Sandy Hook: Half real and half fake.

Really? I thought his mom stated his whole lower jaw was blown off?? IDK just asking since that is what she stated in an interview

Long time residents were killed. Short termer--recent "immigrants" with paid off mortgages (or "renting"--while living with--i.e. Phelpses, from Chinese adult males) were not.

I can guarantee it wasn't who she said it was.

Mortuary facial reconstruction is an art.

OK, let's try again...maybe one or two sets of "parents" would act in this very odd way (i.e. making crying noises, and scrunching up their faces LIKE they were crying, but NOT PRODUCING ANY TEARS) but you are saying it is possible that ALL OF THEM reacted that way, and then went off asking for gun control.

One chance in a million...if you ask me.

LOL...I guess so!!!

Bump this FOR SURE!

"While the students were still dead in the school ID was made by photograph."
- It is *extremely* unusual to ID a murder victim merely by postmortem photograph when the body is available. This is especially true in cases where the body is fresh or well preserved, as is purported to be the case here. Making photographic ID in lieu of eyewitness inspection is a practice generally proscribed by the N.A.M.E., and directly contravenes the mandates generally found in state handbooks on death investigation and certification (as is the case here, in West Virginia). Regardless of whether the victim is young, old, infant or infirm, or what the manner of death may be, the ID needs to be done by visual inspection of the body. What sane medical examiner would allow the bodies to rot in a school building until early the next morning, and accept positive IDs without any physical/visual inspection of the remains? What parent would stand for that? What would be the reason for doing that with *any* body, let alone those that did not sustain significant cranio-facial trauma?

"But the bodies were returned to the parents for burial who were then able to look at them."
- How do you know this?

"I don't think..."
Yes, that seems to be the case.

"...you could have fooled 20 sets of parents with fake bodies."
- Why would you need to? How do you know that there are 20 sets of parents who accepted the remains of children and positively identified them in confirmation of any photographic IDs previously submitted to the ME?

"That's a fairly inane suggestion"
- You need to look up the word, "inane."

I find it amusing that people still wish to rationalize these irregularities and explain them away by treating them in isolation. This may marginally helps to lessen the appearance of incongruence exhibited by many of the abnormalities that appear in the record, but it shows little real concern for truth and honesty. When one looks at the entire collective of oddities reported in relation to this event, the air seems to become fetid, as something definitely stinks here.

"[T]he claim that the families are faking their grief..."
- Is one that is not generally being made. What I find is that people are generally noticing how the families of little children who were purported to have been suddenly and viciously butchered are found laughing, smiling, and glowing about it as they pony themselves up to the media shortly thereafter. In fact, I find the most common criticism of these purported family members is that they are not showing any real grief at all (no tears, etc.), not that their non-existent displays and paroxysms are being faked (noticing the non-incidence of something is not the same as claiming that it is being faked, as you probably well know). As such, your analysis would promise to be poorly focused at best, and most likely irrelevant.

"Therefore, the family members of the Sandy Hook victims must be actors!!"
-Ah, the good ol' straw man argument in its finest form! No, I do not purport that folks whom I have seen acting in a manner absolutely irreconcilable to the proposition that they lost their children in an act of savage slaughter just shortly beforehand constitutes conclusive proof that they are actors(although, I admit that observing this for only 10-15 seconds, let alone 10-15 minutes, stands as compelling evidence all by itself). You see, even after seeing these odd exhibitions, I was not ready to accept the claim that actors were used at Sandy Hook, simply because that claim seemed so extreme and extraordinary. What convinced me was the experience of seeing people identified by the media as surviving family members appear online with published resumes and photo albums under completely different names and stated identities. Reluctant as I was to believe it, I had to concede to the absolute visual and documentary evidence appearing before my eyes. So, at least to the extent where it addresses me and most of the people I have encountered, you must remove the "Therefore" from your above snippet in order to avoid having it distort the argument.

"IMHO, there are some significant flaws in this argument."
-I would agree, but unfortunately it appears that you are the only one making it (rather disingenuously, I might add).

What logical explanation do you believe you have proffered? Can it be found somewhere in this thread? If not, can you direct us to it elsewhere?

Also, why would you want to suspend the requirement for proof of outlandish conspiracy theories? I simply cannot agree with you, as that certainly offends my empirical sensibilities.

The proof is all around you. We are drowning in!

WAKE UP!!!!!!

Noooo-- YOU all are drowning under waves of conjecture, assumptions, other people's assumptions from EDITED information....but NO PROOF! You couldnt prosecute a single person with what you all have right now...

for sure...

and not only pro-gun people agree
[link to www.imagebam.com]

Robbie,

You got your money, now go away...

Including Adam Lanza.

OK, I will concede that it is a bit strange if someone is making crying noises and scrunching their faces but not producing any tears.

Has anyone compiled a list of whom we've seen do this and in which videos?

Not a complete list, but we can start one:

Barack Hussein Obama
Robbie Parker
Neil Heslin
Krista Lehmann Rekos
Gene Rosen
The McDonnel Family may be the most obvious:
[link to www.youtube.com]

Reporters on the scene have, as far as I know, provided no information, and neither have police. The suspects have disappeared down the memory hole.

Then we have these television interviews with families of the victims.

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

It’s astounding. Parents are smiling. They’re actors from Central Casting? One thing is for sure. They’re androids, if you measure their responses against reports of what happened in the Sandy Hook School.

And as androids, they’re only matched by the TV reporters who are interviewing them.

If you’re tempted to say the parents and family members are in shock, or they’re reacting to being on television, forget it. Their attitudes don’t match a massacre by any stretch of the imagination.

Found at: [link to jonrappoport.wordpress.com]

There is no denying the evidence in the above post. LOOK AT THE VIDEOS and just add these others to the list I started.

You're right. "The families are faking their grief" may not be the best way to phrase things. Maybe something like, "The families aren't grief-stricken enough" would work better.





I know that somebody found the linkedin page for a Robby Parker in Utah. While I agree that he looks similar to Emilie's father in his linkedin photo, I'm not convinced that he's the same person.

Have possible separate identities been found for other surviving family members as well?

YES...

"Nick and Laura Phelps" are really Richard and Jennifer Greenberg Sexton

"Rachel D'Avino" is related to the Greenberg family.

Vicki Soto's cousin (male) is a member of the same family.

"Nurse Cox" is really Carrie(Sp.) Turner of "X-Files" Episode 7, season five.

I'm sure there are several others...but that's a start for ya...

bump

you need to provide some proof...links even--otherwise BS flag is gonna go up.

Found at: [link to jonrappoport.wordpress.com]


What guidebook are you using for your claims? Is there such a book out that describes what is appropriate grieving? How many days should a person cry? How many days to wait to do an interview? Where can I find such a book?
Who are YOU or anyone to decide what is normal grieving? The one interview with the woman with the short blond hair..why was the audio silenced? Because the EDITOR of that video--didnt want all of us to hear what the mother was actually saying...she was smiling because she was reminiscing--that is humans do it sometimes. Just because you say you dont or wouldnt doesnt mean others follow suit with you. I watched interview with family of principal--and guess what? 2 of them WERE CRYING!!! 1 was the only blood related child, the other was her husband...But I am sorry--you wont believe me cuz in the video--the camera guy never zoomed in close enough to sse the pores of their skin!!--So you ASSUME they are faking. This is what is stupid here--all the ASSUMPTIONS --with NO PROOF.

really--please show us all here your GUARANTEE. We would love to see it.

Rob you are a totally discredited buffoon. No one cares about your arguments because they are childish and circular.

Do your self a favor, and stop embarrassing yourself and just go away.

Robbie's been busted. Robbie's been busted. Robbie's been busted!!!!!

Go away, Robbie.

You posted that bogus thread pretending to be a Newton resident with a female friend who saw on of the victim children on their lawn early in the morning.

And now....

Robbie's been busted. Robbie's been busted. Robbie's been busted!!!!!

Go away, Robbie.

Kick me off of here if you will..so much for free speech, eh?

my experiment worked proving just how easily biased, and easy to manipulate that you "truthers" are. It is sad--I had no proof--nothing...just made up a few statements--and most bit hard...That is what happens when you have your mind made up on something. Even if the parents and authorities themselves came out debunking--most of you STILL would not believe. I proved you all sooo biased. You took what I said with NO PROOF--one person almost got me on the air--with NO PROOF...LOL--Thank you for proving my point to the many people that have been following me and watching me do this.

You folded as soon as the radio host called your bluff and asked if you would come on the air. I bet he knew you wouldnt. You were the one who got so easily busted, Rob.

What a fruit cake.

Does anyone know if intentionally posting disinformation can get you banned? Just curious what the \"rules\" are around here....