its spreading like a virus across the net that the father of sandyhook killer was to testify in the libor scandal.
that makes two libor fathers of mentally ill kids that mass murdered.
some are saying sorcha fal started it but that doesnt mean its not true.
what do yall think?
Link?
google it ,i dont have a way to provide a link.really? one reply?
Its out there for someone with background check subscriptions, which I dont have as of now..the names and addresses never lie.
Ive heard the theory, yet noone has provided smoking gun level prooof yet.
Heresay for now...
Heres a tidbit, Pimander!
http://www.examiner.com/article/libor-scandal-grows-as-the-fathers-of-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify
Quote"The father of Newtown Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza who is a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO. Both men were to testify before the US Sentate in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. 16 international banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. HSBC has already been fined $1.9 billion and three of their low level traders arrested.
thankyou le.
Thank you Le. Robomont, the web cripple, can't pull any real information here on his own. :P
Quote from: robomont on December 17, 2012, 06:33:46 AM
some are saying sorcha fal started it but that doesnt mean its not true.
If Sorcha Faal started it, then it's not true, as Sorcha Faal stories are made of (usually) three real pieces of information "glued" together with fabricated connections to make a (usually) good story.
ouch pimander.ill try to be more sensitive around your ilk.
And then, there is this. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/newtown-libor-hunger-games-theories.php)
I'd be examining anything found at Examiner.com a little closer. Is TPM any more credible? After all, they are muckrackers. ;D
more here i dont understand?
http://usahitman.com/shrbm/ (http://usahitman.com/shrbm/)
LOL ROBO you just get served? web cripple LOL LOL
yea p man duh has a sharp wit about him.
Quote from: robomont on December 18, 2012, 11:31:17 PM
yea p man duh has a sharp wit about him.
LOL clever, haha glad you can take a joke pal.
Anyone else catch this? :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrRcgB581w
Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 19, 2012, 12:11:03 AM
Anyone else catch this? :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrRcgB581w
WTF, I dont believe this. What in the hell.
Umm +1 to that...
Quote"I'm not mad because I have my agency to make sure I use this event to do what I can to do whatever I can."
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/15/robby-parker-father-of-6-year-old-victim-emilie-parker-speaks-out-on-shooting-i-am-not-angry/ (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/15/robby-parker-father-of-6-year-old-victim-emilie-parker-speaks-out-on-shooting-i-am-not-angry/)
He should have yanked out a few nostral hairs to help him try and well up the tears. He sucks as an actor.
shock maybe? people do react strange when bad stuff goes down and it dont get much
worse than losing a daughter to a gunman.
>:( I am thinking that this might be the way to look at these shooting by a supposed "lone nut " !! This explanation is worn out as far as I am concerned. It worked back in the 60's but I just can't swallow it any more . Not after what I believe to be the most likely culprit:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/
This whole thing is really really puzzling to me.
I admit that there are a lot of oddities and coincidences that make it look suspicious that it is a false flag.
However, prove me wrong, but I do not believe that the whole school, let alone the town is in on this thing. Children don't lie well, and if they say their friends were killed along with teachers, I believe them.
For now, I am going to give the father the benefit of doubt. Ever been through a funeral line? Sometimes things are said that make people laugh as their focus is off the deceased for a while. It is odd I agree.
I know that it was reported that the parents were not allowed to see their kids after the event, but surely they would have seen them at the funeral homes.
I am very suspicious of events that help move the agenda of the government, but I just don't see how and why this would all be staged.
Mind control on shooter, second shooter, perhaps, but people are dead, and the town is in mourning. At times the internet seems like The National Enquirer.
This is not to offend anyones posts on here or other forums. Just stating my opinion.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/foghrn-1.jpg)
there is a Raging debate going on over at ats about how this just does not add up.
even some of the kids reported dead may be alive and well.
I know this is messed up but this could be a psyop on us all check out these pic's
of emilie before and after the shooting and the boy with obama is said to be another
kid that was reported as dead.
http://usahitman.com/apwdepfv/ (http://usahitman.com/apwdepfv/)
Thoughts,and i know it's a hard subject to post on but this really is getting insane.
I can imagine our shadowy government being willing to stage something like this..and why not, they pulled off 9/11 without much ado.
Im not choosing sides, but theres too many things popping up to ignore..got my fence pillow though..going to sit it out a bit more..but the Emilie pictures seem to me that the girl with Obama is not Emilie..but the one to her right in the family picture. Look at the hair parting..Emilie's is more to the side. And a family with numerous children will share clothes between kids sometimes..happens all the time.
Over here on the fence...
Le
i was reading that ats stuff too.
the thing about the guy in the woods being the owner of lanzas car.weird stuff
Have you another pillow for that fence LE?
Just when I have convinced myself that this not a conspiracy, some other tidbit is dug up that makes me rethink everything.
Since we are after the truth and our job is to do the research before making final judgement, I thought I would add this interesting theory put forth on GLP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S59IXI9g6VE
Here is an interesting theory. Fodder to chew on anyways.
It clearly says "end the life of Adam". I know this because my headset by default is crazy loud and when I turn up the volume to full that "whisper" is basically a scream and it is very clear what he says.
Which brings up A LOT of questions about the official story (which already stinks about as bad as it gets)... remember everybody at first (including police) though the suspect was his brother Ryan due to the ID on the body being the only way at the time to identify the body (as the school altercation story involving Adam was retracted as it never happened... nobody at the school knew who Adam was).
I personally feel the man on the police scanner that says "Standby units in front of the school, we're conducting an interior search at this time. End the life of Adam." is the guy they found at the back of the school (in the woods, wearing camo pants and a black jacket which was detained by police as described by on scene witnesses) who's job I feel it was to keep the 2 "operatives" inside (which were both on duty police) up to date about the "other" police presence on scene in real-time... how many and where (keep in mind early responders were lacking at first... the majority of police didn't arrive for ~15 more minutes, at this point they only had a small number of police inside the school and another small group covering the front entrance).
So basically the way I see it from start to end...
There were at least 4 people total involved in this. Adam the patsy, 2 operatives (which are on duty "first responding" police on scene before the shooting), and the lookout/cleaner (which is to pass as a innocent by standard after the fact).
The basic jist of how i see it going down...
The lookout/cleaner arrives at the school before the shooting, he gains access to the school interior (possibly even hours earlier... hes in no rush as he will never be a suspect in the end (see later) so is likely buzzed in legitimately by school employees well before the shooting occurs for a valid reason). His first job is to open the "BACK" door of the school at a scheduled time. At the back of the school is 1 operative (dressed in a black jacket, camo pants & a mask) which is with the patsy Adam, and 2 of the 4 guns tied to this crime in some way (1 of the pistols and the AR). Operate 1 and Adam the patsy make their way into the school via the back entrance which the lookout/cleaner opens for them. The lookout/cleaner then waits by the back door with the patsy Adam, while operative 1 goes and waits outside the first target classroom for his signal (the front door breech).
At the same time operative 2 (also dressed in a black jacket, camo pants & a mask) forces his way into the front entrance of the school using 1 of the 2 remaining weapon (most likely the shotgun due to the entrance door glass being broken even though it was reinforced to withstand bullets). He then uses the pistol to shoot at the administrative staff (including the principle) killing/wounding several people. While this is occurring Operative 1 (hearing the signal) then goes into the first target classroom and using the AR shoots as many of the children as he can, and then moves to the 2nd target classroom and does the same. Meanwhile operative 2 (the one that forces his way through the front door) makes his way through the school to meet up with the other operative, the lookout/cleaner and the patsy in the hallway near the target classrooms.
Operative 1 then takes off his black jacket, camo pants & mask (he is wearing a police uniform under it) and puts it on the patsy Adam. Operative 2 takes off his black jacket, camo pants & mask (which is also wearing a police uniform under it) and gives it to the lookout/cleaner to wear (minus the mask). So now basically you have a complete switch. Adam now looks like op 1, the lookout now looks like op 2 (minus the mask)... as seen by witnesses in the school they assume it's the same person, and the 2 operatives now look like police. OK still with me?
The lookout/cleaner then takes the shotgun (which was only used to blow the front door open... which the cleaner doesn't know as he was at the back entrance at that point) and runs to Adam's mom's parked car and puts it in the trunk (assuming it wasn't needed in the crime and shouldn't be found at the actual scene... he's the cleaner it's his job is to make sure the evidence matches the crime which is what he thought he was doing). He also probably hid some other crucial evidence (such as the 2nd mask) in his own vehicle (as he will not be a suspect... I explain why later). Once the shotgun is in the trunk and all "unexplainable" evidence is "cleaned" the lookout see's the actual first responding police arriving at the scene (faster then anticipated). He then goes on the police scanner telling them that he's already inside and to "Standby units in front of the school, we're conducting an interior search at this time" making them wait at the front entrance (and are lacking manpower to surround the building as of yet). The lookout/cleaner then has to somehow signal the 2 operatives/police inside the school that everything is in place and to complete the final piece which is the death of the patsy. I feel they originally thought they would have time for the lookout/cleaner to physically run/walk back to the back entrance of the school and tell them in person after the "inconsistent" evidence was cleaned... but due to an above average first response time, was forces to do it over the airwaves (which is where the "End the life of Adam" comes in.
The 2 operatives which are now dressed as police still inside the building hear the message knowing the cleaner wasn't able to relay the message in person and that other police are already on scene use one of the pistols (the one that up to this point hadn't been used) to kill the patsy Adam Lanza and make it look somewhat convincing of a suicide. They then run away from the body through the school and act like they haven't been to that area of the school yet, and later meet up/blend in with the mass police presence which arrives a few minutes later.
Meanwhile the lookout/cleaner is just sticking around the general area (as fleeing would be more suspicious then anything), as he has nothing to worry about... the 2 first responding police (the 2 operatives which would be seen as the first police on scene) can vouch for the guy saying he wasn't part of the crime in any way (which is why he was able to be released so quickly).
-The lookout/cleaner drives away with "inconstant" evidence (extra masks, possibly extra gloves...) after being cleared to leave by police due to help from his 2 operative friends.
-The 2 operatives blend into the mass police presence that arrive shortly after and have a believable story to tell up to that point, to the point of even being able to sway/spin initial info due to being their first (which is possibly why originally it was reported to be was his brother Ryan... which would be a good stall tactic (especially since they just said "End the life of Adam" minutes before on the police scanner...)
-The patsy is found dead from apparent suicide dressed the same as the actual killer(s) & the 3 guns used are found with the body as expected (minus the shotgun thing which I honestly thing was an oversight on their part). From an eyewitnesses standpoint everything would "appear" to be correct... A perfect crime... well almost.
Just my 2 cent...
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2089725/pg1
so who were the first responders and were they members of the masons?
Quote from: micjer on December 22, 2012, 01:50:39 PM
It clearly says "end the life of Adam".
Not that clearly, it doesn't sound like that to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5umy69QAmE
That confirms what I said before, it doesn't sound like "end the life of Adam".
Now this nice gentlemen is telling us to only believe MSM and what he is willing to tell us. Do not think for yourself or believe any social media stories.
Hmmmmmm.....if he is so adament about this, what is he hiding?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4CT4boLPrU
Quote from: ArMaP on December 22, 2012, 06:14:43 PM
That confirms what I said before, it doesn't sound like "end the life of Adam".
I can make out "life of Adam". First two words I agree that I am not sure either.
Quote from: micjer on December 22, 2012, 06:15:47 PM
Hmmmmmm.....if he is so adament about this, what is he hiding?
Not only that, in what way can things published in social media sites that can be considered outside state law (or whatever his expression was)?
Edit: I downloaded that short clip, extracted the sound and played it on Audacity, amplified and slowed down (without changing pitch), and I still cannot ear "life of Adam", and it sounds like the first word is "aim", not end.
Quote from: micjer on December 22, 2012, 06:15:47 PM
Now this nice gentlemen is telling us to only believe MSM and what he is willing to tell us. Do not think for yourself or believe any social media stories.
Hmmmmmm.....if he is so adament about this, what is he hiding?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4CT4boLPrU
Misinformation? And will be prosecuted. Is he out of his friggin mind. So what about people outside the states posting on FB or other social media sites.
Okay, if your going to prosecute people for free speech, maybe you can prosecute the murderers of 9/11, the Aurora shootings, this school shooting, the covert black ops people et al who had a hand in all of the above and then put your own arse in gaol for stuff as well. Free speech is free speech idiot, get it through your head.
Now go back and eat some more doughnuts. You havent go a clue whats going on anyway. You haven't got the appropriate classification.
MICJER is that your work that theory?
if so have you considered linking it in ATS? do you want to? or is it not allowed?
I just think it would fetch some traffic over here (i am thinking on the lines of the bring on the trolls thread)
it is a really good theory and i know people in any forum posting on sandy hook would be impressed.
just a thought. i still visit ats but not as much as i used too,There are something really fishy about sandy hook
Could it be just one massive psyop using actors ?
It was actually a theory put forth by a poster on Godlike Productions. The link to the thread is above.
I thought it made a lot of sense so I posted it here. So I can't take the credit.
Oh ok mate. GLP eh, well i wont bother doing out with it then as that is one touchy site!
they hate anything being taken away from them.
just mention the word TAVISTOCK and poof ya out the door!
nice find though.
At 30:15 into the video link posted below, an officer asks for a license plate to be run.
"872 YEO"
Then at 30:40 Dispatch comes on and spells his name - Christopher A. Rodia. It's a bit garbled but then gives his birth date Aug 6 '69.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ETkrxfYoQtc#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETkrxfYoQtc
There is a Christopher A. Rodia in Connecticut, born in 1969. If you Google his name you will find an article from February 2012 about him stealing copper
Article
Here's a video of the police taking a gun out of the trunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wLrxSgkqJQc#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxSgkqJQc
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/car-1_zps1713f379.jpg)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread911460/pg1
I am not convinced that there were no body killed. Here is a summary written on ATS that I am in agreement with so I thought I would paste it here.
QuoteClaim 1) The entire event was staged, no one died.
answer)The first thing that needs to be answered with this claim is something that has been outright ignored, many times, by those who make the claims. How does it possibly make sense that some 'agency' would decide to create this event, and would decide it was a better option to stage the entire thing, that is, have 28 fake dead people, many more family members, and hundreds of responders, all in on it, than it would be to have a merc go in and actually do it, thus creating an ACTUAL event?
IF this is some conspiracy, there is absolutely NO logical argument as to why they would fake it instead of having somebody actually do it. Why leave a trail of people who know it is fake, when you could just send a merc in to do it?
Claim 2) The parents are actors:
Answer) Simple, no, they are not. There is ZERO evidence to support this claim. The best that they have is a video of Emilie Parker's father smiling before he goes on camera. People who support this claim obviously have no experience with grief. They obviously have no experience in a tragic situation. Being in a tragic situation does not mean that one does not try to find single moments where they can smile. It does not mean that they cannot laugh at a joke. It does not mean they cannot give a nervous smile before addressing a tv crowd of millions. And that is not to mention that it is HEAVILY documented that a smile is often an involuntary reaction in times of grief.
Furthermore, the 'getting into character' argument holds no water. Any person with even the slightest acting training can tell you this. An actor does not wait until seconds before they start talking to get into character, especially when they know the camera is already on. Very basic stuff.
Claim 3)We saw no bodies, so it must be a movie set.
Answer) Does this really even need to be answered? Do you expect them to trot dead children out there for the whole world, and their families, to see?
Claim 4) Emilie Parker appears in a picture with obama after her death.
Answer) No, she doesnt. There is NOTHING about that picture that proves that Emilie Parker is still alive. What is proven, is that her siblings look a lot like her, and we KNOW they have matching dresses. There is not one single bit of evidence to prove that that picture is Emilie Parker.
Clam 5)Nobody on here knows anyone affected by that day.
Answer)False. I do. Others have stated as much as well.
Claim 6)Sotos facebook page already existed:
Answer: False. Even the creator of the page says flat out that it was a page that was re-appropriated to the topic after the fact.
Claim 7)LIBOR scandal
Answer: Two words: Sorcha Faal.
Any others that need to be added to the list?
[/b][/i]
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread911460/pg1
Has noone seen this... http://wellaware1.com/fairfield.htm
Or this...
(http://wellaware1.com/artwork/large/shooting_hoax.jpg)
anyhooo.....
Le
Though I failed to keep all the links, I have looked over everything I could find on Sandy Hook and have come away with the impression that it was a "drill," a hoax, a psyop - like Columbine, like Aurora, Oregon, and many more (9/11, anyOne?) and there are no dead.
In one piece a guy did a search for the Lanzas and came up with family linkage for Mom, Dad, and Ryan Lanza - each listed the others as relatives. But none made any mention of Adam Lanza.
The fact that the media KNEW the mom was dead...reporting Her dead at the school and being a teacher there...and later the police claim Her dead at Her home.
And the whole Dark Knight connection. Yeah. It's geared to elicit an emotional response and make Us willingly disarm Ourselves against Their tyranny, encroaching and more in place, day by day.
Quote from: Littleenki on December 25, 2012, 04:03:08 AM
Has noone seen this... http://wellaware1.com/fairfield.htm
That's so ridiculous is not even funny.
Agreed.
I am certain the father is not Tony Hawk. A little too obvious. Why not get George Clooney? lol
Quote from: ArMaP on December 25, 2012, 12:16:57 PM
That's so ridiculous is not even funny.
Exactly, ArMaP! That graphic is from the same guy who did that All in the Family video Amy posted recently..hes quite insane Im sure...
Goes to show how insane the people we spend our lives with all around us really are!
I'm sorry. Guess I'm "insane." I can see exactly what He is pointing out. That "pastor" sure sounds and looks like Matthew Broderick - and if *I* was trying to manipulate the "plebes," if *I* had all this money, if *I* controlled the media and Hollywood... If *I* was psychopathic.....
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would pull. Make up "news" to play on People's heartstrings. To instill fear so as to promote Self-disarming.
Quite interesting the fervor with which the effort to require, legally, that news offer REAL news was fought by so many in the industry.....
Youre not insane Amy, but did you look at the whole site www.wellaware1.com?
It rolls from the top into a quagmire of reaching comparisons..he might be right about 1 or 2 of them, but not most.
And yes, the dude is clearly not all there...not that some of the best minds are any more "there" but his site shows a serious paranoid tendency to construct things where they are not.
Im no Squirrel, but I knows a nut when I see one!
Quote from: Littleenki on December 25, 2012, 04:55:43 PM
Exactly, ArMaP! That graphic is from the same guy who did that All in the Family video Amy posted recently..hes quite insane Im sure...
I didn't watch the video, I ignored it, as I usually do. ;D
I hate videos, most of them are just a waste of time. :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:33:47 PM
That "pastor" sure sounds and looks like Matthew Broderick - and if *I* was trying to manipulate the "plebes," if *I* had all this money, if *I* controlled the media and Hollywood... If *I* was psychopathic.....
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would pull. Make up "news" to play on People's heartstrings. To instill fear so as to promote Self-disarming.
Would you make this with known people that could be easily recognised by any person in the world?
Quote from: Littleenki on December 25, 2012, 07:06:22 PM
Youre not insane Amy, but did you look at the whole site www.wellaware1.com?
It rolls from the top into a quagmire of reaching comparisons..he might be right about 1 or 2 of them, but not most.
And yes, the dude is clearly not all there...not that some of the best minds are any more "there" but his site shows a serious paranoid tendency to construct things where they are not.
Im no Squirrel, but I knows a nut when I see one!
Oh, I don't think He is spot on in every connection He makes - just enough of them, and especially in the "Family exposed" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js9cvBOUms4&list=PL44EA00FAAA799428 ) piece - for Me to see patterns and motives and logic behind the "drills," hoaxes, psyops.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 25, 2012, 07:56:26 PM
Would you make this with known people that could be easily recognised by any person in the world?
ArMaP, They laugh at us. When an actor is presented as, say, a doctor or a policeperson, or whatever, on the news, MOST of Us - whether We know the actor in other roles or not - WILL NOT SEE anyOne We know. We see the doctor or policeperson or whatever and never think twice. Especially with makeup, prosthetics, costumes, lighting and camera lenses/angles creating a different "look" for Them.
They RELY on this for Their ruses. And They laugh, They laugh HARD at how "stupid" We are.
Oh and HERE's an interesting post over at Conspiracy.Co:
http://www.conspiracy.co/forums/main-wall/13071-sandy-hook-victim-allison-wyatt-really-girl-named-lily.html
(http://oi50.tinypic.com/15ceo8w.jpg)
BUT... I'm sure the taking of a child's pic from the web and posting it as one of the dead kids isn't a clue here.....
Well Amy, I agree theres something rotten in Connecticut, perhaps the time will tell.
Personally, I belive the shooting was not as it is presented, but Im still not sure in what way...just that it is possible whether it happened or not, it was a false flag.
People will reach and look for every possible clue or bit of evidence, and thats real good, to out the evil running our country we need every tidbit and fact we can find.
The FB post above is very disturbing...Ill read more about that today! Hope you had a peaceful holiday!
Cheers!
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 26, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
ArMaP, They laugh at us. When an actor is presented as, say, a doctor or a policeperson, or whatever, on the news, MOST of Us - whether We know the actor in other roles or not - WILL NOT SEE anyOne We know. We see the doctor or policeperson or whatever and never think twice.
Then things are worse than I thought, as those people have lost one of the characteristics that all human beings have, the capacity of recognising faces.
QuoteThey RELY on this for Their ruses. And They laugh, They laugh HARD at how "stupid" We are.
If people react like you said then they are right. :(
Quote from: Littleenki on December 26, 2012, 04:12:34 PM
Well Amy, I agree theres something rotten in Connecticut, perhaps the time will tell.
Personally, I belive the shooting was not as it is presented, but Im still not sure in what way...just that it is possible whether it happened or not, it was a false flag.
People will reach and look for every possible clue or bit of evidence, and thats real good, to out the evil running our country we need every tidbit and fact we can find.
The FB post above is very disturbing...Ill read more about that today! Hope you had a peaceful holiday!
Cheers!
Let's look at The Dark Night film and the fact that both the words "Aurora" and "Sandy Hook" are in the film, and the fact that the Aurora "shooting" took place at a showing of TDN. What are the probabilities?
If no conspiracy, if it was all "just coincidence," I would guess about 1 in 1,000,000,000 or maybe a few more zeroes at the end there. If conspiracy, about 1 to 1.
So.... Let's work out the most probable path here.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 26, 2012, 09:02:30 PM
Then things are worse than I thought, as those people have lost one of the characteristics that all human beings have, the capacity of recognising faces.
ArMaP, really? I did not recognized a close friend after not seeing Him in a few years because He grew a beard. I listed all the tricks They use. And if One is not EXPECTING the possibility of a known actor playing a PART on the NEWS...and there's makeup, prosthetics, lighting, costumes, camera lens and camera angle...the BEST One is likely to get is, "Gee, S/He kinda looks like [fill in the name]." Many People look like somebody...
Without any connection, and with trust that the news is TRUTH, when Robin Williams is introduced on the news as Joe Expert, People will not even go there. They will see Joe Expert. Have You studied psychology at all...?
QuoteIf people react like you said then they are right. :(
No. They take advantage of Our TRUST. They play Us. It's not that We're stupid. It's that THEY hold ALL the cards. They have build this facade of "reality," inculcating Us from birth. We are at a HUGE disadvantage. To assume that is "stupidity..." Well, You know what They say about assuming...
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 26, 2012, 12:22:07 PM
BUT... I'm sure the taking of a child's pic from the web and posting it as one of the dead kids isn't a clue here.....
I guess that's what that guy from the police (or whatever) was talking about, people posting any photo as if it was a photo of one of the victims.
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 26, 2012, 11:27:04 PM
Without any connection, and with trust that the news is TRUTH, when Robin Williams is introduced on the news as Joe Expert, People will not even go there. They will see Joe Expert. Have You studied psychology at all...?
As I said once, as much as I studied English, by looking and listening to other people. :)
QuoteNo. They take advantage of Our TRUST. They play Us. It's not that We're stupid. It's that THEY hold ALL the cards.
That's more than trust, that's blind faith and has nothing to do with anyone "holding all the cards", it's (probably) because the people stopped thinking a long time ago, maybe falling for all of the "dangers" that they supposedly face and from which TPTB supposedly protect them.
QuoteThey have build this facade of "reality," inculcating Us from birth. We are at a HUGE disadvantage.
I don't understand what disadvantage is that, sorry.
QuoteTo assume that is "stupidity..."
If actions made by people that are supposed to know what they are doing, that are supposed to know right from wrong, that are supposed to be informed, that are supposed to know how to get informed, that are supposed to know that we do not live in an ideal world result in making their life's worse and they keep on doing it (or not changing the things they do) and repeating the same mistakes without learning a thing from those mistakes, what would you call it?
QuoteWell, You know what They say about assuming...
Yes, I know, and I think it's a stupid saying that only works in English, so I can say it in Portuguese. ;)
Quote from: Littleenki on December 26, 2012, 04:12:34 PM
Well Amy, I agree theres something rotten in Connecticut, perhaps the time will tell.
I think the Batman shooting was false flag, 100%. This one I'm not sure about, because I haven't really looked into it. I'm also trying to be a little more open minded to the idea that maybe it was just a disturbed kid who did "go off," if only for the sake of objectivity, this time around. I still don't really believe that, though; because to me, that is no explanation at all. It's a non-explanation.
The main thing that is bothering me about these incidents, is that while there are nearly always elements that don't add up, the majority don't want to know about those. They want to believe the government's story, to ignore anything about the events which don't make sense, and will even actively tell those who are thinking about it more deeply, to shut up and stop doing so.
Adam Lanza's doctor..thanks lady!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMB3JOjpLqM
Another suspicious piece of the puzzle.
ok..i've really had enough of this stupidity...really
does anyone realize that they are quoting REPORTERS
reporters are not all paid by the gov..and none i have met are infallible
that's why the reports have mistakes in them..not because the gov slipped up
in issuing the info
reporters have egos and want to be the first with ""info''?
so that they look like THE one to listen too
has anyone actually talked to some one who was there instead of just regurgitating BULLS HIT
has anyone qualified their sources ..
sure doesn't look like it
here's your psycho with insider info in another you t
the title should be enough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmO9JoW1F8
wow..now here are some ideas i haven't seen yet.. ::)
maybe old elizabeth and her croonies have found a way to tune into the loonies
and prod them into action
maybe the gun makers are paying them to do it
i mean ..look at how the gun sales have jumped since
maybe the real eye opener here is that
the gov and press or whomever wants-to are proving
that anyone who buys into this tripe has no cognitive powers and are truly
easier to control than they thought
a real bait and switch..get them scrambling to prove what doesn't exist while
the real story is happening in front of their blinders
a lot of this drivel going in circles is why the real conspiracies are discounted
what a fuXXing shame
and waste of intellect
:(
I really don't know what to believe.
All I know is that things don't add up the way the official story is told.
http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/21414148-baby-you-can-drive-my-car
The notorious car photographed leaving the scene of the Sandy Hook school shooting does NOT belong to Adam Lanza or his mother. HUH? That's right. The audio from the police radio contains the vehicle registration request and reply. The car is registered to Christopher Rodia on charges for larceny and narcotics.
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/lanza-10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=27&u=17803086)
All I know is that things don't add up the way the official story is told.
ok Mic
that is my point..
you are realaying on info that is printed..one piece of printed info contradicting a different piece of info
how do you know that picture is from the crime scene and not just a random shot of a car being towed?
how do you know ANY of the stuff is the real info and not put there to play with your brain..
or just mistakes
or just a reporter wanting credit..
you are questioning what happened not who is reporting it or how they got their "STORY"
or even if their story is correct
look at where this pic was found....do you actually think the police let their broadcasts be made public?
who posted this pic originally and how did THEY get it..?
the right questions are not being ask..imo..enough said :P
Quote from: sky otter on December 27, 2012, 04:25:03 PM
look at where this pic was found....do you actually think the police let their broadcasts be made public?
Any programmable scanner can monitor radio chatter. I do agree with the rest of what you said though. Reporters are slimey and will stoop to pretty low levels to get a story out.
Quotehow do you know that picture is from the crime scene and not just a random shot of a car being towed?
Just because the licence plate matches the request made on scanner from the day of the shooting. This is car that the shotgun was found in and the cop requested info on the tag number. Then they reported it was Adam's mother's car.
---------------------------------------------
Do you not find it all odd that this mother (2 min mark) is content to not see her child that is in the casket? Frig me I would be lifting the lid to make sure it was my child in there. Call me crazy if you want for questioning this act, but where there is smoke there is fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8&feature=youtu.be
i would like names of all associates connected to the murderers ,especially the names of mental health counselors.
reporters use to have class,now they are as low as lawyers.
yes,this story like many we get from the msm ,are just big clusters of trash.
no followups on stories.
Quote from: robomont on December 27, 2012, 05:24:00 PM
i would like names of all associates connected to the murderers ,especially the names of mental health counselors.
reporters use to have class,now they are as low as lawyers.
yes,this story like many we get from the msm ,are just big clusters of trash.
no followups on stories.
I propose the idea that there is no follow-up because there is nothing to follow up ON. If the whole story is just that, a STORY, written and contrived for mass consumption as "truth," there is no follow up to do, unless someOne writes and directs a "follow-up." For the most part, They won't because the initial "story" did its emotional dirty work and no "follow-up" is needed.
Quote from: micjer on December 27, 2012, 04:56:02 PM
Just because the licence plate matches the request made on scanner from the day of the shooting. This is car that the shotgun was found in and the cop requested info on the tag number. Then they reported it was Adam's mother's car.
---------------------------------------------
Do you not find it all odd that this mother (2 min mark) is content to not see her child that is in the casket? Frig me I would be lifting the lid to make sure it was my child in there. Call me crazy if you want for questioning this act, but where there is smoke there is fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8&feature=youtu.be
So would I Mic, I wouldnt trust anyone that tells me my child was killed at a school and then wouldnt let me see her or him.
I mean a relative can always go in and id the child if its supposed to be too graphic. This stinks to high heaven. Again treated like mushrooms, fed bullshit.
Quote from: Littleenki on December 27, 2012, 12:48:25 PM
Another suspicious piece of the puzzle.
Not that suspicious, it looks more like someone trying to get their piece of the media pie.
all the emotion just looks so fake! it's actually creepy to watch people who have supposedly
just lost there sister or child put on this "act" of really trying to cry etc. something is very wrong
with this event.
That guy who had the kids on his lawn is just weird. people do not behave like that in real life imo.
i understand what Sky Otter is saying. We are analyzing what the media has told us and have found many many holes in their reporting. They have really screwed this up whether on purpose or not I am not sure.
So what is the truth???
Was this simply a one man show as is being suggested.
Or are there 3 to 4 involved with one taking the hit.
Or is this a bigger play involving a larger group. (I am not saying government either)
This may have nothing to do with it, but it is kinda interesting, considering there was a link to Adam regarding Satanic cult he was tied to.
What is the Church of Satan and How Do I Get Involved
The Church of Satan was founded by Dr. Anton Szandor LaVey, April 30th
1966 c.e. It was the first church based on the celebration of carnal
indulgences and pursuit of material happiness and success. (In
contrast to "spiritual enlightenment" and union with "God"). It was
literally meant as an eye-opener for those who would choose to cast
out false morality and blind faith, so to see with their own eyes and
think with their own minds, so that the human race could grow more
aware of itself rather than being clouded in self-righteous,
hypocritical deceit.
It continues on....
http://www.satanservice.org/theory/coscm.txt
Now the freaky part.....
If you would like to recieve an official information packet on our
Church of Satan outpost in Connecticut, (AKA Church of Tiamat) or if
you have questions, write to:
Curtis M. LeBlanc [zdervish@gnn.com]
PO Box 3184 Newtown, CT 06470
Also doesn't this seem a little weird.
Connecticut was running FEMA drills in small towns around Newton involving small children in Nov and December. Here is the link.
http://www.ctemscouncils.org/downloads/FEMAL366.pdf
http://www.ct.gov/demhs/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=CAC9C6C9CD83CDC9C7
Hmm...well if they had drills going on perhaps the had a few actors in the mix...
http://crisisactors.org/video/run-hide-fight-surviving-an-active-shooter-event (http://crisisactors.org/video/run-hide-fight-surviving-an-active-shooter-event)
Excellent finds, MicJer, and Ellirium..theres some dirty dealing behind this Im almost certain, the evil runs very, very deep in these circles...
Government involvement, mixed in with private groups? Sounds just like how our independent contractors such as Hallliburton and Blackwater operate...shady indeed!
Those who still think it was a random act, must not have good noses, or smell the sh!t smell in our local and national governments.
As for actors..there are numerous companies offering this service, Ive dealt with them as far as working training lifeguards on the beach..always helps to have someone who is really nasty and overweight to show them what deadweight and bad breath can be like when doing CPR!
These guys and gals can act I tell you!
More and more coming out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhpN4WWUuPc
Good points all,
The Government has no legal standing to deny parents
the opportunity to view/identify their very own children.
That alone is extremely suspect.
I dont believe Adam could have carried the reported
ammo, his small frame...and in conjunuction with that
over load acted so quickly alone.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 09, 2013, 02:00:54 AM
More and more coming out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhpN4WWUuPc
Wow great find. Disgusting the lies and corruption that goes on.
He is right look at the date.
Sandy Hook Elementary School Tribute - Newtown, CT on Vimeo
? 4:38? 4:38
vimeo.com/53220123
Nov 10, 2012
Sandy Hook Elementary School Tribute - Newtown, CT. from Joseph Ametrano 1 month ago. Sandy Hook ...
More videos for vimeo sandy hook elementary school tribute »
Has this video been posted?
I find this rather bizarre. How did this happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAsVmzBX8F0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAsVmzBX8F0
Woman's Daughter's Photo used for Sandy Hook
Shooting "Victim" ...
???
http://www.dailypaul.com/268669/claims-daughter-s-photo-was-stolen-from-flicker-and-used-as-sandy-hook-shooting-victim
Quote from: micjer on January 09, 2013, 04:21:34 AM
He is right look at the date.
Sandy Hook Elementary School Tribute - Newtown, CT on Vimeo
? 4:38? 4:38
vimeo.com/53220123
Nov 10, 2012
Sandy Hook Elementary School Tribute - Newtown, CT. from Joseph Ametrano 1 month ago. Sandy Hook ...
More videos for vimeo sandy hook elementary school tribute »
I don't post videos - - - but, I would like to ask, can video postings be edited for content corrections after posting? IE, could anyone have come back and edited the content from something else, to the Sandy Hook stuff, and left the date as original??
Just wondering!
One thing I have wondered about from the beginning - The Feds (I believe) were the first to search the shooter's house and computer stuff. I personally was very suspect when it was "announced" that the "shooter had trashed/destroyed" his hard drive. My thought was that possibly others would have had a greater reason than the shooter for at least saying "the hard drive had been trashed"! With all that was going on for the shooter, why would he have trashed the hard drive?? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
To my knowledge, rdunk, no. Not on vids.
I'm yelling You all...if You still think there was no conspiracy here - You are bound and determined NOT to see one no matter the evidence. This whole thing is fish city!
Quote from: burntheships on January 09, 2013, 03:43:51 AM
The Government has no legal standing to deny parents
the opportunity to view/identify their very own children.
If those children have birth certificates, then unfortunately, yes it does. A birth certificate is a form of registration within the system, which says that the individual named has been handed over to the system (in whichever country) in order for the individual's literal flesh and blood to be used as collateral to pay off debt (which in reality cannot be repaid) owed by the government to the bankers, under the fractional reserve banking system.
Bottom line:- If you have a currently active birth certificate, you're screwed. They literally own you. The only way out of that, is to figure out how to revoke the birth cert; which I haven't read about yet.
Quote from: petrus4 on January 09, 2013, 11:08:24 AM
Bottom line:- If you have a currently active birth certificate, you're screwed. They literally own you. The only way out of that, is to figure out how to revoke the birth cert; which I haven't read about yet.
A death certificate?
Quote from: ArMaP on January 09, 2013, 01:39:58 PM
A death certificate?
Well, yes, Armap. That is one way, obviously; but I've seen a few in the sovereignty movement imply that they were able to do something about their birth certificate while they were still alive. It was also very strongly implied that revoking the birth certificate was the first and most important step in the process of gaining legal individual sovereignty.
Can We not ask to see where WE signed the birth certificate? And from there declare We are not obligated by any document that We did not sign?
And more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC4XmAAiIek
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 09, 2013, 06:16:36 PM
Can We not ask to see where WE signed the birth certificate? And from there declare We are not obligated by any document that We did not sign?
Irrelevent...see below:
QuoteWhen mums apply for a birth
certificate, the application is registered. The legal title of her baby is then transferred from mum to the State.
Mum is left with equitable title of her baby whom she can use for a fee – a 'use tax' – and since the property
does not belong to her, she has to treat it in the manner which the owner wants.
http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_08.pdf (http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_08.pdf)
QuoteBottom line:- If you have a currently active birth certificate, you're screwed. They literally own you. The only way out of that, is to figure out how to revoke the birth cert; which I haven't read about yet.
On the contrary...one might as well use the system against them...if you go through that .PDF in the link above Elizabeth Mary Croft shows you how. Here is an example:
QuoteWhat is going on in the 'courts' today is that the Strawman – the
government-created corporation – is being charged with a crime based upon violation of a statute. This would
be OK if we weren't being held as surety for that entity which couldn't possibly have done anything wrong
because it exists only in the minds of those who would confiscate our freedom. We cannot be charged by
the state with any crime because all crimes are commercial .... and Commerce is an unreal situation in which
we cannot involve ourselves because we are real. Fictions cannot connect with living souls; fictions cannot do
anything which requires a meeting of the minds, e.g.: contract, or any of the senses of a living soul – hearing,
seeing, thinking. Our use of the Strawman is to enable us to operate in Commerce. It is exigent that we learn
how to do this so that we can begin to win by publicly 'discharging debt' and privately, by 'serving'. We
were never meant to operate in commerce.
The legal use of words is vastly different from normal English usage, the best example being when thenpresident
Bill Clinton said, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." We all laughed, yet Black's
Law Dictionary has eighteen (18) different meanings of the word 'is'. Check every document which you
think identifies you: birth certificate, driver licence, passport, voter registration, utility bills, etc. The name
which represents you is nowhere on any of them.
As fictitious entities cannot contract with natural beings, a transmitting utility is required for the
connexion. The Strawman is the transmitting utility. So all contracts are between the Strawman and the
Public entity, not between the Private living soul and a Public entity.
Renunciation of citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship)?
Irrelevant, You say? Really? How can We be held to a document We did not sign? Or is that document, by its very method of creation null?
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 10, 2013, 12:08:08 AM
Irrelevant, You say? Really? How can We be held to a document We did not sign? Or is that document, by its very method of creation null?
It is a scam contract agreed to by your own blood relatives agreeing to award you those benefits in return they sign over your servitude (for lack of a better word). The parent acts in your "best interest" as they believe this is the right thing to do. After all how else can you get a job or a drivers licence, etc.
I agree that if you did not sign up for it you should have the right to renounce your corporate entity anytime you so wish. Although there are many instances of people having played the strwaman card and won court cases, got out of debt among other things. But that is all for another thread.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on January 10, 2013, 12:53:36 AM
It is a scam contract agreed to by your own blood relatives agreeing to award you those benefits in return they sign over your servitude (for lack of a better word). The parent acts in your "best interest" as they believe this is the right thing to do. After all how else can you get a job or a drivers licence, etc.
Is there
real evidence that all that is true, or is this one of those things that everyone believes in just because it goes against the government?
Quote from: ArMaP on January 10, 2013, 01:57:58 AM
Is there real evidence that all that is true, or is this one of those things that everyone believes in just because it goes against the government?
It's a scam, ArMaP. They have made the Human race Their energy slaves via the institution of a paper about which the parents seldom are told the truth of. Had *I* known the truth when My daughter was born, I would NOT have signed it!
A scam is ANY such transaction that takes without giving full disclosure of all ramifications.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 10, 2013, 06:59:16 AM
It's a scam, ArMaP. They have made the Human race Their energy slaves via the institution of a paper about which the parents seldom are told the truth of.
Is there
real evidence that what was posted is true?
For example, what does it really mean being an "energy slaves via the institution of a paper"? Does that paper really makes a difference? What about the people that were not born in the US and don't have an US birth certificate?
Quote from: ArMaP on January 10, 2013, 01:45:17 PM
Is there real evidence that what was posted is true?
For example, what does it really mean being an "energy slaves via the institution of a paper"? Does that paper really makes a difference? What about the people that were not born in the US and don't have an US birth certificate?
Another excerpt from that .PDF file...
QuoteRegistration vs. Recording
"Registration" comes from Latin "rex, regis" etc. meaning regal. So think about what occurs to
whatever you 'register' – you hand legal title over to the Crown. When you register anything with the public,
it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with only equitable title – the right to use,
not own, and for that use you will pay a 'use' tax which is every tax, be it income, sin, sales, property, etc. as
opposed to lawful taxes – excise and impost. So that it doesn't appear that the government now owns the
property which you have registered they put it in a name which so much resembles your own that you won't
suspect it, however, the NAME is owned by the government. If you choose rather to record your legal title to
your property with the public, you maintain your status as Title Owner. This is one of the most important
things you can ever learn for the sake of your commercial affairs.
This is not just relevent to the US and Canada this is international. Always remember the language of these acts is written in legal ease and simple words may take on an entirely different meaning than what you think according to the wordplay they use and the definitions of those words according to THEM is what counts. If you do not understand the legal definitions then you can not possibly know what implications are of documents you sign.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on January 10, 2013, 04:18:49 PM
Another excerpt from that .PDF file...
I am doubting the information from that PDF file, quoting more of it doesn't help in trying to know if there is
real evidence of what is said. Anyone can make a PDF saying anything they want.
QuoteQuoteRegistration vs. Recording
"Registration" comes from Latin "rex, regis" etc. meaning regal. So think about what occurs to
whatever you 'register' – you hand legal title over to the Crown.
Not really, as anyone that speaks a Latin based language can tell you. In Portuguese, for example, "registar" (meaning registration) is not related to "reger" (to rule), and it's from this root that regis and rex come.
QuoteQuoteWhen you register anything with the public, it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with only equitable title – the right to use, not own, and for that use you will pay a 'use' tax which is every tax, be it income, sin, sales, property, etc. as opposed to lawful taxes – excise and impost.
Not true, when a newborn is registered neither he/she or the parents pay any tax for it (although they usually pay the registration service).
QuoteQuoteSo that it doesn't appear that the government now owns the property which you have registered they put it in a name which so much resembles your own that you won't suspect it, however, the NAME is owned by the government.
This part I don't understand, what does it mean the "they put it in a name which so much resembles your own" part? ??? And "the NAME is owned by the government"? ???
QuoteThis is not just relevent to the US and Canada this is international. Always remember the language of these acts is written in legal ease and simple words may take on an entirely different meaning than what you think according to the wordplay they use and the definitions of those words according to THEM is what counts.
Well, if that's true then I guess there must be hundreds or even thousands of court cases in which we can see that the definitions of the words are different from the normal legal definitions.
QuoteIf you do not understand the legal definitions then you can not possibly know what implications are of documents you sign.
True, but that doesn't mean that all that talk about registration and whatever is true either. That's why I asked if there was any real evidence, a PDF by someone I do not know doesn't mean much to me.
What about the people (me) that were born and raised on a commune and have no birth certificate.
Even though - somehow - I have enjoyed a 'License to Drive' from Washington State (acquired on my 16th birthday - signed for by adopted mother-long passed), which was 'proof of something' to get my California DL, which in turn was 'proof of something' to get my Florida DL, which WAS NOT enough to get a Georgia DL.
Georgia requires a Birth Certificate, period.
So have been driving on a Florida DL, until it expired on my birthday, 18 May 2012.
Florida now requires a Birth Certificate, period.
No, my old one doesn't count for anything :o :P...
signed:
frustrated in Georgia >:(
Thor, may I point out that when You are operating a vehicle, unless specifically for commercial purposes, You are NOT "driving." You are traveling. And We are free to travel without license.
As for ArMaP's questions... I am using simple logic. I cannot be held accountable for what OTHERS have signed - on My "behalf" or otherwise. Elirium seems to have a better handle on answers for You than do I.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 10, 2013, 10:21:03 PM
Thor, may I point out that when You are operating a vehicle, unless specifically for commercial purposes, You are NOT "driving." You are traveling. And We are free to travel without license.
As for ArMaP's questions... I am using simple logic. I cannot be held accountable for what OTHERS have signed - on My "behalf" or otherwise. Elirium seems to have a better handle on answers for You than do I.
We love you Amy, but that logic falls in line with TAP - great idea - not applicable ATM - operating a motor vehicle while traveling is
driving and requires a license.
When I had my last 'discussion' with one of Mountain City's finest regarding the subject, I did not pass go (had to be arrested because IT'S THE LAW) and went straight to Rabun County Detention Center - cuffed - only to be let go immediately on OR (I own my home) and it cost me $1200 in fines and NOBODY was interested all along the line as to the REAL problem... :P
Sorry, we digress.
HOW ABOUT GETTING BACK ON TOPIC ?
Retraction Time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p_U47N9tFY
We all remember this picture. It was said to be from a drill on another day.
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/sandy-10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=32&u=17803086)
http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/sandy-10.jpg
Well after I enlarged this video from a helicoptor that day (around the 1:25 mark), I am confident that this pic is legit. Take notice of the cars (white one on the end) and the orange cones. They do match up. If you look there are two silver vehicles parked in front of the white van on end. They do match up. Later on in the vid when there is a close up of the car with tape around it, you can see the orange cones placed on the road.
The likelihood of these cars being parked identically more than one day is very very low.
We want the truth so just adding what I found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnpBAjTap3s
Just proves pic was from that day. Nothing else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/newtown-school-shootings-first-responders-deal-with-searing-memories/2012/12/30/2ac5ba5e-5135-11e2-950a-7863a013264b_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork
Has anyone read this article in the Washington Post?
I read it and a couple of things jumped out at me.
First of all, why was the local firehall not notified with the 911 call. Here in Canada everyone (police,ambulance and fire) is notified on a call. Seems strange he heard all the sirens going by his hall and didn't know what was going on.
But here is the biggy for me.
Why were the ambulances not taking the dead out of the school? They are not considered dead until a doctor says so. A paramedic or ambulance drivers job is to get people to a hospital and work on them even if they think they are deceased. The statement that no one is coming out and to just leave the bodies in the school is totally bizarre. Think of the JFK assassination....they knew he was dead. Did they just pull over and put caution tape around his car? Of course not. They rushed him to hospital and tried to revive him.
Would not that be the reaction in a normal situation when children are found shot. Rush them to the hospital and try everything they could to help them.
Not here they just are standing around with nobody being pulled out. :wtf:
Quote from: micjer on January 11, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
Would not that be the reaction in a normal situation when children are found shot. Rush them to the hospital and try everything they could to help them.
Not here they just are standing around with nobody being pulled out. :wtf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgv39GtcJ0
It gets weirder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9in0Kk0vmIY
Published on Jan 9, 2013
Anyone who may have had questions about the placement of the words "Sandy Hook' on a map in the film 'The Dark Knight Rises', may first seek an explanation for it from the film's prop master, Scott Getzinger.
Alas, that is not possible since the man is deceased.
Scott Getzinger was from Newtown and he died in a car accident in April.
Quote from: thorfourwinds on January 11, 2013, 05:17:51 PM
It gets weirder.
I don't see that as weird. Zorgon asked in the Alex Jones thread, why all the whistleblowers are still alive. It would seem that he has his answer.
Quote from: micjer on January 11, 2013, 02:06:26 PM
We all remember this picture. It was said to be from a drill on another day.
It was? I have seen other photos from that sequence and it was obviously from that day. ???
Who said it was from a drill?
PS: nice catch on the cars positions. :)
More...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9in0Kk0vmIY
Don't know why the YT links that start with httpS will not embed, so click the link.
Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2013, 09:15:57 PM
It was? I have seen other photos from that sequence and it was obviously from that day. ???
Who said it was from a drill?
PS: nice catch on the cars positions. :)
It wasn't on here. There was some discussion on other boards about the timing, One even said it was from July. LOL Connecticut has leaves on the trees in summer!
This video has almost 4 million views!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8
There are times that law enforcement agencies do not put all the truth out there to the public. Some agencies have their different reasons. Some say they do want to give a heads up to the public regarding their response so an unsavory person would know their tactics. Some do not say anything because they have something to hide where the agency or someone in the agency made a mistake and it would make them look bad. Sometimes the culture in a particular law enforcement agency is one where a particular unit doesn't want their bosses in the agency to know a set of facts because it makes them look bad. The signs are there for these incidents but people are either not paying attention, they don't want to make a decision to tell someone, you name it. Having retired from a law enforcement agency, I have seen some of these things happen. This video of the Columbine killings is another example. After Columbine, the agency I worked for along with others began active shooter training and trained quite frequently. But anyway, watch this video about Columbine and you will see the warning signs. The three years everyone talks about Adam not being seen can be possibly explained by his "aspbergers." I have a relative that has this and he stays to himself but is extremely bright (intelligent) and very focused. Anyway listen to this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZcmVREuimI
Once you have viewed the above video, compare the situation to Sandyhook. Tell me what you think? Also notice that SOME tactics have not changed since Columbine. The tactics in Columbine regarding going into a scene was not to go in and seek out the gunman. Now after Columbine in active shooter drills they actually go into the scene and clearing rooms one at a time seeking out the shooter. You will have a staging area away from the scene and call for ambulances as needed so as not to have more casualties of first responders. Active shooter training is pretty much standard in procedures nationwide. Medical first responders are not armed and could become a casualty themselves thus complicating the response to injured people. At Sandy Hook they were still searching the woods so ambulances would stage away from the scene for safety and would be called up as needed by police once the area was made safe or was under the protection of armed police officers. ANYWAY COMPARE THE SANDY HOOK VIDEO WITH THE COLUMBINE VIDEO.
Wow, just found that in addition to the FEMA drills 20 miles from the school,
there was another drill about 25 miles down the road!
There were two drills on the same day at the same time, one 19 miles
from the school, the other one about 25 miles...
Rather bizarre, yet predictable in a way....
there were two drills on the same day,
one in Bridgeport, CT...and one in Carmel, NY Shooter Drill - Putnam County CT - December 14th, 2012 QuoteBy 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. The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriff's Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments. When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.
As information circulated about the Newtown violence, the Sheriff's Office notified school district officials in Putnam County. The Sheriff's Office and local police departments dispatched patrols to establish a security presence at area elementary schools and to augment the security already in place at most of the high schools and middle schools in the County, where deputy sheriffs are regularly assigned as school resource officers ("SROs").
http://southeast.patch.com/articles/sheriff-putnam-officials-to-talk-school-safety-this-afternoon
QuoteIronically, members of the Putnam County Emergency Response Team—a highly trained group of officers used when crises of this type occur—were training Friday in Carmel.
Sheriff Don Smith said the team members contacted officials in Connecticut and offered their assistance: "Our ERT was thanked but since the scene in Connecticut was secured in a matter of minutes, there was no need for the local police to respond."
http://www.putnamcountycourier.com/news/2012-12-13/Front_Page/Connecticut_Horror_Too_Close_To_Home.html
http://www.putnamsheriff.com/news/security-increased-putnam-schools-and-public-facilities-following-newtown-tragedy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6pUhhqkME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UsvO6B-0VY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8x6Ke43onQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekEAZtdwxM
Quote from: spacemaverick on January 15, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZcmVREuimI
Yes, Columbine was a black op. One of the earlier ones, and definitely one of their more subtle operations. Watch the surveillance footage from Michael Moore's film, though. The giveaway was actually the shooter's degree of professionalism. Whoever did it was very, very good...far too good to be a kid.
Good posts Amy and BTS..
And, even with all this evidence piling up, does anyone really think the government is going to chop off its own foot to spite it's leg?
The white house could have a video of the shooters being armed and briefed on the attack by special forces, then given the go to attack with Lanza nowhere in sight, and the result will still be absolutely nothing.
Thats the sick part of all this..they throw it out there in our faces, then slap us with it when we look twice.
Until the masses start to wake up and demand something real and immediate be done about Sandy Hook it will go down in history as just another terrible day for many..and another day in gun control history.
Sandy Hook? The obvious false flag that will go unexposed. Sad...
I tell You, Adam never existed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-9i20HESX8
Honestly, I felt the whole thing was staged from the beginning based on the administrative action taken "due" to this event. A load of crap imho.
Quote from: Littleenki on January 16, 2013, 03:13:07 AM
Until the masses start to wake up and demand something real and immediate be done about Sandy Hook it will go down in history as just another terrible day for many..and another day in gun control history.
The problem is that you've still got too many pseudoskeptical, materialistic atheists who will demand that everyone else be "reasonable," where in this case, reason is defined as taking the government entirely at its' word. I wish I understood why the atheistic model of reality was so dependent on centralised authority; whether that of the "scientific community," or the government. It is apparently irrational to dispute the decrees of large, centralised institutions, simply because they
are large, centralised institutions.
Quote from: petrus4 on January 16, 2013, 04:32:51 AM
The problem is that you've still got too many pseudoskeptical, materialistic atheists who will demand that everyone else be "reasonable," where in this case, reason is defined as taking the government entirely at its' word. I wish I understood why the atheistic model of reality was so dependent on centralised authority; whether that of the "scientific community," or the government. It is apparently irrational to dispute the decrees of large, centralised institutions, simply because they are large, centralised institutions.
Hell yes, well said!
And here is the beginning of the fallout from this made-for-TV "event:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4f2h5EiWPY
In the last paragraph of an article for the shooting (coming from the Newtown Bee) the man in the woods running from the scene was another jurisdictions SWAT officer.
http://newtownbee.com/News/2012-12-27__14-58-27/Police%20Union%20Seeks%20Funding%20For%20Trauma%20Treatment
As Shooting Probe Progresses
Police Union Seeks Funding For Trauma Treatment
By Andrew Gorosko
As police this week continued their probe into the December 14 incident involving 28 shooting deaths, including 20 first-graders and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the lawyer who represents the Newtown Police Union is seeking help from the town, state, and federal governments to extend paychecks for "three to five" town police officers who were so traumatized by the incident that they have not yet been emotionally able to return to work.
Police union lawyer Eric Brown said this week that three to five of the town police officers who responded to the crime scene have been off work and collecting sick time pay in light of their being traumatized by the school shooting incident.
However, because the town provides only ten sick days for an officer annually, those police now face the prospect of being off work without pay, Mr Brown said.
The town police department has 45 members. Mr Brown said he expects that potentially 15 town police officers could be clinically emotionally affected by their response to the incident.
Mr Brown said that workman's compensation is keyed to providing funds for people with physical injuries, not emotional injuries such as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The town government has been receptive to the plight of the police officers who have not returned to work, but the town does not have paycheck funds designated for such situations, Mr Brown said.
PTSD is an insidious long-lasting emotional condition, Mr Brown said.
Police face serious, intense situations on a daily basis, he said. But what occurred at Sandy Hook School on December 14 was something on a magnitude that could not have been imagined, he said.
Twenty first-graders and six school staff members were killed after a 20-year-old gunman shot his way into the K–4 school on Dickenson Drive and went on a shooting rampage with a military-style assault rifle.
State police, town police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the US Marshals Service this week continued their methodical probe into why Adam Lanza of 36 Yogananda Street, Sandy Hook, committed the horrific crime.
Adam Lanza had shot and killed his mother Nancy Lanza, 52, in her sleep at their home before driving to the school and going on the gunfire rampage. After police encountered him at the school, Lanza shot himself to death, bringing the total number of the dead to 28.
State police this week declined comment on their investigation into the mass murder incident. An investigatory report on what occurred, including a possible motive for the gunman's actions, is expected within several months.
Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe said he supports the police union's drive to have financial compensation provided for the police officers who are off work due to their emotional reaction to the shooting incident.
Since the shooting incident, police from other municipalities have aided Newtown police with local patrol work.
"They [other police] are done, but can be called in, as needed," he said of Newtown's ability to have other police cover local patrol work, as needed.
On Christmas, local police patrols were fully handled by police from other towns and cities, allowing town police to have the holiday off.
Chief Kehoe declined to answer questions about the police probe into the shooting incident, referring such queries to state police.
Investigation Progresses
As the police probe has progressed, some facts of the case have become clear.
According to a reliable local law enforcement source, Adam Lanza attempted to destroy all his computer equipment to prevent any tracing of his Internet usage and his electronic correspondence. It is thought that "some or most" of the computer data will be retrieved from the damaged equipment.
The source confirmed that Lanza used a Bushmaster-brand military-style semiautomatic assault rifle to kill all victims at the school. Lanza also carried two pistols.
Also, Lanza used a different rifle to kill his mother by firing four shots at her while she was in bed at home, according to the source. Adam Lanza left that rifle at Lanza residence.
Also, Lanza shot more than 100 rounds and possibly hundreds of rounds of ammunition at the school, according to the source.
Lanza was not wearing any "body armor" when the school incident occurred.
Additionally, a teacher at the school who realized what was occurring during the shooting incident crowded all of her students into a rest room adjoining her classroom and then pulled a bookcase in front of the bathroom door to obscure it from view. The people hiding in that bathroom survived.
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.
This is an article from the Newtown Bee. This was supposedly the guy that was placed in the front of the police car. Of course, we don't know how truthful this report is. Why would a police officer from another jurisdiction be there and running from the scene. More questions.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 16, 2013, 04:54:21 AM
And here is the beginning of the fallout from this made-for-TV "event:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4f2h5EiWPY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Again, it's httpS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4f2h5EiWPY
QuoteBank of America has decided that they are our lords telling us what we can and can not purchase!!!! ASK THE JEWS OF GERMANY HOW THE PROCESS BEGINS! They werent allowed to purchase things they needed/wanted either.
This was a comment on the bottom of the video.
someone else said in the video comments on youtube, that BoA didn't say that, and the video is some kind of hacked together thing to make it sound that way. i'm not fond of what the banks have been doing lately either, but falsely accusing them is not the best idea, that's for sure.
Quote from: undo11 on January 16, 2013, 01:57:59 PM
someone else said in the video comments on youtube, that BoA didn't say that, and the video is some kind of hacked together thing to make it sound that way. i'm not fond of what the banks have been doing lately either, but falsely accusing them is not the best idea, that's for sure.
Nice catch. Yep looks like video is a hoax.
Quote
My husband and I called Bank of America ourselves this morning, because we also have a credit card through the company, and we talked to a supervisor. Let the supervisor? hear the below video for themselves. The supervisor assured us that there is NO block on any of their cards to keep people from purchasing fire arms or ammo. I explained to the supervisor that about 83 thousand people have already watched this video and he was quite concerned. I guess we'll see what happens when the next bill.
Ah, well I'm glad to know this was a hoax... But I will say, it very well may have been produced by the perps of Sandy Hook Themselves. If *I* was of that ilk, I would spread fear in this way. I'd think of it.
I mean if I was in a position (and the sort) to dupe People and spread fear through made-for-TV creppola, I might get a chuckle out of spreading this rumor...
I expect a grain of truth, though. And meanwhile Obama plays the Hitler card, surrounding Himself with children as He explains WHY He is slowly disarming the populace.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 16, 2013, 06:47:27 PM
Ah, well I'm glad to know this was a hoax... But I will say, it very well may have been produced by the perps of Sandy Hook Themselves. If *I* was of that ilk, I would spread fear in this way. I'd think of it.
I mean if I was in a position (and the sort) to dupe People and spread fear through made-for-TV creppola, I might get a chuckle out of spreading this rumor...
I expect a grain of truth, though. And meanwhile Obama plays the Hitler card, surrounding Himself with children as He explains WHY He is slowly disarming the populace.
Not just children...SECRET SERVICE too. :P
QuoteFormer presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don't have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.
President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.
The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html)
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 25, 2012, 06:38:15 AM
Though I failed to keep all the links, I have looked over everything I could find on Sandy Hook and have come away with the impression that it was a "drill," a hoax, a psyop - like Columbine, like Aurora, Oregon...
Amy, could you explain what you mean by 'Oregon' being "a "drill," a hoax, a psyop"?
You do know I reside in Oregon right?, in fact about a 1/2 mile from the event?
The "numb" behavior. The suicide. All fits in the pattern of a mind-controlled individual made to create an "incident."
I see.
Thanks for the explanation.
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 16, 2013, 06:47:27 PM
I expect a grain of truth, though. And meanwhile Obama plays the Hitler card, surrounding Himself with children as He explains WHY He is slowly disarming the populace.
Hence the reason for my own grave concerns, Amaterasu. Obama is following Hitler's template; and we all know where that led.
I feel panic mixed with anticipation; and that may sound ghoulish, but those of you who have read my own equivalent to Amaterasu's TAP will know why. America is following a path that I have already foreseen. I dread the Convulsion because of how terrible it, in itself, will be; but I also look forward to it, because I long for what will come after, when humanity has finally got the fascist virus out of its' system once and for all, and we can at last move forward.
Might make a new thread for this but I thought it likely fits here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K75-dWQmII
In recent times, perhaps not since 911 or perhaps the London bombings, has there been an event that has been so heavily criticized for it hoax like nature. There is so many erroronous newstories and videos. We all the know the list far too well.
I was reading this article today, and it seems very believable.
Reliving Horror and Faint Hope at Massacre Sitehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/nyregion/horrors-of-newtown-shooting-scene-are-slow-to-fade.html?_r=1&
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/newtow10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=38&u=17803086)
http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/newtow10.jpg
QuoteNEWTOWN, Conn. — The gunfire ended; it was so quiet they could hear the broken glass and bullet casings scraping under their boots. The smell of gunpowder filled the air. The officers turned down their radios; they did not want to give away their positions if there was still a gunman present.
They found the two women first, their bodies lying on the lobby floor. Now they knew it was real. But nothing, no amount of training, could prepare them for what they found next, inside those two classrooms.
"One look, and your life was absolutely changed," said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.
con't on link..........
Anyways I got to thinking. This seems like a legitamite story and article. These cops look legit and don't come across as actors!
The whole shooting and story would have been totally believable if it were not for the reporting screwups. They would have been further off to have had a publication ban on the incident. Now they have so many cracks to fill the dam will not hold.
We really have to ask why they disclosed what they did? Why all the photos with Obama? Once again we know the list....
The reporting screwups...and the dead daughter on the lap of the pres, the uncanny resemblance of some of the characters to the Greenberg family (and to players in other "tragedies"), the "memorial" pages being posted 3 days before the event ready to take MONEY, Adam Lanza's death the day before the incident...
Yeah. I'm sure it was legit.
EDIT to add: This is just more damage control. Forgot to mention the VERY unbelievable "coroner..." The lack of tears. The getting into character of "Robbie Parker." And so on. Wonder how much some in this farce were paid.....
Quote from: Amaterasu on January 30, 2013, 07:34:27 PM
Wonder how much some in this farce were paid.....
I wonder how many saying this was a hoax were paid... :)
Well I read where this guy makes almost $300,000. per year.
What a great name for a medical examiner....Carver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeAu1PFcCBU
Have you guys seen this video? What is Gene Rosen doing walking around in circles?
Go to 3 min mark.
Isn't he supposed to be home entertaining guests at this time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtHzj1ITgHI
Yeah... VERY fishy! Here's yet MORE fish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAlAuJPizLE
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 02, 2013, 05:16:48 AM
Yeah... VERY fishy! Here's yet MORE fish!
What's the point of that video? ???
I am not so convinced that Vicki was Malia Scmidt. imo
http://www.adzimafuneralhome.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=1875890&fh_id=10346
QuoteVictoria "Vicki" Leigh Soto, age 27, of Stratford, cherished daughter of Carlos and Donna (Fagan) Soto, and beloved sister of Jillian, Carlee and Carlos Matthew Soto, passed away on Friday, December 14, 2012 in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Born In Bridgeport, she was a lifelong Stratford resident. Vicki was a graduate of Stratford High School Class of 2003, and Eastern Connecticut State University, where she graduated with high honors, earning degrees in both Education and History. She was currently attending Southern Connecticut State University, to complete her Master's Degree. Vicki was in her fifth year of teaching at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
I think that this can all be verified.
Don't know, micjer. Just bringing things here that I have found. Here's another piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMQgCctZ26w
Quote from: ArMaP on February 02, 2013, 01:41:23 PM
What's the point of that video? ???
It's saying that "Victoria Soto" is not who We are told She is. Instead, that She is "Malia Schmidt."
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 02, 2013, 06:13:19 PM
It's saying that "Victoria Soto" is not who We are told She is. Instead, that She is "Malia Schmidt."
Thanks. :)
The YouTube user that posted the video says in one of the comments:
QuoteAt first I thought they? kind of looked alike in the pic, but I think that may just be a different person
Again... Just offering what I have found. To Me They do look like the same person - but there are People who look very much like other People.
EDIT to add: Your thoughts about the People magazine piece?
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 02, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
EDIT to add: Your thoughts about the People magazine piece?
What piece? ???
Ragrdless of all the evidence presented by numerous outlets and investigators, they will sweep this under the rug...they always do.
Still firmly believing that it was a false flag...100%
Quote from: ArMaP on February 02, 2013, 10:10:03 PM
What piece? ???
Up there in reply #135
And for all... Here is something related - long, but very intriguing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoO_zGfznDE
Quote from: Littleenki on February 03, 2013, 03:27:29 AM
Ragrdless of all the evidence presented by numerous outlets and investigators, they will sweep this under the rug...they always do.
Still firmly believing that it was a false flag...100%
I suspect someOne was sacrificed - who is unclear... It surely did NOT go down as the media claim. Do watch the piece above.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 03, 2013, 06:05:45 AM
Up there in reply #135
Oh, the video. I was looking for a link to People magazine.
That video is useless, I can't see a thing.
As for the other video, it's too long, I don't have the time to see it.
Quote from: ArMaP on February 03, 2013, 04:29:41 PM
Oh, the video. I was looking for a link to People magazine.
That video is useless, I can't see a thing.
As for the other video, it's too long, I don't have the time to see it.
Greetings:
We'll simplify it for you, one point at a time, so you can respond so eloquently.
The YouTuber is pointing out the fact that the distribution on the bulldog edition was 12 December - 2 days before the event. :P
Your response?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)
Quote from: thorfourwinds on February 03, 2013, 05:20:16 PM
The YouTuber is pointing out the fact that the distribution on the bulldog edition was 12 December - 2 days before the event. :P
Your response?
What's the "bulldog edition"?
That cover is from the December 31 issue.
I think the People Magazine date on label can be explained. If you have a subsription to a magazine, as this person does, they put the date in which your subscription runs out. In this case Dec 12 2012 and the neighbours he spoke of was in February.
Keep the info coming. All I want is the truth.
How about this?
http://www.cmionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Talking-With-Your-Children-About-the-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting.pdf
Guide on how to talk to children about Sandy Hook 4 days BEFORE massacre
http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/arling10.png
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/arling11.png) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=46&u=17803086)
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/arling12.png) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=47&u=17803086)
Here is a more in depth discussion on this.
http://letsrollforums.com/guide-talk-children-sandy-t28975.html?s=7be8a56a653ab0177b88d4e426ff9311&
Quote from: micjer on February 03, 2013, 05:56:11 PM
I think the People Magazine date on label can be explained. If you have a subsription to a magazine, as this person does, they put the date in which your subscription runs out. In this case Dec 12 2012 and the neighbours he spoke of was in February.
That makes sense, thank you for that. :)
QuoteHow about this?
An URL (or URI) doesn't have a connection with a specific date, unless some content management system that manages the site works like that, but even if it does it's only a name, it's independent from the date the document was posted.
And the PDF has a creation date of December 14, at 21:56:07.
Why would They send out a copy of the 12/31 issue if the subscrip ends 12/12? I'm not saying it's impossible - just that it does raise a flag...
And the fact that in less than a month People gathered ALL legal permissions, laid out the mag, printed it... Seems VERY unlikely.
Quote from: ArMaP on February 03, 2013, 05:34:07 PM
What's the "bulldog edition"?
That cover is from the December 31 issue.
Greetings:
(http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/13/55/53/83/51720210.gif)
My journalism background just reared its pointy head. :P
A bulldog edition is the earliest version of a morning or Sunday paper usually appearing the evening before. The 'real' edition contains breaking news and arrives Sunday morning.
Yes, the cover date is 31 December: that was a given - you wouldn't be playing ??? with us now, would you?
We never mentioned 'cover' in our fairly simple question to you to attempt to get a handle on all the carp that seems to abound. We figured you would explain the fishy smell. ;D
Nice try, but no cigar.
One more time:
QuoteThe YouTuber is pointing out the fact that the distribution on the bulldog edition was 12 December - 2 days before the event. :P
Aha! Thank you for answering that in the above posts.
So, you are saying we can now cross off the idea that the magazine was printed and distributed before the event on the 14th?
Thank you and you know we love you and are just funning with you. :-*
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 03, 2013, 06:29:54 PM
Why would They send out a copy of the 12/31 issue if the subscrip ends 12/12? I'm not saying it's impossible - just that it does raise a flag...
I once subscribed a magazine and I got it on the mail two weeks before it appeared on the stands, so to me that makes sense.
QuoteAnd the fact that in less than a month People gathered ALL legal permissions, laid out the mag, printed it... Seems VERY unlikely.
What legal permissions? ???
Quote from: thorfourwinds on February 03, 2013, 06:44:39 PM
A bulldog edition is the earliest version of a morning or Sunday paper usually appearing the evening before. The 'real' edition contains breaking news and arrives Sunday morning.
Thanks for the explanation, I learned something new. :)
QuoteSo, you are saying we can now cross off the idea that the magazine was printed and distributed before the event on the 14th?
How many people does it take to design and print a magazine like that? Do you think nobody would notice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvOmkvG2cVA
Here is a clearer picture of the label.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/72982_334826183290058_1743039536_n.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on February 03, 2013, 07:32:55 PM
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/72982_334826183290058_1743039536_n.jpg)
Extremely stupid thing to do. The pseudoskeptics could have written off the map in TDKR much more easily without this. All killing him does is lend support to the idea that he actually did know something, and was trying to warn people in advance.
They either don't care that people know what they are doing, or they are really dumb.
Here's another... No One can claim that ALL these "donation" sites just happen to show up erroneously dated before the incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHI7kmqn2Y
Quote from: ArMaP on February 03, 2013, 06:47:04 PM
I once subscribed a magazine and I got it on the mail two weeks before it appeared on the stands, so to me that makes sense.
Um... So the mag would have been done and out at most a day or two after???
QuoteWhat legal permissions? ???
As the film points out, permission to print pics like that need to be filled out by family members...
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 03, 2013, 08:57:02 PM
As the film points out, permission to print pics like that need to be filled out by family members...
And you believe it because...
Little bit of clarification on magazine label.
http://www.ehow.com/how_7830198_read-magazine-address-label.html
How to Read a Magazine Address Label3
QuoteRead to the right of your address. You'll be able to see a month and year. For example: Oct 11. or Oct. 2011. This means that your magazine subscription ends during this month and year. Most magazine labels have this information.
So it looks like it is saying subsription runs out in Dec 2012. Not dec 12th
Quote from: ArMaP on February 03, 2013, 09:30:39 PM
And you believe it because...
Because I know about copyright, and:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html
EDIT to add: People would be opening Themselves up to lawsuits right and left - so getting permission is legal protection.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 22, 2012, 05:49:54 PM
Not that clearly, it doesn't sound like that to me.
We agree with
ArMaP. 8)
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 03, 2013, 09:58:36 PM
Because I know about copyright, and:
Even if that's the case, why weren't all the sites that published the photos sued?
Does anyone (without a capital 'o' :P ) know if, in cases like this, the photos are sent to the press so they can be published?
Quote from: petrus4 on February 03, 2013, 07:38:38 PM
They either don't care that people know what they are doing, or they are really dumb.
Remember Kennedy assassination?? What have "We the People..." done about that?
::)
Remember 9/11? What have "We the People..." done about that?
::)
"We the People..." are impotent and only whine about the state of things on the internet and facebook :P
...and the internet was created by DARPA
...and Facebook is operated bt the CIA
Hmmm time to turn this thing off and do some spring gardening
8)
Quote from: ArMaP on February 03, 2013, 10:35:13 PM
Even if that's the case, why weren't all the sites that published the photos sued?
Does anyone (without a capital 'o' :P ) know if, in cases like this, the photos are sent to the press so they can be published?
I'm guessing that if the photos are on "memorial" sites, it's part of the same group. Once up on the web, it's pretty much impossible to go after Those who use the pic.
But in the case of print...and a national publication at that...They are fully vulnerable to any who object and are related. So They would be fools to just grab photos from anywhere and publish with no permission.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 03, 2013, 11:16:14 PM
I'm guessing that if the photos are on "memorial" sites, it's part of the same group.
I'm talking about news sites. As far as I know the first site to show photos of the victims was a British paper.
QuoteBut in the case of print...and a national publication at that...They are fully vulnerable to any who object and are related. So They would be fools to just grab photos from anywhere and publish with no permission.
That doesn't answer my question.
ArMap, if that doesn't answer Your Q... [shrug] Maybe you should rephrase...?
Meanwhile, there's this article:
http://usahitman.com/wcshcaswah/
QuoteOn Friday, January 25, 2013, on the The Power Hour w/ Joyce Riley, a woman by the name of 'Bonnie' called in and reported that the Sandy Hook coroner, Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, was spotted in Las Vegas. The woman claims she has information that she obtained from a close friend, who owns a business in the area.
She claims, "he just got back from Las Vegas, now mind you, this business owner is not like one of us – you know, he is just a normal citizen, but he told him he said – he was in Las Vegas and he was at one of the tables, and across the table from him was the coroner from Sandy Hook".
"He took a picture of him on his cell phone, and uh, so the guy they got, they got to talking when he saw him take a picture and the man said... "You know, this is pretty fishy about Sandy Hook and its starting to look like a hoax," and the doctor said, "it was a hoax."
More at link.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 04, 2013, 06:23:56 PM
ArMap, if that doesn't answer Your Q... [shrug] Maybe you should rephrase...?
OK. What I mean is: how do those photos on the memorial sites appear?
The families are (usually) the ones that have photos like that, so could it be that those photos were given by the families to be published?
If it was, would any media company need "a big contract" to be able to publish them?
PS: I saw more than one site that had some of the photos presented as "handouts". What does that mean?
Quote from: ArMaP on February 04, 2013, 09:24:55 PM
OK. What I mean is: how do those photos on the memorial sites appear?
The families are (usually) the ones that have photos like that, so could it be that those photos were given by the families to be published?
If it was, would any media company need "a big contract" to be able to publish them?
PS: I saw more than one site that had some of the photos presented as "handouts". What does that mean?
My opinion? The whole thing is fake from start to finish. Given that some number of "memorial" sites went up before the incident... (Couldn't be glitches on THAT many regarding dates!) The photos were selected months (if not years!) before it "happened." And that's why People had all the pics and a story ready to go.
And it's because pics are all so readily available that I reel in the stench of fish. Getting all those photos with permissions in so short a period of time (and before the fact in many cases) is unheard of.
And sure. The "handouts" likely offer a way You can donate money... And sure, They play on the emotions and not the intellect. And yeah. If this was a hoax (by far the greatest probability), those photos would easily be available from the perps - especially with donations being solicited.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 04, 2013, 10:06:36 PM
Given that some number of "memorial" sites went up before the incident... (Couldn't be glitches on THAT many regarding dates!) The photos were selected months (if not years!) before it "happened." And that's why People had all the pics and a story ready to go.
Do you mean that People Magazine got the photos from memorial sites? I haven't seen any memorial site, so I don't know about it, the first photos I saw, as I said before, were on a British newspaper's website.
QuoteGetting all those photos with permissions in so short a period of time (and before the fact in many cases) is unheard of.
Could you show me an example of how long that takes? Thanks in advance. :)
QuoteAnd sure. The "handouts" likely offer a way You can donate money... And sure, They play on the emotions and not the intellect. And yeah. If this was a hoax (by far the greatest probability), those photos would easily be available from the perps - especially with donations being solicited.
I don't understand it, I think I may have misinterpreted the "handouts" meaning. I saw those photos presented (as far as I understood it) as "handouts" on media sites. ???
Did You watch the vid I posted in #155? I don't know where People got the pics from - but I strongly suspect They were in on the whole deal. If so, They used the same source. But the pics They used are the same ones as on at least some of the memorial sites.
No I can't show You "an example of how long that takes," but consider: IF this was a real event, They would have to:
1. Contact the families - all 20+ of them. A week, maybe?
2. Get the families - who are GRIEVING - to be interested in signing paperwork. Another week to maybe as much as three?
3. Get ALL the families to agree - and I know MANY who are just not interested in the press when They are GRIEVING. So... For ALL of them... Six months?
Guesses, yes, but reasonable.
As for "handouts..." Maybe *I* don't have a clue here. A "handout" is like a flyer One hands out to People - and usually it's to inform of some event...or to raise MONEY. As far as *I*'m aware. What is the purpose of these "handouts?"
Very strange that the magazine put it all together so fast indeed.
More high strangeness.....
Take a look at this pic of Gene Rosen inside his house.
How many of you would have a painting hanging on your wall like the one behind his couch. Odd don't you think?
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/rosen10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=48&u=17803086)
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/rosen-worked-at-fairfield-hills-cia.html
Reminds Me of the "art" in the Denver Int'l Airport...
I never thought of that, but it does!
You guys remember the pic of "Gene Rosen" in the Fema advertisement? Which was proven not to be.
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/gun_vi12.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=51&u=17803086)
It is from this website....
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_37563_-_FEMA_representatives_talking_with_children_at_a_Law_Enforcement_celebration_in_Texas.jpg
Did anyone read the Description on the bottom of the page????
Description
English: Harlinger, TX, August 19, 2008 -- THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF GENE ROSEN BUT THIS WEB PAGE WAS CREATED TO THROW YOU OFF TRACK.
HUH????? Someone explain this for me
picture from inside the firehall
http://twitter.com/AudreyNBC/status/279626037783060482
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/fireha10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=52&u=17803086)
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 05, 2013, 04:18:06 AM
Did You watch the vid I posted in #155?
I started watching the video, but after the first 3 minutes the guy starts shouting and I stopped watching, I only watch videos if I have some reason for doing it, most of them are just a waste of time.
Quote1. Contact the families - all 20+ of them. A week, maybe?
A week?! For something that can be done in a day? ???
Quote2. Get the families - who are GRIEVING - to be interested in signing paperwork. Another week to maybe as much as three?
Oh, the famous "big contract"? I suppose you don't have any example of one of those either...
Quote3. Get ALL the families to agree - and I know MANY who are just not interested in the press when They are GRIEVING. So... For ALL of them... Six months?
What about point 2, above? Wouldn't that be enough? What's the point of point 3? ???
QuoteGuesses, yes, but reasonable.
Or maybe not. :)
QuoteA "handout" is like a flyer One hands out to People - and usually it's to inform of some event...or to raise MONEY. As far as *I*'m aware. What is the purpose of these "handouts?"
From what I have seen the "handouts", in cases like this, are the photos that are sent to the press to be published, but seeing that English is my third language I may have misinterpreted it.
Quote from: micjer on February 05, 2013, 02:30:02 PM
More high strangeness.....
Take a look at this pic of Gene Rosen inside his house.
How many of you would have a painting hanging on your wall like the one behind his couch. Odd don't you think?
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/rosen10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=48&u=17803086)
That's a bad painting, I wouldn't have it in my home. :)
My home is full of good paintings and I don't even like to have them, I don't know what people have against blank walls. ;D
What's the relevance of the bad painting? What's strange about people with bad tastes? Isn't he an American? :P
Quote from: micjer on February 05, 2013, 05:06:02 PM
You guys remember the pic of "Gene Rosen" in the Fema advertisement? Which was proven not to be.
It's the first time I see it. :)
I don't understand what was proven, that this was not a FEMA advertisement or that it wasn't Gene Rosen? ???
QuoteDid anyone read the Description on the bottom of the page????
Description
English: Harlinger, TX, August 19, 2008 -- THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF GENE ROSEN BUT THIS WEB PAGE WAS CREATED TO THROW YOU OFF TRACK.
HUH????? Someone explain this for me
You do know that anyone can change a Wikipedia page, right? Click on the "view history" link at the top of the page and you will see when the image was posted and what has been changed on that page and who did it (either a registered Wikipedia user or an IP address)
Quote from: micjer on February 05, 2013, 06:05:38 PM
picture from inside the firehall
What am I suppose to see in this photo? ???
Actually I didn't know anyone could change a wiki page.
The firehall pic is simply posted for the reason that I personally don't think it looks like a group of people that has just experienced a mass shooting.
Locally we had a tragic accident recently where 5 teenage boys were killed in a car accident on their way home from a cancelled high school hockey game. There was not a dry eye in the school and many students/teachers and parents were unconsolable. This looks more like a group waiting for direction.
I am only posting what seems odd to me. I would really love to see evidence that it did happen the way it was told, but that does not seem to coming forth.
That Rosen character changed his story so many times. In one interview he said that he took the kids up to the firehall, the next minute he was saying the parents picked the children up at his home. Well which is it???
Finding the info and making contact with 20+ grieving families is NOT going to take a day. They are likely not home, busy making arrangements - and You first have to FIND the info.
But whatever, ArMaP. I'm sure that within three hours They contacted all 20+, got Them to agree to the use of the pics, stopped the press, and had it all done in one day.
Well, some are saying Gene Rosen is NOT the guy in the FEMA pic... I dunno. Thoughts on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1o_JQycP90
There's more interesting stuff in this besides Gene... Do watch full screen.
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 06, 2013, 06:58:26 AM
Well, some are saying Gene Rosen is NOT the guy in the FEMA pic... I dunno. Thoughts on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1o_JQycP90
There's more interesting stuff in this besides Gene... Do watch full screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1o_JQycP90
I was going to post the information on the little girl in the two pics but thought that there was 4 years between pics and she hadn't changed much. However that little boy sure looks the same. And there may be 4 years difference in her when I see them side by side.
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/gun_vi13.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=53&u=17803086)
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/gun_vi14.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=54&u=17803086)
Is the girl in the red dress the same? 4 years apart in photos
Quote from: micjer on February 06, 2013, 01:50:27 AM
The firehall pic is simply posted for the reason that I personally don't think it looks like a group of people that has just experienced a mass shooting.
I agree, that was the only reason I could see for posting it. :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 06, 2013, 02:02:14 AM
But whatever, ArMaP. I'm sure that within three hours They contacted all 20+, got Them to agree to the use of the pics, stopped the press, and had it all done in one day.
Who said anything about three hours?
Stopped the press? For what, for a magazine that would be out some 10 days latter?
Also, if the photos were given by the families they didn't had to do a thing, just use them.
Quote from: micjer on February 06, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
Is the girl in the red dress the same? 4 years apart in photos
It must be a girl they have on ice to use in cases like this. ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on February 06, 2013, 02:00:58 PM
It must be a girl they have on ice to use in cases like this. ;D
That's good!
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee158/rrizzo4201/Horror/clown.gif)
Thank you for the levity break :P
(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-045.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)
Quote from: micjer on February 06, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/gun_vi13.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=53&u=17803086)
(http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/17/80/30/86/gun_vi14.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=54&u=17803086)
Is the girl in the red dress the same? 4 years apart in photos
I thought the FEMA pic went up 7/23/2012... That would make the pics about 6 months apart.
I was just going by description on the bottom of this web page.
Description
English: Harlinger, TX, August 19, 2008 --
. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_37563_-_FEMA_representatives_talking_with_children_at_a_Law_Enforcement_celebration_in_Texas.jpg
Quote from: Amaterasu on February 06, 2013, 06:31:24 PM
I thought the FEMA pic went up 7/23/2012... That would make the pics about 6 months apart.
It wasn't.
The Wikimedia page shows, in the "view history" section, that the photo was put there at 21:58, 14 October 2009.
The original FEMA photo, this one (http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/37563.jpg), has a "Last modified date" of 2008/08/21 01:43:45.
The Internet Archive's Way Back Machine has a copy from 2009/01/07 @ 14:03:43 here (http://web.archive.org/web/20090107140343/http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/37563.jpg).
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/02/sandy-hook-multiple-shooters-possible-revealed-2445348.html
More information regarding more shooters/
Reports say that there were multiple shooters at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
"New information has now been brought forth by Connecticut State Attorney Stephen Sedensky, suggesting that records pertaining to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have been sealed to possibly hide the identity of witnesses from multiple shooter suspects and that they should not be unsealed anytime soon. Officials fear the safety of witnesses," The Intel Hub reports.
"The statement by the CT prosecutor's office is the first indication from state authorities that Adam Lanza may have not acted alone. The statement was made in support of a motion to continue the seal on the results of five search warrants for 90 more days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6W6b-voc-Ds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1cxMfAV1goo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ff7gIgjGvu0
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/sandy-hook-da-cites-potential-suspects-fears-witness-safety/34265/
Connecticut State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky has argued that unsealing warrants in the Sandy Hook case might "seriously jeopardize" the investigation by disclosing information known only to other "potential suspects."
Sedensky said that unsealing the warrants would also:
"identify persons cooperating with the investigation, thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being."
Wow, so the DA mentioned other potential suspects! Makes yu want to go hmmmmmm.....
(http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/9/4/8/6/7/i/1/4/0/p-large/sandyhookmotion.jpg)
Yeah... If Lanza was a "lone gunman..." WHY would They have additional "suspects?? ? ??"
Well I have been going Hmmmm for a month now.
Here is my biggest question.......
Why has the MSM spoon fed us so much B S????
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/bsflag.gif)
This has nothing to do with us being conspiracy nuts.......It has to do with misreporting and their incompatence to look into things like there being a probable 2nd or even 3rd shooter.
Are they (alphabet group) trying to create an uprising. Let's face it. A lot of the information that has shown this to be suspicious had to come from someone in the know. Why would that video of Father Parker ever be aired? Any editor would not put that first part on, unless it was on purpose.
I think that we have been suckered down many rabbit holes on purpose. Keeping the hole with the truth hidden.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/ostrich_looking.gif)
Quote from: micjer on February 08, 2013, 06:26:09 PM
Here is my biggest question.......
Why has the MSM spoon fed us so much B S????
Well there is this from MSM today
NBC News
Women Shot By Police in Case of Mistaken Identity in Ex-LAPD Officer's Manhunt (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3700.msg50719#msg50719)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRMgnrlLiv8
Something new about Sandy Hook.
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/sandy-hook-all-four-doors-on-the-civic-were-open-new-evidence/34249/
This is from the MSM.
Excellent example! So which is it? Doors open like the eyewitness is saying, or the official story showing the doors closed? (I believe her btw!)
But it just adds more confusion to the whole story.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/lolcatsdot.jpg)
Oh boy, more!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275700/Controversy-Newtown-childrens-choir-revealed-Sandy-Hook-students-run-employee-stole-school.html
QuoteControversy as Newtown children's choir is revealed to have no connection to Sandy Hook and is run by former high school teacher accused of stealing
Organisers of a Newtown children's choir that has appeared on Good Morning America are facing accusations they have misled the public - as the group has no formal connection to Sandy Hook.
While the Newtown Music Project features a handful of children from the school, it is organised independently and led by a teacher who quit her job at a Newtown high school after she was accused of theft.
Yeah, I wasn't buying that choir thing from the getgo. Seemed too... I dunno... Not right.
QuoteOrganisers of a Newtown children's choir that has appeared on Good Morning America are facing accusations they have misled the public - as the group has no formal connection to Sandy Hook.
So, is Newtown supposed to be just Sandy Hook?
People are getting too ridiculous...
Oh, and more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEKbaQJqEEM
Maybe the background of the town and some of it's leaders need to be checked. I usually discount certain stories when they come out just one or two times. When multiple people start coming out with certain issues then I take notice closely. If multiple stories come out and they are not exactly identical I also take notice. Watching body language along with the verbal is even more telling. You learn this through experience and interview skills that have been developed. It will be interesting to dig a little deeper.
Has anyone posted this yet? If so I will zap it...
MSNBC Airs Sandy Hook Father's Unedited Testimony After Critics Complain (Video)QuoteConservatives said the edited footage made it appear as though Neil Heslin was shouted down by Second Amendment advocates at a hearing in Connecticut, and rival network anchor Anderson Cooper agreed.
After finding itself embroiled in another controversy about edited video, NBC News has re-aired a clip its critics say was selectively edited.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbc-airs-sandy-hook-fathers-416977
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=greuYvcMLDk
Ex video Z.
---------------------------------
This is the first footage that actually looks real from that day.
http://vimeo.com/57061899
Well well well. Upon investigation it looks like this video was altered also.
http://sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/suspicious-photojournalism-sandy-hook-shootings/
Take a look at these two pictures.
Notice the diffference in the background.
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/bluesc10.png) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=60&u=17803086)
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/bluesc11.png) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=61&u=17803086)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjhVs5DHReM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjhVs5DHReM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BEHhu-shiL8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHhu-shiL8
Quote from: micjer on February 11, 2013, 01:12:58 PM
This is the first footage that actually looks real from that day.
http://vimeo.com/57061899
Well well well. Upon investigation it looks like this video was altered also.
It looks the same to me, only taken from a slightly different position and with a different camera.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did a test the other day: I joined Vimeo and uploaded a video. One week later I changed the video (Vimeo has that possibility) for a completely different one, and the new one kept the original date. I could change the video's title, the date remain the original date, one week earlier.
Based on that, I now know that it's possible for a video to appear on Vimeo as if it was taken on a previous date, the uploader just has to replace an older video with the new one.
Different angles yes, but the back drop of the house still does not seem to fit. One picture shows one window and one picture shows two windows. It looks like there is not much difference in the angle IMO...?
Quote from: spacemaverick on February 12, 2013, 01:24:10 AM
Different angles yes, but the back drop of the house still does not seem to fit. One picture shows one window and one picture shows two windows. It looks like there is not much difference in the angle IMO...?
As I said, I don't see any problem with those images.
I can see (by the lack of depth) that the video camera has a telephoto lens, so I suppose the other cameras had them too (the natural choice when taking photos in an event like this, where proximity was going to be difficult or even lethal).
If that was true, what we can see as a slight change in perspective may be the result of one camera being two or three metres away from the other, so I don't see any problem in one camera capturing one window while the other (more to the right) captured two.
Not only is the window missing, the siding on the side of the firehall loses its lines just above his head. Yes it was a slightly different angle but not enough for half of the building to dissapear. There had to be a blue screen behind and this was photoshopped in the vimeo screenshot.
One other thing. In the first photo the car window is behind the guy in the red coat and the other pic the car window is in front. Different angles doesn't explain that. Photoshopping does.
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/aaddss10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=64&u=17803086)
This what the building looks like on google earth.
http://i46.tinypic.com/16bdlxj.jpg
Quote from: ArMaP on February 12, 2013, 01:31:11 AM
As I said, I don't see any problem with those images.
I can see (by the lack of depth) that the video camera has a telephoto lens, so I suppose the other cameras had them too (the natural choice when taking photos in an event like this, where proximity was going to be difficult or even lethal).
If that was true, what we can see as a slight change in perspective may be the result of one camera being two or three metres away from the other, so I don't see any problem in one camera capturing one window while the other (more to the right) captured two.
I am not adept at camera setting or angles but it just didn't look right to me...
Clearly some hanky panky going on there MicJer...too many anomlaies to deny it.
ArmaP you might want to try a new set of glasses...those to images were angled the same regarding the three people...what are you saying, they held the pose and turned slowly for the various cameras?
Good posts MicJer!
Quote from: spacemaverick on February 12, 2013, 03:08:50 AM
I am not adept at camera setting or angles but it just didn't look right to me...
There is no way camera angle accounts for the differences in those images. bottom of the window frame in one shot is above head line while in the other its below waste level. To move a back ground that much that is that close behind would require a major angle change and that would drastically change the look of the figures
Make a model ArMaP and show us how you can match those angles, even roughly ;)
Quote from: micjer on February 12, 2013, 02:06:12 AM
Not only is the window missing, the siding on the side of the firehall loses its lines just above his head.
Yes, I noticed this right away, nice to know I am not
seeing things. WTH?
So many ofthe really key pillars of the story dont seem to
mesh, its very chilling.
Another point I would like to make is in the video.
At the point where the woman is very upset and looks like she may throw up......look behind her.
It shows all of the cop cars ...... ok......but behind her there is a brown building with a boat or something stored in it...
Well look at the overhead pic. Where is that building?
I went on google earth and there is a building but it is way way back. More proof that photoshopping was going on in that video. Ironic isn't it that was the only one that looked half real (as far as emotions go) until we analysed it. LOL
http://vimeo.com/57061899
At about the 4:10 mark
Quote from: micjer on February 12, 2013, 02:06:12 AM
Not only is the window missing, the siding on the side of the firehall loses its lines just above his head.
The lines are there, just out of focus, you can see them where they touch the darker sides of the windows.
QuoteYes it was a slightly different angle but not enough for half of the building to dissapear.
A little difference in the angle may make a lot of difference in the final result, that's why when I was in school, having electricity classes, the first thing they told us was how to use the mirror in the instruments to avoid making the readings from an angle that was not perpendicular to the face of the instrument, as it would give wrong readings.
QuoteThere had to be a blue screen behind and this was photoshopped in the vimeo screenshot.
That's something I always find amusing in cases like this; someone has an idea and, from that point on, nothing else can explain it, it
must be that. Have you thought of the possibility of being wrong?
QuoteOne other thing. In the first photo the car window is behind the guy in the red coat and the other pic the car window is in front. Different angles doesn't explain that. Photoshopping does.
Two cars also explain it, one in front the other behind. :)
Quote from: Littleenki on February 12, 2013, 04:34:15 AM
ArmaP you might want to try a new set of glasses...those to images were angled the same regarding the three people...what are you saying, they held the pose and turned slowly for the various cameras?
I do need new glasses, but I can still see angles. :)
Do you think that the two red lines in the images below have the same angle?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img801/8378/sandyhook1.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img195/8365/sandyhook2r.jpg)
Not only the people appear more in line on the second photo, we can also see that it was taken from a higher place than the first one, as the heads of the people are more at the same height than on the first.
Quote from: zorgon on February 12, 2013, 04:48:24 AM
To move a back ground that much that is that close behind would require a major angle change and that would drastically change the look of the figures
One of the problems with your thinking is the "that close behind" part. How close were the people to the wall? How can you know?
I suppose you know that a telephoto lens "squashes" depth of field and things look closer to each other, right?
QuoteMake a model ArMaP and show us how you can match those angles, even roughly ;)
I don't have enough information to make a 3D model, but I will try to make a top view. :)
Quote from: micjer on February 12, 2013, 12:16:21 PM
I went on google earth and there is a building but it is way way back. More proof that photoshopping was going on in that video.
No, proof that you don't know (and never noticed) how telephoto lens work. Look at the video about the 0:50 mark, when we see those armed man approaching the camera. At that moment, how far do you think they are from the camera?
QuoteIronic isn't it that was the only one that looked half real (as far as emotions go) until we analysed it. LOL
But the possibility of the "analysis" being wrong must be discarded, obviously, as people are never wrong...
What happened? I brought up google earth and typed in Sandy Hook Elementary School Newtown Conn. Skyview had it blocked with black. So just for the heck of it I put the cursor over it and right clicked with the mouse and it came up with a little box that said Hide Building and when I clicked it took the black color away.
I am currently taking screen shots of the school from 3-2012. I cannot get a street view of it though.
I think, as already mentioned, the biggest problem I see in these pics is.....the windows make no sense. It is obvious in that both shots are taken pretty close to the same horizontal angle/position. What we see of these four people is basically the same in both shots.
What is not the same is the added window, on our right in the top pic shown, and it is very easy to see that it is not there in the lower pic. If there was a second window, the lower part of it would certainly be visible in the lower pic, because of the similar horizontal angle, and because we can see the lower part of one window.
And yes, the lines made by the siding on the outside of the house do obviously disappear some in both pics! Has nothing to do with camera angles!
Yes, they are different pics - - the guy in the jacket - - his eyes are open in one pic, and they are closed in the other. :o
Quote from: ArMaP on February 13, 2013, 01:46:46 AM
I do need new glasses, but I can still see angles. :)
Do you think that the two red lines in the images below have the same angle?
No the angles are not the same, BUT they do not account for the background. Frankly in this case I am surprised that you cannot see it.
To get TWO windows into the frame the shot would have had to been from the other direction entirely as the two windows are to the left of the three people
As for the siding that seems to disappear. I have the same issue with my digital camera. When I take a picture that has too much light it tends to blank out the detail I discovered this when taking pictures and did the flash and had plenty of light and the detail was obliterated. One picture is closer and a different angle and shows the edge of a vehicle whereas the other does not. Just my closer observation than I did before. IMO
Quote from: rdunk on February 13, 2013, 10:20:32 PM
What is not the same is the added window, on our right in the top pic shown, and it is very easy to see that it is not there in the lower pic.
On our right? The window that appears in both photos is the right window.
QuoteIf there was a second window, the lower part of it would certainly be visible in the lower pic, because of the similar horizontal angle, and because we can see the lower part of one window.
The window that doesn't appear on the image taken from the video is to the left (from our point of view) of the other window, I thought that was obvious. ???
Here is what Google Street view shows of that building. The difference is the vegetation below the windows.
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4165/sandyhook7.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on February 13, 2013, 10:51:56 PM
No the angles are not the same, BUT they do not account for the background. Frankly in this case I am surprised that you cannot see it.
Well, I'm surprised that I am the only one seeing things as they are (or so I think). :)
QuoteTo get TWO windows into the frame the shot would have had to been from the other direction entirely as the two windows are to the left of the three people
Yes, from other direction, that's why the angles are different. For the second window to appear the photo must have been taken to the right of the position from where the video was made. As the people were in the same place, the camera would be pointing more to the left than the camera that made the video, so it would show more of the building, including the window and the bush.
ARMAP. the pic with the "two windows" have no resemblance to the windows in the school building that you posted, in my opinion. They have a much different look.
I am not sure if this makes a difference but the street view image of the building is from 2009. You can see the date in the image , it is faint like a water mark so you might have to tilt your laptop screen a little to see it . This would account for the difference in the vegetation and /or the windows , maybe ?
Quote from: rdunk on February 14, 2013, 03:02:47 AM
ARMAP. the pic with the "two windows" have no resemblance to the windows in the school building that you posted, in my opinion. They have a much different look.
OK, what about this one?
(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7971/sandyhook8.jpg)
Oh, and that's the firehouse, not the school.
OK, this is my attempt at explaining the possible positions of the people and cameras.
Using this image from the video
(http://imageshack.us/a/img208/3071/sandyhook3.jpg)
and this one
(http://imageshack.us/a/img69/7392/sandyhook4.jpg)
we can see the building behind them.
So, using images from Google Earth, I came to the conclusion that the video was taken more or less from the direction of the yellow line.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img15/4180/sandyhook501.jpg)
Now, on the video, the people are in a position in which their heads block half the head of the person behind them, something like this:
(the colours are the same as the people's clothes)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img12/73/sandyhook9.jpg)
Seen from above would be something like this
(http://imageshack.us/a/img802/18/sandyhook10.jpg)
as they would not intersect each other, obviously.
Now, in the photo, the people appear more or less like this:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img827/3093/sandyhook11.jpg)
and seen from above would look something like this
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/6669/sandyhook12.jpg)
The general alignment of the people in each photo has a difference of 11º, so, tracing a line that makes a 11º angle with the first yellow line we get something like this, also taking into account that on the photo we see the people between the two windows.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img163/4671/sandyhook503.jpg)
If all my calculations are right, the point where the two lines cross is the point where the people were, the cameraman and the photographer were probably on the other side of the road, some metres apart.
Based in all of the above, I think that there was no need for Photoshop or a blue screen or whatever, this is not only possible, it's how things usually work.
Or I may be completely wrong, it has happened before. ;D
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sandy-hook-tragedy-corporate-medias-lone-gunman-storyline-losing-ground/5322426
Sandy Hook Tragedy: Corporate Media's "Lone Gunman" Storyline Losing Ground
As they said in the article, massive evidence or slipshod reporting? How about both!
Well this one has the same angle as the still from the video.
Different background again.
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/latif-10.png) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=67&u=17803086)
http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/12/14/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting/#a=1
There ya go... can't say that one isn't manipulated No building at all.
How about it ArMaP? Does this one do it for you?
Quote from: spacemaverick on February 15, 2013, 08:46:54 PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sandy-hook-tragedy-corporate-medias-lone-gunman-storyline-losing-ground/5322426
Sandy Hook Tragedy: Corporate Media's "Lone Gunman" Storyline Losing Ground
As they said in the article, massive evidence or slipshod reporting? How about both!
SANDY HOOK (2012) 1 shooter, AR-15, .223
27 total injured and killed
26 (96.2%) killed
1 (3.8%) wounded
26:1 ratio
Pretty hard to believe that ratio was done by one gunman.
Yes, 26:1 ratio, in how many minutes.
That is another key.
going to post this here... will move it later... Picked this up at Facebook
Mark Taylor: Columbine Whistleblower Drugged and Jailed(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/521728_428611970549843_924068778_n.jpg)
QuoteImportant note to reader: Mark Taylor is a Columbine survivor who became a whistle blower after he discovered that his assailants were raped, sodomized, and given mind altering drugs which may have contributed to their insanity in carrying out the massacre. Mark Taylor also brought a suit against the big pharmaceutical companies and won! Additionally, Mark blew the whistle early in the Columbine investigation that SWAT team members stationed on the roof of the high school fired into the school and may have been responsible for some of the injuries and deaths that occurred on that tragic day.
Since day one, Mark has been intimidated and harassed by big-pharma corporations and police, unlawfully having his freedom taken away in 2008 when police sited a "report" that Mark intended to bomb a Border's Book Store — he visited book stores to check merchandizing and placement of the book he wrote and published.
Mark Taylor was apprehended by police who could not produce a justifiable, legal reason to arrest him. On the same technicality which the US government employed to detain US Marine Brandon Raub, Mark was apprehended, institutionalized and force medicated with the same mind altering drugs he fought against in his landmark court case against pharmaceutical companies.
http://usahitman.com/mtcwdaj/
I haven't had time to follow up on this yet but wanted to post the stuff here to look over.
from Facebook here: (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=428611970549843&set=a.397163450361362.93294.397159553695085&type=1&ref=nf)Mark, the courageous Columbine miracle boy, who survived what many did not, and who lived to be an advocate for others, is now hospitalized long term with doctors forcing on him the very type of drug that he advocated should be removed off the market. This drugging regime has left Mark unable to communicate and to care for himself. His mother, Donna Taylor, has been appointed as his legal guardian. Now, under the best of circumstances, Mark Taylor faces at least one to two years of recovery. So Mark has been victimized again by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical professionals who support this forced drugging with anti-depressants and SSRI's and he may never fully recover from this continued misuse and abuse of psychiatric medications.
Columbine Survivor Warns of Dangers of Anti-depressants: http://bit.ly/12zyLuG
Silencing the Truth about the Drug Luvox and Homicidal Thoughts: http://bit.ly/YrDEU9
The Never Ending Columbine Nightmare For One of its Victims: http://bit.ly/X3TXZc
Columbine Family Request: http://columbinefamilyrequest.org/
Mark Taylor's Book: "I Asked, God Answered: A Columbine Miracle": http://amzn.to/12zBxQo
********
PETITION: Release Mark Taylor who is a Columbine survivor from his forced institutionalization.
Mark Taylor has been institutionalized against his will in a psychiatric hospital, and force-medicated with psychotropic drugs by court order. Donna Taylor his mother is desperately trying to have her son released from State custody, weened off the psychotropic drugs which have rendered him a virtual zombie.
Please expedite the release of this young man so he can get the medical treatment necessary to get back the life that he has lost from this forced detention. http://1.usa.gov/11L7SZX
********
Release Mark Taylor Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/ReleaseMarkTaylor
*Note: I just spoke with Mark's mom and she told me that they are allowing her to see Mark daily, but that she has to drive for almost 2 hours to see him every day. She has very limited funds and she needs a place to stay in the Denver area in order to spend time with Mark daily. If any of you have a spare room in the Denver area, please let me know and I'll put you in touch with her. Thank you!
**Note 2: For anyone who wants to help Mark and his mom Donna, who is fighting to get him out, please contact Donna at her email address:
donnamae222@gmail.com
Donna and Mark do NOT have any websites authorized to take donations on their behalf. Anyone who would like to help with any donations or a room for Donna in the Denver area, please contact Donna at her email address.
Donna and Mark are extremely thankful for your attention and involvement. They've been praying hard for help and they are so very thankful that you care. Donna said:
"From the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXRHZtfMBWo
Sandy Hook : 2 Wounded Mystery Men – Video
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/sandy-hook-2-wounded-mystery-men-video-2569652.html
From Before It's News
Multiple videos on a playlist...
Quote from: zorgon on February 15, 2013, 11:33:59 PM
Mark Taylor has been institutionalized against his will in a psychiatric hospital, and force-medicated with psychotropic drugs by court order. Donna Taylor his mother is desperately trying to have her son released from State custody, weened off the psychotropic drugs which have rendered him a virtual zombie.
The level of systemic depravity that is prevalent in America, has reached a sufficient degree that I sometimes find myself wondering how the country is able to survive through each additional day. Yet somehow, despite all odds, the unholy juggernaut of state still manages to lumber on; grinding mercy, compassion, freedom, equality, and even basic human dignity to near non-existence under its' caterpillar tracks.
(http://www.issues.cc/uploads/34359848262.jpg)
Quote from: petrus4 on February 18, 2013, 07:40:23 PM
The level of systemic depravity that is prevalent in America, has reached a sufficient degree that I sometimes find myself wondering how the country is able to survive through each additional day. Yet somehow, despite all odds, the unholy juggernaut of state still manages to lumber on; grinding mercy, compassion, freedom, equality, and even basic human dignity to near non-existence under its' caterpillar tracks.
(http://www.issues.cc/uploads/34359848262.jpg)
Petrus, i wonder how we are able to keep functioning myself. This NWO and our elite are accomplishing items I never thought possible. I believe there are powers unseen that have verily deceived the people that the people honestly believe that all this is for their own good. The ultimate delusion that most people believe and it has taken years to get to this point. I firmly believe that when 12-21-12 arrived that the cycle was complete and the world as we knew it changed. Everyone thought that the world would blow up and be no more. We have passed into an age will deceit is the order of the day from the NWO. I believe that in this coming age we will see the downfall of America. I hope that I am wrong. The world as we know it will change dramtically. I have no proof. This is pure speculation on my part.
Quote from: micjer on February 15, 2013, 10:48:10 PM
Well this one has the same angle as the still from the video.
Different background again.
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/latif-10.png) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=67&u=17803086)
I have an even closer "close-up" of this particular image (which I cannot post because of "no attachment" capability) that is very high quality. This image shows the depth of grief they seem to have! However, the lady, which is grasping the man seems to be crying her heart out, but in the very high quality image, there is absolutely positive view that she is shedding no tears. NONE! Here eyes and face are clear as a bell, and as dry as desert???????????????????
And the guy with the other only face we can see in the image is likewise dry. Nice pose, with stricken look, but dry eyes and face!?????????????????
Quote from: spacemaverick on February 18, 2013, 06:53:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXRHZtfMBWo
Sandy Hook : 2 Wounded Mystery Men – Video
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/sandy-hook-2-wounded-mystery-men-video-2569652.html
From Before It's News
Multiple videos on a playlist...
Just wanted to make another comment: The video goes into a much deeper analysis of everything related to Sandy Hook. I don't know who the man is behind this video. I believe from what I have seen he is using Numerology but I am not sure. If nothing else it gives you something interesting to look at with regards to everything that has been happening. A different viewpoint if you will.
Quote from: micjer on February 15, 2013, 10:48:10 PM
Well this one has the same angle as the still from the video.
It's not the same angle.
(http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/b0dce227-3676-4d2c-996b-fa845b80d1e2/Sandyhook.gif)
Quote from: petrus4 on February 18, 2013, 07:40:23 PM
The level of systemic depravity that is prevalent in America, has reached a sufficient degree that I sometimes find myself wondering how the country is able to survive through each additional day. Yet somehow, despite all odds, the unholy juggernaut of state still manages to lumber on; grinding mercy, compassion, freedom, equality, and even basic human dignity to near non-existence under its' caterpillar tracks.
(http://www.issues.cc/uploads/34359848262.jpg)
Funny that you make a post about America and "caterpillar tracks" and post an image of a Lithuanian mayor using a wheeled vehicle. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on February 18, 2013, 11:48:04 PM
It's not the same angle.
(http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/b0dce227-3676-4d2c-996b-fa845b80d1e2/Sandyhook.gif)
Taking a close look, it's not the same background...
should be with so little POV change...
Quote from: thorfourwinds on February 18, 2013, 11:57:06 PM
Taking a close look, it's not the same background...
should be with so little POV change...
It depends on the distance from the camera and the distance to the background.
In the image from the video we see only a corner of the building, on this new photo, taken more to the left, we see what's to the right of the building's corner.
More "coincidence:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eoPNyMnYaw
Quote from: ArMaP on February 19, 2013, 12:04:31 AM
It depends on the distance from the camera and the distance to the background.
In the image from the video we see only a corner of the building, on this new photo, taken more to the left, we see what's to the right of the building's corner.
ARMAP. you can play with the photos all you want to, but it is the same pic, of the same people. And besides that, the people this pic are shown the same, even if there are 100 different photos.
Incidentally, can you know that these pics are not narrow croppings of a wide angle photo?
And as I said, there are "no tears flowing" !!!
Quote from: rdunk on February 19, 2013, 03:42:32 AM
ARMAP. you can play with the photos all you want to, but it is the same pic, of the same people.
If there's a difference then it's not the same photo, obviously. I don't understand how anyone can say it's the same photo. ???
QuoteAnd besides that, the people this pic are shown the same, even if there are 100 different photos.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
QuoteIncidentally, can you know that these pics are not narrow croppings of a wide angle photo?
First of all, a wide angle photo would not look like this, this a photo taken with telephoto lens, not a wide angle lens. Second, if there are any differences in the angle from where the photo was taken it means that the images are not from the same original photo.
QuoteAnd as I said, there are "no tears flowing" !!!
So what? Not all people shed tears at all sad occasions. In fact, if they were actors, it would be easy for them to shed some tears, after all that's what they do.
I found another photo that shows the difference between two photos taken from the same spot but with different lens (or lens configuration).
First, the more famous.
(http://tribwpix.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/73701097.jpg)
Now, the one I found today.
(http://media.nj.com/star-ledger/photo/2012/12/11994142-mmmain.jpg)
We can see that they were taken from the same angle, as the relative positions of the people don't change.
(http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/5db8102b-780b-40d7-8400-19e0bb4411b2/Sandyhook%202.gif)
But we can see the background changing. In one of the photos it looks like things in the background (the windows and the bush) look closer than on the other. That's the result of using the telephoto lens' zoom.
Zoom makes things that are far away bigger, but not only that, it makes them appear closer to each other, making it hard to know if, for example, a car is far behind the people or just close to them.
I hope that helps. :)
The background still dosent change between each picture as much as it changed in the GIF you posted at the top of this page. It just looks so different.
The pic you found today, has a red truck in the pic! Where did the car go?
Btw I think the red truck should be there. When I blow up the overhead pic of the firehall the red truck can be seen.
Quote from: simon_alex0327 on February 20, 2013, 03:30:41 AM
The background still dosent change between each picture as much as it changed in the GIF you posted at the top of this page. It just looks so different.
If you are comparing the two animations I posted on this page, then yes, this last one changes only a little because there wasn't a noticeable change in the position from the camera, there was a change in the configuration of the lens that changed the area that the camera could see and the amplification of what was seen.
Quote from: micjer on February 20, 2013, 03:35:20 PM
The pic you found today, has a red truck in the pic! Where did the car go?
What car? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on February 20, 2013, 10:22:37 PM
What car? ???
I think what he meant is "where did the red truck (car) go"? I wondered the same thing when I saw it. However, it is obvious that this pic seems to be cut back/clipped so that the truck is just taken out of the pic - at least that is how I see it.
Yes, the red truck is shown in the overhead pic.
Quote from: ArMaP on February 13, 2013, 01:46:46 AM
(http://imageshack.us/a/img195/8365/sandyhook2r.jpg)
These ones
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/sandy-hook-the-elephant-in-the-living-room-2572082.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AP0QDUpHFE
This is an over an hour interview with Joyce Riley interviewing Mike Powers regarding Sandy Hook. One hour and 26 minutes with no commercials in audio.
Quote from: micjer on February 21, 2013, 04:04:18 AM
These ones
Those are seen from a different angle, that's why they do not appear on the photos.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/313389_493672534003136_842514928_n.jpg)
How soon they forget.
Just like Sandy Hook will soon be forgotten. It has accomplished what it was set out to.
Justification of gun laws.
Hate to dwell on this. But something just doesn't add up. Even taking into account the different angles.
We need calulations on building length behind peeps and angle calcs. For that shrub to be in second pic and not in the last, the angle of the firehall should be more like the first pic.
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/sandyh10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=73&u=17803086)
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/sandyh12.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=75&u=17803086)
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/sandy10.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=76&u=17803086)
(http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/17/80/30/86/sandyh11.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=74&u=17803086)
On that last photo... It looks like the building was shopped in... & the brick is just WAY too high.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 01, 2013, 01:39:58 AM
On that last photo... It looks like the building was shopped in... & the brick is just WAY too high.
I agree. Looking at the first photo (google earth), the planter is only knee high. The road beside the firehall is level. It would have to be a lot lower for this pic to be real.
Quote from: micjer on March 01, 2013, 01:56:25 AM
I agree. Looking at the first photo (google earth), the planter is only knee high. The road beside the firehall is level. It would have to be a lot lower for this pic to be real.
I wouldn't even put it knee-high, based on the top pic You posted there. More like mid-shin.
When one looks at the pic which just shows the railed side-porch, steps, and both bushes - - even a 5th grader can see that there is no reasonable camera angle for these pics, that would put the bush into covering even a part of the window.
But then, also notice that even though the Google "street view pic" (I guess) shows entirely different plants in the planter box, as compared to the plants in the pics with the "grieving people". Does anyone else think it odd, that this Google pic is dated 2013, which is sometime after the Sandy Hook "happening", and that these plantings look like they have been there for a while - only been a about 2 1/2 months since Sandy Hook????
I dunno ~~~~~~~~every time I look at these pics something else looks odd/wrong!
I realize that you all are in a discussion about angles, people, buildings. I did find a source that has many links to all things related to Sandy Hook and the gun control subject. They have put together a very long list of links and I believe it would be a good set of information for reference. I have placed it on my favorites so I can go through this one link at a time. Mods, if you feel the need to place this elsewhere, no problem.
http://theintelhub.com/special-reports/sandyhookmassshootingexposed/
From the intel hub.
Quote from: micjer on March 01, 2013, 01:23:45 AM
We need calulations on building length behind peeps and angle calcs.
No, what we need is to know the position where the photographers and the cameraman were.
QuoteFor that shrub to be in second pic and not in the last, the angle of the firehall should be more like the first pic.
The last image shows only one window, the shrub is to the left of the second window, which does not appear on the image, so how could the shrub appear? ???
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 01, 2013, 01:39:58 AM
On that last photo... It looks like the building was shopped in... & the brick is just WAY too high.
It's the same four layers of bricks that we can see on the image from Google Earth, and we can even see the end of that small brick wall.
If it was "shopped in" you wouldn't notice it.
PS: why is it so important for some people that their own ideas (or what they think are their own ideas) to be considered right? What do they gain from that? Recognition from like minded people? Virtual pats on the back? Assurance (?) that they are not easily fooled?
This Sandy Hook case proved more interesting from a psychological point of view from the part of those discussing it than from the perpetrator's part.
PPS: I don't have any real theoretical knowledge of psychology, I just find it interesting. :)
Quote from: micjer on March 01, 2013, 01:56:25 AM
I agree. Looking at the first photo (google earth), the planter is only knee high. The road beside the firehall is level. It would have to be a lot lower for this pic to be real.
No, the photographer just needed to be higher than the people being photographed.
PS: This is one of those cases where I have to admit that I was wrong, I thought things like these were so easy that a child could understand it. :(
Quote from: rdunk on March 01, 2013, 05:03:23 AM
When one looks at the pic which just shows the railed side-porch, steps, and both bushes - - even a 5th grader can see that there is no reasonable camera angle for these pics, that would put the bush into covering even a part of the window.
Yes, there's a "reasonable camera angle", at least for those that know any thing about how a camera works and are able to see what's on the images... ::)
QuoteDoes anyone else think it odd, that this Google pic is dated 2013, which is sometime after the Sandy Hook "happening", and that these plantings look like they have been there for a while - only been a about 2 1/2 months since Sandy Hook????
It says "copyright 2013", it doesn't say the photo is from 2013.
Google Maps has the date of the photo, but I guess you can always say that it was photoshopped. :P
(http://imageshack.us/a/img805/33/sandyhook13.jpg)
QuoteI dunno ~~~~~~~~every time I look at these pics something else looks odd/wrong!
It's you. ;D
Sometimes we have to be careful homing in on one piece of circumstantial evidence to the exclusion of others. An investigator has to look at the totality of the obvious evidence as well as circumstantial and forensics. We do not have the forensics, we do have evidence of what people there heard. Some were eye witnesses and saw. An investigator takes on the totality of the incident and weighs all the evidence to come up with a scenario. The videos that were taken as well as the one involving the scanner traffic picked up is a good place to start. Couple that with all known evidence brought out by various people on scene that has been published and you have your totality of the incident. Often in the beginning of an incident all the news is jumbled up and mainstream media will throw a lot of conjecture out there. The police will not reveal some things deliberately. Some authorities will embellish their reports. So many variables in there. We will probably never get the whole story. The whole point of my post is maybe we should focus on more than one item to attempt to prove a point. My career (20 years) in Law Enforcement and Corrections at a county level along with the schools given to me included investigations. Evidence and totality of circumstances is the key. From what I have seen on videos taken at the scene along with pictures, videos and the like, I am suspicious of the authorized story. People running from the scene are suspicious also. It all doesn't add up. Sorry to pipe in but I thought I would lend some of my expertise and opinion. Hope I have not offended anyone as it is not my intention.
You all do well with your analysis of the one area. Apply your technique to other issues also noted in the Sandy Hook videos and see how many discrepancies you can find. There are a lot of issues and you're on track!
This video just came out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YF43eA-ldlc
Quote from: ArMaP on March 01, 2013, 11:34:32 PM
It's the same four layers of bricks that we can see on the image from Google Earth, and we can even see the end of that small brick wall.
If it was "shopped in" you wouldn't notice it.
Huh??? We would notice it if They put it there, right? Darlin', it looks like a pic of the building was dropped in - NOT the SAME pic of the building as above. But SOME pic. No way that wall would appear THAT high. Period.
QuotePS: why is it so important for some people that their own ideas (or what they think are their own ideas) to be considered right? What do they gain from that? Recognition from like minded people? Virtual pats on the back? Assurance (?) that they are not easily fooled?
No. When it's obvious that a wall is WRONG, then bringing it up is normal. Might I point the question at You? Same thing. I look at the pic and the edge of the wall to Our right of the People and the edges don't look right. It's WAY too tall. So. What? Am I supposed to say nothing???
Darlin', sometimes I suspect You are willfully insistent on ensuring the universe behave as if there is no such thing as conspiracy.
QuoteThis Sandy Hook case proved more interesting from a psychological point of view from the part of those discussing it than from the perpetrator's part.
PPS: I don't have any real theoretical knowledge of psychology, I just find it interesting. :)
Yes... I get more glimpses into Yours. [grin] And I HAVE had a wee bit of training.
Quote from: spacemaverick on March 02, 2013, 05:35:03 AM
This video just came out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YF43eA-ldlc
I liked this comment:
QuoteHow silly is it to rip a padlock off a shed. Like someone could lock themselves in from the inside? This is all for show.
Now this video picks out the discrepancies I was talking about earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3Lw59iK0lHg
Also in the previous video you would send in the K-9 first. No matter if it is locked they must clear the building anyway. Systematic clearing of all areas will be part of protocol. We had a deputy killed where I live because they did not send in the K-9 to start with.
I am not saying it was a hoax but there are serious flaws in the whole incident.
Nice vid.
And *I*'m going to say it was a hoax. Flat out. Hoax. Drill. Psyop.
It sure does open up a whole lot of inconsistencies. I have a couple more theories but I want to dig some more. I'll be back. Good night.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 02, 2013, 05:39:14 AM
Huh??? We would notice it if They put it there, right?
Only if it was done by someone that didn't know what they were doing. Or do you think you have some special ability to distinguish the original pixels from the ones that are added later?
QuoteNo way that wall would appear THAT high.
Why do you say that? The wall has the same apparent height in all images, it appears higher in relation to the people in front of them and lower in relation to the people behind it. That is what happens when you look at something from a higher point of view.
QuoteNo. When it's obvious that a wall is WRONG, then bringing it up is normal.
Then explain why do you think it's wrong, just shouting "WRONG" doesn't prove or explain a thing.
Is it wrong because it appears higher? Is that it? Or because it looks different when seen in the video?
QuoteMight I point the question at You? Same thing. I look at the pic and the edge of the wall to Our right of the People and the edges don't look right. It's WAY too tall. So. What? Am I supposed to say nothing???
No, you're not supposed to say nothing, but I was expecting you to say something based on something more than "it looks wrong, so it's wrong".
QuoteDarlin', sometimes I suspect You are willfully insistent on ensuring the universe behave as if there is no such thing as conspiracy.
No, I'm sure there are many conspiracies, I just don't accept whatever someone says because they feel something is wrong. On the other hand, why do you act as if this
must be a conspiracy? And not only that, it must be like you say?
QuoteYes... I get more glimpses into Yours. [grin] And I HAVE had a wee bit of training.
Or so you think, maybe your training was a conspiracy to make you think you have training. ;)
ArMaP, the pic of the building shows that the wall is around mid-shin in height, yet there it is behind those People almost waist-high. Something is WRONG.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 02, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
ArMaP, the pic of the building shows that the wall is around mid-shin in height, yet there it is behind those People almost waist-high. Something is WRONG.
I couldnt agree more!!
The people in the picture are either munchkins from Oz, or the photographer dug himself a hole in which to take the picture. :P
The end of the wall on the right just does not look right to me either. Then theres the other issue with the plants in the bed.
Just strange the whole case, at first I thought it was just down to poor reporting by the media, now im scratching my head trying to work out how they ALL got it wrong, and still continue today.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 02, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
ArMaP, the pic of the building shows that the wall is around mid-shin in height, yet there it is behind those People almost waist-high. Something is WRONG.
OK, look at the image below. Is it wrong?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img210/7971/sandyhook8.jpg)
Quote from: simon_alex0327 on March 02, 2013, 08:50:05 PM
I couldnt agree more!!
The people in the picture are either munchkins from Oz, or the photographer dug himself a hole in which to take the picture. :P
It's exactly the opposite, if the photographer/cameraman was in hole he would be photographing/filming the people from below, so, the wall, being farther away, would appear lower, not higher.
You really don't understand a thing about perspective. :o
QuoteThe end of the wall on the right just does not look right to me either. Then theres the other issue with the plants in the bed.
What's the problem with the end of the wall and with the plants?
Quote from: ArMaP on March 02, 2013, 09:25:49 PM
OK, look at the image below. Is it wrong?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img210/7971/sandyhook8.jpg)
This proves the planter has all of the plants removed but the big shrubs.
I feel the telescopic lens is distorting the background's height behind the people after reviewing.
What I am having trouble with is how one angle we have the shrub and a slightly different angle we see out to the back storage shed. (Which is a long way back) This photo is from 2012 so the shed way behind has to be the one in the video.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail1_zps47e13dea.jpg)
Trying to visualize where the people were standing on the road for the angles to match up that both pics could be true.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail2_zps41f8af95.jpg)
VERY well put together film. Covers so much. And if You watch and STILL think there was nothing wrong here, You lack critical thinking skills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZ9HnMLKXg
Quote from: micjer on March 03, 2013, 12:35:16 AM
I feel the telescopic lens is distorting the background's height behind the people after reviewing.
It's not just the height, as the lens affects the whole image, not just the height, so things may look closer to each other or farther apart.
QuoteWhat I am having trouble with is how one angle we have the shrub and a slightly different angle we see out to the back storage shed. (Which is a long way back) This photo is from 2012 so the shed way behind has to be the one in the video.
I also think that's the same shed, at least the corner we can see looks the same
QuoteTrying to visualize where the people were standing on the road for the angles to match up that both pics could be true.
That's the biggest problem. As you can see from the Google Maps image, that's more than a road, it's a road and the entrance to the parking area behind the building. From the other side of the road to the building it looks like some 20 metres, so there's enough space for a lot of parallax.
Frig me here's another one! Different again!!!
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail3_zps4fa57f85.jpg)
And it gets worse....
Did these parents go home and change? He is wearing a different jacket and where did her sunglasses go?
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail4_zps65f5f08a.jpg)
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail5_zpsec358136.jpg)
These are the same people that almost seemed happy that their child had passed on. WTF????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtEaG7Zf2XE
Please take note of what Dr Carver says in his interview.....
You can control a situation by a photographer, and I have some very good photographers.
This is the strangest behaviour I have ever seen from a couple who just lost their child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQNVJE4xgk
Quote from: spacemaverick on March 02, 2013, 05:55:11 AM
Now this video picks out the discrepancies I was talking about earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3Lw59iK0lHg
Also in the previous video you would send in the K-9 first. No matter if it is locked they must clear the building anyway. Systematic clearing of all areas will be part of protocol. We had a deputy killed where I live because they did not send in the K-9 to start with.
I am not saying it was a hoax but there are serious flaws in the whole incident.
Yes nice link. More questions than answers that is for sure.
Quote from: micjer on March 03, 2013, 06:58:47 PM
Frig me here's another one! Different again!!!
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail3_zps4fa57f85.jpg)
It looks like that photo was taken very slightly to the right of the other photo (if it wasn't exactly the same position) but with a different lens or a different lens configuration.
Quote
And it gets worse....
Did these parents go home and change? He is wearing a different jacket and where did her sunglasses go?
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/mail4_zps65f5f08a.jpg)
The sunglasses can be put in a pocket, but I had noticed that some people changed their clothes. Unusual, at least.
QuoteThese are the same people that almost seemed happy that their child had passed on. WTF????
I wouldn't say that, as the reason for their apparent happiness is not that she died.
QuotePlease take note of what Dr Carver says in his interview.....
You can control a situation by a photographer, and I have some very good photographers.
He was talking about the parents recognising the dead children. They didn't show the bodies, they used photos, so that situation depends on the quality of the photographers.
ARMAP;
Please excuse me for asking...You just said. ' they did not show the
bodies, just the pictures'...Are you saying the parents did not see
the bodies of their children before burial ? I am sorry if I am easily
confused .I thought I had read everything on this. o8rubicon
If you don't mind me answering for him, this is correct.
This video talks about this.
8:48 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQNVJE4xgk
The mother talks about using sharpies and writing messages all over her daughters' coffin.
Seriously, who would not insist on seeing their child to have closure. AND she is good with it!!!!!
I guess no One watched the 3 hour piece I offered. I do recommend watching - some very astute points.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 04, 2013, 12:00:52 AM
I guess no One watched the 3 hour piece I offered. I do recommend watching - some very astute points.
Oh sorry I did. It was very well done.
This whole event has so many holes in it. It seems the MSM 's goal was to muddy the waters so the truth could be hidden.
Quote from: 08rubicon on March 03, 2013, 10:01:25 PM
ARMAP;
Please excuse me for asking...You just said. ' they did not show the
bodies, just the pictures'...Are you saying the parents did not see
the bodies of their children before burial ? I am sorry if I am easily
confused .I thought I had read everything on this. o8rubicon
That's my understanding of it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Doctor, what shape are the bodies --
CARVER: We did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them. Of their facial features. You have -- it's easier on the families when you do that. There is a time and a place for up close and personal in the grieving process. But to accomplish this we felt it would be best to do it this way and you can sort of -- you can control the situation depending on your photographer. I have very good photographers but -Found here (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1212/15/cnr.04.html).
Thank you for the answer. I can not attach to any post. I have not
found the 3 hr video. I did watch the a.cooper 11 min. video and was
devistated by the lack of grief shown..However, I showed the video to
my wife (married 54 years) and was suprised that she thought the
parents reaction was perfect. My thoughts on sandy hook. (1) no one
was killed..(2) people were killed in a 'black opps.' (3) kidnapping the
children, as many children are kidnapped or disapear every day.I would
want to be sure it was my child before i put him/her in the ground.
08rubicon
Quote from: 08rubicon on March 04, 2013, 01:40:01 AM
I did watch the a.cooper 11 min. video and was devistated by the lack of grief shown..However, I showed the video to my wife (married 54 years) and was suprised that she thought the parents reaction was perfect.
Each person reacts in their own way, but besides that we should take into account that some people act in a way that they think other people expect them to act, so it's possible that their actions were also shaped by that.
QuoteI would want to be sure it was my child before i put him/her in the ground.
I suppose some people want to keep the memory of the living instead of seeing them dead, but I always thought that it was worse not to see them dead, as that may leave the impression that they are not really dead.
I have been called cruel more than once, but I think reality is cruel and people should accept it instead of disguising it of something else or pretend it does not exist.
If we assume you are right ArMaP, on the different angles and the use of telescopic lens that is distorting the background, there is still one that remains odd about this.
How is it that there are so many pictures (and vid) of the same thing? It sure looks like a photo opp. In the video you can see the couple of ladies in front of the stressed couple being told to move out of the way. Then the famous photos seem to be taken.
It sure seems to be staged.
If I were a criminal investigator, I sure would be looking into this couple, as their actions do not seem normal. Just saying. :o
Quote from: micjer on March 04, 2013, 12:29:29 PM
How is it that there are so many pictures (and vid) of the same thing? It sure looks like a photo opp.
Many pictures is not strange, after all that's the reason why the photographers were there, right?
It can be suspicious if these people appear more than others in similar conditions (near the fire-house).
QuoteIf I were a criminal investigator, I sure would be looking into this couple, as their actions do not seem normal. Just saying. :o
Do you think it would be worth the time? What makes these more suspicious than others?
If this thread runs much further im gonna hit zorgon up for a paycheck.
Just jokin z.consider it my gift to you.
We could always go into a comparison of James Holmes at Aurora Theater shooting and Sandy Hook. Along with that we can actually do a three way and include the shooting at the Sikh Temple. There are similarities between all three. This little fact bothers me.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly6hccBTbz1qze50n.jpg)
::)
Have a gander at this and tell me what you think...
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/735158_322481591191184_1948411864_n.jpg)
More ineptness. Sloppy work indeed. Is this on purpose?
I am sure someone will have a "swamp gas" reason for it.
There is all of this misinformation on the net and poor reporting by the MSM at the get go.
But the thing that really tells me it was staged was the lock down at the school.
People have been shot in the school. What is the normal reaction? Get the paramedics in there and get them to the hospital. Dead or not, at least try and save them!!!!!!
So what is happening here? Ask Gene Rosen.
And for the families to not be able to see their children in the caskets.....come on give me a break.
For those unfamiliar with how it should have been reported the following will help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HzwjT9R-Mg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4AwoPnsOMM
Note in the second video, the reporter is at the hospital. Not a local firehall.
http://rt.com/shows/documentary/gun-control-school-shooting/
"The Newtown, Connecticut school shooting has triggered a new debate about gun control in the United States. At the same time, defenders of the Second Amendment stand behind their Constitutional right to gun ownership. How can the government control a feature of American life that has, historically, kept that very government in check? And what lessons can be learned to prevent future tragedies from happening?"
From Russia Today in English (Video) Another view.
Deals with it from Gun Control standpoint. Not new info really.
Yes, there are many inconsistencies in all this, no need to look for photoshopped photos were there aren't any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU90GqGgO-Y
Sandy Hook: Shots Fired After Adam Lanza Pronounced Dead – Video
Its simple guys. People were shot because other people, who were not that nice, owned guns and decided to kill other people. Twenty odd pages in I hope you understand at least that pure as the snow is white truth.
Quote from: Pimander on March 19, 2013, 02:30:48 AM
Its simple guys. People were shot because other people, who were not that nice, owned guns and decided to kill other people. Twenty odd pages in I hope you understand at least that pure as the snow is white truth.
What proof is there that anyOne was shot...? No vid, no pics, no open caskets, fake pic in at least one case (image taken from a Flickr account as representing a vic), conflicting reports between coroner and others about weapon wounds, no families up in arms about refusal to be allowed to see dead child (in 20 families, I would expect ONE family to be STINKING mad that They could not see Their child's body), so...
NO proof anyOne died.
Quote from: Pimander on March 19, 2013, 02:30:48 AM
other people, who were not that nice, owned guns and decided to kill other people.
The official story is there was 1 shooter, Adam Lanza.
Gun ownership is not the reason people kill.
Exactly, BTS. The fact that One owns a gun does NOT make One a killer. The fact that One is PRESUMED not to be armed DOES make One more susceptible to being a victim of crime (and maybe even killed...with gun or otherwise).
Amy,
Yes, right on...
The right to bear arms...
Self defense, in season hunting, and as the fathers so
framed it...and even Iced T saith... The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny.
Of course, the founding fathers would be terrorists of this day.
Quote from: burntheships on March 19, 2013, 03:22:15 AM
Gun ownership is not the reason people kill.
Perhaps not. But you can't shoot someone without guns (or arrows) very easily. ::)
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 19, 2013, 03:17:02 AM
What proof is there that anyOne was shot...?
No idea. However, it happens so often in America that it surprises me that anyone is still shocked.
Quote from: Pimander on March 19, 2013, 01:43:54 PM
Perhaps not. But you can't shoot someone without guns (or arrows) very easily. ::)
Sure, and you cant hit people on the head with hammers
without hammers, cant stab people without knives etc.
The key here is people, not the weapons, come on Pim,
you know this! 8)
Quote from: Pimander on March 19, 2013, 01:54:36 PM
However, it happens so often in America that it surprises me that anyone is still shocked.
It's not the shooting that shocks people (beyond those in the local area naturally) Its the possibility that it was staged that has people up in arms.
And a staged event would happen with or without gun control :P
Now ya know we love ya BUT...
I understand YOUR side of the Pond has extremely STRICT gun control already yes? If that is true, and you think that helps, maybe you could explain these cases? Because I am confused...
The Hungerford massacre occurred in Hungerford, Berkshire, England, on 19 August 1987. The gunman, 27-year-old Michael Robert Ryan (b. 18 May 1960),
armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, shot and killed sixteen people including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then fatally shot himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952),
entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
The Monkseaton shootings occurred on 30 April 1989 in Monkseaton, North Tyneside when Robert Sartin killed one man and left fourteen other people injured during a twenty-minute shooting spree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkseaton_shootings
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
So your little Island that would fit inside most of our states seems to have a very high percentage of mass shootings as well, yet you have almost impossible gun regulations especially on hand guns... yet it seems the psychos have no problem getting them to do the deeds
March 2013 News UK(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/14/1363278988148/Semi-automatic-handguns-008.jpg)
Semi-automatic handguns recovered in a Trident operation in south London in 2004. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA Archive/Press Association
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/14/operation-trident-effectively-over-murder
A coroner has called for radical overhaul of gun licensing at the conclusion of an inquest into a taxi driver who shot dead three members of his family before killing himself.
Andrew Tweddle described the current system as flawed, adding that it was fortuitous there had not been more incidents like the one in Horden, near Peterlee, County Durham, on New Year's Day 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/08/peterlee-shooting-coroner-gun-licensing
A retired police inspector has been found shot dead alongside his female partner at his Wiltshire home. Neighbours alerted police after hearing gunshots, and two bodies were discovered inside the porch of the terraced property in Devizes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/police-officer-shot-devizes
Teenager dies in London street shooting
The Guardian, Sunday 17 February 2013 04.19 EST
Police hunt two suspects after 19-year-old dies and another man injured after being gunned down in Clapton, east London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/17/teenager-dies-london-shooting
Source
Gun crime + UK news
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-crime+uk/uk
And then THISBriton arrested over school shooting threats on Facebook
Schools in Tennessee strengthen security after man from South Shields allegedly threatens to kill 200 people
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/09/briton-school-shooting-threats-facebook
Quote from: spacemaverick on March 19, 2013, 02:25:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU90GqGgO-Y
Sandy Hook: Shots Fired After Adam Lanza Pronounced Dead – Video
I don't get it, how does that show that the shots were fired after he was pronounced dead? ???
PS: there probably is a good explanation for what I asked, I'm not that well informed about this case timeline.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 19, 2013, 03:17:02 AM
... no families up in arms about refusal to be allowed to see dead child (in 20 families, I would expect ONE family to be STINKING mad that They could not see Their child's body), so...
Were the families not allowed to view the children or was it their choice?
Quote from: burntheships on March 19, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
...and even Iced T saith... The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny.
Yeah, right.
Ignorant people with guns are useful to tyrannies, informed people, with or without guns, are the worst enemy of a tyranny.
QuoteOf course, the founding fathers would be terrorists of this day.
That's something I always find funny, people (from the US) speak of those "founding fathers" (I liked that name) as if they were perfect, incapable of being wrong, able to know how things would be 200 years from their time.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 19, 2013, 11:25:17 PM
I don't get it, how does that show that the shots were fired after he was pronounced dead? ???
PS: there probably is a good explanation for what I asked, I'm not that well informed about this case timeline.
There are just too many inconsistencies in everything going on here. There are a couple of documentaries in this thread that point them all out. Problems with supposed nuns in a blue van that did not that were labled suspects by police (scanner record of police calls), man in camo pants caught in woods and cuffed and placed in front of police car??? (being retired law enforcement makes me suspicious), the car that they said belongs to Lanza , the license plates come back to someone else, the coroner saying that they all (children killed with .223 rounds and yet that was retracted saying there was no .223 in the school. I can guarantee you that anyone can get a gun illegally or legally if they so desire. Gun control will not work no matter how strict the laws. I have worked with criminals to long in my career to know they can get them anytime they want. What this witness said may be true but she would not know the timeline. Just too many inconsistencies. You can pretty well put together a time line listening to the scanner recordings of what was transpiring there.
Quote from: spacemaverick on March 20, 2013, 12:15:05 AM
What this witness said may be true but she would not know the timeline.
Does that mean that the title of the video is just (at least) speculation?
The key is people yes, however....
Quote from: burntheships on March 19, 2013, 08:45:54 PM
Sure, and you cant hit people on the head with hammers
without hammers, cant stab people without knives etc.
How many maniacs have committed mass murders with a hammer or knife?
Mass murders, well cyanide comes to mind...
and so do explosives strapped to the back,
hijacked airplanes, to name a few not just guns.
According to the FBI, blunt objects rank high
as murder weapons.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gkqDRFvzQ4
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/do-sandy-hook-hoax-truthers-know-about-this-video-2597800.html
The video comes from MSM and the authorities say they think they know the why...you decide.
Quote from: burntheships on March 20, 2013, 02:55:16 AM
Mass murders, well cyanide comes to mind...
and so do explosives strapped to the back,
hijacked airplanes, to name a few not just guns.
According to the FBI, blunt objects rank high
as murder weapons.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/
How about Jim Jones with cyanide laced Kool-Aid in Ghana? Evil people. Brainwashed people. People on anti-depressants...should I go on. It's a people problem, an evil people problem.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 20, 2013, 01:08:23 AM
Does that mean that the title of the video is just (at least) speculation?
I don't know how they can nail this down and I would say speculation in my book.
Quote from: spacemaverick on March 20, 2013, 03:21:37 AM
How about Jim Jones with cyanide laced Kool-Aid in Ghana? Evil people. Brainwashed people. People on anti-depressants...should I go on. It's a people problem, an evil people problem.
Clearly Evil needs to also be defined as a psychological disorder so you can be prescribed an excorcism pill and treated...think of the millions of potential customers. :P
Really??
Babies were killed,no,slaughtered.
Disgusting at best.
Nothing better to do than to over analyze the obvious.
:'(
Quote from: burntheships on March 20, 2013, 02:55:16 AM
Mass murders, well cyanide comes to mind...
and so do explosives strapped to the back,
hijacked airplanes, to name a few not just guns.
So we should make it easier to commit mass murder should we?
Quote
According to the FBI, blunt objects rank high
as murder weapons.
Not mass murders.
Quote from: Pimander on March 19, 2013, 01:43:54 PM
Perhaps not. But you can't shoot someone without guns (or arrows) very easily. ::)
Pim... Are You saying there is a a way to make ALL guns go away? Really? Not in the least, I say. In disarming SOME Humans, You leave them at the mercy of criminals and oppressive regimes.
ALL Humans have a right to the same weaponry and any other Human Being has.
Quote from: Pimander on March 19, 2013, 01:54:36 PM
No idea. However, it happens so often in America that it surprises me that anyone is still shocked.
Does it? Really? Colorado, Gabby Gifford, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and many more were drills, psyops, hoaxes passed off as "real" news. We rely on THEM to give Us gun death statistics. So... Does it really?
Quote from: ArMaP on March 19, 2013, 11:26:24 PM
Were the families not allowed to view the children or was it their choice?
There were no bodies displayed, and the few "parents" the media spoke with said it was OK with them because They wanted to remember Their child as the child was. BUT...
With all the speculation, and with much of the case making no sense... Don't You think there would be at least ONE family demanding to exhume Their child to be sure?
I'm sorry, I just cannot buy the story, start to finish.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 23, 2013, 01:10:15 AM
In disarming SOME Humans, You leave them at the mercy of criminals and oppressive regimes.
That "oppressive regimes" argument again.
What leaves humans at the mercy of oppressive regimes is people's lack of reaction to some things, and that does not come from other people having guns, it comes from their own bad judgements or lack of interest for what happens to other people.
QuoteALL Humans have a right to the same weaponry and any other Human Being has.
There's only one problem with that "right", the people with more money can get a better "right" than the poorer people. What kind of right is that?
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 23, 2013, 01:21:15 AM
There were no bodies displayed,
Displayed to who? On national television?
Quoteand the few "parents" the media spoke with said it was OK with them because They wanted to remember Their child as the child was.
You said it,
few.
QuoteWith all the speculation, and with much of the case making no sense...
To some people that were not really involved in the situation...
QuoteDon't You think there would be at least ONE family demanding to exhume Their child to be sure?
Exhume? Before they were buried. ???
QuoteI'm sorry, I just cannot buy the story, start to finish.
Nothing of what you wrote answers my question:
Were the families not allowed to view the children or was it their choice?
Quote from: ArMaP on March 23, 2013, 01:27:07 AM
That "oppressive regimes" argument again.
What leaves humans at the mercy of oppressive regimes is people's lack of reaction to some things, and that does not come from other people having guns, it comes from their own bad judgements or lack of interest for what happens to other people.
Yes, and if They must, They take up arms - unless They have been coaxed into giving up Their arms.
QuoteThere's only one problem with that "right", the people with more money can get a better "right" than the poorer people. What kind of right is that?
[smile] That is why We need the Abundance Paradigm....
Quote from: ArMaP on March 23, 2013, 01:30:53 AM
Displayed to who? On national television?
The "funerals" were closed casket. The parents DID NOT get to see Their dead child.
QuoteYou said it, few.
Yes, few. Not a PEEP from the Others, not a TEAR from those We saw.
QuoteTo some people that were not really involved in the situation...
Seriously, ArMaP...? There is enough out there that, as victims, I would think some few would step forward wanting to get answers.
QuoteExhume? Before they were buried. ???
Really, are Ye that slow? NOW. I would think some parents NOW would be wanting answers.
QuoteNothing of what you wrote answers my question:
Were the families not allowed to view the children or was it their choice?
They were NOT ALLOWED to see the bodies. OK? Make sense?
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 23, 2013, 01:31:39 AM
Yes, and if They must, They take up arms - unless They have been coaxed into giving up Their arms.
They don't need arms, they outnumber the oppressors, that's why the oppressors have a bigger fear of knowledge than of arms.
Quote[smile] That is why We need the Abundance Paradigm....
If we need that then it's not a right, it's something we get in exchange for something else.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 23, 2013, 01:45:59 AM
The "funerals" were closed casket. The parents DID NOT get to see Their dead child.
As far as you know, I guess.
QuoteYes, few. Not a PEEP from the Others, not a TEAR from those We saw.
Then you don't know if the others saw their children or not.
QuoteSeriously, ArMaP...? There is enough out there that, as victims, I would think some few would step forward wanting to get answers.
Yes, seriously, as I have only seen the complaints from people that were not involved in the situation. Could it be because those that were really affected know what happened and see it for what it really was?
QuoteReally, are Ye that slow? NOW. I would think some parents NOW would be wanting answers.
If they had their answers then they will not need them now, right?
QuoteThey were NOT ALLOWED to see the bodies. OK? Make sense?
Could you provide some
real evidence for that?
Quote from: ArMaP on March 23, 2013, 01:59:55 AM
They don't need arms, they outnumber the oppressors, that's why the oppressors have a bigger fear of knowledge than of arms.
If we need that then it's not a right, it's something we get in exchange for something else.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 23, 2013, 02:06:10 AM
As far as you know, I guess.
Then you don't know if the others saw their children or not.
Yes, seriously, as I have only seen the complaints from people that were not involved in the situation. Could it be because those that were really affected know what happened and see it for what it really was?
If they had their answers then they will not need them now, right?
Could you provide some real evidence for that?
ArMaP, it was reported on the news that NONE of the bodies were allowed to be viewed. So... Make of that what You will.
And surely We have NOT seen all the parents.
Be that as it may, You are clearly invested in not seeing the issues in this story that You have admitted You know little about. So...
Yup. You're right. Have a nice day. [smile]
Quote from: burntheships on March 20, 2013, 02:55:16 AM
Mass murders, well cyanide comes to mind...
and so do explosives strapped to the back,
hijacked airplanes, to name a few not just guns.
Quote from: Pimander on March 20, 2013, 04:48:51 PM
So we should make it easier to commit mass murder should we?
No we should not, and where did I say that?
No need to put words into my mouth to make your case,
that does not fly here.
Mass murder is everywhere, war is everywhere.
Ban drones, knives, cyanide, explosives, cars, planes,
trains, and then ban guns. Sure, and while your at it,
ban all violent movies. and "T.V." shows that depict
mass shootings, ban all violent video games too.
:o :o :o
Taken on its logical course the argument that guns
kill and therefore need to be banned is absurd.
Solution... Gangman Style... :P
Celebrating St Valentine's Day...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qm2i8mXTjhs/SZfxtldXqmI/AAAAAAAABOw/yDqNjEPAov8/s400/mobsters.jpg)
"They"/"The Government" or whoever you think they are do not fight with guns and cannot be defeated by them. ::)
The war is an information one and if it comes to weapons they have something a little bit more sophisticated and powerful than pea shooters. Helicopter gunships, chemical weapons, control of the water and electricity supply, the banks, nukes, space based surveillance and control of Education and the internet (almost).
If you love guns then that is fine. People who need them should own one. People who don't should not be carrying assault rifles designed to kill many people quickly.
The right to bear arms a hundred years or more ago was a defence against government tyranny. Now it is simply an excuse for the government to create laws which take away your freedoms to "combat terror" or "protect you from commys". It suits oppressors to have an armed population for that reason. Is that too difficult a concept for an American citizen to grasp?
It surprises me how people with brains fail to see that it is that we are many and can share the truth that is our weapon. Guns are incidental and just mean that crazy deranged Fcuk heads are more likely to be near a gun when they lose it.
The above is as true as the sun will not fall on my head today.
Quote from: Pimander on March 23, 2013, 10:29:36 AM
If you love guns then that is fine. People who need them should own one. People who don't should not be carrying assault rifles designed to kill many people quickly.
And if One is attacked by a gang...? One just might need a gun, and one that will kill many People quickly, eh?
QuoteThe right to bear arms a hundred years or more ago was a defence against government tyranny. Now it is simply an excuse for the government to create laws which take away your freedoms to "combat terror" or "protect you from commys". It suits oppressors to have an armed population for that reason. Is that too difficult a concept for an American citizen to grasp?
WHAT? The 2nd is NOT an excuse to take away freedoms. It (the right/freedom to bear arms) too is under attack - or have You failed to notice? And it surely suits NOT an oppressive regime to have armed citizenry.
QuoteIt surprises me how people with brains fail to see that it is that we are many and can share the truth that is our weapon. Guns are incidental and just mean that crazy deranged Fcuk heads are more likely to be near a gun when they lose it.
It surprises Me that People with brains fail to see that the first step in oppression is to disarm the citizens, and that, though the revolution is one of IDEAS, the ability to protect those ideas is crucial.
QuoteThe above is as true as the sun will not fall on my head today.
Maybe in Your universe...
Cultural blindness. You have effectively ignored my points or given no reason why they are incorrect. I will not counter points I have already countered.
Quote from: Pimander on March 23, 2013, 02:00:30 PM
Cultural blindness. You have effectively ignored my points or given no reason why they are incorrect. I will not counter points I have already countered.
Not sure how You think I have "ignored" Your points. Except that maybe You ignored Mine?
[shrug]
Quote from: Pimander on March 23, 2013, 10:29:36 AM
"They"/"The Government" or whoever you think they are do not fight with guns and cannot be defeated by them. ::)
It is disturbing to see people fall for the gubbment bull poop.
Its not a matter of what the gubbment does or does not do.
The second amendment stands and affords the right to bear
arms. Why is that so damn hard for people to understand?
The only reason it is now an issue is the gubbment has
reached a tipping point where it the beast is to large and
it will be self consuming in the near future. There are many
aspects to how the beast will try and feed itself, and one of them
is to try and shape the way people think and therefore act,
They want a neat and tidy path to ultimate control.
Yes, the war they wage is on many levels
an information war, and if your thinking that
the second amendment is old and outdated,
they have already defeated you. Sad day it is to see.
Only one step removed from that is the idea that the gubbment
should operate on a pre crime basis, so that anyone they see
as dangerous should be locked up, or stripped of their second
amendment rights, and many other rights.
Once you start down the path they set for you, your screwed.
Guard your thoughts, as surely you will be led away if you dont.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 23, 2013, 02:53:24 AM
ArMaP, it was reported on the news that NONE of the bodies were allowed to be viewed. So... Make of that what You will.
Then I suppose you can point some of those reports to me, right? Thanks in advance. :)
QuoteAnd surely We have NOT seen all the parents.
Then we cannot really say that they were forbidden from seeing their children, right?
QuoteBe that as it may, You are clearly invested in not seeing the issues in this story that You have admitted You know little about. So...
No, I am invested in not accepting things just because someone says so. :)
QuoteYup. You're right. Have a nice day. [smile]
Thanks, a nice day to you too. :)
Not trying to be a smart aleck but I thought this thread was about New Sandy Hook info? It seems to have gotten into Gun Control.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 23, 2013, 01:06:40 PM
And it surely suits NOT an oppressive regime to have armed citizenry.
That depends. Why did Hitler made it easier for people to own guns?
QuoteIt surprises Me that People with brains fail to see that the first step in oppression is to disarm the citizens, and that, though the revolution is one of IDEAS, the ability to protect those ideas is crucial.
It's not, the first step to oppression is either to find a common enemy to be used as scapegoat or do it by force, with the support of the military. Then they change laws/rules to make it easier for those on their side to have more power, then they find a way of supporting those that support them and (at least) ignore those that do not.
During the whole time, propaganda is their best weapon against the people, keeping them ignorant of the real reasons behind what they are doing. Keeping the people in ignorance is their most powerful weapon.
During the Portuguese dictatorship of the Estado Novo (New State), one their main worries was to keep people ignorant, with one of the main government supporters saying that the common man only needed to learn how to sign his name. Because of that, most people didn't even know that there was a persecution against the people that had different ideas (my father was arrested once because someone told the police that he was reading a forbidden book) and that many people were tortured and killed by the political police.
Weapons were not forbidden during that time, what was forbidden was to get the knowledge of how people were kept in the dark about how things worked.
Sorry for the small rant, but I lived the first 11 years of my life in a dictatorship and my father was, for some time, a member of the only political party that was allowed (to make it look like we had real elections), that's why I always try to point that knowledge, not guns, is the best weapon the people have against tyranny. :)
PS: my boss only started getting an idea of how things were when he was sent to the war in what was at the time one of the Portuguese colonies in Africa, the Portuguese Guinea (today Guinea Bissau), and only because of a doctor that ignored the orders to stop treating the wounded enemies and kept on treating them.
Quote from: spacemaverick on March 23, 2013, 06:10:34 PM
Not trying to be a smart aleck but I thought this thread was about New Sandy Hook info? It seems to have gotten into Gun Control.
Indeed, and perhaps we will move the gun control posts into
a new Gun Control thread. :)
Quote from: burntheships on March 23, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Indeed, and perhaps we will move the gun control posts into
a new Gun Control thread. :)
It would indeed make a lively discussion as I can see now. Nice to see a variety of opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMWP6TcJJQU
Sandy hook people will not talk.
The warrants regarding Sandy Hook released today.
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2013/mar/28/warrants-sandy-hook-shooting-investigation-released/
https://internal.wnyc.org/media/resources/2013/Mar/28/Sandyhook_docs.pdf
More information from the authorities.
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/03/new-details-on-newtown-shootings-released-by-states-attorney-2446530.html
Other than just the warrants and the information contained therein, here is more of a plain English type version.
Arm Chair investigators - gotta love em!
Was Sandy Hook even in operation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvWhhd8ixYU
Quote
Rhonda Brethorst
there is no internet activity for the school since 2008 and then it starts again in 2013/ check out wayback machine
Two years ago this hoax went down.
So what information has arisen since? Follow the actions and money. An interesting documentary for those that are interested.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=951_1417619159
NO ONE has yet addressed WHY all these news stories are FALSE FLAG
Most people don't really care... so are they doing this just to keep Facebook and Twitter Heads busy?
::)
Quote from: burntheships on March 23, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Indeed, and perhaps we will move the gun control posts into
a new Gun Control thread. :)
Move the Gun Control to Nevada :P We don't have any here 8)
And now there's this... Watch it while You can. It keeps being taken down by YT (and Vimeo...):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1GuZed8LQ
Hmmmm....
Quote from: Amaterasu on December 08, 2014, 08:50:30 PM
And now there's this... Watch it while You can. It keeps being taken down by YT (and Vimeo...):
No thanks, but if the video is taken down from YouTube and Vimeo you can always watch it at the maker's site, http://mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html :)
Or you can use this site (http://en.savefrom.net/) to save the video to your own computer.
Most cool, ArMaP. I think They missed a few pieces, but overall, if One examines just what They present here it is pretty clear to One thinking rationally that the evidence supports a high probability of it's all being a drill.
I'm wading through this presentation to get to the point where He actually looks at Sandy Hook (He has touched briefly so far...) which seems more geared to have a plan of action for teachers and everyOne else in charge of the childrens' safety. I like His heart, but if He doesn't get to the point of the implications of Sandy Hook by the end (halfway through as I write), I will be disappointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3QTCh3BLNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3QTCh3BLNE
I've always considered it fairly obvious that Sandy Hook was false flag.
The one thing that all of these events tend to have in common, is an initial media report of multiple shooters/operators at the very beginning, but then soon after that, an "official," story is formulated, which always repeats the tired story of a single "lone nut," who randomly, "went off."
The $64 billion question, of course, is why the government keeps staging these things. Keeping pressure on the Second Amendment, has always been my theory of choice. The government wants to create a scenario where the Michael Moore demographic are desperate to get guns out of the rest of the public's hands, as part of its' ongoing campaign to turn America into Hitler's wet dream.
As soon as videos of this type come out I immediately download them in case they are pulled from the Internet and sometimes I go to the Internet Wayback machine and pull information/videos that I may want to archive myself.
Quote from: petrus4 on December 09, 2014, 12:39:49 AM
The $64 billion question, of course, is why the government keeps staging these things. Keeping pressure on the Second Amendment, has always been my theory of choice. The government wants to create a scenario where the Michael Moore demographic are desperate to get guns out of the rest of the public's hands, as part of its' ongoing campaign to turn America into Hitler's wet dream.
In Hitler's Germany people could have guns, the laws were changed to make it easier for anyone (except Jews) to have guns. Jews could not have guns.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 09, 2014, 01:01:16 AM
In Hitler's Germany people could have guns, the laws were changed to make it easier for anyone (except Jews) to have guns. Jews could not have guns.
People tend to forget that Hitler rose to power because he was FOR the people (Germans) not against them
Big difference
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 01:41:15 AM
People tend to forget that Hitler rose to power because he was FOR the people (Germans) not against them
Big difference
I watched a video on Hitler from Underground Documentaries called, Hitler, the Greatest Story Never Told and it shows that very thing Zorgon. It was interesting to say the least.
Quote from: spacemaverick on December 09, 2014, 01:45:18 AM
I watched a video on Hitler from Underground Documentaries called, Hitler, the Greatest Story Never Told and it shows that very thing Zorgon. It was interesting to say the least.
To me, more interesting would be to know why so many people (mostly from the US) appear to have a different idea.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 09, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
To me, more interesting would be to know why so many people (mostly from the US) appear to have a different idea.
History is written by the victors...and the victors only tell their side and the sheep take them at their word. There are 2 sides to every story in history and both sides need to be brought out. Each side had their own motivation.
Well Hitler wanted to create a master race.. of pure Germans even though he didn't make the grade himself. What most Americans learn about the story is heavily biased by Jewish opinion (Mostly Hollywood :P )
The Jews also want people to forget that then bleeding the nation dry and sending all the gelt home to Isreal at a time of depression did not help their situation
Hitlers METHOD may be horrific but his reason was sound. If it wasn't he would not have got as far as he was
Also don't forget he offered them to Britain and other nations who refused to take them. Seems those nations share in the guilt
The number 6 million came from the Nuremberg trials when a judge said "6,000 or 6 Million, what does it matter? The deed was done"
Seems the larger figure became history. But if you even question that you can go to jail for 'hate speech'
My mother says what is happening in Europe today with the Muslims is the SAME climate that was there in pre NAZI Germany... the powder keg may soon be lit if enough frustration builds up. She knows she lived through that and survived the bombing of Hamburg
Quote from: ArMaP on December 09, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
To me, more interesting would be to know why so many people (mostly from the US) appear to have a different idea.
Because the people in power in the USA the lawyers, the politicians, the money changers, the doctors, the jewelers and especially the HOLLYWOOD producers are Jewish.
Even our favorite Star Trek actors Spock and Kirk are Jewish
So we not only get a Jewish slant on history but they get to enforce it
Germany was dying... their were no jobs..
Hitler gave them an Autobahn with no speed limit, a peoples car that the poor could afford (Volkswagon) and gave them jobs building war machines. And most important... gave then an enemy that was the cause of their woes
Easy to get people to support you that way
Quote from: spacemaverick on December 09, 2014, 01:55:51 AM
History is written by the victors...and the victors only tell their side and the sheep take them at their word.
I don't think that's the case, as it looks like the US version is different from the other country's versions.
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 02:00:12 AM
Because the people in power in the USA the lawyers, the politicians, the money changers, the doctors, the jewelers and especially the HOLLYWOOD producers are Jewish.
Even our favorite Star Trek actors Spock and Kirk are Jewish
So we not only get a Jewish slant on history but they get to enforce it
Then why do most people in the US ignore that people in Hitler's Germany could have weapons but the Jews could not? In what way does that help the Jewish side of things? ???
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 01:57:00 AM
The Jews also want people to forget that then bleeding the nation dry and sending all the gelt home to Isreal at a time of depression did not help their situation
Israel? In the 1930s? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on December 09, 2014, 09:24:57 AM
Israel? In the 1930s? ???
I presume he means to the controllers of future Israel.
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 01:57:00 AM
Hitlers METHOD may be horrific but his reason was sound.
Perfectly sound - if your into the 4th way and following orders from discarnate entities :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHYph3iAomE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHYph3iAomE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBe66x2zb4
Lawsuit Seeks $1 Trillion For Fraud and Terrorism in Sensationalized Coverage of "Staged FEMA Exercise"
Filmmaker and Author William Brandon Shanley Launches Wave of Lawsuits for more than $1 Trillion Against Big Media Over Sandy Hook Massacre Coverage
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/12/26/breaking-film-maker-author-sues-big-media-over-sandy-hook/#!
After exhaustive research, the good news is that overwhelming evidence reveals that no children or teachers died at Sandy Hook two years ago. For relief, I have filed lawsuits against the media in US District Court in New Haven for Fraud and Terrorism. Here is an example of our abundant evidence, Exhibit D: The Connecticut State Police dash cams record no evacuation of children from school at critical moments
Full Length Wolfgang Halbig v. Sandy Hook FOI Commission Hearing in Hartford CT 4/24/15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP1MVx3RQ2c
Published on Apr 25, 2015
HARTFORD CT-- Wolfgang Halbig, former teacher, law enforcement, and current national school safety assessment & emergency management consultant, appeared in Hartford CT for a FOIA hearing, the purpose of which is to ask simple questions that remain unanswered about Sandy Hook. The room was oppressively hot, and Halbig needs to return to CT for Part II, time and date to be decided.
Halbig maintains that respondents have not answered simple questions pertaining to the Sandy Hook incident.
Complainant: WOLFGANG HALBIG, c/o L. Kay Wilson, Esq., Glastonbury, CT.
Respondent(s): FIRST SELECTMAN, TOWN OF NEWTOWN; CHIEF, POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF NEWTOWN; POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF NEWTOWN; CHAIR, BOARD OF EDUCATION, NEWTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, NEWTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, c/o Monte E. Frank, Esq., Danbury, CT.
Halbig maintains that the so-called Sandy Hook CT shootings were a staged cooperative government - community "Capstone" exercise planned years before December 2012, for the purpose of banning commonly-used firearms and limiting free speech. Halbig asserts the incident was a financial bonanza for the Newtown community and involved parents, all involved parents moving into the CT community only between 2009-2011, and all receiving over $200K each for their involvement in the exercise. Halbig's questions to Newtown are returned with silence and contempt; threat of arrest.
Many details don't add up... record shows no report of actual shots fired; no social security numbers for the dead students; 16 state troopers pre-positioned 45-60 minutes before the alleged shootings; tax accessor's website shows the families got free houses on Christmas day when all government offices are closed; half-a-dozen charities set up for alleged victims days before the shootings; no one sued the school or the estate of Nancy Lanza; no parent wanted to see their children in the school; closed casket funerals; no EMT's allowed in the school; the shooter was a 112-pound weakling with a debilitating condition but shoots like Rambo....with 95% percent kill rate; crisis actors; and much more.
There may yet be HOPE for us...
Cops are starting to be charged with murder for wrongful shootings.
And now commissions are looking into the False Flag news...
Perhaps the pendulum is swinging back
Quote from: zorgon on May 25, 2015, 06:43:26 PM
Cops are starting to be charged with murder for wrongful shootings.
And now commissions are looking into the False Flag news...
I will wait for the sentences. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on May 25, 2015, 07:05:35 PM
I will wait for the sentences. :)
To do that we would need to follow up on the case. I started a thread on the follow up stories and results Even did it at FB Seems no one is interested in the final outcome :P
Thing is sentencing can take months to get finished People (and the news) have already moved on to the next one
Quote from: zorgon on May 25, 2015, 07:56:01 PM
To do that we would need to follow up on the case. I started a thread on the follow up stories and results Even did it at FB Seems no one is interested in the final outcome :P
Thing is sentencing can take months to get finished People (and the news) have already moved on to the next one
People have short memories and if it does not affect them most do not care unfortunately.
Quote from: spacemaverick on May 25, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
People have short memories and if it does not affect them most do not care unfortunately.
Quote from: ArMaP on May 25, 2015, 07:05:35 PM
I will wait for the sentences. :)
Well how about THIS Pendulum?
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8283.msg114045;topicseen#new
Quote from: zorgon on May 25, 2015, 09:59:46 PM
Well how about THIS Pendulum?
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8283.msg114045;topicseen#new
That looks promising, if they didn't get another agency to do their work. :)
Here is Wolfgang's website.
If interested take some time and read some of the official reports, and see the lies. He has really done his homework.
http://www.sandyhookjustice.com/
Yes the world has moved on past this event and don't care anymore. If the subject does come up on MSM it would be criticizing Wolfgang for his gall in questioning the officials.
After watching the hearing video, the chief of police, janitor and defense lawyer, are all guilty if you watch body language. The janitor is a nervous wreck. If not guilty, what you got to be so nervous about???/
Quote from: micjer on May 26, 2015, 01:33:38 PM
The janitor is a nervous wreck. If not guilty, what you got to be so nervous about???/
Everytime I have to do some presentation, I get so nervous my mouth dry so much that it is difficult to speak. This lead to me to get more nervous. A never ending circle. Gum, drops, water, nothing seems yo solve my problem.
My point is sometimes its just the "pressure" that gets you nervous.
Not saying he is not hiding something, he could, but there is more variables to add to the "nervous" equation.
Good point. Public speaking is one of the top fears people have.
The police chief is not nervous however he looks awfully sheepish on a couple of his answers.
Quote from: micjer on May 26, 2015, 03:54:46 PM
The police chief is not nervous however he looks awfully sheepish on a couple of his answers.
That makes my "spidey senses" in the busy mode. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LmxyZXMw0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LmxyZXMw0
Not a fan of InfoWars but this one is real
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewmEzFaA5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewmEzFaA5w
I wish there really was new info here as the title states, but no (maybe there was at the beginning). I've mostly given up on it now because plenty of inconsistencies have been identified but there is no one in power who will do anything. Sadly, it's the world we live in now. But I guess I'll keep following the story for some breakthrough just in case.
And my impression of Halbig is unfortunately he is a distraction and not really helping. We had better points brought up in the fact thread on ATS; we just couldn't discuss them there without significant restraint. I tried some other sites that were supposed to be the cutting edge of SH research and they went nowhere. Youtube is entertaining but a big waste of time on this subject. Makes me wonder (and doubt) if we will do any better at exposing fakes/hoaxes/lies the next time one of these type of news stories occurs.
I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook but I am pretty sure it wasn't what we told.
Quote from: repeater on May 26, 2015, 11:25:27 PM
We had better points brought up in the fact thread on ATS; we just couldn't discuss them there without significant restraint.
Makes me wonder (and doubt) if we will do any better at exposing fakes/hoaxes/lies the next time one of these type of news stories occurs.
I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook but I am pretty sure it wasn't what we told.
Greetings:
First, welcome to Pegasus and now, your first
GOLD.
QuoteWe had better points brought up in the fact thread on ATS; we just couldn't discuss them there without significant restraint.
"significant restraint" :o ::) :P
You act as if you are of the multitudes that think that
Springer and
Skeptic are CIA/DHS
agent provocateurs. :P
Would you care to share a few of those points you mentioned here for discussion?
We can guarantee that that carp is not tolerated on our watch. :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution
Hec'el oinipikte (that we shall live)
I haven't been back to ATS in months. I assume the thread is still there though for those who want to read it. Discussing what I think of the 3 amigos is a waste of time. I lost any respect I ever had for them over their treatment of both 9-11 and SH. Their site really went downhill for serious skeptics of the official stories.
I'd like to list points I thought were important just not sure how much I can recall without going back through it all. But I'll try.... DNA from other people but not Adam with at least one matched to a criminal. Officer's testimony about the children's bodies looking out of place. Armed officers hiding down the hall while helpless children are being shot. Corrosion on the rifle (and maybe the strap being loose too). There are lots of other little details that don't sound like much by themselves but collectively add what should amount to reasonable doubt of the official story. Just the overall lack of evidence available to the public to even show that (a) Adam was there and (b) that any shooting and killing really happened. Of course they won't release photos or video of the victims but everything else should have been out in the open.
One thing I have learned from all these conspiracy theory threads is not to try to convince anybody to believe anything that they don't want to believe. No argument will change their mind. And actual physical proof which might is out of our reach. If you believe the official story, go in peace and enjoy the illusion.
Sandy Hook BOOK CENSORED by InfoWars & Amazon?
http://ppsimmons.blogspot.ca/2015/12/sandy-hook-book-censored-by-infowars_3.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAPnlBrkmiQ
Editor James Fetzer was stunned when Amazon banned the book – and further shocked when Alex Jones published – then quickly deleted – an InfoWars article exposing that Amazon ban. In the above interview, James Fetzer reacts to this Censorship – announcing Amazon deleted the book off customers' Kindles!
Amazon BANNED It
Amazon banned Nobody Died At Sandy Hook, yet Amazon sells NINETEEN other books about Sandy Hook. That's because those books parrot the Big Lie promoted by the Regime. But why was Amazon so worried about this one?
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/asandy%20hook2_zpsqfe3kjlu.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/asandy%20hook2_zpsqfe3kjlu.jpg.html)
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/asandy%20hook1_zps0vtxal2a.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/asandy%20hook1_zps0vtxal2a.jpg.html)
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/asandy%20hook_zpsubfkiovg.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/asandy%20hook_zpsubfkiovg.jpg.html)
Look at that photo – that's NOT how folks behave at a "school massacre" where 27 people lay dead in pools of blood.
Does InfoWars wonder why that STATE POLICE photo shows classroom windows NOT YET BROKEN during the "crime?" Does InfoWars wonder why an individual stands at the school's front door atop crime scene evidence (shattered window glass)? Some believe the CT State Police photograph was taken during preparations – the day before the Hoax "went live."
Check out the shadows on the school and vehicle. This photo was taken very early in the am. Certainly long before the "event" took place.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/asandy%20hook_zpsubfkiovg.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/asandy%20hook_zpsubfkiovg.jpg.html)
Quote from: micjer on February 27, 2016, 01:24:44 PM
Check out the shadows on the school and vehicle. This photo was taken very early in the am.
The shadows may be from early in the morning or from latter in the afternoon, depending on which direction the camera is facing, right?
Edited to add that, by looking at satellite photos of the school, it looks like the camera in that photo was pointing more or less to South, so if the sun is coming from the right it was close to sunset, not sunrise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOizUIdRIpA
Talk about shoving it in our face.
Greetings:
We have often contended that "the fix" is in so far above of what we mere "useless eaters" can comprehend that it boggles the mind.
Herewith, we present another "brick in the wall of truth" to further dispel the MSM contention that "all is well."
I find it rather interesting that the damning Sandy Hook paperwork has been removed by Photobucket.
Of course, I have back-ups. ;D
http://earthaidconcert.freeforums.net/post/162/thread
Thor, that is a lot of information you have compiled there!
I watch a lot of reality police shows, and the reactions of people when a loved one is missing, let alone killed is so dramatic. Loved ones weeping uncontrollably, screaming, some getting physical etc.
To watch the parents smiling and joking around is so unbelievable.
There is so much evidence, yet it goes without being challenged. It makes my stomach churn when I hear references to this "terrible" day.
There was a tragedy that day, but it involved deceit of the US people.
There were a lot of folks that were in on this. I think right up to Obama.
What struck me was an unrelated video on TED that showed the reactions of psychopaths as to facial expression.
If you link that info up with the bizarre reactions of 'parents' and others at Sandy Hook, it starts to appear chilling. Something doesn't look right.
Quote from: micjer on April 08, 2017, 01:59:45 PM
Thor, that is a lot of information you have compiled there!
I watch a lot of reality police shows, and the reactions of people when a loved one is missing, let alone killed is so dramatic. Loved ones weeping uncontrollably, screaming, some getting physical etc.
To watch the parents smiling and joking around is so unbelievable.
There is so much evidence, yet it goes without being challenged. It makes my stomach churn when I hear references to this "terrible" day.
There was a tragedy that day, but it involved deceit of the US people.
There were a lot of folks that were in on this. I think right up to Obama.
On a positive note... This is a Fox "News" piece that has 33 (interesting number, that...) thumbs up and 475 thumbs down. If You look at the comments, virtually ALL of the comments speak of the psyop of Sandy Hook. Offering info and facts that show the official story is as real as Peter Pan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnw-jb6O-kY
It makes me absolutely vicious what they did to the American people with this.
They need to be bloody sued.
Won't happen, biggles. We need to stop consenting to the systems that promote psychopaths who revel in glory at controlling Us, using Us, abusing Us. When that happens, They will be stripped of the only thing that matters to them: power.
Exactly hon. xo
QuoteOn a positive note... This is a Fox "News" piece that has 33 (interesting number, that...) thumbs up and 475 thumbs down. If You look at the comments, virtually ALL of the comments speak of the psyop of Sandy Hook. Offering info and facts that show the official story is as real as Peter Pan.
I enjoyed reading the comments. I added a dislike also. LOL
Thanks for posting this. 8)
Quote from: micjer on April 10, 2017, 02:56:32 AM
I enjoyed reading the comments. I added a dislike also. LOL
Thanks for posting this. 8)
Thank You for adding a thumb for truth!
Quote from: ArMaP on February 27, 2016, 04:02:43 PM
The shadows may be from early in the morning or from latter in the afternoon, depending on which direction the camera is facing, right?
Edited to add that, by looking at satellite photos of the school, it looks like the camera in that photo was pointing more or less to South, so if the sun is coming from the right it was close to sunset, not sunrise.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/asandy%20hook_zpsubfkiovg.jpg)
Actually I checked google earth and the camera angle is north east. So the picture was taken in the am. Probably about 830 judging by daylength that time of year. Still before the event actually happened. That Carver guy looks pretty relaxed for a guy looking at close to 30 victims. (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/asandy%20hook_zpsubfkiovg.jpg.html)
Quote from: micjer on April 10, 2017, 02:35:05 PM
Actually I checked google earth and the camera angle is north east.
How can that be? ??? The image below was taken from Google Earth.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sandyhook_15.jpg)
You can see that the main façade of the building faces north-east.
In the image below you can see that the camera was close to that half circle (in fact, it's less than half) painted on the parking lot near the bottom right corner of the photo.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sandyhook_16.jpg)
You can draw a line from the "half circle" to one of the corners of the building, like in the image below.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sandyhook_17.jpg)
That line corresponds (more or less) to the one drawn below, pointing almost exactly to south.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sandyhook_18.jpg)
I stand corrected the arrow that you show does point south.
Here is the deal. I went on google earth and the imagery I just realized is from 2016. You can change it to 2014. There is now a new school built there on a different angle. The angle effect on the new school would make it look like morning. I have to agree that the photo was more likely taken in the evening on the 2014 photo.
It is good to double check things. Not everything posted on the internet is correct, you know! Haha
Here is a picture of the new Sandy Hook Elementary School.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/SchoolfrontEmbrace_zps19hen3wc.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/SchoolfrontEmbrace_zps19hen3wc.jpg.html)
Quote from: micjer on April 11, 2017, 01:32:59 AM
I stand corrected the arrow that you show does point south.
Here is the deal. I went on google earth and the imagery I just realized is from 2016. You can change it to 2014. There is now a new school built there on a different angle. The angle effect on the new school would make it look like morning. I have to agree that the photo was more likely taken in the evening on the 2014 photo.
It is good to double check things. Not everything posted on the internet is correct, you know! Haha
Well done Mic. xo
I'm sorry, but I think it's the height of stupidity to demolish and rebuild a perfectly good school.
People turn into complete retards when it comes to children.
::)
Quote from: Irene on April 11, 2017, 05:23:00 PM
I'm sorry, but I think it's the height of stupidity to demolish and rebuild a perfectly good school.
People turn into complete retards when it comes to children.
::)
That's how you bury evidence.
Quote from: spacemaverick on April 12, 2017, 02:56:00 AM
That's how you bury evidence.
It's deplorable how they use these actors to pull off their false flags.
It was a false flag wasn't it? No one was killed except the shooter is that right.
Wish I really knew Biggles. It's hard to really prove anything the way things get muddy from all the different sources. Just a awful lot of things do not add up.
Quote from: spacemaverick on April 12, 2017, 03:07:29 AM
Wish I really knew Biggles. It's hard to really prove anything the way things get muddy from all the different sources. Just a awful lot of things do not add up.
Yep I know. xxoo
Quote from: Irene on April 11, 2017, 05:23:00 PM
I'm sorry, but I think it's the height of stupidity to demolish and rebuild a perfectly good school.
That's one of the things that makes even a sceptic like me think that there was more than was presented to the common people.
I don't have any idea of what that may be.
Quote from: ArMaP on April 12, 2017, 08:58:59 AM
That's one of the things that makes even a sceptic like me think that there was more than was presented to the common people.
I don't have any idea of what that may be.
Nothing about this whole affair makes any sense what so ever...
like all those crime scene photos that don't show any blood or bullet holes?
Yeah.
Seeker
Well at least they could have hired some better actors!
Quote from: micjer on April 12, 2017, 12:34:27 PM
Well at least they could have hired some better actors!
LOL Mic.
Quote from: biggles on April 12, 2017, 03:04:58 AM
It's deplorable how they use these actors to pull off their false flags.
It was a false flag wasn't it? No one was killed except the shooter is that right.
As far as I can tell, there was no shooter. The images of Him were badly photoshopped, or of Ryan when He was younger. The school had asbestos warnings posted, zero web activity for three years, showed signs of flood damage, had wires and plumbing hanging loose, was filled with stuff as a storage facility would be, had all the doors' locks drilled out, had no handicapped provisions as required by law, and more proving the school was NOT in use at the time.
Interestingly... The east coast headquarters for the church of satan are in Newtown... What are the odds...
this needs to put here.. conspiracy theories are usually a good mental workout but when this kind of hate is pushed so hard it is wrong...
and sadly bought by folks without really looking at why and what these hateful people are doing...just to get personal attention
and yes Z it is huff post but also found on other sourcesQuotehttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/sandy-hook-defamation-suit_n_5d08c793e4b0886dd15edbf4?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaHVmZnBvc3QuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAN7w0F2v7Lzr-kIkKSTIz2vrezF00qz5OZv7uni_Tk4g5XB3UUBW3728X_hZVxy_DevGi-ltO0_zCi5lUxao2PtdNFrA-RYVL9T90J2-SshGkNP28MJ7L-OFWzw546YarDoClciMqYS9jkoKjn9_0yNTnIW9MfN6ux1ne9pzBB7q
POLITICS 06/18/2019 07:35 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
Pat Eaton-Robb
Father Of Sandy Hook Victim Wins Defamation Suit Against Hoaxers
Lenny Pozner's 6-year-old son Noah died in the shooting. Two authors wrote a book saying it never happened.
video of father speaking..and worth the listen
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The father of a victim of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has won a defamation lawsuit against the authors of a book that claimed the shooting never happened — the latest victory for victims' relatives who have been taking a more aggressive stance against conspiracy theorists.
The book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," has also been pulled to settle claims against its publisher filed by Lenny Pozner, whose 6-year-old son Noah was killed in the shooting.
"My face-to-face interactions with Mr. Pozner have led me to believe that Mr. Pozner is telling the truth about the death of his son," Dave Gahary, the principal officer at publisher Moon Rock Books, said Monday. "I extend my most heartfelt and sincere apology to the Pozner family."
A judge in Wisconsin on Monday issued a summary judgment against authors James Fetzer and Mike Palacek.
Pozner has been pushing back for years against hoaxers who have harassed him, subjected him to death threats and claimed that he was an actor and his son never existed. He has spent years getting Facebook and others to remove conspiracy videos and set up a website to debunk conspiracy theories.
Lately, the fight has been joined by others who lost relatives in the Dec. 14, 2012, school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. After quietly enduring harassment and ridiculous assertions for years, some have changed their approach, deciding the only way to stop it is to confront it. Their efforts have turned the tables on the hoaxers, including Alex Jones , host of the conspiracy-driven Infowars website.
photo of jones
Robbie Parker, whose 6-year-old daughter Emilie was among 20 first-graders and six educators killed at Sandy Hook, spent years ignoring people who called him a crisis actor. His family moved to the West Coast, but still the harassment didn't stop. He would get letters from people who found his address. He was once stopped in a parking garage by a man who berated him and said the shooting never happened.
"You are taught when you are young that you ignore bullies and eventually they will leave you alone," Parker said. "But as time went on, and my other girls were getting older, I realized they weren't stopping and some of this was getting worse and getting more personal."
Parker is now part of a lawsuit against Jones, has testified before Congress and pushed for changes on social media platforms, such as YouTube, which announced this month it will prohibit videos that deny the Sandy Hook shooting and other "well-documented events."
"It wasn't until the lawsuits and until it became a mainstream news story that people realized they were being complicit in this and started to moderate the content," Parker said.
Pozner is the lead plaintiff in several of at least nine cases filed against Sandy Hook deniers in federal and state courts in Connecticut, Florida, Texas and Wisconsin.
In the case against Jones, the families of eight victims and a first responder say they've been subjected to harassment and death threats from his followers. A Connecticut judge ruled in the defamation case that Jones must undergo a sworn deposition, which is scheduled for July in Texas.
photo of candlelight vigil
Wisconsin's Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington ruled Monday that Pozner had been defamed by Fetzer and Palacek, whose book claimed, among other things, that Noah's death certificate had been faked, according to Pozner's lawyer, Jake Zimmerman. A trial to decide damages has been set for October.
"If Mr. Fetzer wants to believe that Sandy Hook never happened and that we are all crisis actors, even that my son never existed, he has the right to be wrong. But he doesn't have the right to broadcast those beliefs if they defame me or harass me," Pozner said. "He doesn't have the right to use my baby's image or our name as a marketing ploy to raise donations or sell his products. He doesn't have the right to convince others to hunt my family."
Before the case went to a judge, Fetzer had said "evidence clearly shows this wasn't a massacre, it was a FEMA drill."
"If you believe otherwise, then you are being played," Fetzer said at the time.
A redacted copy of the actual death certificate is attached to Pozner's lawsuit. Additionally, Pozner has had DNA samples taken and compared with those provided by the Connecticut medical examiner to prove that Noah was his son. He has put Noah's birth certificate, report cards and medical records into the public file in his legal actions.
His goal, he says, is to make sure that "normal people" have access to the truth and aren't persuaded by the hoaxers.
A Florida woman, Lucy Richards, was sentenced to five months in prison for sending Pozner death threats. She was also banned from visiting web sites run by conspiracy theorists, including Fetzer.
Christopher Mattei, a lawyer who represents the families in their Connecticut lawsuit against Jones, said his clients want to live their lives free from that kind of harassment. They also want these hoaxers to know they are affecting real people, who have already been emotionally devastated. "When the grief process includes having to justify your grief or having to prove your child's existence," he said, "it makes it very difficult."
it continues
this is the real fake news when sleezy people can pull this shit and the worse part is they are believe by gullible othersQuotehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alex-jones-hit-with-sanctions-by-judge-in-sandy-hook-lawsuit/ar-AAD4y7M?li=BBnb7Kz
Alex Jones hit with sanctions by judge in Sandy Hook lawsuit
By Oliver Darcy and Lauren del Valle, CNN Business 10 hrs ago
A Connecticut judge on Tuesday sanctioned right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for suggesting that a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, who are suing the InfoWars founder for his past claims that the 2012 shooting was staged, tried to frame him with child pornography.
The ruling, handed down from Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, came after attorneys representing several Sandy Hook families in their lawsuit against Jones filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to review footage of Jones lambasting one of the attorneys in a Friday segment.
Bellis called Jones' behavior on the broadcast "indefensible," "unconscionable," and "possibly criminal behavior."
Bellis sanctioned Jones by denying the defense the opportunity to pursue special motions to dismiss moving forward in the lawsuit. The court will also award attorneys fees and filing fees to the Sandy Hook families' lawyers related to the issue that Jones went off about in his broadcast: child pornography that Jones' team inadvertently turned over to the plaintiffs.
Jones is being sued by families of Sandy Hook victims in both Texasand Connecticut courts over his past claims that the 2012 shooting was staged. He has since acknowledged that the shooting was real. At the hearing, a proposed trial date of November 2020 was
settled on by both sides and agreed to by the judge.
Jones suggested on a broadcast last Friday that an attorney for the Sandy Hook families tried to frame him by planting child pornography in emails that Jones' team then turned over to the plaintiffs as part of the discovery process. He later backed off the claim.
In their Monday court filing, the plaintiffs said they discovered "numerous images of child pornography" in the cache of discovery documents Jones provided them and immediately contacted the FBI.
The plaintiffs, however, noted the images "had apparently been sent to InfoWars email addresses."
In other words, it appeared a person or persons sent the images of child pornography to InfoWars email addresses and then, as part of the discovery process, those emails with the images were turned over to the plaintiffs.
It did not appear that Jones or anyone on his team solicited or even had knowledge of those images. Jones' attorney, Norman Pattis, said on an InfoWars broadcast that the FBI was treating Jones as a victim in the case, describing the emails that included the images of child pornography as "very hostile" toward him.
"I spoke to federal prosecutors last week," Pattis said on the broadcast. "They report that there is no indication anyone at InfoWars knowingly possessed child pornography."
In the Monday court filing, the plaintiffs added that it did not appear Jones' team had "engaged in even minimal due diligence" and "actually reviewed the materials before production."
In one of his trademark on-air tirades, Jones suggested without evidence on his Friday show that the child pornography was part of a plot by the lawyers for the Sandy Hook families to set him up.
"And then now magically they want metadata out of hundreds of thousands of emails they got, and they know just where to go," Jones said, according to the Monday court filing. "What a nice group of Democrats. How surprising. What nice people."
Jones then mentioned a specific attorney for the Sandy Hook families, and "pound[ed] on a picture of his face," the court filing said.
In their court filing, the plaintiffs said they interpreted what Jones said as "threats against counsel ... made to a very large audience." The plaintiffs added, "The Court has an obligation to protect the attorneys, parties, and the judicial process."
On Monday night, Jones' lawyer Pattis acknowledged in a court filing that Jones "became impassioned" during Friday's broadcast, and that he "made direct reference to plaintiffs' counsel."
But Pattis said in the court filing that Jones later "issued a public apology" on a Saturday broadcast.
"I'm not saying that the lawyers for the Sandy Hook families set this up or did this," Jones said during that broadcast, which was the quote included in the Monday night court filing by Pattis.
Bellis, however, said in court on Tuesday that she was not "able to see an apology" in the broadcasts. She said in her ruling that the court had "no doubt" Jones was accusing the attorney of planting child pornography.
Jones' attorney in court for most of Tuesday, Zachary Reyland, said the behavior demonstrated by Jones was "certainly inappropriate," but he argued it did not rise to the level of a threat.
Pattis, who attended the hearing in the afternoon, said he had spoken to Jones who was "flabbergasted" at the possibility of being sanctioned. Pattis said if the attorney Jones had suggested planted child pornography was intimidated he should "be in a new line of work."
In addition to mounting legal troubles, Jones and InfoWars have been banned from nearly every major social media platform for various terms of service violations, including hate speech.
A court document submitted earlier this month in the Connecticut lawsuit against Jones shed light on some of the inner workings of InfoWars.
The depositions emphasized how lucrative it has been for Jones to sell products in his online store, and offered a glimpse into how being banned by social media companies like Facebook and Twitter has affected the business. The depositions also painted Infowars as an organization run entirely by Jones.
vid at link
Quotehttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-loses-another-legal-battle-in-sandy-hook-defamation-case_n_5d6fc811e4b0110804582c59?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaHVmZnBvc3QuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ7yq_ixuQqF9FP7Z9bHgqSBIDxF6lZ0FmyHV0Dak0zPfTz9y-WDsHXArAfQ8FPJXOv-WKWIMPta0aLmir1JYNU680xVn0VJhCYzoSjzjnyo9CJIGnjZAzqn3MOUSDYMnG-zza3Zenit0qqWfgE4XOOPFyd1HLFg0ICphfxtSzeA
Alex Jones Loses Another Legal Battle In Sandy Hook Defamation Case
Infowars was denied an appeal in the defamation case, and now it'll have to pay up.
headshot
By Sebastian Murdock
Conspiracy theorist and lawsuit magnet Alex Jones lost another legal battle last week when a court struck down an appeal related to a defamation lawsuit against him and his fearmongering website Infowars.
Infowars and Jones are defendants in a lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin, the father of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, who was one of 20 children and six adults killed when a gunman stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012. In the years since the shooting, Heslin and other Sandy Hook parents have received death threats and online harassment from followers of Jones' Infowars website, which over the years has repeatedly claimed the shooting was a hoax and the parents are "crisis actors." Infowars contributor Owen Shroyer is also named in the lawsuit.
In the latest court filing, the Texas Court of Appeals ordered Infowars to "pay all costs" related to the failed appeal that Infowars filed against Heslin, who is being represented by Mark Bankston of the Texas law firm Farrar & Ball. Previously, Heslin filed a motion of contempt in the case after the website refused to comply with a court-ordered demand to hand over internal emails and documents related to discussions about Sandy Hook.
Now the website will pay up in addition to handing over the information. As Right Wing Watch first pointed out:
Lawyers for Infowars argued that because defendants had appeared in court regarding their motion to dismiss, they were not required to comply with the discovery process. The Texas Court of Appeals disagreed with Infowars' interpretation of Texas law and tossed the appeal.
Currently, nine family members of loved ones who died in the shooting are suing Jones, who previously tried and failed to get a defamation lawsuit brought on by parents Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa dismissed.
In March, video deposition of Jones was released that saw him in the hot seat as he attempted to answer questions about his many falsehoods regarding the shooting. It did not go well for him.
Used to listen to Alex. Finally got tired of his ranting. Much like politicians everywhere.
Bottom line for me is that there is a lot of oddities with this whole Sandyhook fiasco. Parents just don't act the way these folks did when they have lost a child, and that medical coroner still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Probably never know the whole truth.
Quote from: micjer on September 05, 2019, 01:27:40 PM
Used to listen to Alex. Finally got tired of his ranting. Much like politicians everywhere.
Bottom line for me is that there is a lot of oddities with this whole Sandyhook fiasco. Parents just don't act the way these folks did when they have lost a child, and that medical coroner still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Probably never know the whole truth.
MEs, as a rule, are pretty weird people.
ME's have to cut up dead people to determine a cause of death. That would tend to make one weird after a time. Nurses aren't quite as weird, but we have been known to ruin dinner table conversations, quite unintentionally.
As far as Sandy Hook being a hoax, why would they have demolished and rebuilt the school, if no compelling reason existed? The parents? A shock like that does weird things to people. PTSD is a very real possibility. And on camera, you tend to try to hold it together to avoid ugly crying on international television.
On a related subject, a lot of people think the theater in Aurora should have been demolished. I agree. And the psychiatrist at University Hospital should have shared pertinent information that could have prevented James Holmes playing out his delusion. He was a documented danger to himself and others. Oh, and the Arapahoe County D.A. that pushed for the death penalty? He was a grandstanding idiot that dragged everything out unnecessarily.