google. com/ search?q="sandy%20hook"%20shooting&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=uMD​tUPLKMYnyigLN_4DYDg&ved=0CCEQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_m​in:1/1/2011,cd_max:12/12/2011&tbm=

[link to www.google.com (secure)]

Get the picture? The query is controlling the date displayed on the results page.

DEBUNKED!
oohboy
User ID: 32462543
United States
01/17/2013 05:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
I guess my questions are these...

1. Does anyone remember Columbine? There wasn't just local police there. There was a swat team there and they were ushering children out of the school lines at a time. We saw blood spatter, we saw devestation, we saw people in motion, and we hear of people giving CPR and trying to stop the bleeding.
At Sandy Hook six children out ran a semi automatic weapon? After seeing their teacher get shot? They were composed enough to report this without being scared and parents allowed these interviews to take place?

2. Adam Lanza was such an accurate shot that he managed to kill with 100% accuracy and there was absolutely no hope for any of the victims?

3. None of the adults that were spared tried to save any of the poor, defenseless children who had been taken down? After the gunman shot the Principle and the other person next to her, none of the people in the office dragged them into the office after the gunman had gone into the classrooms to see if they could be saved?

4. Nothing in real time was reported other than chasing the secondary gunman, which was shown on CNN.

5. At Columbine we saw victims being wheeled out on stretchers, with sheets covering them if they were dead and with medical teams working on them if they weren't. Why didn't we see this at Sandy Hook? And why were the only responders who were there a small town local police force??
mindless drones
User ID: 32464546
01/17/2013 06:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunking the Sandy hook conspiracy video, point-by-point
Seriously folks until you provide this so called indisputable proof you all seem to have and will “show the whole country” you come across as the Shill you so aptly want to scream . It as if you have never heard of the media whores not getting their facts straight before reporting it because they are looking to one up the next station in order to get viewers. You make it out to be that the media got there before the police & have all the footage of everything that happened but this is simply not true & if you have a brain cell inside that small cranium of yours you might figure this out on your own. Might their simply be no ambulances because the amount of survivors did not call for them & the fact that it takes a little more time to actually properly record a crime scene of this magnitude before removing the corpses. Tell you what I will bask in your all knowing glory when you offer me more proof then the child like expose you have provided at this point. Your lack of any intelligent responses other than “fucking liar”, “shill”, etc. just proves to me how desperate you are to make a conspiracy out of anything with such little evidence other than some questionable interviews, supposed photo shopped material & anything else you can cling to in order to make you believe the BS you are actually shoveling. I am sure even if they released autopsy photos or crime scene photos of this you would still find a way to disclaim them as forged and supplied by our Gov. If you spent half the time used trying to disclaim this event, towards Something actually productive the internet would be much more intelligent if only for one day. Don’t bother responding since you are all obviously delusional & seeking the attention mommy & daddy or the kids at school didn’t provide you as a child. GET A LIFE!!!! Come back at me with some proof otherwise all you have is say it with me A Conspiracy and that’s all you will ever have until then. I think we can see who the real puppets are & I don’t have no string coming out of my back so I guess we can see where that leaves you.

News