new sandyhook info

[ArMaP]

These ones

Those are seen from a different angle, that's why they do not appear on the photos.

[zorgon]

[micjer]

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.

[micjer]

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.

[Amaterasu]

On that last photo... It looks like the building was shopped in... & the brick is just WAY too high.

[micjer]

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.

[Amaterasu]

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.

[rdunk]

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!

[spacemaverick]

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

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.

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?

[ArMaP]

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.

[ArMaP]

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. 

[ArMaP]

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... 

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?

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. 

I dunno ~~~~~~~~every time I look at these pics something else looks odd/wrong!

It's you. 

[spacemaverick]

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.

[spacemaverick]

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!