Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31145264
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.
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
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.