Multiple suspects, a profusion of weapons, and arrests suppressed in Sandy Hook shooting story


Robbie Parker smiles right before getting into character at briefing.

Robbie Parker smiles right before getting into character at briefing.

By Craig McKee

It’s a story we’ve been fed before.

A horrific and violent mass shooting takes place. Innocent people die, a community mourns, and the world feels even less safe than before. People struggle to make sense of what appears to be a random event, the work of a disturbed lone killer.

The mainstream media present us with a narrative that leans heavily on emotion and the need for “healing.” In the early going, facts that don’t fit this story may be floating around, but they are soon trimmed as if they never existed. And once the narrative is set, it almost certainly stays that way.

Whether it’s bogus “terrorist attacks” like 9/11 or mass killings pinned on “lone gunmen” like we just saw at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the mainstream media fail to – or refuse to – point out the gaping holes in the official story. Often, they appear to be actively covering them up.

It’s not only that critical questions aren’t answered, it’s that they aren’t even asked.

If you go to the home page of the Newtown Bee, you’ll see a long list of stories about the shooting in which 20 children and six adults were allegedly shot to death (plus alleged shooter Adam Lanza and his mother, Nancy Lanza). How many of these focus on actual evidence? Zero. Most are about how the families are coping, how the community is healing, and the role of guns in the tragedy. Heavy on emotion, light on questions.

The more we learn about the Sandy Hook shooting, the more the official account falls apart. For example, how is it possible that two weeks after the incident we still don’t know conclusively which weapons were used or even how many weapons were found at the scene and where?

We were told that two handguns, a Glock and a SIG SAUER, were found with Adam Lanza’s body. We were told that he killed his victims with a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and that many shell casings from this gun were found on the floor in the school. We were also told during the day that police had found the Bushmaster in the trunk of Lanza’s black Honda. Obviously, he couldn’t have put the gun back in the trunk and then returned to the school to kill himself.

NBC News later reported that four, not two, handguns were found inside the school and no rifles. But chief medical examiner H. Wayne Carver told reporters that that the wounds he saw on the dead children were from a rifle not a handgun.

Then, another long gun is found in the trunk of a car purported to have been driven to the scene by Adam – but the discovery is made (or perhaps recreated?) after dark. Does this mean it’s not the same one they found earlier in the day? This is shown in police video. Rather than preserving the gun as it was found, the officer clears a cartridge from the chamber and handles the gun as if he is not the least bit worried about compromising valuable evidence.

How could there be such confusion about basic facts if only one shooter was involved? But if multiple shooters were involved, and a cover-up fully underway, things make more sense.

We also hear on the police scanner that the car is actually registered to Norwalk, CT native and alleged petty criminal Christopher Rodia and not to anyone in the Lanza family. Why are we not hearing about this? Who is Rodia, and what is his connection to Lanza? The subject is discussed here.

Then there is substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau’s car in the Sandy Hook parking lot being “riddled with bullets” as reported by the New York Daily News.

How does this fit into the official scenario, exactly? And why don’t journalists see the importance of a fact like this?

Police scanner recordings indicate that both a rifle and a shotgun were seen as police chased possible suspects. This would mean guns other than the one(s) found in the trunk, or trunks. So that means four long guns or more? Plus the four handguns? So how many guns were there all together?

And why haven’t we heard about other suspects being arrested, which they clearly were? On the police scanner recordings we hear:

“I have reports that teachers saw two shadows running past the building, past the gym.”

Then another voice: “Ya, we got ‘em. They’re coming at me.” inaudible “they’re coming down the driveway, left side.” Another voice: inaudible “… this is it.” We then hear that the police have one or more suspects “proned out.”

Then, several minutes later: “Be advised. We do have multiple weapons, including a rifle and a shotgun.”

So we clearly have a major story waiting to be revealed by the media: multiple suspects, multiple guns, and the portrait of Adam Lanza as a disturbed lone gunman now in serious doubt.

Another video clearly shows a man being chased into the woods and apprehended. According to one witness, the suspect was then brought out of the woods and placed in a police car. Who is this guy, and what led police to arrest him? Was he released? Why aren’t the media asking about him?

One very articulate young student explained on camera how another person was on the ground and handcuffed near the fire station, a short distance from the school. Is this a possible third shooter? Another student reported hearing someone inside the school telling someone to else put their hands up with the other voice saying, “Don’t shoot.” Would Adam Lanza tell anyone to put their hands up if he were in the middle of a killing rampage? Or was one of shooters being told to put his hands up by police?

Then there is the profusion of false reports that originated with unnamed “law enforcement” sources. How did unnamed sources lead media to conclude that Ryan Lanza was actually the shooter? Or that both Ryan and Adam were both shooters and that one had been taken into custody? We are told that Adam had his brother’s ID, and yet Ryan says he had not seen Adam since 2010. And how could that ID lead anyone to conclude that both Ryan and Adam were shooters together?

All of this was present in an Associated Press story.  The unnamed source got a whole lot wrong. In addition to all the above, the article tells us that Ryan Lanza’s girlfriend and another friend were missing the day of the shooting. How could anyone say that anyone was “missing” just a few hours after the shooting? Who said they were missing? Were the activities of the Lanza family being monitored before the shooting?

In his essay “Sandy Hook – Evidence of Foreknowledge,”  in Veteran’s Today, Niall Bradley makes a very significant point: how did any law enforcement official even know that Ryan had a younger brother so early in the game, especially given that no public records of Adam Lanza appear to exist after 2009?

Why were we told that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school and that she had been among the dead at the scene? When school teachers and officials denied knowing her, the tale was amended to suggest that Lanza might have been a substitute teacher and later a volunteer, explaining why she was not known to other teachers. Where would this come from given that none of it is true? We now know that she had no connection to the school, although Adam apparently did attend the school briefly, ending in 2002.

We even heard at one point that Adam’s father, Peter Lanza, had been killed.

Yes, confusion is natural and expected in these types of disasters – to a point. But some of the false reports don’t make sense. Do law enforcement sources generally throw out unconfirmed bits of information and rumours to journalists? It’s almost as if all these “errors” were thrown into the mix on purpose to camouflage other anomalies and gaps in the story.

That’s another thing: Lanza had killed himself (allegedly) before police arrived. That’s quite a trick given that police spokesman Lt. J Paul Vance reported that they arrived on scene almost immediately. Lanza had time to shoot 26 people and turn the gun on himself within a couple of minutes, leaving just two adults wounded?

As with the Aurora shooting in July, the gunman in Newtown went to the trouble of wearing a bulletproof vest and hiding his face, which should set off very loud alarm bells. We just have to take the authorities’ word for it that Lanza shot anyone, just like we have to take their word for it that he shot his mother in their home (no one in the media even asks for evidence that he was the shooter there). Is there anyone who can place Adam in the school or are we just going on the presence of his dead body as described by authorities?

Just as we saw with the Aurora shooting, the alleged shooter is labelled as the gunman in most media reports (sometimes a crazed gunman). It’s really disgusting how major media don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling him “the killer” and saying he shot his mother and 26 more people at the school. No one seems to care about proof or the presumption of innocence anymore.

Then we started hearing from the parents, and that’s when things got really bizarre. The award for worst supporting actor in a false flag operation has to go to Robbie Parker, the father of one of the children who was apparently shot that day. A smiling Parker had to visibly work himself into character at a press conference. He began breathing deeply in preparation for being “choked up” about the loss of his daughter. His acting teacher must have recommended deep breaths between words to convey emotional devastation.

And there are other interviews that are almost as suspicious. The McDonnell family talk about their daughter Grace as if she died years ago, and they’re looking back fondly. No tears. In fact, we haven’t seen any tears from any parents in TV interviews. Then there is Gene Rosen, the local resident who tells a story about children and a teacher showing up on his lawn after the shooting, and him inviting them in and giving them some of his grandson’s stuffed animals. In numerous interviews Rosen loses his composure but never sheds an actual tear.

Then there’s this really bizarre item: a memorial Facebook page for victim Victoria Soto was created four days BEFORE the shooting. I’m open to any and all theories about this. The page was apparently taken down but can be viewed on this video.  There are several other pages called RIP Victoria Soto that can be found – all created after Dec. 14.

Another essay on the shooting that’s worth reading is by James F. Tracy  on globalresearch.ca called “Sandy Hook massare: Unanswered questions and missing information.” He  looks at whether things we saw at Sandy Hook fit with what we’d expect to see with an event like this:

“Nor are there any routine eyewitness, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s aftermath—broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings and holes, bloodied walls and floors—all of which are common in such investigations and reportage.”

Are we going to see security footage of the shooting rampage or will we see a replay of the government’s refusal to release footage of Flight 77 as it allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11? If we do see footage from Sandy Hook, will it confirm the identity of the shooter? Almost certainly not. Once again, they’ll just want us to take their word for it.

So much of this story feels suspiciously similar to the Aurora theatre shooting in July. In both cases we have a young man with no history of violence disguising himself in protective gear, including a mask and bulletproof vest, and shooting a bunch of people in a public place. Both appear to have been found at the respective scenes (Holmes alive and meekly sitting in his car and Lanza apparently dead by his own hand). But there is no one (yet) who can positively say they saw either man fire a shot.

It is possible that Adam Lanza did fire shots, but almost certainly not acting alone. I’m inclined to doubt that he shot anyone, just as I don’t believe James Holmes shot anyone. I think they were both patsies and guilty of coming to the attention of the wrong people at the wrong time.

I’ll conclude with a trip even further down the rabbit hole:

The Aurora shooting took place during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises. In a trailer for Skyfall that played before the film, we see a view of the cityscape in Shanghai with the word “Aurora” shining in giant red letters atop one of the largest buildings (Aurora was the Roman goddess of the morning).

Coincidence, you’re thinking. Fine. In the scene when (spoiler alert!) explosives destroy a football field in the middle of play, the player who runs the length of the field with the ball – unaware of how close he has come to death until he turns around – wears jersey number 86. In 1986, a comic called Batman: The Dark Knight Returns contained a scene where a gunman enters a movie theatre and opens fire on innocent moviegoers. In the comic, the person accused of the crime (Batman) is innocent.

But I’ve saved the best for last: In a shot in The Dark Knight Rises, a map of Gotham City is spread out on a table. You can only read two locations on the map, even when the image is considerably enlarged. One is the label indicating that the map is of Gotham City, and the other is Sandy Hook. Not only can we read “Sandy Hook” on the map clearly, but Commissioner Gordon points right to the name as he is talking. Another version of the map that was used for promotional purposes shows it even more clearly. Sandy Hook is labelled on the map as “strike zone 1.”

Heckuva coincidence, isn’t it?

354 comments

  1. Indeed, Sandy Hooks’ evidence raises interesting questions, many of which lead to more disturbing questions regarding the integrity of the mass media.

    More disturbing still is the blissful ignorance of watchdogs who would greatly gain from raising these questions. The NRA comes to mind, as once again it is meekly defending gun rights under the crippling assumption that indeed a deranged brain found access to dangerous weapons and managed to abuse them. In the mind of many political activists, the NRA’s complete ignorance of any evidence of foul play is enough to summarily dismiss any conspiracy theory concerning Sandy Hooks: “if there was some major cover-up by law enforcement and the media and if it was so obvious then the NRA would have denounced it faster than Craig; conversely, since the NRA does not even hint at a cover-up, Craig’s allegations are unbelievable” [tongue-in-cheek]

    Also, Sandy Hook smells fishy, but using it to wake the public to a conspiracy to misinform it will be harder than the already hard challenge of using the video comparison between Building 7’s destruction and a controlled demolition. Activists are welcome to try, but ought to hold moderate expectations.

    Love,

    1. Even if the NRA believed something was fishy they can’t run the risk of being called nutier than fruit cakes they have to play along like it really happened because they can’t afford to risk the pollitical fallout, because most of the country will blindly believe whatever is spoon fed to them. Heck most of the country still believes that 9/11 was a terrorist attack.

  2. Thank you for your entree on this crazy topsy-tervy topic Craig,

    As you know we have been all over this at my home blog. I think you hit all the essentials here, and I am in agreement with you, I don’t think Lanza is anything but a patsy in this, just like Holmes.

    This was in my opinion, a staged false flag event. The agenda it is meant to serve is clear enough; anyone with there eyes open can see the anti-gun hysteria going like a wild fire.

    But in the shadows of that is an even scarier scenario of ‘national psychiatric’ testing – it will be shoehorned in as necessary for gun ownership, but it is the goal to get everyone’s psyche profile – a part of panopticism.

    As we all should be aware of now, every time the anti-gun chorus goes on stage, Americans run in the millions to the stores to by weapons and ammo. Surely this isn’t missed by the powers that be. I think more than merely gun confiscation, that stoking a civil war is what is being engineered here.

    They are designing “criminals” as those who will refuse to register or hand in the banned types of weapons. It is the classic Hegelian dialectical maneuver.
    And this is being timed to fall into place just as the economy takes its final dive into the toilet.

    “May you live in interesting times”..as the old Chinese ‘curse’ goes.

    \\][//

  3. Craig, Any information on the report that the fathers of both the Newtown and Aurora suspects were about to be interviewed as persons of interest in the Libor banking scandal? James

    1. James,

      I have heard this mentioned many times but I’ve never heard any facts to back it up. So I chose to leave it out pending more information coming to light.-Craig

  4. “The award for worst supporting actor in a false flag operation has to go to Robbie Parker, the father of one of the children who was apparently shot that day. A smiling Parker had to visibly work himself into character at a press conference. He began breathing deeply in preparation for being “choked up” about the loss of his daughter. His acting teacher must have recommended deep breaths between words to convey emotional devastation.”

    Craig,

    You did not provide a link but I found it at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/robbie-parker-recalls-6-year-old-emilie-parker_n_2308647.html .

    You are projecting your own interpretation of how a father is supposed to be reacting to the drama of the death of his daughter. There is nothing at all in this video to justify his being called a “supporting actor in a false flag operation”. Frankly, it is very offensive (I am a father of daughter myself).

    I would like to suggest that you think about retracting this.

    I have concerns about other portions of your posting but this particular one is enough.

    Paul

    1. Paul,

      I agree that I am making an interpretation, but I just can’t buy this as being real. And I don’t think it is relevant who does or doesn’t have a daughter in terms of reaching this conclusion. I know it’s possible that I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I am in this case. Perhaps I could have qualified the second part of the sentence (potential false flag?).

      1. I don’t think that whether Robbie Parker is “an actor” or not can make or break the conclusion that this was a false flag op. So many of the other parts of the official story here is so full of holes that the only conclusion one can come to in the face of them is that this was a mass murder by several assailants. If the MSM is going with the “lone gunman” theme despite the clear evidence of other shooters, then the false flag charge is valid.

        \\][//

    2. Paul,

      For what it’s worth, I personally was weirded out by Robbie Parker’s smiling and laughing before taking at least 10 seconds to work himself into grieving mode. I noticed this when the clip was first airing live and my TV was on. I was wondering if others would pick up on it. Also, I just watched the McDonnell family interviews, and indeed, they appear too un-devastated, like it’s many years later and they’ve reached the point where they can smile and reminisce on the good times, without breaking down over the fact that the good times are gone. I had a cousin who died in 2002 in a freak car accident; he and his mother were extremely close. It takes YEARS to get to the point in your grief process where you can openly talk, smilingly and nostalgically, about your dead child. It strains my personal credulity that Mr. and Mrs. McD. can behave in such a fashion so soon after the event. And, as I type this comment, I continue to observe the video Craig posted in response to Sheila’s query. My credulity is even further strained. It seems Parker’s behavior was hardly the only strange example. As one commenter at the video states:

      People grieve “differently,” people keep saying. These people aren’t grieving…at all. I have never seen anyone “grieve” this way. Ever. It’s one thing to share memories that make you laugh…but people laugh THROUGH the tears. I’ve been to 3 funerals in the last 6 months, nobody I saw grieved this way. Nobody. But, miraculously, they’ve found all these families who have loved ones who were shot to death…and they ALL grieve…by not showing an ounce of emotion. What are the chances?

      Perhaps Craig could have been more conservative with his wording, rather than all out declaring that Parker is an actor for a false flag. But then again, gutsy, provocative journalism is Craig’s style.

      I too am open to any and all theories regarding the facebook memorial page created 4 days prior. It kind of reminds me of… yup, you guessed it… drumroll… 3… 2… 1… the BBC’s report about WTC7.

      1. Saying that Parker was acting doesn’t necessarily preclude him having lost a child in this shooting. I am saying, however, that in that clip he was – as you said – working himself into grieving mode. The natural question to ask then is why would someone in this situation need to do that?

      2. Also, check out the videos of the Noah Pozner’s mother and the Rekos family. The video of Noah Pozner’s mother delivering the eulogy for her son, and the one of her being interviewed by Anderson Cooper are baffling. I’m reminded of “the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell”. Many people will simply attribute the parents’ happy demeanour to “being in shock”, and the news anchors express awe over the strength the families display.

      3. Adam,

        Neither you nor Craig understand the dangers of amateur psychological judgments after a major tragedy. Just consider someone coming to this site trying to understand Sandy Hook with an open mind and coming to what the blog owner Craig wrote about Robbie Parker:

        1. “The award for worst supporting actor in a false flag operation”: This father is being directly accused of being a participant in murder. 2. “Smiling”: No, it cannot be just a reflex gesture to a sentence of kindness immediately before. 3. “His acting teacher must have recommended deep breaths between words to convey emotional devastation”: Wow. Just consider being totally wrong and having written such an insult?

        Such kinds of amateur psychological statements damage our credibility and are used against us.

        My maternal grandmother died of a sudden stroke before I was born. My mother told her children that she never cried until a few months later when she burst into tears on a trivial remembrance. Individual human beings react individually to the shock of a sudden death of a person close to them. Yet, sites are asking about tears from family members interviewed in the controlled media after Shady Hook.

        I don’t expect to reply again on this topic. If my point is not understood, then there is nothing more I will be able to add.

        Paul

        1. Paul,

          Your point is understood and well taken. I am considering your objections. Normally I would not make this kind of judgment about someone other than a public figure, but I was so disturbed by Parker’s behavior that I felt I had to comment on it. It’s not that he’s not crying (I did not cry at either of my parents’ funerals) it’s that he so clearly worked himself up to an emotional state for the camera. I don’t know why he did this. He could have had reasons other than being “in on it.” As Adam pointed out, I could have been more conservative in my wording, but I still would have had to mention it.

  5. Thanks for the article Craig, I was eagerly awaiting it. The more I watch the interviews with the victims’ parents, the more sceptical I become. Even if they were coached about what to say on camera, I can’t fail to notice the non verbal clues that aren’t consistent with the behaviour of someone who’s just lost their child. They all look well rested, composed, some of them actually look happy, and as you mentioned we have yet to see any tears. The Robbie Parker video is particularly suspect and Gene Rosen’s behaviour is so dramatic and over the top at times it comes across as scripted.

    1. I have to admit that I am of two minds on this situation with the parents who are seemingly too buoyant so soon after loosing a child to murder. I see what others here see, although I think this is an area where it is a subjective call.

      What I want to know is what do we make of this? Is it to be asserted that these people are actors? Are they perhaps psychopaths with no true human compassion? Do we posit that their children aren’t dead and they know it?

      This can turn into a very convoluted aspect of this case. There are those who seem to claim that the whole thing was staged, that there were no murders at all. This is difficult for me to accept, however I won’t claim it is impossible. It is however exceedingly complex in that we are dealing with over twenty extended families.

      I think those who think that this is a possibility, that there was no massacre should continue to look into that aspect, and keep the rest of us informed on any breaking news to do with it.
      However, for myself, I am of the opinion that the most reasonable determination in light of all of the other evidence is that there was a three man team that entered the school, using Lanza as a cover and a patsy. I think that the murders took place. I think that those who designed this op did so in such a manner as to present a baffling case, one that would lead to wild speculation. All the better to keep a straight forward and cogent case from developing while differing opinions clashed on Internet sites that take these types of events on for analysis.

      There are obvious pre-crime clues and tidbits that indicate this is part of a larger concerted operation – the Batman stuff, the “coincidences” between the Dark Knight case of the Aurora shootings, and it’s “hook” in with the Sandy Hook event. All of it some form of macabre scripting.

      We should be wary of red herrings here. Keep our eye on the ball; that is what this agenda is meant to achieve. I believe it is not as simple as ‘gun control’, but more a strategy of tension to create a civil war leading to the “balkanization” of this country as it merges into the regionalism scheme of the New World Order.

      \\][//

      1. Craig,

        I will throw out another thought as to these interviews. I think most of us are aware of the TV program on the Creation of a MK Assassin that was done by that hypnotist.

        Is it not possible that these interviewees might have been chosen for their susceptibility to hypnosis? They could have been put under trance before the interviews and given the suggestion that their child wasn’t really dead, that it was all a play that they are part of. So that during filming these people really did think that they were simply play acting a part.

        This too is mere speculation, but it isn’t any further out than anything else I am thinking here – this whole part of it is so Kafkaesque that I cannot really get my head around it, other than to put my imagination cap on.

        \\][//

      2. HR,

        That’s pretty much where I am in my evolution with regard to this event. There are a lot of fishy anomalies. That said, I’m far from convinced that it was all a hoax to the point where nobody at all died. 9/11 was a hoax, but that doesn’t mean nobody died on 9/11. It just means that in all likelihood, hijackers didn’t force passengers to the back seats of Flight 77, order them to buckle their seatbelts before being served a complementary beverage. 😉

    2. “non verbal clues that aren’t consistent with the behaviour of someone who’s just lost their child”

      Peter, I totally agree. As I think of how my family looked in the days after my younger sister was violently killed (I was 16) there were those of us loudly weeping, not sleeping or eating, eyes bloodshot and swollen, and there were those of us frozen and unable to feel, staring into space, seemingly in a trance, disconnected and remote.

      But there was nobody laughing and smiling about fond memories with M. as if we were over it.

      Those who scripted these “parent’s” comments show a less than acute understanding of human nature. Fresh grief of someone very close to you — a child living in the same house — is raw and visceral, can hardly be put into words. It shakes your sense of self. These fond reminiscences about her skipping to the school bus might make sense coming from someone more remote, such as a neighbor, but not from a parent. Does not pass the smell test.

  6. Operation Gladio specifically called for massacres of children to achieve its aims. They specifically targetted school buses in their plans because dead children cause the most emotional impact which is fertile ground for manipulating masses of people. It is almost impossible to be rational and logical when you are in an highly emotional state.

    Operation northwoods specifically mentions using “college students” in their plot to shoot down a plane and blame it on Cuba. Here is the text and link to that part of the operation:

    http://recall.archive.org/stream/OperationNorthwoods/operation_northwoods_djvu.txt
    “8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Ja^iaioa, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba, The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
    support chartering a non-scheduled flight.”

    It is my opinion that both Sandy Hook and Aurora are false flag events designed obviously for gun confiscation purposes. Where I disagree with HR1 is that I think these false flags were not done to start a civil war but rather they were done to push through more and more gun control measures. They want to control all the weapons so that they can simply take over completely and do whatever they want. They have to do it step by step though and even small steps are being resisted vigorously these days, thus the need for false flags to push these steps through one by one. Until they get control of most or all of the effective weapons that the American people have they cannot establish their dictatorship fully. They are stalled right now and far behind schedule not only here in the USA but worldwide. They are desperate to find a way to disarm America and the sloppiness of these recent false flags is evidence of their desperation. The problem for them is that they MUST destroy America before they can take over the world and they can’t do that as long as Americans are capable of defending themselves. Gun confiscation is the ultimate goal not balkanization.

    If a civil war broke out now I think one of the first casualties would be the banksters and the lap dog politicians. Californians are not going to turn on Nevadans nor are Virginians going to turn on New Yorkers because that is not where their anger is focusing, it is focusing on the people running us into the ground, namely the banksters and their minions. Balkanization may be one of their goals but starting a civil war will not achieve that for them in fact it may result in exactly what they fear most, the complete and utter dismantling of their power structure and a return to our Constitution. Americans have no real gripes with other Americans, nope! Americans and the people of the world are starting to focus their attention on the very ones who have been keeping us all down in the dark for ages. It isn’t the people its the guys behind the curtain. Personally I think the elites or whatever you want to call them are getting their asses kicked right now like they did in Iceland. Icelandism is going viral and the people of the world are waking up maybe for the first time in all of history. Their attempts to balkanize the USA are going to backfire.

  7. Interesting article, but you’re missing the point, dwelling on the details while the big picture escapes you.

    This whole event is a psyop. Calling it a false flag is an alternative media meme meant to distract as well.

    Don’t click my name unless you want to further explore this concept.

    1. Isn’t a false flag operation by definition a psyop? And I wasn’t missing the point, I was reviewing the holes in the official story. That has to happen along with placing the event in a larger context.

      1. I suppose. False flag event is misleading to me-it implies that the event DID happen, but was caused by person(s) other than those we were told. Psyop implies a larger operation, one that is completely manufactured from start to finish with the complete cooperation and indeed engineering of the media. Its main component is media fakery of all imagery.

        1. Given your definition, I think we have to examine the evidence carefully before pronouncing something a “psyop.” Dictionary.com defines psyop more loosely: “military actions designed to influence the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and foreign governments.”

          Some events, 9/11 included, can be described as a combination of real events that have been staged and faked ones that only appear to have taken place.

      2. I agree with Craig,

        I think Abirato99 is trying to push a personal lexicon here that I don’t buy.

        Psychological operations come in all shapes and sizes. It can be said that TV is a psychological operation in the most general use of the term.

        Sandy Hook appears to be a psyop of the false flag kind as well as PR and spin.

        What are you getting at here Abirato? I seems a rather arrogant introduction of yourself. What exactly are we supposed to be missing here? If you carry some holy grail spit it out.

        \\][//

  8. Craig McKee said: “….I agree that I am making an interpretation, but I just can’t buy this as being real. …..I know it’s possible that I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I am in this case.”

    In that case Craig, have you seriously considered the possibility that actors were used for both the 9/11 and Aurora psyops, and possibly others too, or do you think that that possibility is out of the question, despite what you appear to believe regarding the Sandy Hook psyop?

    If so [i.e if you believe that possibility is out of the question in the case of 9/11 etc.], why, exactly?

    Regards onebornfree.

    1. I don’t know whether actors were used in Aurora but I believe they were for 9/11. I think of the guy who “watched one tower collapse, I don’t think you can just make a blanket statement that everyone is acting any more than you can say every photo is fake. You have to look at each piece of evidence, one at a time.

    2. I want to know “why exactly” OBF can come on here expecting answers from anyone when he won’t answer any direct questions put to him.

      Every post made on every thread on this blog by OBF is a lead-in to his BS gumbo having to to with ‘video fakery’. And he refuses to accept or answer to valid criticism of his “theory”.

      Why exactly is this anonymous character trolling this blog?

      I contend that this person is a PR hack for the continuing 9/11 PSYOP.

      \\][//

      1. You can hear the anonymous troll OBF tonite on my show, radio.abirato.info Sat Jan 5 8pm EST. We’ll discuss the Sandy Hook Psyop and 9/11 Psyop, complete with our belief that media fakery is the central point. I find OBF to be one of the more intelligent trolls around – plus he plays a cool blues guitar.

  9. I tend to agree with Hybridrogue1 as far as being of two minds . . .

    A couple of the interviews are certainly strange/suspicious: the man taking the breaths and the McDs . . . But, as someone else pointed out, you then run into strange questions: how in God’s name would you cover up the fact that these people didn’t have a child at the school? That’s a pretty f’n hard thing to do, I’d imagine . . . and I believe a lot can be covered up, by the way.

    The main thing I struggle with on this and Dark Knight shooting is the gun control issue. It would take a very deep and convincing argument to convince me that people behind the shadows give the first real sh!t about guns. As a thought experiment, consider how, armed with even a few guns and plenty of ammo, you’d start a revolution? Who would you even shoot? A police officer? The Mayor? People with jobs would never join you. There’d quickly be (naturally and induced) internal divisions and factioning. Even an entire state being armed would conceivably be up against tanks, grenades, drones, aerial bombs. In fact, I even tend to think that the powers that be want individuals to have guns and do some crazy things from time to time – kill people – because it gives them excuses to clamp down in other, more meaningful ways. In fact, I’d speculate that the powers that be would rather the masses be concerned with something like “taking our guns away” as a distraction issue . . .

    Also, with the Dark Knight shooting, was there even mention of gun control following the incident? I tend to view false flag events with something of a Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine attitude: if they’re doing this thing on purpose to impose something we wouldn’t ordinarily allow, they’ll do it very, very quick. They won’t be idle pushing something through. This was true following 911 and the Patriot Act and the War on Afghanistan . . . also with phony evidence and the war on Iraq.

    It’s true that with this shooting there is talk, and looks like there will indeed be, gun control measures brought about . . . but still, I’m not fully convinced that that means anything. For argument’s sake, let’s assume the shooting was exactly what we’re told it was: what president/administration/etc. could conceivably get away with not doing anything at all? Is that possible? When bad things happen, people want to blame someone and they want to do something to prevent it from happening again in the future . . . even if it’s not necessarily the most effective thing to do.

    So, if it is/was an orchestrated event, why? What’s the motivation?

    1. “So, if it is/was an orchestrated event, why? What’s the motivation?”~Clresu

      The motivation is manifold, it comes under the general heading of “The Strategy of Tension” {SEE: Ruffadam -JANUARY 2, 2013 – 5:40 AM, above}.

      You say, “…When bad things happen, people want to blame someone…” Yes, this is the motivation right there, it is called the Hegelian Dialectic, it is a scientific formula for ‘divide and conquer’ – the Division is; ‘Those who blame’ and ‘Those who are blamed’.

      Amerika is already divided by the “Left/Right Paradigm” that has been manufactured by the Public Relations Regime for the past one hundred plus years. The agenda is a continuing ‘Process’ of fragmentation, of one against another, of all against all. In a term, the agenda is to promote “Fear and Loathing”.

      \\][//

  10. Craig McKee said : “I don’t know whether actors were used in Aurora but I believe they were for 9/11. I think of the guy who “watched one tower collapse, I don’t think you can just make a blanket statement that everyone is acting any more than you can say every photo is fake. You have to look at each piece of evidence, one at a time.”

    So it would presumably be safe to say, in your case, that you believe that all of the Sandy Hook “evidence ” as presented on TV etc. is real and authentic until proven otherwise, correct? In other words, you are starting from the pre-assumption that the “evidence” is all true and correct until definitively proven otherwise to yourself, right?

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. I don’t know how you can come to the conclusions you do here about Craig buying into what the TV is presenting as “evidence” OBF, it is this twisted loonball thinking that makes you stand out as a provocateur on a mission to add cognitive dissonance to every conversation that takes place here.

      Whether you are the cops or a crackpot doesn’t matter, the result of your actions come to the same place.

      \\][//

  11. Here’s a video that might be of interest concerning the Robbie Parker debate. It shows a very convincing overlay indicating that daughter Emilie Parker, a victim in the shooting, appears to be present with President Barack Obama backstage at a memorial for the victims. She wears a dress that she can be seen wearing in another family portrait. The reason I didn’t get into this is because I considered that the girl we see with Obama might be Emilie’s sister. Watch this video and judge for yourself.

    1. I think it IS Emilie’s sister…The other three kids are from another family.
      All of the Parker girls were towhead blonds. And they all look very much alike.

      This doesn’t fly for me, there are only two Parker girls with the president, why wouldn’t the other be there? The smaller girl on his knee has sandy brown hair – she is not a towhead, not a Parker girl.

      \\][//

      1. They all look alike that is true BUT Emily had long hair when the family photo was taken while her two sisters had short hair. I also noticed that in the family photo Emily is much bigger then her two sisters while they are both roughly the same size with one being slightly bigger than the other. So if the two surviving sisters are very close to the same size then one of the two girls pictured with Obama has grown more than the other AND gotten long hair in between the time of the two photos.

        I think there may be something to this because the girls in the two photos wearing the same cloths look identical to me not just similar. This kind of thing could be resolved by facial recognition software. I can’t say I know for sure that they are both Emily but it looks like it to me.

        I have to say the fathers press conference was disturbing to me not only because he obviously worked himself up into a fake emotional state but because all through his statement he was blinking his eyes very slowly and even keeping them closed extra long before opening them again but when he started answering questions this went away and he was blinking much less often and not keeping his eyes closed at all. Watch it for yourself at the link above.

        Your Eyes: A Review on the Studies Done on Eye Behaviors Amnah Bin Bahar
        http://www.academia.edu/1867326/A_Review_on_the_Studies_Done_on_Eye_Behaviors

        From page 14 “a decreased blink rate signifies that a person is concentrating or focusing on a challenging task”

        From page 15 “Eyes and Dishonesty
        The last topic that will be discussed concerning the eyes is the concept of dishonesty and deceit.Most of the times, someone gives us a compliment, but we’re reluctant to accept it because the way the other person looked at us when they said it was suspicious. There are four main ways in which could know that a person is being dishonest through their eyes:
        1. Avoid eye contact: A person who is being dishonest with another person, will rarely look that person in the eye because it would require a greater effort to hide the dishonesty. So they’d look away to ease their tension and anxiety.
        2. Rapid eye blinking: As stated before, when a person is highly excited, their blinking rates will increase. As such, when a person is being dishonest, his/her blinking rates will increase dramatically. This is because the pressure and apprehension will cause a person’s eyes to dry, and so blinking increases so that it can keep the eyes moist and clean (Kuhnke, 2007).
        3. Wider eyes: This has two meanings, pupil dilation and the widening of the outer eyes. When a person is lying they tend to become more attentive, and thus the eyes widen so that the person can take in more information so as to become more aware and more careful not to slip up.
        4. Eye movements: watching eye movements is one of the best ways to spot dishonesty in a person. When the eyes move in various directions, it indicates that a person is trying to come up with a story on an explanation.

      2. RuffAdam,

        >You say, “They all look alike that is true BUT Emily had long hair when the family photo was taken while her two sisters had short hair.”

        This isn’t so, the littlest had her hair tied in little tufts to the side of her head and is shorter, the middle sister however has her hair tied back – maybe a ponytail, so we don’t know how long it was, likely for a ponytail it would be close to her bigger sister’s hair.

        Robbie Parker is a bafflement, I still think there is a possibility that he was hypnotized or maybe drugged. There is no telling. Whatever it is, it is a strange performance.
        If he were hypnotized, remember the dialog off camera as he sort of comes-to and begins to walk forward, that could be a hypnotic cue, or a cue to look at the cards in his hands which may have had a hypnotic symbol there. [MK?]

        Good info on “lairs eyes” though…something to ponder.

        \\][//

      3. Out of my deep respect for you Mr Ruff,

        Let me amend my words, ‘This is not so’ in my first response to you. And let me replace those words with, ‘This is what I see in the Parker’s family photo.’
        It is after all, my opinion judging the photo, with no further info as to when it was taken or other photos of the girls in that time period.

        \\][//

    2. I think it’s Emilie’s sister in hand-me-downs, although there’s a resemblance. I’ve been checking CNN’s web site for this photo, figuring they’d never post it if indeed it is Emilie Parker.

      1. I was intrigued by this also. It’s hard for me to tell, because the two sisters are awful darned similar looking. The fact that both girls appear in the same dress makes it even harder to tell. But, if it is indeed the sister and not Emilie, their looks are extremely close.

        If this is all a hoax, why would they make such a ridiculously huge blunder? Is it possible that they’re deliberately throwing out obvious clues to the fraud, for the “conspiracy theorists” to latch on to (knowing we can be marginalized as just that), as they test just how much a dumbed down populace will take without questioning?

        But, yes, if not the same person, then extremely similar. Not convinced either way.

    3. Hello Paul: Have you considered elaborating, if you haven’t all ready, regarding MK Ultra and Project Monarch mind control programs and where they fit into this event in Connecticut?

      1. I apologize to you Craig for calling you Paul. I must have been tired. Can you respond to the question now that I have your attention? Thanks.

        1. Ha! Sure. I wondered why that question went to Paul. The answer is yes, it is something I will bring in to the mix. Certainly there are a lot of compelling reasons to believe that mind control was involved in Aurora although we haven’t got as strong a case in Connecticut. Not yet.

          It’s very hard to convince non-believers about these shootings being staged, particularly when mind control is brought into play. I know because I’ve had some ridicule for even using the term “mind control.” But MK-Ultra was/is a real program and there’s plenty of reason to think it’s being used for purposes like these. In the Gabrielle Giffords case mind control was the first thing I considered.

    4. It’s not uncommon for deceased individuals to reappear after their deaths. Ten years after Bin Laden’s death he reappeared only to die again. Ever get the feeling you’re being lied to? It’s strictly a matter of getting the cattle to the slaughter house before they realize what’s happening.

  12. What really discredits your article is that you cite “Veteran’s Today” as a media source.
    The guy who runs that, Gordon Duff, is a COINTELPRO propagandist. In this clip he admits that almost half of what he puts out is disinformation, claiming that he does it to protect his life! What lame selfish excuse! http://www.latenightinthemidlands.com/video/gordon-duff-veterens-today-exposed-dec-19-2012-lnm
    Mr Duff also works with Alex McGowin Studer who is the creator of the edited version of the Medical Examiner news interview, and either he or someone else in their camp, edited the Robbie Parker video! These videos are naturally are bizarre, why edit them? This is their M.O.!….to demonize and confuse people, which is part of the Hegelian Dialectic. Studer works for a guy who calls himself a doctor, but he is a fraud named, True Ott. (see http://www.TrueOtt.com.) They worked under the late FBI director Ted Gunderson who started COINTELPRO with J. Edgar Hoover. Gunderson and these guys also worked under Michael Aquino, who is a high ranking Army officer, whose expertise is MK ULTRA. These guys did not just infiltrate the entire truth movement, conspiracy movements, patriot movements, new age movements… they created them from the start. This organization also targeted whistleblowers, activists, and peacemakers like JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Malcolm X, and many more. My take on Robbie Parker’s interview is that he is in shock and on some sort of muscle relaxer or downer. I listened to his whole interview, and it broke my heart. I wholeheartedly believe these children were killed in this massacre, but I believe this is more of the real story: http://www.latenightinthemidlands.com/profiles/blogs/cointelpro-claims-actors-pulled-off-sandy-hook-shooting-expose-th

    1. I’m confused. You say that my article is discredited because I cite a Veteran’s Today source and then you provide a link to the very same article posted on a different web site. Niall Bradley is the author in question. You endorse his article but then say I’m discredited for doing the same.
      Your link has some commentary about Cointelpro and then it starts taking verbatim from Bradly’s article without giving credit (except at the bottom). Perhaps you’d like to revise your comments about this source?

      1. I see what you are saying as well Craig, Naill Bradley is a “guest” article on VT, perhaps Exposing Morons can untangle himself or apologize for the “discredit” remark. It should be understood that making reference to articles and websites is not necessarily endorsement of everything said by or posted on.

        A lot of people seem to want to land with their shield up and take a testy stance when first landing on a new site. It is becoming too common on the web, and just shows how successful the Strategy of Tension is.

        Now I can be a hard-case once I have concluded someone is the cops, no doubt about that, but making snap judgments on first impressions is not a great idea.

        So come on Mr Exposing, don’t be a moron yourself, apologize to the host of this site for your error and snap judgement. Da?

        \\][//

    2. Exposing Morons,

      I agree with a lot of what you say here, and the take by Late Night, to a great degree.

      I have had my suspicions about Veterans Today for quite some time now. And I am in absolute agreement that Ed Chiarini aka Dallas Goldbug is PSYOPS.

      There has been a lot of hysteria spread concerning this whole thing being staged by an actors troupe. And the already twisted bunk that comes from the MSM is then spun counter clockwise by the counter agents on the web.

      I work with a group of people on another blog who do deep investigating into these “events” and even several of them are off into the weeds with this “Actors/Staged” bullshit, the “Greenberg Family” crap from Dallas Goldboogers…

      Red Herrings Inc. is all that is.

      Thanks for joining our conversation here.

      \\][//

  13. By the way, just as an afterthought…

    If this was indeed a Gladio-style operation, with an official story as false as 9/11’s official story, disinformation specialists will, right off the bat, deliberately poison the well in order to distract from and discredit the true evidence.

    1. Absolutely Adam,

      As far as disinformation specialists, there seems to be a veritable army of them working the web on this case. It even gets more complex when others are duped by the disinfo and then do copycat routines based on it. There are now so many “video analyses” of these “actors” on Youstupid that it makes the head spin. “Democracy” in action..{grin}.

      \\][//

    2. @Adam

      Quoting Craig..

      It’s almost as if all these “errors” were thrown into the mix on purpose to camouflage other anomalies and gaps in the story.

      You’ll always see an information overload spouted by the media in the days following any major PSYOP offensive. The way I see it, this is to cover all of the options. Whittling away what doesn’t fit, awkward witness testimonies, police statements or footage that isn’t under their control. Just look at the Pentagon op on 9/11 and how long it took for the official line to stutter through the media whether an aircraft struck the building or not. The helicopter story, for example. Or the unconfirmed report that a helicopter pilot was asked to divert the approaching aircraft. Or the control tower at Reagan reporting an aircraft having to swiftly divert from the path of the approaching plane around the airport itself. All scenarios later denied when all of the surrounding footage was collected and awkward witnesses such as Lincoln Liebner and Alan Wallace had been “debriefed”. They waited to see where the chips lay. Plans A, B and C. Keeping the official line as organic and flexible as possible. Look at John Doe 2 in Oklahoma!

      Craig, I would be careful of pointing the finger at victim families in these scenarios. It only gives both sides of the disinfo brigade (OBF and Wright, for example) more ammo to diminish the solid evidence you’ve listed in your excellent article.

      Question, yes. Accuse, no.

      2cents

  14. @ Craig McKee:
    I had previously stated :”So it would presumably be safe to say, in your case, that you believe that all of the Sandy Hook “evidence ” as presented on TV etc. is real and authentic until proven otherwise, correct? In other words, you are starting from the pre-assumption that the “evidence” is all true and correct until definitively proven otherwise to yourself, right?”

    To put it another way, Craig, why,[oh why? :-0 ], when you have made all of those observations in your article to date, including the conviction that the mainstream media has been complicit in broadcasting news involving the use of scripted actors, would you _still_ pre-assume [i.e _prior_ to your own,further investigation] that any other parts of the medias/governments story are most likely true, at this stage?

    Surely it makes more sense to start from an investigative pre-assumption that most likely, the rest of the official story is either simply mistaken, or possibly deliberately fabricated, until conclusively proven otherwise?

    Why still give the media/government story _any_ benefit of the doubt at this stage, knowing what you think you already know?

    After all, regarding 9/11, I can clearly remember you saying [a couple of months back] , that it was not our job to disprove every aspect of the governments account, it was the governments job to prove absolutely every aspect of _it’s_ story to us. [or words to that effect].

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. I don’t assume as much as you suggest I do. I don’t assume the official story to be true in any of the situations I’ve written about, but neither do I assume every detail to be false. I don’t think this is advisable or necessary. I believe that the evidence has to be considered before conclusions are drawn. In situations like the Connecticut shooting I certainly start with a healthy suspicion of the official story but I follow the evidence as best I can.

      As to 9/11, I’m not sure if that’s exactly what I said. I think I said that it’s not our job to prove exactly what DID happen as long as we can prove that the government’s version of events is false. In other words, they have to prove that a large plane hit the Pentagon. I don’t have to prove what happened to Flight 77 in order to challenge the official story.

      1. just getting into the sandy hook thing…i have no idea what to make of it, but so far i relate best to this take from ww:

        “Robbie Parker is a bafflement…If he were hypnotized, remember the dialog off camera as he sort of comes-to and begins to walk forward, that could be a hypnotic cue, or a cue to look at the cards in his hands which may have had a hypnotic symbol there. [MK?] ”

        yeah, a bafflement, alright. his change in demeanor is just too bizarre.

        at least one thing is for certain tho –“that cute hot tottie on RT explaining the allegory of the cave” is all that. phew! with brains and perspective to boot!

        also appreciative of the reminder from ruffadam that “Operation Gladio specifically called for massacres of children to achieve its aims.”

        –d

  15. Craig McKee said: “I don’t assume as much as you suggest I do. I don’t assume the official story to be true in any of the situations I’ve written about, but neither do I assume every detail to be false. ”

    A misunderstanding on your part, Craig. There is a big difference between a pre-assumption that all of the “evidence” to date is “most likely” mistaken, faulty or falsified until proven otherwise “beyond a reasonable doubt”, [which is what I suggested] , and a carte- blanche statement/pre-assumption [i.e.prior to further , more detailed investigation], that all of the “evidence” _is_ [necessarily] actually false, which is what you consistently appear to be assuming to be my own point of view, regarding both this event and 9/11.

    As far as I can see, there should be no “level playing field ” here for the governments evidence/story in any investigators mind- absolutely every part of the government/media story “should” be initially assumed to be either faulty, or deliberately falsified until it can be definitively proven otherwise; therefor it “should” always be an uphill battle in the investigators own mind to prove any and every part of that official story, and, I would suggest, particularly in this case [Sandy Hook], in the mind of an investigator who has _already_ concluded that the media appears to be using actors in this particular instance to promote the official story version – but, as usual, I appear to be in a very, very small minority in this regard for some reason, both here and elsewhere. Such is life🙂 .

    Regards, onebornfree.
    P.S. If you are aware that actors were used in the case of 9/11, [probably the biggest psyop of this century to date], as you previously stated, and you are also aware that actors were used in the recent [smaller] Sandy Hook psyop, is it not perfectly reasonable to pre-assume [without further investigation on your part] that they were “most likely” used at Aurora also, as part of a working hypothesis? If not, why not?

    1. I don’t know why you’re so concerned with presuming anything. I believe we should look at the evidence and then make a judgment. If I were you I’d stick to evidence and stop wasting a lot of energy (yours and mine) asking about what should be presumed or not presumed. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that actors were used in Aurora but I don’t feel the need to comment on that when I don’t have any information showing that. I’m not even saying for sure that actors were used in Newtown, although I am highly suspicious of this. It’s Robbie Parker that I most don’t believe.

      1. OBF is here to make a detour into the weeds.

        It is obvious that all of his bla bla bla is nothing but misdirection. There is no gain in dialoging with this stooge.

        \\][//

  16. Craig McKee said:”If I were you I’d stick to evidence”

    What evidence? Evidence of what? And who says its evidence?

    Craig McKee said:”…stop wasting a lot of energy (yours and mine) asking about what should be presumed or not presumed. ”

    And yet assumptions [ or presumptions] are critical because a logically derived theory about what happened always rests on those presumptions. If those presumptions are incorrect, no matter how “logical” a theory might be, it would still be wrong.

    And if I really am wasting your time as you say, [and no, I do not think I’m wasting mine] why would you bother to respond at all? No one can force you to reply to me, [or me to them] after all.

    Regards [mystified] onebornfree.

  17. Another thought . . . on the Actor Hypothesis: if the McDs are actors – and their interview is certainly very, very suspicious – then for that very reason I believe someone did a pretty lousy job of picking actors. Shouldn’t they have easily known the role they were supposed to be playing? That of the grieving parent?

    In other words, when you watch the two parents and say that b/c they don’t seem to be genuine and/or grieving and are thus actors, you’re actually arguing against them being actors . . . . or something contradictory like that . . . sorry for the wording . . . Thoughts?

    1. Clresu,

      In my honest opinion, I think the attempt at psychoanalysis on such a small amount of acquaintance – such as these relatively short segments would be a waste of a professional’s time, let alone a bunch of laymen making assumptions on the Internet.

      Frankly, what this would mean escapes me. What is the presumption lead to if it is decided that they are acting, or coached, or not who they are supposed to be? I just don’t see where all of this is supposed to be headed.

      More than anything I see it as a form of confused hysteria, grasping at straws and groundless allegations. I think this is exactly the confusion the powers that be want to promote. Therefore, I think it a better tactic to stick to the anomalies in the official story, the number of weapons, the culprits apprehended and no longer accounted for. The ever changing script of the “official story”, etc.

      And most important is to keep our eye on the ball – the agenda that this is serving, the new gun legislation now proposed, the psychological testing of gun owners, etc.

      We get spin on MSM and counter spin from many counter-intel blog sites. I see this as all managed from a central source. Confusion is the results they seek.

      Take a deep breath and line up the dots that really have significance, let the rest of the bullshit float down the drain.

      \\][//

    2. “someone did a pretty lousy job of picking actors”
      It seems that they are deliberately flaunting it in our faces. We know and can do nothing about it, which only adds to our feeling of helpless impotence. As with 9/11, it really doesn’t matter how badly they screw up the actual event. The media is there to tell everyone exactly what happened, actual evidence be damned.

  18. Uncertainty in combination with fear and loathing is a powerful formula for a strategy of tension.

    We certainly recognize that if the goal of the PR Regime were to take this Sandy Hook story and present an explanation for all of the anomalies in the story they could come off with a plausible tale to sooth the confusion.

    It would likely be something the critical thinkers would see through, but they aren’t the ones that the general propaganda is aimed at.

    I think it is clear that just enough ambiguity is threaded in on purpose to cause that cognitive dissonant effect in the larger audience, and then for those who are paying closer attention the web is pumped with detail not mentioned on MSM, that is also purposely twitched out and weird. Also there are to legitimate research sites that attempt to sift through all of this clutter and find the holes in the mainstream story, to form some sort of reasonable conclusion as to what could actually have happened.

    \\][//

  19. Craig: It appears as the though the “culprit” in the aurora shooting looks drugged and spaced out as though he has no connection to where he is at – detained and charged and how he got to this place.

    I’ve wondered if the use of “actors” in these plots is a form of mind control since they believe they are performing some useful and harmless function and are apparently clueless to what will and has happened

  20. Ciresu said: “In other words, when you watch the two parents and say that b/c they don’t seem to be genuine and/or grieving and are thus actors, you’re actually arguing against them being actors . . . . or something contradictory like that . . . ”

    Are you saying that if we did not detect them as being actors, _then_they’d be actors [because we could not detect them as such], but because we see them as being actors, and they are so bad, then they must be genuine?

    If so, it would seem you have a lot of faith in the abilities of those in the acting profession🙂

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. Well, to speculate on the actor thing is going out on a limb, to be sure, but we can’t help but do it. For me, I guess I’m just saying that I agree with most who find some of the testimonies pretty f’n suspicious, almost extremely so in the case of the McDs and the guy who takes a breath to – alledgedly – get into character. But with the McDs, well, they’re just not playing the role you’d expect a grieving parent to play – at all in my opinion, which makes one think something’s fishy while simultaneously doubting that someone would be so off base in representing a grieving parent.

      As for my faith in the abilities of actors, well, I guess what I’m questioning here is the role more than the acting job of playing the role.

      Lastly, like I said, it’s only speculation on my part . . . On the flip side of it I can say that people probably plain out act different/weird knowing they’ll be on national TV, maybe even after losing a kid, which might explain something . . .

  21. I would submit that most here are more accustom to seeing actors in film and on TV portraying ‘grief’ than they are at witnessing real grief in real life and expect some standard “act”, rather than the great variety of human reactions that take place in real life.

    Being ‘conditioned’ as to these expectations there is disappointment in the ‘acting skills’ of those who are in that confused stage of real grief.

    How many of you have cried as an adult? And what was it that brought on the tears? And if this were in public, was there not the tendency to hold back, to feel embarrassment?
    This is a form of cultural conditioning here. ‘Wailing in grief’ is looked upon askance by this pathological culture, RESTRAINT in a “civilized manner”, keeping your ‘public mask’ up is so practiced it is ingrained.

    How many times were you scolded for “acting out” while growing up?

    “Big girls don’t cry” even more enforced is, “Big boys don’t cry”…

    Real life ain’t the movies, don’t expect it to be so.

    \\][//

    1. I agree with you that people will not always cry in public (or at all) no matter what has happened. The only thing is that some of these parents appear to be crying but without tears.

      1. I have myself “cried” – that is, had the overwhelming convulsive emotions without tears, my eye’s sting, but the tears don’t flow…although my eyes might water and perhaps small precipitation swelling in the corner.

        Earlier this morning something made me recall the death of one of my birds…the first parrot I had. He died just about five years ago now. Deeter’s death broke me down hard. He died in my hands after seizing all night – a stroke.
        I did cry hard through that night as he would seize and then go limp…over and again.
        Yes tears did flow during that time.

        This morning as I remembered back on this I felt like crying, but no tears came, just that stinging and choking up in the throat.

        Going back to five years ago…I couldn’t cry at the vets where he first went into the seizures, only on our way home in the truck, did the tears come…

        At any rate Craig…I still think the judgments made over these videos are unwarranted.
        People are going to have their own opinions on this, that is the course of things, but I strongly disagree, and have said so. So be it.

        \\][//

      2. I too have had that convulsive thing happen without actually shedding tears. Personally, I don’t find it that strange at all. And with the neighbor, well, I doubt if I were the neighbor I’d cry either. I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that, being on TV with something this big and tragic – the death of little kids, for Christ’s sake – likely puts an odd social pressure on one to be upset/sad/grieve/cry in some, certain way . . . at least I would guess for most people . . .

        That was my thought seeing the neighbor . . . that he possibly felt he had to act a certain way.

        Like I said above, though, the McDs and the “let me take a breath” guy are pretty suspicious regardless of anything . . .

  22. Historically, governments have always used actors to “enhance” ” reality”- anyone at all familiar with the book “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” fully understands this fact.

    It’s no different today. For a hilarious recent non- US example, check out the fake “wailers” at the funeral of North Korea’s Kim jong-il [they seem to do a better, or, at least funnier, job than our own Sandy Hook examples- damn commies🙂 ]:

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. Alright OBF,

      I am more than a bit familiar with, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”…

      So let us have chapter and verse from that book to illustrate precisely what you mean by,
      >”governments have always used actors to “enhance” ” reality”.

      Is this a vague reference to “bread and circuses”? Or do you have something specific in mind that would be analogous to this Sandy Hook event?

      \\][//

    2. Onebornfree, Fake wailers in Korea? If you have done any research into funerals in asia you will find that in ALL funerals they have what you call “fake wailers”. Funeral processions in asia are organised with a group of usually elderly folk who are hired to wail, cry and prostrate themselves on the ground in a show of grief. It’s all theater to outsiders, but such prformances are part of the culture in asian countries.
      Al

      1. Welcome back to the forum Al,

        You don’t actually expect that OBF would know any facts about anything he says here???

        Let him process his oinking…{grin}…he will not pay any attention to feedback. He has something to sell, his routine remains consistent to that. all of his offerings eventually lead back to his 9/11 Video Fakery Kiosk: Delusions For Sale.

        \\][//

  23. Craig, can you please comment on the lack of gore. There is no reenactment of the crime anywhere or that I know of. I haven’t seen any gruesome evidence. We have basically no details. They put a pansy out there and expect us to be satisfied with no investigation? None of the families wanted to see their loved ones. I agree it would be hard. But closure is an important healing process. I’d also like to interview other students to ask if they even knew the so-called victims. Innocent kids dying hits the hardest; they definitely know how to press their agenda.
    -crick

    1. I’m not sure whether we ever really see much gore in these situations, although we do have a photo of Klebold and Harris’s dead bodies in the Columbine shooting. Here we don’t even have a photo of the broken glass in the door that Lanza allegedly shot his way through.

      There are a lot of oddities in this case: the medical personnel being forced to set up in the fire station instead of closer to the school; the report saying that the bodies of the children were supposed to be left in the school until the Sunday after the shooting but instead they were removed the night before when no one was there to see. Even the fact that the parents were only allowed to see photos of their children seem pretty odd.

      1. “Even the fact that the parents were only allowed to see photos of their children seem pretty odd.”~Craig

        More than odd, absolutely unprecedented in legal terms of body identification. This is one aspect of this case that I think needs to be highlighted and exposed as beyond all legal protocol. This sets an insidious precedent; that of the ‘state’ “owning” the body of a victim of a crime, rather than the relatives of the victim.

        This is an aspect of instituting Full Spectrum Dominance, dead or alive you are the ‘property’ of the State.

        \\][//

  24. Gene Rosen contradicts himself by saying he took 6 kids into his house where their parents subsequently picked them up, then in another video he states that he took them to the firestation. He also says that he saw the casualty list at 6:00 PM on the day of the attack. As I understand it, this list was not released on Dec. 14.

      1. Rosen seems to me a publicity seeking neurotic. Much in the way OBF uses the web to feed his neurotic fantasies.

        I also want to note that now this thread has completely devolved into banter over hearsay, and speculation over who might shed tears when and where…

        Forensically speaking a dead-end street – like a frickin’ gossip column. And next up here is more Simon Shack horseshit from our favorite looney, OBF…

        \\][//

      2. Not once does Rosen mention any names: the 6 kids he brought into his house, the man he saw talking to them on the curb, the female bus driver who dropped them off at his house, and the mother who came looking for her child. He said he couldn’t say the mother’s name because it made him too sad. WTF?!!!

  25. How about some bad 9/11 actors on film? Here is Simon Shacks analysis of a few of them, starting with the unbelievable Bob MacIlvane, who cries on cue at every chance he gets and has to be seen to be believed🙂

    And for those of us dull enough to try to equate [with a straight face, no less] losing one’s pet parrot with the sudden loss of their child due to violent murder at school [or so we are told], “and now for something completely different!” :

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. OBF

      Let’s all laugh at the grieving dad, Bob McIlvaine.

      Let’s get our heads round this.

      CIA : Okay Bob, here’s the deal. These 9/11 truthers are getting a bit of popularity. We need you to infiltrate these people.

      Bob: Okay, what’s the spin?

      CIA: Pretend to be a 9/11 victim family member. A father.

      Bob: Okay, what’s my mission?

      CIA: Blend in. Make emotional speeches at rallies and meetings. Demand answers as to why your son’s death has been brushed under the carpet. Use those same emotional speeches and public grief to put more fuel in the tanks of researchers and activists.
      Be at the forefront of the WTC7 campaign.

      Bob: Ummm…won’t that have the opposite effect?

      CIA: No. At the oppotune moment, we’ll think of something to discredit 9/11 truthers.

      Bob: Ah, okay. Gotcha.

      10 years later….

      Bob: Say when?

      Seriously Craig? If he’s not going to answer anything from any other poster but yourself, don’t you think this cretin OBF should be challenged?

      He’s turned yet another blog into another mindless “fakery” blurb. One thing is freedom of speech, but there’s also the right to debate. Should we all get on our soapboxes and shout over eachother here?

      In fact, google “Bob McIlvaine” and the top search is “fake”, the fourth is “actor”. Google “9/11” and the first results are to most debunker sites. What does that tell you?

      Anyway, here’s a video that I’d intended to post to blow the govt loyalist myth that mind control is a “troofer fantasy”

      1. Thanks for posting the Darren Brown video, it is a very important work.

        I think we should also consider my suggestion that forms of hypnosis are at play with these interviews of the families and others in the Sandy Hook event.

        It should be noted that the average Amerikan is already in a constant trance state. This has been explained adequately in the information of the psychological effects of watching TV.

        These people become victims of both ‘obedience to authority’ and are subjected to powerful psychological manipulation, do to many aspects of the experience of being interviewed by the very medium they are already enchanted by: The setting, the bright lights, facing a camera, the cues and instructions given on how to act and what the agenda of the interview is meant to convey – a requiem mass for a loved one.

        \\][//

      2. @Willy

        And if you notice the “trigger” used by Derren Brown (the polkerdot handkerchief), notice Sirhan Sirhan’s trigger here. A “shiny urn”.

      3. OSS,

        I found it interesting that Darren Brown used the polkadot handkerchief, for it seems that Sirhan met a girl in a polkadot dress by the shiny coffee urn in the Ambassador kitchen.
        Seems that Sirhan over-rode his conditioning to the point that he never actually hit RFK with any of his shots. It is very well established that it was Thane Eugene Caesar, the “bodyguard” that shot Kennedy.

        Another tragic case for both victim and patsy.

        \\][//

      4. @Willy

        Virgin territory for me (RFK) but for the lurkers here…

        Nina Rhodes-Hughes: RFK second shooter 12…14 shots (Sirhan Sirhan’s revolver held 8 bullets)

        Experts — two guns used

        The assassination of RFK

        I think the “coincidences” that Craig mentions about these locations being mentioned in the Batman movies had a purpose.

      5. OSS,

        Thank you for the videos on the RFK assassination.
        Having studied the case from the day it happened, and being in LA at the time, a lot of information establishing the true nature of the killing was available as the weeks followed.

        The number of shots fired according to the bullet holes in the pantry were at least 17, this is not counting bullets that hit Kennedy or other people. All of the tiles and door frames where these bullet holes were found were removed by LAPD and destroyed, along with many other pieces of evidence, including a roll of film that the photographer was certain showed another gunman.

        The reconstruction of the event using all available evidence and circumstantial evidence proves a conspiracy – again leading to the local police, the Federal authorities and prominent business people. A surprise to many will be the probable participation of Desi Arnez {“Lootsie you’ve gotta lotta splainin’ to do”} Sirhan worked at the stables of a racehorse ranch owned by Arnez. This is a Cuban expatriate situation that falls into the same cabal that shot Bobby’s brother John in Dallas.

        \\][//

      6. ww,

        re: “This is a Cuban expatriate situation that falls into the same cabal that shot Bobby’s brother John in Dallas.”

        whatever the connections of sirhan to desi, i don’t think any cuban cabal had the power and wherewithal to program sirhan (that had to be an mk ultra type operation), or hire the second rfk gunman, or to carry out and then cover up the assassination of jfk (the latter of which had to come from above lbj and thru him to chief justice earl warren).

        –d

    2. obf,

      in years past, when i was part of the nyccan efforts, i witnessed bob mcilvane, on a number of occasions, speak publicly about losing his son in 9/11. he broke down at times, fought back tears at other times, and retained his compuser at still other times. he most certainly did not cry when he was on national tv (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP0Hs-v-uJ0 ). thus, i would characterize your allegation that “Bob MacIlvane…cries on cue at every chance he gets,” as contemptible and baseless.

      –d

      1. Dennis,

        You say to OBF – ” i would characterize your allegation that “Bob MacIlvane…cries on cue at every chance he gets,” as contemptible and baseless.”

        I would characterize practically everything OBF says as contemptible and baseless.
        I might say he is a heartless ghoul, but I will just think it….{whoops – it just slipped off my keys…oh well}.

        \\][//

  26. I suggest that rather than all these personal subjective assumptions on who might shed tears in a TV interview; that we rather consider the implications of the revelations of Stanley Milgram’s work in, ‘Obedience to Authority’.

    If an authority figure can manipulate the average person to electrocute someone, as some 65 percent of the subjects in his experiment, what is the mystery of the “authority figure” – in this case the television producers and agents, to manipulate the emotions of the subjects in these interviews?

    I would submit that what we are witnessing here is this very same type of manipulation. It is grasping this type of manipulation by the ‘authority figure’ that would be more fruitful in our attempt to understand this event, and the ‘Presentation’ of the event by the Public Relations Regime.

    \\][//

  27. This is formatted as part of a discussion on COTO to do with Sandy Hook, but I think it has relevance to this thread as well:
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    Yes I have looked at the case and all of its inconsistencies. That is why I determine that the inconsistencies are purposeful in creating a state of cognitive tension.

    Why do some of you believe that the children were not killed as reported? Because we don’t KNOW either way. And THAT is part of the strategy of tension here.

    Obviously none of this adds up – that is the point I am trying to make – it is NOT SUPPOSED TO ADD UP, and I think it is in grasping this that is the most important aspect of getting what is going on.

    Rather than spin my wheels on what doesn’t add up, I am seeing that it is part of the op, that this is the whole agenda, to flip us out and keep us chasing ghosts.

    “I know the pieces fit…”~Tool

    No the pieces DO NOT FIT…there are pop-beads all over the floor and they won’t snap into one another to make a necklace…

    You want a necklace? You’re out of luck.

    Rather than continue in these fruitless disagreements, lets look at what their agenda is achieving…fruitless disagreements. Yea? And so much more.

    This idea that the State owns us dead and alive IS an important aspect of what this agenda is telling us. We also know that it is less a matter of making guns illegal than creating armed camps willing to kill each other. The proven result of this op is that more people have gone and cleaned the shelves of semi-automatic weapons and ammo as a reaction to this event. Do you actually believe that the PTB didn’t anticipate and engineer these results? Because that doesn’t add up either unless we see it as part of the design.

    Frankly I see the majority of all this “Satanic Ritual” stuff as SPOOK THEATER: another strategy of tension, especially aimed at the hard core ‘research community’.

    This is my thinking, think of it as The Minority Report. I am not certain I am right in this, but I also know that certainty on any of this is misplaced as well.

    In light of all this, I would posit that this Sandy Hook op is one of the most successful psychological operations they have staged. We have been spun backwards forwards sideways down.

    Let us continue to search and continue to discuss this, but try to avoid getting hot under the collar at my dissident approach. Okay?

    As an added thought here;

    As far as this SPOOK THEATER goes; This just might explain why Bain’s book came out at the time it did__just prior to the Sandy Hook op.

    \\][//

  28. Several commenters have warned against addressing the behaviour of the victim’s families. I find it impossible to ignore since I too have lost a child and my experience is nothing like what these parents are exhibiting. I myself didn’t cry but my sure wife did, and the fatigue from little to no sleep certainly showed on my face. I’m not a psychologist, just a guy who has experienced this first hand. And given all the questions raised by the official account, it puts their bizarre behaviour in a different light.

    1. Peter,

      It is not my opinion that anything should be beyond addressing as per questions about this incident. However, as Craig himself has mentioned numerous times here; what has happened to the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ in this society?

      It strikes me as going out on a dangerous limb, that now not only are the alleged perpetrators of crimes judged as guilty before a proper hearing, but even victims and their families are put through the “Gossip Trial” on such very slight knowledge of the people involved or the circumstances in-which their testimonies were given.

      However, I think that based on the almost complete lack of verifiable information on this incident that any theory is as good as another.

      Like I said in another post, this seems to be one of the most successful psychological operations yet – simply undecipherable.

      At this point the only thing verifiable is the agenda it was meant to put into motion – that is right in our face: Another step to Full Spectrum Dominance.

      Perhaps focusing upon what we do know, such as the obvious agenda, would be a more fruitful enterprise.

      \\][//

    2. Hi Peter,

      I was one of those “commentators”. We should look at everything but my qualm was with any parent being labelled an “actor”. Many of us have gone through our own grieving processes. And each in our own ways.

      The grief for the loss of a friend is very different from the grief experienced on losing a parent. Or losing a grandfather compared to losing a friend. And so on and so on. I’ve never had the experience of losing a child or a partner, thank God (I’m truly sorry for your loss).

      The major difference in a traumatic loss accompanied by major media cover (by soulless ghouls looking for their scoop) and the total intrusiveness on this grief must have an affect on this grief.

      One good example of this was the world condemnation and accusations of murder against two parents in Australia when they claimed that their baby was stolen by a dingo. This was mainly blamed on the mother as appearing to be “cold”.

      I’m just saying that we should stick to the mountain of evidence already available. Don’t think for a minute that if this people’s investigation ever gets some major legs that the dark side will be all over it like a rash and turning outside observers against doubters like ourselves, using conversations like this to blacken our names.

    3. The behavior’s hard to ignore in a couple cases . . . but the link that Hybridrogue posted above, another Jon Rappoport article, was certainly illuminating for me concerning the interview with the McDs. Check it out.

  29. Jon Rappoport on The Psychiatric Police State:

    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/after-sandy-hook-how-psychiatrists-will-become-policemen/

    Gradual steps eventually add up to a fully boiled frog.

    In the “old psychiatry,” before smooth PR and modern marketing really took over, doctors were far more ready to make predictions about the future political ramifications of their work. Absolute madmen like Dr. Jose Delgado and Dr. Ewen Cameron went public with the idea that no human being has an inherent right to his own personality.
    The true role of psychiatry, they asserted, was to re-invent human character, personality, behavior, and thought, from the ground up.

    \\][//

  30. alwhitesands said :” Fake wailers in Korea? If you have done any research into funerals in asia you will find that in ALL funerals they have what you call “fake wailers”. Funeral processions in asia are organised with a group of usually elderly folk who are hired to wail, cry and prostrate themselves on the ground in a show of grief. It’s all theater to outsiders, but such prformances are part of the culture in asian countries.”

    Al, I’m not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here. Is it that _because_ the culture in question uses persons specifically hired to fake grief over a death, that this means that this does _not_ occur in other cultures, and that governments in other countries would therefor _ not _pay people to act as fake grievers, and that therefor, this “proves” that the people in question on film in my other [9/11] clip, or that Craig McKee has himself referenced [Sandy Hook] were not paid actors? If so, I fail to see the logic in your inference.

    Regards, onebornfree

  31. Peter Anderson said: “…..I’m not a psychologist, just a guy who has experienced this first hand. And given all the questions raised by the official account, it puts their bizarre behaviour in a different light.”

    Exactly, Peter. “The sum of all the evidence”, right?

    Therefor, in sum :
    overwhelmingly bizarre, entirely contradictory/impossible MSM event accounts, + unbelievable videos of grieving parents = actors [most likely] playing roles of grieving parents.

    Some here appear to have problems with simple addition and weighting/valuation of available evidence.

    But hardly surprising, really, given the clue to the type of personality revealed via the vitriol continually spewed by these particular persons.

    [ The exact same continually vitriolic persons then have the gall to demand a response, or a “debate” about whatever, when one was told, a full 6 months ago, and in no uncertain terms, that further serious exchanges with me were entirely out of the question, and the other one, equally dense enough to first explicitly request that I never speak to him again , but who has then, ever-after followed me around here, demanding I “debate” the issues with them. Boy oh boy, must their brains hurt! Hilarious🙂 ]

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. “If so, I fail to see the logic in your inference.”~OBF to Al Whitesands

      WTF? You are the one that posted the Korean funeral procession – what was the logic to that reference. What point were YOU trying to make? If you can’t figure that out – what your own motivations are, then there is little chance you’ll understand other’s bafflement at your games here.

      Your little blurb on ‘Vitriol’ is the very same chickenshit excuse you have used to worm out of answering uncomfortable questions – questions that you have no answers for about your lunatic theories on video fakery.

      A simple strategy for a stooge like you – the questions are too hard? Refuse to talk to those asking the questions. And then snipe at them in tacit little disingenuous refrains as this last post. And you have the “gall” to question other’s intelligence and reasonableness.

      \\][//

  32. Here is another video discussing the Parker family photos. This is a new photo which seems to have some serious issues.

    SMOKING GUN – New FAKE Parker Family Photo!!!!

  33. OBF

    Some here appear to have problems with simple addition and weighting/valuation of available evidence.

    Hahaha

    You won’t debate because you’ve been owned at evey turn. Let’s just cut the crap here.

    I noticed no reply to my answer to the Bob McIlvaine accusation made by OBF. Let’s just let another piece of bullshit disinfo slide in the name of what, “free speech”?

    Fuck that. Over and out (of here).

  34. My comments on: “SMOKING GUN – New FAKE Parker Family Photo!!!!”

    This guy is “trained to ah kinda see…” Lol

    Okay, I am a graphic artist as well, and since he has invited other artists to comment on this analysis I will.

    My first comment is addressed to his question; “Why is the Parker family photoshopping Emilie’s picture into this photo?”

    The answer to all of this is simple; this is a studio photo – so the Parker’s aren’t doing any photoshop ‘fakery’ here, the studio that took the shots are.

    I have worked on group photo’s for clients before where everyone in a shot is perfect but one, who may have blinked, or looked away, or simply didn’t look as good as they did in another shot. This is not illegal, this is not done to fool anybody, this is generally discussed with the client who is approving the shots they want. As such things are possible in digital this sort of thing is done at photo studios throughout the world.

    I don’t have any problem with this guy’s analysis of the photo. I think Emilie is put into this shot digitally, likely replacing another image of her. She may have blinked, looked away, or just didn’t look as pretty as in this version. She may have been too far apart from the rest in the original, she may have been too close.

    No one would find anything sinister in such business if Emilie hadn’t been killed in the Sandy Hook event. Let’s face it, this photo isn’t a “mugshot” for official purposes, it is simply for a family album and or framing.

    Now, the question is, what is this a smoking gun of? Is it to be supposed that Emilie isn’t actually part of the Parker family? What is the significance of this analysis? What does it prove?

    \\][//

  35. It is always a fascinating study of critical thinking when dealing with a group of researchers.
    There are many illustrations here of the importance of keeping a perspective on what assumptions are underlying analyses.

    The “qualified and degree’d” visual artist is a good example. His qualifications in the visual arts may be valid. But his familiarity with criminal forensics in general are not displayed in this current video of the analysis of the Parker family photo. He has not adequately articulated the bearing this analysis has on anything. He seems to make the assumption that there is some sinister aspect to this photo, but does not make this piece fit with any specific reasoning as to what the conclusions might mean.

    So let’s begin with what we can reasonably assume from the photo in the first instance. What is it. As an artist and photo analyst myself, what I see is a family photograph taken at a professional portrait studio. The scene in the background is a photo backdrop, the bale of hay a prop.

    This tells us a lot. The first thing it tells us is that pros with all the new digital tools for touching up photos are the ones who produced this photo. The apparent ages of the children tells us that it was shot at least months perhaps a year before the Sandy Hook incident. Do not take this to mean that I am unaware that this event may have been in the planning stages for a long time. I am just noting what the photo tells me.

    I have previously written how I agree that image of Emilie seems to be an addition or replacement of her in this shot.

    The thing that the photograph itself simply cannot tell us, is the assumptions now being made that this picture leads to some sinister connotations. What ever this may mean is left to be articulated here, and I have addressed that earlier as well.

    So what I ask is for anyone who see’s this picture as it is advertised as a “Smoking Gun”.
    My question is a smoking gun for what? What implications are drawn from this ?

    Keep in mind that it is two separate issues:
    1] That the photo has been altered {“extreme touch-up” is what it amounts to.”
    2] That this has any significance to the case.

    \\][//

    1. I’m uncertain as to what you’re getting at . . .

      If we believe that the photo has been altered, as I do, then I’d think it’d be hard to argue that it’s not somehow relevant to the case. After all, how many family photos add in (supposed) family members like this?

      Understandably, the questions that are implied here are really weird: what about people who know this family in real life? Are they making up a death? . . .

      At any rate, to answer your questions:

      “A smoking gun for what?” I’d say that it’s a smoking gun in the sense that it’s tampering with/constructing a story, thus implying guilt . . . and the media’s clear complicity for showing it without questioning the obvious fakery . . . (Though, admittedly I don’t, as of yet, know who broadcast this photo and when). As for the implications, well, they’re wild: they either imply that the she’s not their daughter, that she didn’t die, that she’s a made up casualty, or something like so. I have a hard time swallowing that, for sure, but the alternative is accepting the photo as real (untampered with), which is even harder to swallow.

      I understand that this is ridiculous, because, well, someone at the school should either know that she existed and went there or not . . . but if the story – on the whole – is real, then what’s the need to tamper with a photo?

      1. “but if the story – on the whole – is real, then what’s the need to tamper with a photo?”~Clresu

        If the story on the whole is real, then there is no need to “tamper” with the photo.
        My point is that if you YOURSELF have photo’s retouched in photoshop it is not “tampered evidence”.

        Photoshop is a ubiquitous part of photography in this era…it is not a crime to be creative with photos. And if there IS a crime, and we then find touched up photos in the chain of possible “evidence”, we must be very careful about jumping to the conclusion that this touched up photo is in anyway connected to or part of the crime.

        This is why I pointed out:
        Keep in mind that it is two separate issues:
        1] That the photo has been altered {“extreme touch-up” is what it amounts to.”
        2] That this has any significance to the case.

        So also keep in mind that most people don’t consider their possessions to be “evidence”, they don’t think in such terms. They may realize that their drivers license is “evidence” of who they are, but they wouldn’t think of their wife’s wine glass as “evidence” unless they had poisoned their wife.

        I don’t know…Clresu…am I being clear here to you? It seems crystal clear to me, but you obviously didn’t understand my comment you answered..
        I’m at a loss as to how to make my point any clearer.

        \\][//

  36. “Fuck that. Over and out (of here)”

    Well thank _God_ for that , and good riddance. 🙂

    We can only hope and pray. And yet, somehow, judging by past “performances” here , I sincerely doubt it.

    I give it 36 hours max🙂

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. So OBF,

      Which ‘god’ do you refer to above? Or did you use that term rhetorically?

      Oh that’s right you will not respond to me directly…shucks, I’ll have to wait for some slanderous aside when you are blabbing about some other nonsense.

      \\][//

    2. OBF is a poison pill, that is for sure and for certain. No response to any challenges to his/her/its “theories” but finds time to say good riddance to OSS who is far and away the more valued contributor here. I sincerely wish it was OBF leaving instead of OSS but alas it isn’t. I guess no requirements will ever be placed on him/her/it to answer to the fatal critiques leveled against his “theories” which are nothing more then propaganda designed specifically to disrupt, discredit, and devolve the blog. It is a real shame that OBF’s feet will not be held to the fire since in my opinion that would be the only way to put a stop to the BS once and for all without censorship. It appears he/she/it will be free to post whatever garbage desired and never have to answer for any of it. I am sorry Craig but I would have bounced this clowns ass out of here a long time ago for failing to address his critics or retract his disproven crap. I am going to take a break from the blog as well for a while because frankly speaking I am tired of wasting my time sifting through OBF’s crap.

  37. alwhitesands said: “… OBF’s convoluted replies make me nod off.”

    What are you implying, that you were previously awake? Could have fooled me Al !

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. More “cute” quips from a dipstick, who apparently has exhausted the patience of two of the most valuable contributors to this blog. It would be a shame indeed if OSS and AdamRuff were to fold and leave the table to this spittlemonger ditz. I certainly understand their frustrations. But I do hope they will reconsider.

      Meanwhile the bonehead yada obviously continues unabaited from the one eyed jackass.

      \\][//

      1. I hope they reconsider as well. I very much value both onesliceshort and Ruffadam. They are both among a small group of truthers with whom I see eye to eye on a lot of questions.

        I have put the question to OBF about whether he is willing to address questions and challenges, and the way he answers this will be important. I guess my tendency when debating on a forum is to cut off discussions that I find are wasting my time rather than continuing to the point of getting frustrated and quitting. I understand that the argument can be made that bad arguments can’t just be left unchallenged, hence the conflict.

        So, expecting someone to defend statements they make is fair. I cut off Brian Good (not as soon as some wanted me to) when it became clear to me that he had no interest in presenting genuine arguments; he just wanted to stir shit.

    2. I can understand the frustration of many here when a direct question is asked of you, OBF but you refuse to answer. C’mon now, don’t be afraid of the written words directed at you when you answer questions with questions or evade the question altogether. Sticks and stones will cause pain but words won’t hurt. Just cut to the chase and give us a summary of how the WTC smoke screen works. Al

  38. @ Craig McKee:
    Craig, I must say that I am more than a little disappointed at your censorship of my last post. That “person” has continually made personal attacks on me, for the last 4 months at least ,[with zero response from myself], and I fail to see why simply calling a spade a spade should cause you to censor me. After all, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, surely? In other words, he/it has “had it coming” for months. I reply just one time. And I didn’t even use any four letter words! What’s up with that?

    Although I sympathize and understand with the difficulty of your job, given this particular individuals viewable posting record here, this action seems more than a little biased on your part.

    Meanwhile, you chief contributor on this blog, who blathers on with his pseudo-intellectual gobbledy-gook and personal attacks on an almost hourly basis, [and whom I would quite happily address with the exact same adjectives as those you removed from my post to the individual concerned, plus a few more to boot], has continually exhibited even _worse_ animosity towards myself [and numerous others] here, and yet his behavior continues unabated to this day, as far as I can see.

    If this is _not_ an instance of unwarranted bias/favoritism on your part towards these two er, “characters” on-record behavior,[for whatever reason], I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it.

    No need to reply. Regards, onebornfree.

  39. “..I am going to take a break from the blog as well for a while because frankly speaking I am tired of wasting my time sifting through OBF’s crap.”

    This mindless blather, from yet another poster who, like the rest of the gang of assorted clowns here, and for no good reason, initially made derogatory statements to me in almost their very first response 6 months ago [when I first started posting], and was immediately told that I would no longer respond to their ill-mannered , never ending “crap” [to directly quote this particular clown].

    Too dumb to realize that all he/she/it has to do is avoid reading my posts [as I mostly do his/her/its, and all of his/her/its pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific buddies here ], he/she/it would transparently try to get me banned instead. Nice try, loser.

    Just like the other clowns here, apparently dumb enough to repeatedly call me names, and then subsequently demand [and actually expect!] a “debate” with one or other of them. Dream on!

    If it wasn’t so sad it would be comical.

    So let’s cue the world’s smallest violin playing “My Heart Bleeds for You”. And as the saying goes ,”don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out” .

    No regards, onebornfree.

    1. OBF,

      Both onesliceshort and Ruffadam have complained that you are not responding to their questions, and they’re blaming me for letting you get away with it. I don’t think anyone should have to answer a purely personal attack, but it’s fair to expect that someone making points on this forum be willing to respond to questions or challenges. You certainly ask me enough questions, so you should be willing to defend what you say. Your posting privileges (and anyone’s) depend on you commenting and debating in good faith.

      So, if anyone challenges you on any point, are you willing to address what they are saying? It’s a straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer. As for me censoring your one comment, I’d save the outrage. Maybe there have been similar insults that I’ve let go, but you can’t complain about being insulted and then do it too. And the word “twerp” seems even more gratuitous than “jackass.”
      So, if you’re willing to respond to fair questions, then we can go from there.

    2. “…and for no good reason, initially made derogatory statements to me…”~OBF

      The record is clear enough here for any to peruse on this false claim made here by OBF.

      Anyone can go back through these blogs and read the actual progression of events that led to the final determination “of the gang of assorted clowns here.”

      It is simply not true that OBF was treated to derogation initially, nor was the eventual building frustration with his tactics without cause. There are in fact sound reasons to suspect that OBF is on a mission to disrupt and bring chaos to these proceedings. These reasons have been voiced by many of the other commentators here for quite awhile.

      It is obvious glaringly so, that OBF uses the EXCUSE of being insulted in order to dodge questions of his assertions that he is incapable of answering. It is the fact that he has no reasonable answers to reasonable questions that has led to his disingenuous tactic of “choosing not to answer.”

      His hypothesis founded upon Simon Shack’s ‘Video Fakery’ regime is found to be absurd on multiple levels. These absurdities have been enumerated, and documented on these very threads. OBF has taken up the strategy of his grand master Shack, who runs his ‘Clues Forum’ with an iron fist, allowing no dissent, demanding that any and all who are allowed to post there, complete loyalty to his lunatic ravings. This is the exact template of a cult. And OBF is a missionary on an evangelical mission here.

      As those who have kept track on this blog, there was a short period of time when Shack himself appeared here. He ran into the same problems as OBF, as he could not reasonably defend his ideas but through attempts at twisted rhetoric. This is because he hasn’t the slightest idea of the technology he is attempting to analyse.

      In closing, I have no advice for Craig on how to manage this. The last thing I would suggest is banning someone. Perhaps his pointing out to OBF that he is not answering valid questions will be some help. But the dichotomy arises because it is so very obvious that one cannot defend absurdities by reasonable argument. Thus OBF has painted himself into this corner – it is no one’s fault but his own.

      \\][//

  40. “As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends,” writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader.
    freedommortgage.com/no-lender-feesIn another post, he says, “While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.”

    Read More at:

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-fau-prof-newtown-20130107,0,4267958.story

    \\][//

    1. This guy is the turning point for me . . . I went to his downthememoryhole blog and have almost completed his two part essay on the subject . . . Pretty much tips me over the edge . . .

      The fact that it is as compelling as it is would seem to me good reason to get attention away from him as soon as possible . . . Because anyone can go there and read for themselves, of course . . .

      I remember when Ward Churchill wrote his essay after 9/11. I had to actually buy the book to read the essay . . . the times are different now with the internet . . .

  41. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, age 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members. On December 11, 2012. the United Way expressed their condolences. Now that’s efficiency!

    Remake Remodel

    Well this thing with property master Scott Getzinger, puts out a vibe that I am intuiting here that I mentioned back when I first posted about him.

    The intuition is in a hypothesis that perhaps the Sandy Hook area, school and all, is perhaps a studio owned “Live Set” used for Gotham City…or any other modern set film application.

    Some of the housing may be set up as regular residential just for long shots of “character actors”.
    It would take some gumshoe snooping to get to the bottom of this if so. Looking into the financing of the properties might lead to the clues.

    The accumulated evidence in toto has caused me to reevaluate my take on this. It seems very probable that the whole Sandy Hook event was just theater made up out of whole-cloth.

    The United Way Sandy Hook School fund and memorial set up on December 11, three days before the event is the final straw that turned me around – not with absolute certainty, but I now think it’s the greatest likelihood that the whole thing was faked.

    \\][//

    1. I can find a Google search page that shows Dec. 11 when I follow a link from this article: http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/01/09/three-days-before-shooting-united-way-extends-our-most-sincere-condolences-to-sandy-hook-families/

      They then provide this link to the Google search that shows the fund page being indexed Dec. 11: https://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+united+way&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1410&bih=709&sa=X&ei=JaDqUL3jAonOhAeU7oDIBQ&ved=0CB4QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F11%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F11%2F2012&tbm=
      But when you search it any other way now I get no date at all. It has clearly been removed. Is there a possible innocent explanation for the page being indexed on Dec. 11?

      With the Victoria Soto Facebook page the claim was made that the page was converted to a memorial page after Dec. 14. Even if that were true it would be a heck of a coincidence that a page would be available to convert that had been created just four days before the shooting.

      1. I can explain this one way – which I have elsewhere. Although I think it is possible, I have my reasons for thinking that the pages were preemptive to an agenda; a complex one that involves the discovery of these URLs as suspicious – part of the strategy of tension through cognitive incongruence.

        But here is a personal instance of having a URL for close to a year before making any use of it. I have my personal blog, hybridrogue1 at a URL that was set up the same time as my URL for my account to post on COTO.

        I began posting pages on COTO close to the time the account was established. I ignored my personal site until just a couple of months ago. There are those, individuals and organizations that will set aside URLs for future uses, some they plan on some just in case they need one.

        The reason this was the straw that broke the camels back for me is the accumulative nature of ALL of the information about this case being in one form or another suspicious. As I say, this is a strategy of tension, nothing is MEANT to add up about this case.

        Whether the entire thing was staged and nothing at all real happened or whether there is reality blended with theater is simply indecipherable. I make no certain determinations other than the event is certainly a psychological operation to serve a very obvious agenda, that of fomenting civil war in the midst of a economic calamity. Further destableizations should be anticipated – coming in quick sequences now.

        \\][//

        1. HR,

          I think we see this incident very much the same way. I also believe that information is being released to create “cognitive incongruence.” Too many things that are too obviously suspicious have been allowed to come out, including the ridiculous number of false “facts” reported that came from unnamed law enforcement sources.

  42. Craig McKee said: “Both onesliceshort and Ruffadam have complained that you are not responding to their questions, and they’re blaming me for letting you get away with it. I don’t think anyone should have to answer a purely personal attack, but it’s fair to expect that someone making points on this forum be willing to respond to questions or challenges. ”

    Craig, you do not appear to be thinking straight here . A debate needs an effective, even-handed moderator, don’t you agree?

    To be blunt, as far as I can see, you do not appear to wish to assume the role of effective even-handed moderator, in my opinion. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.

    You have instead deliberately taken a mostly “hands off” approach with regards to posting content . All well and good. I accepted that and adapted to that environment.

    But you [and by extension, these other posters] cannot have it both ways.

    You surely do not now seriously expect me to debate the very clowns who, like little kids, have continually tested the limits of what they can/cannot post here and who found that they can continually get away with ad hominems and character assassinations etc., on a daily basis, do you?

    If so, you are out of your mind.

    You’d better face the facts. You yourself have deliberately encouraged an environment that is in no way suitable for serious debate, as far as I [and I’m sure others] am concerned.

    The fact of the matter is that because of their initial behavior towards myself, the pathological liar HB1, SenorEO, RA,Adam S. were all told months ago that I would not be responding to them and would mostly ignore them from then on.

    This they brought on themselves via their initial comments to myself. [i.e.”You reap what you sow”] .

    And now these clowns [one of these fools even repeatedly proudly boasts about his/its repetitively obnoxious behavior here! ], want to “debate” me? Here? In this environment/atmosphere that you yourself have fostered/created ?

    You have got to be kidding! [And they are all out of their tiny little minds!]

    OSS is in a slightly different [but equally stupid] class as the posters listed above.

    Instead of being informed by myself that I would be ignoring them from now on, this foolish OSS entity had actually requested that I ceased to address him/her. [several months ago] . I said “by all means!”, and have merely kept my word ever since, as is my custom.

    And so, all too predictably, ever since that request, and like a broken record, this particular silly little girl has followed me around here demanding debate, complaining to you; his /her complaints growing ever louder, and more peppered with four letter words and whining by the post!

    My response? : “Tough shit , loser” [OSS], “and thanks for the laughs. Maybe you [OSS] might learn from your mistake, but I seriously doubt it.” [And that goes for the rest of the clowns here too].

    As I said, I have adapted to the environment that _you_ [not they] have created and encouraged. Which means that my posts here are now predominantly simple assertions.

    None of those assertions are usually addressed to _any_ of the above listed sad excuses for human beings.

    If they reply, they are almost inevitably going to be ignored.

    My assertions are meant only for “newbies” who appear to be reasonably polite , or are addressed directly to yourself [because you are polite too🙂 ].

    As soon as any “newbie” politeness leaves however [assuming it does], they are “history”, regarding serious discussion as far as I am concerned, and become instead, targets for occasional retaliatory put-downs, for entertainment purposes [i.e.Pavlov’s dog, and all that]

    At some point,for myself [and maybe other more reasonable types], I’m afraid the “gloves” have had to come off, to the point that I will at least make the occasional derogatory comment myself , if for no other reason than to poke the hornets nest and laugh at the all too predictable results , which at least are good entertainment [for myself, that is].

    And let’s not forget there are 4 or 5 of “them” spewing their disingenuous childish filth, but only 1 of me. As far as I’m concerned the world [and certainly this blog] would be a far better place without _all_ of them.

    To be clear : I refuse to debate those who continually name call, which has been my experience with every one of the posters listed here. I am now at the point of retaliating whenever I feel the urge, and all I have to say on that score to any of these sorry excuses for human beings is :” Grow up, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out” etc.

    Craig McKee said :”So, if anyone challenges you on any point, are you willing to address what they are saying? ”

    No, not “anyone”. Yourself yes. You appear to be able to converse without the name calling, and I have honored that behavior in my interactions with you to date , as with anyone else.

    New posters who seem polite, yes.

    The others previously mentioned? No. Way. Ever. Again.

    As far as I’m concerned they are all “history”, and I will self- “moderate” them right out of my life, except for the occasional name-calling poke back, purely for the entertainment value . [Hey, I needs my entertaynmunt!]

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. What a load of self serving bullshit apologia, from the one eyed jackass.

      So there you have it Craig, you tell this rhetoric spinning spider,
      > “So, if you’re willing to respond to fair questions, then we can go from there.”

      And his answer is a couple of hundred words of telling you how to run your business and then a refusal – “No. Way. Ever. Again.”

      If this were my site I would kick his ass out.

      \\][//

    2. Dear Mr. OneBornFree, you wrote:

      The fact of the matter is that because of their initial behavior towards myself, the pathological liar HB1, SenorEO, RA,Adam S. were all told months ago that I would not be responding to them and would mostly ignore them from then on. This they brought on themselves via their initial comments to myself. … And let’s not forget there are 4 or 5 of “them” spewing their disingenuous childish filth, but only 1 of me. … To be clear : I refuse to debate those who continually name call, which has been my experience with every one of the posters listed here.

      I will ignore that that adjectival phrase “pathological liar” might be intended to modify as well “SenorEO”, aimed therefore at me, Señor El Once.

      Please provide the links and extracts to all instances where I called you names. If proven, I would like an opportunity to apologize.

      Here’s some help:
      2012-03-08
      2012-03-13
      2012-03-23
      2012-03-28
      2012-03-30
      2012-04-04
      2012-04-18
      2012-04-18
      2012-04-18

      Given that my habit, which requires constant care and practice, is to take the high-road in my postings, I fear you will come up empty handed in your charge. As such, my version of our history will be fortified.

      The last 2012-04-18 link and its context are a particularly good place to start, because it is my response to your proclamation:

      Let me make myself perfectly clear… I have NO intention of conversing with yourself, or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude], about anything relating to what I believe did or [more importantly, could not have] happened at NYC, the Pentagon, or in PA on 9/11. After this post, your posts will be studiously ignored by me.

      You see, you never even attempted the test of your objectivity from that posting.

      – What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe?

      – What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation?

      – Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle of the Clues Forums and September Clues?

      And now, it seems, others have offered another test for you in explaining how the alleged smoke screen would have worked on 9/11 and what exactly they would have been hiding and why.

      P.S. Clap! Clap! Clap! Bravo! Brav-oh! Loved your witty response!

      //

    3. onebornfree says within his long harangue:

      “Craig, you do not appear to be thinking straight here…But you..cannot have it both ways…If so, you are out of your mind…You’d better face the facts…You have got to be kidding!…To be clear : I refuse to debate.”

      So, are you going to let him own you like that Craig?

      This accusation against myself that I am a “pathological liar” is simply remarkable. It is groundless slander, far beyond any perceived “ad hominem”. I may make mistakes, even some factual errors, but I have never consciously lied on this or any other venue. Like OSS and Adam Ruff I am becoming less willing to share the threadwaves here with this lunatic OBF.

      If he doesn’t like the way you run your own blog, perhaps he should float his flatulence elsewhere.

      \\][//

      1. Hybridrogue,

        I would like the opportunity to respond to OBF without being further “pushed” to do one thing or another (my response will be posted momentarily). Yesterday, you said: “In closing, I have no advice for Craig on how to manage this. The last thing I would suggest is banning someone.” Less than a day later it seems you are suggesting just that. And you’re adding a suggestion that perhaps you will depart as well under the current conditions.

        I appreciate the support that you generally offer me in dealing with issues on this forum. Give me a few more minutes to post my response and then you, and anyone else, are welcome to comment on it.

      2. Craig,

        Please allow me to apologize for my frustrations. I do have to fall back to my real feelings on this and say that no, I don’t want to push for any banning. It is an extreme measure that should be avoided but as the last possible solution.

        My mention of a hiatus was equally spawned by the same frustrations. And I really don’t think I could manage it at any rate, I am too involved here to give this up for a spat with….ah, someone.

        Thanks for your ever practical patience.

        \\][//

  43. It’s easy Craig,

    You ask OBF to explain this:

    In his introductory statement to this blog Simon Shack presented a scenario which was purportedly predicated on the consideration of what he would do if he was going to run the psychological operation on 9/11, in particular the destruction of the WTC. His answer was that he would make sure that no one would be able to witness the actual destruction of the towers so that the entire thing could be faked using modern digital video to show on nationwide television during the actual event.

    This proposition is the foundation of his entire argument for video fakery, because if independent photographers were able to get photos and video of the real event, it would spoil the presentation put on by the TV networks – thus a special high-tech military “smoke screen” was posited as necessary for this illusion to be manufactured.

    However, as with most of Shack’s propositions he did not think through how such a cloaking device would work. It is not that he doesn’t describe the technology, which after all he posits as a military secret. The major pitfall is that he cannot describe its effect.

    We are invited to suppose that the real WTC is then somehow erased, or replaced so that no one can see or photograph the actual events playing out behind the magic veil. And this is where the insurmountable problem arises for this proposal. What is everyone actually seeing at the point in-which the planes first struck the towers, all the time until the actual global destruction takes place?

    So, what was visible. If they are hiding the real scene, what replaces it? One has to account for the people in Manhattan including the first responders.

    We are left to presume that while what “REALLY” went on at the WTC complex was in someway “veiled” by some new high-tech ‘military smokescreen’, wherein all of the first responders flooding into the area suddenly…what? Disappear behind the smokescreen? All of the noise is dampened as well? Why have the firemen and other responders even flooding into the area?

    The whole scene just disappears?? For over an hour while “the planes don’t hit the towers”, while “the towers don’t burn with gaping gashes in their sides”, “while they don’t blow up as seen in the video footage”…???

    This leaves the whole proposition NOWHERE. It cannot be pretended there is a blank canvas to paint these supposed fake visuals onto, because the World Trade Center was there, and people would certainly miss it if it just disappeared. There were eyewitnesses of the whole event, many of these are the first responders that were right in the middle of it. There are thousands of documented testimonies to the event that describe exactly what the photography shows. The amount of visual evidence is immense.

    As for a detailed analysis and rebuttal of Shack’s so-called analysis See:
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/

    \\][//

  44. You’re actually quite lucky, OBF. Many bloggers or forum editors would not allow someone to make suggestions that they might possibly be out of their minds. I guess you find a “hands off” approach useful at times.

    If someone wants to make an initial comment on the article above or any other on this blog, then I won’t stop them – I’ve made single comments on other web sites and then departed. But if a contributor goes beyond that initial comment and continues posting and making “assertions” on related (or unrelated) topics, they should expect to be challenged. You claim that it is because of how you’ve been treated that you won’t engage your opponents. But, if a fair question is put to you about one of your assertions, minus personal attacks, you should respond. You have no problem asking me questions about my positions and expecting answers. If you don’t want an assertion challenged, then don’t make it.

    You say you are aiming at “newbies.” Fine, but don’t you see a potential problem with someone making all kinds of assertions and not answering questions about them? How are newbies going to see whether your statements stand up to scrutiny or not?
    And if I have “deliberately encouraged an environment that is in no way suitable for serious debate” then why do you continue to appear here?

    So, the deal is this: if a question is put to you about any assertion you’ve made or position you’ve taken – and it is put to you in a reasonably respectful way without accompanying name calling – then you must respond. It’s only fair that all be willing to be challenged on what they say whether they have a satisfactory defense for their position or not.

    Having said all that, I’d be much happier if the attacks were kept more to the arguments being made and less to the individual. I realize that is difficult when someone suspects another of deliberately disrupting a forum, but I believe we should not use personal insults as a first resort.

    1. On that note, I respectfully request that OBF address the issues put forth in my post just above Craig’s here:

      On JANUARY 9, 2013 – 1:15 PM.

      Please and thank you sir.

      \\][//

  45. Things are moving fast. All predicated on the Sandy Hook incident as a launching pad…
    It doesn’t matter that nothing about the official stories {in multiples} adds up. Nothing matters but the agenda.

    The Full Court Press begins:

    Wal-Mart, along with the National Rifle Association, will participate in a meeting with Vice President Joseph Biden’s gun violence task force this week.
    The meetings are expected to result in recommendations that will be presented to Obama to inform which proposal he backs, the official said.
    ~Emily Jane Fox @CNNMoney January 9, 2013: 12:03 PM ET

    \\][//

  46. Craig McKee said: “You’re actually quite lucky, OBF. Many bloggers or forum editors would not allow someone to make suggestions that they might possibly be out of their minds. I guess you find a “hands off” approach useful at times.”

    The operative word is “possibly”. I did not claim you _were_ definitively “out of your mind”, I said “if.. da-da, da-da da-da…._.then_ you are out of your mind”, basically.

    And no, I’m not “lucky”. I’ve merely adapted to the environment _you_ have created/encouraged here, that’s all. You wanted a fairly open posting environment. I respect that. But I am merely pointing out that you are living in la la land if you think that such an environment is somehow suitable for “serious debate” .

    If so, you are fooling yourself Craig, that’s all I meant to say. I am not here to kow-tow to administrators, nor anyone else. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

    Craig McKee said: “You have no problem asking me questions about my positions and expecting answers.”

    No, you are wrong. I do not EXPECT an answer. EVER!, from you or _anyone_ [except ironically, and oh so predictably, from the very same cretins who cannot help themselves and simply must respond, even though they have been told on several occasions that I would ignore their posts, or who have requested that I ignore theirs].

    Craig, I have no magical powers that can force you to respond, fer chrissakes! It’s your choice! _You_ freely chose to! If you do not want to answer my questions and ignore them, so be it! [I don’t care one way or another].

    Craig McKee said: “You say you are aiming at “newbies.” Fine, but don’t you see a potential problem with someone making all kinds of assertions and not answering questions about them? How are newbies going to see whether your statements stand up to scrutiny or not?”

    I always try to answer a “newbies” question politely as soon as I see it, provided it meets my own criteria for politeness and is not just another “put-down” , and go from there. If I miss them sometimes ,I’m sorry, it happens.

    And they might miss my reply in any case, simply because, sure as shit, the various scabs, disinfo agents and limited hang-out Alex Jones/ Steven Jones/ J.Wood/ J.Ventura /Pilot’s For “Truth” clowns [robots?], who regularly post here and whose job is [most likely] to cover up the MSM’s glaring complicity in both Sandy Hook and 9/11 and related [via its use of faked “live” broadcasts on 9/11, plus fake actors for both events and others similar in nature], and that you have [perhaps unwittingly] encouraged to proliferate here, will clog the thread in order to distract _any_ attention from my own and any “newbies” [ far less frequent ] posts, because, [don’t you know it], they have a “right” not to have to read here views contrary to their own statist, pro-MSM drivel. It’s a standard disinfo tactic, after all.

    Craig McKee said: “And if I have “deliberately encouraged an environment that is in no way suitable for serious debate” then why do you continue to appear here? ”

    Well [duh!] obviously, mostly for non-serious debate and sport/entertainment, as I previously stated, because, regardless of how serious/polite my initial post might have been , inevitably the replies [mostly from the entities I now choose to ignore] will consistently lack either of those two qualities. Might as well laugh- have a little fun, no?

    After all, who in their right mind, has the time and energy to “seriously debate” persons dense enough to seriously believe that they actually have “a right” to expect a reply [ let alone a “debate” ] from a person that they have continually demeaned [despite the fact that the person so demeaned has repeatedly told them their posts would be ignored], and who furthermore actually imagine that in a forum such as this, that they have some sort of ” right” to only read opinions they already mostly agree with [ e.g. the standard “Loose Change”,Alex Jones/ Steven Jones/ Judy Wood/Jesse Ventura/ David Ray Griffin/Pilot’s For “Truth” psuedo-scientific “the media does not lie” B.S. disinfo] and will, like a bunch of 2 year old girls, rant and rave, bitch, wine and threaten to leave when opinions exactly contrary to their own [e.g the media _does _ lie, _all_ the time] are posted ?

    Who are these people, Homer Simpson clones?

    Such overtly cretinous behavior from these entities can illicit mostly only one response from myself after all this time – to laugh at these particular cretins [i.e the vast majority of your regular posters] , and their tiny, tiny minds [assuming they are not just “bots”]. But to otherwise ignore them almost entirely! As far as I am concerned, all of those previously listed are, at best, drunks, and as the saying goes: “never argue with a drunk” . A lesson I learned and took to heart a while back- thanks in part to your blog.

    Craig McKee said: “So, the deal is this: if a question is put to you about any assertion you’ve made or position you’ve taken – and it is put to you in a reasonably respectful way without accompanying name calling – then you must respond. ”

    I you mean that I must go back on my word and hereby encourage [i.e reinforce] behavior I have already said I despised, from the entities concerned, and now “have” to reply to any of those previously listed entities, simply because they might now temporarily be reasonably “polite”, then my answer is : “NO WAY” .

    I have read enough these entities drivel in the past to last a lifetime- I have no intention/interest in deliberately interacting with any of them ever again, they are all dead to me. I hate every last one of them. “I would not piss on _any_ of them if they were all on fire” , as the saying goes. Got the picture?

    And if you seriously think that your future overlooking of these characters past [consistent] behavior is anything other than negative reinforcement that will not simply further encourage them to continue in the manner to which they are all accustomed , then again I would propose that you are living in “la la land”.

    Like I said , I will not go back on my word. It’s all I have, after all. These entities do not deserve, and will not get, a 2nd chance, from me, at least.

    So, Craig if you are insisting that I “must” now interact/converse with these already black-listed [ by me], entities, instead of me getting to choose exactly who I respond to , and when I respond to them [which is what surely applies to anyone else, at this time], let’s have it all out in the open, in black and white, so you and I can resolve this issue once and for all, one way or another.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. In other words OBF you have no reasonable explanation for the issues of this magic ‘smoke screen’.

      Now that this is settled, now that you have admitted that you have nothing but empty assertions that cannot be reasonably defended, I am satisfied that my former characterizations of you are precisely accurate.

      I had expected just the sort of rhetorical song and dance that you just put on display here.
      It proves beyond any doubt that you are an impostor, just like your guru Simon Shack.

      Thank you very much.

      \\][//

    2. OBF,

      It disappoints me to hear that you do not take this forum seriously. But that’s your right to say and to think. But it’s serious to me even though I don’t always like what I read in the comments from people on all sides of the debate. I think name calling is counter-productive and does more to kill real debate than anything else (with the exception of deliberate disinformation, of course). And I understand that you’ve been on the receiving end of a fair amount of name calling. You’ve also thrown lots of insults of your own.

      I don’t think you should have to interact with someone who is continually insulting you. But I do think you should be willing to respond to legitimate questions that are posed with a reasonable degree of respect – even from people who you think have been insulting in the past.

      So, in black and white: If you make a statement here concerning EVIDENCE of any kind, you should be prepared to respond to fair and non-insulting questions about the case you’re making. I would expect the same from anyone contributing comments here. Otherwise you’re not participating in the forum, you’re just using it.

      P.S. You seem to have divided this into people who defend the MSM and those who agree with you. I don’t think this is the choice at all. I firmly believe the media are complicit, and I think most people in the Truth movement do also.

      1. Ad Hominem

        It should be noted that ridicule has never been excluded from rational debate. Many who are unfamiliar with the ‘rules’ of debate mistake the term “ad hominem” [‘at the man’] as a ban on ridicule in rational debate. This is false. Ad hominem is not permitted as a replacement for reasoned argument – however, if something is ridiculous, impossible, or insane, and can be rationally argued to be so, it would be unreasonable to ban or discourage such argument.

        I do want to say more about OBF’s last posting. Because I found this to be one of the most outrageous arrogant dodges I have ever read. He goes on to make excuse after slur after excuse, denigrating not only most of the people posting here but Craig and the blog itself.

        > “Like I said , I will not go back on my word. It’s all I have.”~OBF

        Yup, all he has is his word and no facts or knowledge to back it up. His ‘word’ is as useless as jabberwocky.

        \\][//

  47. James Fetzer has said that he thinks Mossad death squads are responsible . . . My first internal reaction to this is, well, I hope he has some evidence of some sort, else it’s gonna make any and all alternative theories sound ridiculous. I mean, not knowing anything more at the moment, I would assume he has some reason(s) for thinking this . . . I say that based on my opinion of him after having read his book on the Wellstone Assassination.

    Also, while perusing the mainstream media coverage, I found another article/interview on Tracy . . . which was clearly an effort to dismiss/ridicule . . . Normally, it seems, if the mainstream media wants you to think that person X is this or that, you’d expect them to interview an “expert” who will say as much. In the article I read, though, it just came out and said “cuckoo theories.”

    Can someone help me out and clarify something for me?

    I read of a certain picture being used in connection with Sandy Hook that was actually taken there a couple months earlier . . . I think it was of a drill or something, a practice evacuation, maybe . . . does anyone know which picture that is?

    Thanks

    1. Yes, that picture is the one where a line of kids is being led across a parking lot, each kid with their hand on the shoulder of the kid in front of them. I found a link that indicated that this was taken before the event, but then couldn’t find it again later. So to be on the safe side I didn’t mention it in the article.

      The photo is credited to the Newtown Bee, but you’d think they would know when the photo was taken. But the weirdest thing for me is that if this was taken on the day by a Bee photographer (no snickering), then why haven’t we seen more? I’ve covered many events as a reporter and a photographer and I always took tons of pictures. Where are the pictures of the 600 evacuated students?

      1. It seems like a lot of things that were once posted about Sandy Hook are no longer posted have been taken down. Just like TV they are changing things right under our feet. There are memorials posted days before the shooting, some of which are now scrubbed or updated to look like they were posted afterwards.
        The story is a veritable kaleidoscope of changing story lines and colors.

        Again, this is in your face as a serious researcher, and missed by the clueless who can’t walk a straight line without Muzak and step marks at their feet. Sandy Hook has to be one of the most successful Public Relation coups in history – it sedated the mass of TVZombies and at the same time put tension into the critical thinker.

        The same style and MO moves on into this program to disarm the population and put fear into the hearts of responsible gun owners.
        I don’t know if anyone saw Alex Jones on Piers Morgan’s show {?} but there is a back story to this that everyone should be aware of at his website today. He was submitted to ‘Bumper-Lock Surveillance’ both before and after his appearance on the show. This is more than simply surveillance, this is IN YOUR FACE intimidation surveillance, where the agents don’t even try to conceal their activities.

        Tacit threats were made against him and his family on the next Piers Morgan show.
        Other outspoken champions of the Second Amendment have been killed in the last few days – examples are being made. Fear and loathing is being spread both on the streets and in marble halls. The message is get in line behind this tyranny or become a victim of it.

        We are on [FFWD] to a collision course with calamity. Vice President {sic} Biden will be announcing his “recommendations” on the gun issue as early as this coming Tuesday.
        Be ready for “universal gun registration” – which means registering guns you may already have.

        These are the final steps to full on tyranny, and it is coming down fast and furious.

        \\][//

    2. Hi Clresu,

      James Fetzer says a lot of things that he knows little to nothing about. Like physics, he comes on as if he is a scholar in the sciences, yet he doesn’t even comprehend high school physics. He pretends at being a critical thinker, yet cannot make a reasonable argument when challenged.

      He posted here for several months, I am speaking to personal experience with the man. I think he’s a joke.

      \\][//

  48. As to the REPERCUSSIONS of Sandy Hook:

    [Take note of the bottom sentence* if you don’t already comprehend the tie in to the Sandy Hook shootings]

    (The European Union Times)—A grim Federal Security Forces (FSB) “urgent action” memorandum prepared for President Putin is warning that United States President Barack Obama has ordered at least 800 highly trained “death squad” units to disperse throughout his country in preparation for what Russian intelligence analysts are predicting to be a series of high-profile killings of dissident Americans set to begin as soon as February 22nd.

    According to this memo, Obama was emboldened to implement this murderous plan against his own citizens after this past weeks US Federal Court ruling granted his regime the right to kill, without trial or charges, any American he so chooses, and keep the reason(s) for doing so secret.

    Important to note about this shredding of the US Constitutional protections the American people once lived under was the disgusted wording used by United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon who in handing down this frightening ruling, in part, said:

    “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.”

    Equally important to note about the Obama regimes murderous plan, this memo continues, was a likewise chilling ruling issued last month by United States Appeals Court Judge Raymond Lohier that allows the American President to detain indefinitely any citizen he so chooses without trial or charges, a move so grave and draconian it led to the Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone saying about Obama:

    “I think under the disguise of sheep’s clothing he has been a wolf. That because of the nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him, people forgave him a lot. He was a great hope for change. The color of his skin, the upbringing, the internationalism, the globalism, seemed all evident. And he is an intelligent man. He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them.

    The excuse to be used by the Obama regime in order to begin their targeted killings of American dissidents, FSB analysts say,* is that these otherwise lawful citizens were not complying with the new gun control laws Vice President Joseph Biden “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino would be enacted by the end of January.

    \\][//

    1. ww,

      i hope you are wrong, but fear you are right.

      how would you explain oliver stone’s non-support (at best) of 9/11 truth? see here, for an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptIOKxo6LZs one take is that he was compromised after his drug bust in 2005. see http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8017827/ns/today-entertainment/t/oliver-stone-arrested-drug-dui-charges/ as a result, there are certain things he can speak out about, and certain things he cannot, or so the theory goes.

      –d

      1. As far as Oliver Stone,

        My opinion:

        “They made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.”

        Since his making of JFK he has been under the gun – probably literally – to play ball to some certain and very specified extent. A leash as it were. I think the drug bust was a warning, a version of a bumper-lock; the message that he is now a person of interest who will be under surveillance perpetually.

        There are certain compromises in his new series. One I am aware of is his retelling of the James Forrestal murder as the standard “suicide” of the official story. So I would say the lines drawn for Stone not to go beyond are what are referred to as “Deep State Events”…as you see he can be very open about ‘partisan politics’.

        \\][//

    2. ww,

      yes, that’s pretty much my take on stone as well, which makes him a gatekeeper. i didn’t see the drug bust as a setup, however, tho clearly that can’t be ruled out from this distant viewpoint. not sure i would describe stone’s speaking out against obama as “partisan politics.” i don’t think any republican would say such things. i had been thinking that what stone is saying needs to be said to get to those liberals out there who are still infatuated with obama. but now i’m wondering why they let him go that far in his statements. maybe to help usher in what is to become “acceptable” in amerika? wondering too how they communicated to stone what he could say and could not say. did they just sit him down and read him the nwo riot act or what? all very scary, in any event.

      –d

      1. ” wondering too how they communicated to stone what he could say and could not say. did they just sit him down and read him the nwo riot act or what?”~Dennis

        Well it is certainly not beyond the realm of possiblities that they did just that, sat him down and said, “Go this far and no further”.

        Of course we are just ruminating here, I don’t know anything for certain. But I know Keith Richard and Mic Jagger were busted for possession, and it was obviously a tactic of intimidation, not only for them personally but for anyone else. You know, “if they can be popped, with all their influence and wealth….”

        At any rate, I have enjoyed a lot of Stone’s films of the past, I thought JFK was a landmark in itself. But I haven’t seen anything for years now that I am interested in from him. As far as his political views, like many he is a liberal-progressive gatekeeper, and I pretty much ignore those types now. Even Greenwald, who has brilliant essays, I take with a sprinkling of salt.

        I am very far into the radish patch here. I don’t buy any of this “save the Constitution” crap__it’s dead__finished, and has been for more than a hundred years. And I am of the opinion that the Constitutional Convention was a coup against the Revolution fought in the name of the Declaration of Independence – a coup by the financial and political elite of America of the time.

        As far as I’m concerned, government is a racket.

        \\][//

  49. And am I wrong in wondering where any iPhone type footage is, as well? Wouldn’t there at least be some people, even if tactlessly, iPhone videoing/photographing things going on that morning?

    Maybe it’s just that I can’t find it . . . I googled iPhone footage and photos w/ Sandy Hook and din’t yield any results . . . none.

  50. Craig McKee said: ” But I do think you should be willing to respond to legitimate questions that are posed with a reasonable degree of respect – even from people who you think have been insulting in the past. So, in black and white: If you make a statement here concerning EVIDENCE of any kind, you should be prepared to respond to fair and non-insulting questions about the case you’re making. ”

    Craig, let’s get down to the “nitty -gritty” .

    Who who gets to decide whether or not whether a question posed to me is “fair and non-insulting “, you, the poster [or their opinionated buddies] or me?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Ultimately, I do. It couldn’t work otherwise. But if you feel that the way a question is asked (or the number of questions that are asked) is beyond what’s reasonable and respectful, you can state this. I’ll be as fair as I can be.

    2. Dear Mr. McKee,

      I am glad to hear that you’re deciding which questions are “fair and non-insulting” for Mr. OBF.

      I do not dispute some degree of imagery tainting. I dispute the extensive degree that Mr. OBF allows it to dominate his thinking and arguments, thereby dismissing other factors. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the media manipulation is/was at Mr. OBF’s imagined levels. Mr. OBF leaves us with a massive void in need of an explanation regarding the mechanisms of distruction.

      Given that a huge foundation in Mr. OBF’s imagery tainting mantra comes from September Clues, could you please prod Mr. OBF into answering these lingering questions from an old discussion.

      – Do you believe/trust the whole of the Clues Forums and September Clues? [Rhetorical. All other questions are non-rhetorical.]

      – What elements of the analysis performed by Clues Forums and/or September Clues do you NOT believe, hasn’t convinced you, and/or is weak in its premise and execution?

      – What elements of the analysis performed by the Clues Forums and September Clues do you consider to be disinformation?

      – From Mr. Al Whitesands, Mr. Rogue, and me: How does the WTC smoke screen work?

      – Assuming Mr. OBF’s imagined levels of imagery manipulation, why did the videos of the destruction show a collapse through the path of greatest resistance at near free-fall speeds? A Hollywood production could easily have slowed the collapse to make it physics-compliant. Why was this blatant flaw allowed to persist in all versions of their production?

      Mr. McKee, because I am on Mr. OBF’s ignore-list, you might have to prod him.

      I apologize for this detour into imagery manipulation, but at least a couple of these questions test the sincerity and objectivity of Mr. OBF and could be a bit of a trap for him that I will now expose in the interest of fairness.

      You see, if Mr. OBF can’t admit to any issues with anything from Clues Forum and/or September Clues, then he is not being objective (or honest), which ought to have after this much stilted time in your forums its own consequences going forward. [And to cut Mr. OBF off at the pass, Mr. Rogue has a clumsy summary here skimming the surface of issues with Shackian Analysis.] Like I say, “Nearly all sources of 9/11 info have dis.info, so we’ve have to mine the nuggets of truth from the dross of dis.info.”

      If Mr. OBF is able to point to certain things in the gospel of clues that have issues, aren’t convincing, and/or don’t go far enough to make the grand over-arching September Clues case of the extent of the digital manipulation, he might get hit in the head with his favorite bat named “false-in-one, false-in-all.” Of course, I’ll be yelling for him to “duck!” but his admission could go a long way into establishing reasonable bounds for what was faked, allowing room for genuine depictions of reality in the 9/11 imagery set, and thus modifying stilted conclusions and speculation into means & methods regarding what happened “behind the smoke screen.”

      //

      1. Yes it is admittedly “clumsy” – actually scattered notes that need to be organized into a proper format. I put it together in just a couple hours and saved it to that page and haven’t written a real presentable article. My apologies to all.

        There are actually three separate pages that are essentially the same thing, all to be put together as one single piece titled ‘Disinformation New Wave 9/11’…

        And as soon as those damn cows come home….

        \\][//

      2. A few more comments on the Video Fakery thing…

        I have to admit that when I first encountered Mr Shack on this blog – I think the 36 Truthers thread, I couldn’t take him seriously, I thought his proposition was so transparently ludicrous that any lucid individual would see through it at a glance.
        It actually took some prodding from Shack to get me going.

        I still think that the proposition is so absurd that it should be instantly obvious, but this is apparently due to my intimate familiarity with cinematic special effects and the visual arts in general. It took it awhile to sink in that most people aren’t trained to, nor have the natural ability to “see”. They have preconceptions that act as lenses to their perceptions. Most of art training is actually involved in peeling away these preconceptions and becoming used to actually looking at what is before one and seeing it for what it is. Drawing is great practice for this…

        This is when I realized I needed to be very specific and not take for granted anyone’s visual acuity.

        \\][//

      3. Non-insulting can be in the eye of the beholder, but I mean more personal attacks and name calling. I’d rather see someone’s claims challenged with reason and evidence rather than just calling them an asshole. It’s also harder for people to duck challenges when they can’t fall back on claims of being unfairly attacked, whether the attacks are unfair or not.

      4. I know Craig,

        You make a very good point. But after taking an argument apart piece by piece and utterly destroying it; for the head of the person making that argument to keep on throwing ludicrous challenges at you, like the Black Knight in that Monty Python skit…

        Well, Huh…a mention here or there that they are an idiot seems to be a natural response. But there is no argument here that it certainly gave OBF a plausible shield to hide behind for a time, an excuse for the artful dodge.

        It is all over now, but to go on with lessons learned. Now, to just remember them in the heat of battle. Aye?

        \\][//

  51. Dennis, you made this comment today, but it is so far from a reply button that I will address it here.

    Your comment is:

    >”whatever the connections of sirhan to desi, i don’t think any cuban cabal had the power and wherewithal to program sirhan (that had to be an mk ultra type operation)…”

    I certainly did not mean to imply that the Cuban Cabal was in the lead of either of the assassination projects, only that they were involved in both projects. Absolutely, both hits came from a consensus of the highest echelon of the system, which is both ‘governmental’ and NGO interlocked.

    I hope that clears up the misunderstanding of what I meant – as briefly as possible in my remarks above.

    As far as I know Sirhan was grandfathered into the states by a special memo from Nixon, and was “handled” by Arnez giving him a job at his stables. He was likely programmed by a psychiatrist named Louis Jolyon (“Jolly”) West. Who is ‘coincidentally’ involved with Ruby and other cases as well.

    \\][//

  52. Back to Sandy Hook:

    Fast and Furious Eric Holder- Public Enemy Number One

    Eric Holder And Connecticut Governor Met Two Weeks Before Sandy Hook
    http://usahitman.com/ehcgtwbsh/

    Project Longevity – Published on Nov 27, 2012
    Attorney General Eric Holder pledges support for Project Longevity…

    \\][//

    1. Did you hear what Governor Malloy said in a press conference the day of the shooting?

      “I and the lieutenant governor have been spoken to in an attempt that we might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our state.”

      Spoke to? By whom? Were all governors “spoken to” about this or just the ones who were about to have something like this “play itself out.”

      1. We might assume that Governor Malloy was referring to the meeting with Holder. [?]

        I guess we are all aware of the “piggy back” concept of drills “going live”…{9/11 – 7/7 etc] … but there is also the possibility that in the ‘back room’; that the idea of an enactment of a completely staged event disguised as a drill could be good {federal funds wise} for the state of Connecticut, as it would serve a larger federal agenda
        {wink wink}.

        \\][//

      2. Sherif Shaalan,

        It says: “This video has been removed by the user.”

        What was the topic? Was it about Sandy Hook?

        How long ago did you see it?

        \\][//

        1. Sherif asked me to remove the comment because it turns out the video has not only been removed, but it has also been retracted. He could tell you more, but it has to do with time stamps.

      3. Ah, the date-time stamps thing…

        Yea know, this case is so wanky that it is even causing an instant divide on research blogs. I get a lot of crap from some of the people on C1…who THINK they know, but don’t KNOW.

        As a PSYOP Sandy Hook is turning out to be one of the most brilliant…flooding the web with junk based on innuendo, and prejudgment based on such scanty premises.
        It is the triple whammy super spin of the century.

        I just saw a YouToober of Anderson Cooper {CIA Mockingbird} doing a hit piece on Prof. Tracy {Global Research article}… over under sideways down backwards forward square and round…

        I can’t do anything at this point but focus on the agenda that Sandy Hook lit the flame for. The event itself in indecipherable. The agenda is crystal clear.

        \\][//

  53. CNN’s Anderson Cooper just did a piece attacking those who question Sandy Hook.

    I remember in 2005 when Anderson Cooper had on Jim Meigs (Popular Mechanics) when they did a similar hit piece on 9/11 truth.

    You should stop and ask yourselves: what did Anderson focus on to discredit legitimate questioning in general? And what was NOT mentioned? They focused on what is potentially (but not necessarily) a huge straw man: that no one died at all and that the parents are actors. Not mentioned was the very legitimate issue of whether there were other gunmen on the scene, whether this was a Gladio style event, etc. I remember with 9/11 in ’05, they focused on the “pod” and the “flash,” as if that issue defined the movement.

    1. Hi Adam,

      Nice to see your face here again. I have spent a good part of the day on Professor Tracy’s blog today, where this CNN program is being discussed.

      It is an interesting discussion, attended to by the standard Sunsteinian shills, who make a lot of posts, but cannot counterweight the commentary that is in support of Prof. Tracy.

      http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/12/does-anderson-cooper-want-james-tracy-andor-his-family-members-killed/

      \\][//

    2. I know this was coming. As with 9/11, asking questions is taboo. Hopefully this hit piece will encourage people to check out Tracey’s work.
      I wonder if we’ll see any of the victims’ families speak out against “consipiracy theories”?

      1. Well Peter there are some 224 hits on Tracy’s current thread on his site.

        I wasn’t aware of his blog until this TV blow-up, although I have been a fan of his articles published on Global Research for quite some time. Because of those articles I had mistakenly assumed Tracy was in Canada. I was quite surprised to find he is in Florida – all in all a rather ‘conservative’ state.

        Now the real danger is the university Tracy teaches at will be pressured to give him the boot, as happened to Prof. Jones, Kevin Barret, and some others who’s names escape me…

        I suppose with this Operation Phoenix USA situation there may even be more assassinations of “intellectuals” in AmeriKa.

        It has become a real tightrope walk here in this country for dissidents. Hardball on the rise.

        \\][//

  54. The following is a comment from another web site:

    “Wow, I’m just watching it for the first time now.. I’d not seen Pozner’s mother before. FAKE AGAIN… omg…so far EVERY family member they have paraded before the tv cams is FAKE. It’s so f’kn obvious! No mother of a recently murdered child would speak the way she does. She talks about growing a life for 9 months and seconds for an AK 7 to take that life away. WHAT??!! BS”–Anonymous

    Alright, let us deconstruct this comment by finding the assumptions in the subtext.

    > “No mother of a recently murdered child would speak the way she does.”

    Is this true in all circumstances? Is it true of all mothers?

    Consider the circumstances. Is this mother given free range to speak what is in the fullness of her heart and mind? NO she has an approximately 30 second spot to fill in a television program. What sort of direction has she been given? No one goes on set for a TV show without being vetted, and no one goes on without direction and instruction.

    There is every reason to believe that this particular mother was told she would be asked this specific question by Cooper. She was probably given time before hand to come up with something adequate to fill that time slot. She was probably coached and rehearsed before facing the cameras.

    Her performance is thus just that, a “performance” – not the real feelings and thoughts of a mother that has just had a child murdered.

    So what and who are “FAKE” in this instance? Is it to be said with such certainty that she is not the mother of a recently murdered child? Is it not more reasonable to see the interview itself as the “FAKE” regardless of the reality of this person’s “act”?

    I have seen many of the other interviews myself. They have all been staged in a similar manner. It is my opinion that we cannot conclude from such staging that the family members are anything other than who and what they claim to be. It is the staging itself that puts this false light on them.

    Can I hold this opinion as a certainty? No, I do not. But I find it to be a more reasonable assessment of the situation we face.

    \\][//

    1. Hmm?? Fascinating Craig, although not so much of a surprise looking back on what he seemed to be leading up to in the comments that were published.

      It would have been interesting to see him attempt to answer that central question…
      I suppose the impossibility of a rational answer left him cornered.

      I hope that OSS and Adam Ruff are satisfied with how this came down, and that they might again partake in the festivities here.

      Thanks for the news Craig,

      \\][//

    2. Craig: Too much petty bickering goes on here which, in my opinion, creates a toxic atmosphere. In one comes in earnest to promote 9/11 truth, I think a lesson learned would be to put a moratorium on gratuitous personal insults.

      1. “petty bickering”?… you say Dog Lover,

        That is a subjective call isn’t it? I mean, that which is “petty” and that which has “merit”, or some importance.

        Craig gets ‘gratuitous’ advice thrown at him about how he should run his blog all the time, it flares up from time to time. EVERYBODY and his family seems to know better; how to put on the show at Truth and Shadows better than Mr McKee….{?}

        Yes, even I am guilty of it at times.

        Why don’t you write up a list of RULES for the rest of the world to go by Dog Lover?
        Lots of people have tried it. You know? And damned if people don’t keep on squabbling…by gawd they are even out there making wars, killing each other over petty shit.

        We all have different ideas and temperaments Dog Lover, the problem is ancient and universal.

        Craig has had a very successful run here with this blog, and it goes just fine. As you can see, he doesn’t LIKE all of the insults that have been thrown at one another…but tempers and clashes do rise occasionally.

        So, what is more insulting? Someone who does a rhetorical slip-dodge and weave that is totally obvious? Or someone who gets fed up with it and calls the disingenuous bullshit for what it is?

        What would you do ban ‘dirty words’? Never mind, don’t tell me. I am sick of getting advice on how to act, and I’m sure Craig is sick of advice on how to run things…

        \\][//

  55. “Please note that from day one, the two handguns (“pistols”), were immediately identified – both to type of weapon (pistols) and ‘manufacturer’. Since the positive ID of the pistols has remained essentially unaltered from day-one, this seems to indicate that the individual(s) who ID’ed those ‘pistols’ had to see them first-hand. This begs a question;… Why would the individuals(s) who initially ID’ed the pistols, EXCLUDE the glaring presence of a “rife”, on or around the alleged shooter when the pistols were ID’ed? This suggests to me, that there was NO “rifle” in the school?

    (2.) Upon entering a crime scene littered with spent shell casings, any crime scene investigator worth his pay would immediately notice the difference between 9mm (pistol) brass and “223″ (rifle) brass – the two are completely different in size and shape… and easily recognizable from 20 feet away. It wasn’t until days later that the “rifle” somehow magically appeared in the school… and the crime scene was suddenly littered with ‘hundreds’ of rounds of unmistakably identifiable spent shell casing.”
    ~Kenny — on Memory Hole blog

    Very strong points. Points that trump all the BS that MSM has spewed in the meantime.

    \\][//

    1. Dear Mr. Rogue,

      I was wondering if I could tap into your expertise in videos for an explanation of an effect in the video clips buried within this larger video (that Adam Syed posted on Truth & Shadows).

      Starting at about 19:33 there is an aerial video of the scene that crisply depicts the humans and vehicles. As it zooms out (before the cut at 19:45), the wooded area on the right is beyond out of focus it is so messed up. The trees look more like smoke.

      Starting at 20:00, you see the whole “smokey-tree” phenomenon again in several areas, but cars, buildings, and people remain rather crisp. I might be able to grok this for the zoom-out, but as it zooms in (20:08), those wooded areas don’t get any crisper. At 20:12 if you look at the pedestrian zebra strip, the fuzziness from the trees (like smoke) seems to roll onto parked vehicles and the police car at the zebra crossing.

      20:33 is another sequence that has crispy clear elements followed by munged, smokey trees.

      So, any insight into the visual issues?

      If you listen to what the guy is saying about the road blockage and lack of kids, seems rather fishy. Also fishy is remembering the words of the Coroner regarding this big thing that FEMA set up quickly. I don’t recall seeing that in the videos, unless the smokey trees were hiding it.

      26:47 and a coincidental FEMA class focused on children and disasters happening during the same hours and not all that far away.

      It will also provide them guidance and direction on how to form coalitions and how to become advocates for the unique needs of children in all aspects of emergency management.

      Ooo-ooo-ooo!!! Here’s a nugget of truth from September Clues (and Let’s Roll Forums) that is now rolled into Sandy Hook! The 9/11 simVictims research had this thing about creation and modification dates of pictures, particularly those used in some online memorials. [Apologies for stating this from a faulty memory…] It seems that some of the 9/11 IT efforts into memorial images happened in advance, e.g., prior to 9/11.

      And so when viewing this video (at 27:48), they claim Victoria Soto’s memorial facebook page was created on 12/10. Another Sandy Hook Fund site for the victims was created a three days early (12/11). Another was created on 12/13. Gee, and even grieving father Robbie got Emily’s site up and able to accept donations on 12/14, the very day of “Sandy Hook ’em.”

      Gives me a hare-brain idea. Maybe we all should become pro-active IT specialists by creating memorial funds for the towns or counties where we live BEFORE they are needed… As insurance. Reminds me of a song that performance-artist Laurie Anderson used to “sing”. Paraphrased:

      We should carry bombs onto planes, not because we plan on using them. It is just that the probability of a single bomb [with negative intent] being on your flight is small, but the chances of TWO bombs being on your flight is so astronomically small, it could never happen.

      1. Just the answer I gave you to this question on C1 Señor,

        That was something that jumped out at me too, the blurred out area of the trees. I can only say that it is blurred out on purpose, it is not an anomaly in the original video.

        It is likely simply a haze mask added in by digital processing before public release.
        What it may be hiding is a mystery and anyone’s guess.
        . . . . .more for here:

        I am getting the distinct impression that there is a lot more to the Sandy Hook “community” than is being revealed to the public. I guess you may have read my hypothesis that the area could be an analog to a BACK-LOT, like studios had in the 40’s up to the end of classical Hollywood.

        If so the death of the “property master” from the Batman films may be a clue to that.

        If this is so, there could be structures all around the area that would cause suspicion, maybe the Batmansion and the Batcave are in those areas? There is something they don’t want seen there is my only conclusion. [???????]

        \\][//

  56. Thanks Adam,

    Yea…none of this adds up except as a psychological op.

    Now after this video finishes, take a close look at the people in the thumbnail that has the stenciled words, “UPDATED THE TRUTH”…

    The young man, apparently being put into a police car. Doesn’t this look like Adam Lanza?
    What is this photo from? Is it taken in front of the elementary school?

    If anyone can locate a jpg of this shot, I’d like a copy to study.

    \\][//

    1. Funny you should post this right now. I’m working on a new blog post that features Mr. Cooper. I’ll definitely be mentioning this too. I interviewed Jonathan Kay a while back and he is the perfect guest for this type hit piece.

    2. I used to think Anderson Cooper was an idiot. He’s really quite intelligent; he just plays dumb. Having people underestimate him gives him an advantage.

    3. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_harassed_for_it/

      Gene Rosen sheltered six kids during the Sandy Hook massacre. Now he’s become a target of conspiracy theorists
      By Alex Seitz-Wald

      “In the hours and days that followed, Rosen did a lot of media interviews. “I wanted to speak about the bravery of the children, and it kind of helped me work through this,” he told Salon in an interview. “I guess I kind of opened myself up to this.”

      The “this” in question is becoming a prime target of the burgeoning Sandy Hook truther movement, which — like its precursor that denied the veracity of the 9/11 terror attacks — alleges that the entire shooting was a hoax of some kind. There were conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting from Day One, but the movement has exploded into public view the past two weeks, and a Google Trends search suggests it’s just now picking up steam. It’s also beginning to earn the backing of presumably credible sources like a professor and a reporter.”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Yea, too bad Rosen can’t keep his story straight, because it is the videos of himself that shows him changing the story to fit his current boohoo, just like the official story about the event itself was morphing day to day and dropping relevant pieces of evidence that weren’t convenient to the narrative being constructed.

      So what about the aforementioned ‘professor’, James Tracy [by name] who is getting worked over by the MSM the same way Rosen is getting “harassed” by the “conspiracy theorists”? Oh no, he is one of the designated villains a__yup you guessed it__a “conspiracy theorist”.
      I have read the disgusting and vile accusations and slurs written to Tracy on his very own web blog. All of this sparked by a disingenuous hit piece by Anderson Cooper on nationwide TV. Tracy has been completely misrepresented for what he actually said in his article on the Sandy Hook event. But that’s “Okay” because the Holy Voice of TV proclaimed him a ‘conspiracy theorist’, a modern day voodoo curse of the electronic shamans running so-called “reality”

      \\][//

  57. I have encountered quite a few fully boiled frogs on my recent walkabout on the blogs.
    There I met one Allan Sidio, a harsh critic of Professor Tracy at his Memory Hole blog.
    He turns out to be a booster and advocate of the gun control agenda sparked by the Sandy Hook event. I would like to repost here my answer to the mindless stooge and web provocateur:
    .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

    Allan Sidio,

    It is obvious, you have tipped your hand, you are a public relations man for the Gun Ban Agenda I was just speaking to.

    Consider the following word:

    INALIENABLE
    Do you know what that means?

    Liberty is not the INVENTION of revolution.
    Liberty is the DISCOVERY of the enlightened mind.

    Do you comprehend what the above notation on liberty means?
    It means it has always been since the beginning of the race, that each individual has had the rights of liberty, which are in fact the means to our own existence. Without these inherent natural rights a person becomes a slave to others, and then eventually to systems as “civilization” “progresses”.

    These rights are not given by the authors who wrote of them on parchment, they are not granted by governments nor majorities, they are ubiquitous with human life.

    If you do not find these truths to be self evident, then someone has turned out the light of full consciousness for you.

    \\][//

  58. Dear Craig,

    A willingness to be open runs the risk of entertaining a really crazy idea which threatens the credibility of this site.

    With the Newtown massacre of children, I found this conspiracy theory to be an offensive outrage. This story was clearly being put out by people who paranoidly oppose gun safety laws and NRA supporters on steroids.

    In the light of more information, please rethink this artcle and consider withdrawing it.

    The truth surrounding 9/11 deserves our time and attention – but made-up conspiracy theories do not.

    1. Painter,

      I have no intention of withdrawing this article. Quite the contrary. The fact that children were involved has no bearing on whether the facts support what authorities have told us. You are falling into the same pattern that anti-truthers repeat: “how can you disrespect the victims of 9/11 by questioning how they died.”

      The facts and the evidence determine whether something is true or not. Do you feel we’ve been told the truth about whether there were other potential shooters? What about how many guns were seen at the school that day? How about the gun in the trunk that Lanza is supposed to have used in the school? How did it get there? There are many legitimate questions that require answers, and it doesn’t matter whether some people are going off the deep end on this subject. Not everyone who is questioning this is a focusing on the gun issue. And given that the Aurora shooting was a lie, why is it a stretch to think Sandy Hook could be?

      1. The connection between Newtown and 9/11 is that there was immediate reporting that didn’t add up. But so what? There was a car accident in my town last week and the paper forgot to list one of the passengers and got the driver’s name wrong. Sinister? No, just stupid initial reporting from a rattled small-town reporter.

        “What” reporters got wrong ought to be sorted out without the assumption of a huge sinister plot – right off the bat.

        Dave Cullen investigated the Columbine shooting and wrote a book about it. His book finally tells us what happened. It took him years of investigating to write it. Everyone got that incident wrong too. His book, “Columbine,” is well done and I recommend it.

        http://www.davecullen.com/columbine.htm

        Asking legitimate questions is one thing – but suggesting sinister plots about what may have happened – based on nothing – is quite another. Have you called the Newtown police? Have you called the local Newtown paper to speak to a reporter? Have you personally tried to sort this out in any way? Or are you just tapped into the right-wing noise machine. It sure does look like this story is all about gun and the “fear” of losing them.

        The suggestion that a heartbroken father was somehow a “crisis actor” borders on the silly unless you can come up with something better than the fact that you didn’t like the way his face looked as he shifted gears to speak in front of a microphone.

        There needs to be an investigation – and then we need to read/see the results of that investigation. Have you looked into that?

        But in the meantime, I find the tone of this post embarrassing and when I think of all the people I have sent here to read your material on 9/11…I cringe that they will see this and use the easy excuse to decide that nothing on this site has any credibility.

      2. Painter,

        Thanks for your comments; in a sense I’m glad that Adam Ruff played the “bad cop” role, suggesting he is going to treat your posts with suspicion because he was unimpressed with your dissent to this article. It makes it much easier for me to play the good cop. I’m not suspicious of you or your motives. I think that even within the world of 9/11 truth seekers, there’s a broad spectrum of people under that umbrella: those who care single-mindedly about 9/11 and don’t want any other theories to tarnish by association (i.e. the same blog and people doing the promoting) and those who aren’t afraid to go down any rabbit hole no matter how offensive. I can totally understand the cognitive dissonance of anyone who feels as Painter does.

        For those who don’t know who Painter is, I won’t reveal his name, but he is on our side staunchly when it comes to the Pentagon. As such, I will have to reiterate the basic argumentum ad emotion fallacy that Craig points out. Painter, your argument is very similar to those who felt justified in purging the CIT supporters (and others) from 911blogger: “These disruptors make the 9/11 movement look foolish and insensitive. Lloyde England suffered the extreme trauma of seeing the plane hit the Pentagon, and to boot, he narrowly escaped death when that light pole went through his windshield, and he gets smeared as an actor and accomplice because his testimony doesn’t support CIT’s delusional flyover theory.” Or, alternatively, how about: “Imagine how offended someone who lost a loved one on Flight 77 would be if they came to a 9/11 “truth” site which claimed no plane ever hit the Pentagon.”

        Also, it’s not just 9/11; we know that the official story that was used to launch the escalation of the Vietnam war to be a complete fabrication (never happened), that we’ve been lied to about OKC, JFK and the other 60s assassinations, 7/7, etc., so we do get to the point where we never take an official story at face value anymore. We also know that many of the “initial” reports that come out are actually correct, and it’s the “ironing out” of these initial reports which is when the official propaganda sets in. Hence we take advantage of the social media era of lightning speed communication, and try to catch as many inconsistencies as possible.

    2. Painter,

      I have been working Professor James Tracy’s Memory Hole blog for the last few days.

      I notice you are using the same shrinking violet squatdribble that the gang of trolls sent to the site by Anderson Cooper are using. This is disingenuous bullshit.

      You say: “made-up conspiracy theories”?? Where do you come up with that? There are a literal penumbra of glaring inconsistencies in the official story – it doesn’t add up any more than the crap we got about 9/11.

      Have you read Tracy’s article on the Sandy Hook incident? Have you read the absolute oinking bullshit coming from the coroner, Carver? This guy is supposedly running the pathological team doing the autopsies for this case. Yet he comes to the press conference with NOTHING…just like Myers didn’t know anything about the lack of fighter response on 9/11.

      This is no “made up conspiracy” this is botched police work and spun bullshit on MSM.

      I am very suspicious of your intent here Painter. I really don’t get this sudden muffin attitude you brought here on this. Looks like you’ve turned into a TV true believer.

      \\][//

    3. What is crazy about questioning big media? They are notorious pathological liars with an agenda. The reason I am suspicious that Sandy Hook was a false flag is because I intentionally do not watch any MSM. I therefore was not subject to their brain washing and hypnosis concerning Sandy Hook. What I have looked at is VERY convincing that the Sandy Hook official story is full of gaping holes just like the 9/11 official story is.

      This event is VERY important Painter because, know it or not, this event is being used to take away Americans last line of defense against tyranny. Some people will surrender their Constitution and thereby their country to these tyrants but there is a group of Americans who will not. Those people and the tyrants are going to clash SOON Painter and that is going to be the beginning of the second civil war in America. This event is vitally important to cover and I am glad Craig has done so. I find it disturbing the tactics you are employing to discourage Craig from covering this event. In fact it reminds me A LOT of the credibility cops at 911Blahhger who ended up doing mass purges of truthers ala Joseph Stalin. Craigs credibility is intact sir but I personally will be VERY suspicious of your posts and motives from now on. Bad show Painter, bad show especially for a truther.

      1. Ruffadam,

        It is so nice to have you back, and your solid reasonable assessments.

        I too do not have nor watch TV. Folks just don’t seem to get how dangerous for their mental health it is to put oneself under the influence of such powerful electronic attack as one gets from a television set.

        The following essay may be a good beginning to grasping the dangers of TV:

        http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/voodoo-ritual-1/

        \\][//

  59. Over the past 24 hours, I have been following the story in the MSM about the Manti Te’o girlfriend hoax. (Google it if you’re not aware.) What is interesting is that like with 9/11 and other events, the MSM didn’t initially do any fact checking whatsoever, back when Manti’s alleged girlfriend was dying of leukemia in the hospital. They simply took Manti’s word. No attempts to veryify that she was a Stanford student. No attempts to contact the alleged hospital she was staying in. Also, none of these MSM outlets (Sports Illustrated, ESPN etc.) ever picked up on the discrepancies within the MSM stories, like for example, the discrepancy about whether the grandmother died before vs. after the girlfriend.

    It took the website DeadSpin.com to do the equivalent work that History Commons did in the early years of the 9/11 movement; namely, assembling and highlighting official story discrepancies.

    The big difference between the Te’o girlfriend hoax and 9/11 is that in this instance, being a story of no significance to “national security” and the geo-political agenda, the MSM took notice and is now running with what DeadSpin uncovered. Notre Dame’s and Te’o’s official explanation now is that Te’o got “victimized” by others who pulled a fake profile hoax on him, and he was fooled into believing he was having an online relationship with a real woman. However, this does not pass the smell test and even CNN is recognizing this. Te’o had told Sports Illustrated months ago that the two had met after a Stanford game in person. That’s discrepancy no. 1. Also, if I had a girlfriend dying of Leukemia, I’d be damn sure to visit her at least once in hospital, even if we’d never met in person before and had only spoken “online” and by phone. (And in this day and age, the idea that he merely text-conversed with this girlfriend rather than a Skype video chat is pretty difficult to believe.) Et cetera. So will the MSM call out Notre Dame’s athletic director on providing such a non-credible explanation?

    On CNN just a few minutes ago, Wolf Blitzer and associates were talking about what an embarrassment this hoax is to the media, who didn’t bother to do the fact checking. A rare moment of acknowledgement in the MSM. If the MSM ran with the truth movement’s evidence like they’re running DeadSpin’s Te’o evidence, our battle would be over tomorrow.

    1. Oh, and my reason for bringing this up here:

      Shows you how easy it is to fool the American public. If a lie like this can be perpetrated by two college kids, how hard is it for those with vast resources are their disposal to pull off 9/11 or SH?

    2. Adam,

      You make a great point. When the story has nothing to do with politics or the government or national security (real or fake) then the media actually dig like they’re supposed to. Problem is they dig into the wrong stories and ignore or distort the truly important ones.

    3. I find that if the story really matters you can bet your bottom dollar that the corporate monopoly media is lying their collective asses off about it. If it isn’t important sometimes they are still lying their collective asses off about it in order to assassinate the character of someone they don’t like. Bottom line… don’t trust the corporate media at all on anything except perhaps sports and weather. Hell even then I would not trust them much.

      1. 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; Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe

        Off-duty “tactical squad” – That’s SWAT, “from another town”….”with a gun”…

        Lol, and “in the woods near the school”…not just “on the day of” but immediately within the timeframe of the shootings.

        And that is all the information we get on this? No name, not reasons for him being there – just that he was a cop, so everything is just dandy…WTF???

        “Kehoe”…gee, I just KNOW I have heard that name somewhere before…
        seems like it was another school shooting somewhere or sumpin…

        \\][//

  60. What does the Newtown shooting have to do with politics or the government or national security (real or fake)? Other than the immediate demand for incresed gun safety laws.

    Are you against regulations to ban assault weapons and high capacity rounds? Do you suggest that this crime happened because “Obama is a gun grabber? And he needed an excuse to do that?”

    1. Painter queries;

      > “Are you against regulations to ban assault weapons and high capacity rounds? Do you suggest that this crime happened because “Obama is a gun grabber? And he needed an excuse to do that?”

      The answer to both of these questions for myself personally is YES. I am against all regulations that abridge our rights to defend ourselves.

      And I do suggest that this event was engineered for that very purpose. And I would also suggest that anyone who can’t see that with their own eyes as a’slumber. Even if you aren’t willing to postulate that the event was engineered for this purpose it is so bloody evident that the gun control issue has been launched to the stratosphere by this event.

      I Think it is fruitful to look into the history of this agenda to institute draconian gun control measures in Amerika. This article deals with that agenda from the time of the Obama regime:

      Top 10 Events that Prove Obama Planned Gun Control Long Before Newtown Tragedy

      http://dprogram.net/2013/01/01/top-10-events-that-prove-obama-planned-gun-control-long-before-newtown-tragedy/

      \\][//

    2. “List of executive actions Obama plans to take as part of anti-gun violence plan 16 Jan 2013 The following is a list, provided by the White House, of [23] executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence… Most interesting nuggets: 4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks… 16. Clarify that the Affordable [sic] Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes… 17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers Fund ‘private security’ to explode the US police state. 19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”

      Why “Executive Actions”? To rule by diktat, bypassing the Legislative and Judicial branches.
      We face this tyranny armed at this point. Are we now to give up our arms in face of such prima facea despotism?

      Those who say “yes” to this deserve the tyranny they receive. Either at the hands of the current regime, or some perchance ‘revolutionary’ regime that might replace it.

      This is a dire moment in history for those who would be free, and also all of the “collateral damage” that would attend a civil war or revolution: all engineered by this tyrannical system.

      An attendant concern is that the Supreme Court is taking a case to decide whether one’s silence can legally be construed as “proof of guilt”. The dire prospects of a ruling in the positive for this question would be without doubt part of this seachange into utter and complete tyranny.
      \\][//

    3. “Gun safety laws” really Painter is that what you call what they are trying to do to the second ammendment? Nice spin you put on that little phrase since what they are actually trying to do is gang rape the Constitution until it is dead. The blatantly obvious goal is to take away any and all effective weapons the American people have left.

      Hmm let’s see… the check list of what the tyrants have vs. what we have.

      Belt fed Machine guns – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      High capacity magazines – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Large caliber guns – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Grenades, mines, C4 – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Tanks and other AVs – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Helicopter gun ships – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Drones – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Smart bombs – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Fighter craft – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Flame throwers – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Cruise missiles – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Stealth aircraft – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Chemical weapons – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Biological weapons – Tyrants – check American people – negative
      Nuclear weapons – Tyrants – check American people – negative

      Let’s not mince words here Painter the 2nd ammenment is there so we can protect ourselves from a government gone mad. It is not there for “hunting” or “target practice” nor is it solely there so we can defend ourselves against criminals. The 2nd ammendment is primarily there for the same purpose as the rest of the Constitution, namely to restrain and limit the power of government and to prevent them from imposing another tyranny on us like we had with King George. The 2nd ammendment is there so we can shoot the bastards if we have no other options left to preserve our freedom.

      It says in the Constitution that this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      it has already been infringed FAR too much as it is and I think a whole lot of people are drawing the line in the sand over this issue. The American people are already woefully outmatched by the tyrants weaponry and it is only our massive advantage in numbers that tips the balance back to us…barely. Even if Sandy Hook were not a false flag attack (which it obviously is) there is still no excuse whatsoever to infringe upon our rights.

      As far as I am concerned ANY official who even attempts to impose more government control over our guns deserves to be impeached. They took an oath God damnit.

      1. Adam,

        Your opposition to Painter reads, in part: ” ‘Gun safety laws’ really Painter is that what you call what they are trying to do to the second amendment?”

        I am wondering if you know something of the history of the inclusion of the “second amendment” into the U.S. Bill of Rights.

        You may want to check out “The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery” at
        http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery . This article provides a history that its inclusion into the Constitution was designed to PUT DOWN revolts by slaves, specifically in the slave states.

        Always remember that very many of these white, male, property-owning “founders” were slave owners and they were conscious of their predicament. Slaves were unique “property” that could think, and do something unattractive (to our “founders”).

        More generally, the truth about Sandy Hook is whatever it is and truth does not, as such, have a political agenda. Tying Sandy Hook issues to the NRA (and similar agenda) would do a disservice to truth as it needs to be confronted. (I think Craig has avoided such an association, but I haven’t read this blog story all that carefully.)

        Paul

      2. Paul Z,

        “Always remember that very many of these white, male, property-owning “founders” were slave owners and they were conscious of their predicament. Slaves were unique “property” that could think, and do something unattractive (to our “founders”).

        The very idea that it can be asserted that the ONLY reason that the right to self protection by the people is part of our Bill of Rights is disingenuous at best.

        If you are going to turn out to be one of these people who are willing to give up your inalienable rights because the founders were ‘slave owners’, I am going to be a person that has suddenly lost a lot of the respect I have previously held for you.

        To say as you do: “More generally, the truth about Sandy Hook is whatever it is and truth does not, as such, have a political agenda.” Is to deny the too totally obvious facts as they proceed today. There is and has been an obvious attempt by this “government” to destroy ALL of our rights to Liberty, and the KEY to this distruction must be disarming the people who the system would enslave through despotism.

        [See my post – Hybridrogue1 JANUARY 16, 2013 – 9:54 PM]

        A tyrannical government simply cannot afford an armed citizenry.

        I am aghast at your seeming gullibility on these matters.

        \\][//

      3. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for supper. Liberty is a well armed lamb.”~Benjamin Franklin

        Any who trust this despotic military-industrial-media regime are complete and utter fools.

        \\][//

      4. Paul,

        I do, as it happens, know quite a bit about the Constitution and I would like to draw your attention to some history that happens to have a great deal to do with the 2nd ammendment being added to the Bill of Rights.

        Battle at Lexington Green, 1775
        The Start of the American Revolution and the “shot heard round the world.”

        Massachusetts Colony was a hotbed of sedition in the spring of 1775. Preparations for conflict with the Royal authority had been underway throughout the winter with the production of arms and munitions, the training of militia (including the minutemen), and the organization of defenses. In April, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock reported to be staying in the village of Lexington.

        Paul Revere’s Ride

        The atmosphere was tense, word of General Gage’s intentions spread through Boston prompting the patriots to set up a messaging system to alert the countryside of any advance of British troops. Paul Revere arranged for a signal to be sent by lantern from the steeple of North Church – one if by land, two if by sea. On the night of April 18, 1775 the lantern’s alarm sent Revere, William Dawes and other riders on the road to spread the news. The messengers cried out the alarm, awakening every house, warning of the British column making its way towards Lexington. In the rider’s wake there erupted the peeling of church bells, the beating of drums and the roar of gun shots – all announcing the danger and calling the local militias to action.

        In the predawn light of April 19, the beating drums and peeling bells summoned between 50 and 70 militiamen to the town green at Lexington. As they lined up in battle formation the distant sound of marching feet and shouted orders alerted them of the Redcoats’ approach. Soon the British column emerged through the morning fog and the confrontation that would launch a nation began.

        “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels…”

        Needless to say Paul my view of the main causes for the 2nd ammendment are quite a bit different than your article. I am by no means saying the founding fathers were pure as the driven snow by any means but the motives for the 2nd ammendment were not to “preserve slavery” but was to give the people a way to fight back against tyrants such as King George. Why do you think John Hancock signed his name larger than anyone else? Because he was on King Georges hit list that is why. Good thing he didn’t give up his weapons eh?

        Anyway the agenda being driven by Sandy Hook is without a doubt gun confiscation. It is so shockingly obvious that I am simply amazed anyone can miss it.

        P.S. One of my friends is Stewart Rhodes founder of Oathkeepers who is a constitutional lawyer. We have talked extensively about the Constitution. I have also taken Michael Badnarik’s full Constitution class and met him personally as well.

  61. From the ‘Curiouser and Curiouser’ File:

    On January 5, 2012, there was another episode in Aurora.

    Four found dead inside Aurora home, including gunman shot by police
    Read more: Four found dead inside Aurora home, including gunman shot by police –
    The Denver Post
    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22316955/
    police-surround-aurora-home-after-man-fires-shots#ixzz2II1jOMIX

    Sonny Archuleta [age 33], “Aurora Killer”-shot by police.

    Sonny Archuleta is the artist who designed the prop map for Gotham, where Sandy Hook is a suburb.
    And now he and the property master Scott Getzinger, are dead…

    The map was released 12/14/11 by relative of Alister Crowley, Nathan Crowley a production designer on Christipher Nolan’s Trilogy Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises. Exactly 1 year in advance {A fan booklet for the Dark Knight series}.

    \\][//

    1. Dear Mr. Rogue,

      Thank you for the confirmation that the “smokey woods” and the crispy clear buildings and vehicles was anomalous looking to you, too. Ergo, the perfect school lawn in the aerial also starts to look to be digitally filtered [to mask something.] NFL down-marking technology brought to police helicopters and news reporting.

      Hard to believe that only one emergency vehicle (firetruck) can be seen at the school. The EMT rolling a stretcher with “someone” on it down the road also seems rather strange, first that a vehicle wasn’t dispatched to drive down the road pricely so a victim would not have to be rolled on the road so long. And second that the EMT would be all by his lonesome without a partner and/or a collection of over-eager police and fire staff who would otherwise be idle assisting with the pushing.

      Here’s something you’ll find of interest: America’s Gun Obsession. Go ahead and make some comments to Mr. Limey, if you feel so moved.

      //

      1. Thanx Señor,

        I left a response there, but it is on moderation…

        There are no other responses posted there. I have a feeling that there may be many waiting in the queue that are making the point that this Limey’s ramblings are utter idiocy. He is likely not allowing any comments through. You know how the queen’s subjects are…censors, lovers of tyranny, etc.

        \\][//

      1. From what I can tell, this info comes from ‘un-named’ sources in the Colorado government that Puddy knows personally.

        As for now I would call it a slight maybe…until I can find some substantial connecting dots. Archuleta was certainly a graphic artist and prop maker for the movies. But I don’t see a definitive link to that map yet.

        I have put some questions to Puddy – will update if anything substantial is offered.

        \\][//

      2. Great article! Here are two links regarding the death of Scott Getzinger, resident of Newtown, who probably selected the map with “Sandy Hook” who, the Stamford Advocate mentions that his injuries were, at first, called non-life threatening by the police. But then he died
        “Getzinger suffered multiple broken bones, but was described as conscious and alert after being cut out of the 2002 Ford F-150 pickup truck he was driving. State police initially characterized his injuries as non-life threatening.”

        http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Newtown-man-dies-in-Stamford-accident-3465225.php#ixzz2HcCcKYEQ

        http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/22353381-gotham-map-maker-killed-in-car-crash

        1. Thanks, Roth. Glad to have you aboard. This link is very interesting. It seems very plausible that this man was aware of how that map came to be made and how its content was decided upon. So many “coincidences.”

  62. Worth watching: Dave Cullen speaks to Fremd High School on Columbine, part 1. He was one of the first reporters on the scene and describes the process of gathering information immediately from shocked witnesses…and then, overnight….everything changed.

    Remember how awful the reporters were at the scene of the Newtown shooting? I was glued to the set in shock – How to interview victims: Disturbing example on Today Show

    Columbine wasn’t about jocks, goths or Trenchcoat Mafia. The author debunks myths & unravels the Columbine shooting motives. Rare access to film much of the video inside the Columbine cafeteria, to show you exactly where and how the attack played out. Columbine should not be a mystery. A team of experts brought in by the FBI cracked the case years ago. This video and book explains how and why.

    Columbine shocked the nation. The Newtown shootings shocked our nation in a similar way. It is worth looking at the process of reporting on shocking situations – especially since that is the stuff you find “suspicious.”

    1. “I was glued to the set in shock”~Painter

      As far as the psychological effects of watching television – I rest my case.

      \\][//

    2. “Rare access to film much of the video inside the Columbine cafeteria, to show you exactly where and how the attack played out. Columbine should not be a mystery. A team of experts brought in by the FBI cracked the case years ago. This video and book explains how and why.”~Painter

      Lol, “rare access” the FBI…

      So now you trust the Amerikan Gestapo, the FBI, and some reporter with “rare access”..

      Pretty amazing turnaround Painter. I would have thought that the lessons you learned about “authority” in a national security state while studying 9/11 would have disabused you of any trust in such agencies, or those promoting the “findings” of such.

      I am well versed in all of the angles of the Columbine event…which are simply yet again glazed over for this psychological operation now run by agent Cullen, as he wraps it up neatly in the official narrative.

      \\][//

  63. “The unusual testimony of Connecticut’s chief coroner H. Wayne Carver II, ostensibly placed in charge of the Sandy Hook school postmortem. Carver’s December 15 behavior and remarks before the press suggests his clear discomfort and demonstration that he knows very little about the shootings or autopsies themselves. In light of the above the physician’s hesitant performance in Sandy Hook’s tragedy is perhaps not so difficult to explain. At one point Carver even indicates his disapproval of the proceedings by expressing his wish that his staff and “the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” Is Carver referring to an embellished event that he has been an unwilling participant in?”

    http://www.sott.net/article/255956-The-Sandy-Hook-Massacre-Unanswered-questions-and-missing-information

    \\][//

    1. …and what’s up with the reporter(s) when Carver uttered the “crash on their head later” words. “Um excuse me Sir what did you mean by that?” nada

  64. Agent X , January 17, 2013 at 9:51 pm
    “Truth Seeker, Hybridroque1, SeekingKnowledge, Well, you Geniuses figured it out. There are paid HLS agents on this page, and I want all of you to know, we have resources beyond your wildest dreams. You all have moved into the center of our radar. Know that your phones are tapped, your houses are bugged, we know where and when you eat, when you sleep. You can’t do anything without us knowing. We are watching you day and night and will come for you all when the time is right. We have a special place waiting for you and your friends. So sleep well my friend, you’ll never know when we’re coming. BUAHAHAHAHA!!!!”

    http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/12/does-anderson-cooper-want-james-tracy-andor-his-family-members-killed/

    Lol, My answer to Agent X was simply, “Molon labe”.

    \\][//

    1. The state apparatus is coming like a fog rolling in from a lake during the night. Hence the need for the abolishment of Habeaus Corpus, elimination of posse commitus and the signing of the NDAA.

  65. I may save more in depth comments for the next upcoming blog post, but for now, let me suffice it to say this: I watched the “Sandy Hook ‘Hoax’ Debunked” video that Painter shared. Now, before I give my reaction to it, let me say that I re-watched the original conspiracy video tonight first (the one with 11 mil views) and I do have a few problems with its weaker parts; its strong parts stand. However, that being said, the “debunk” video Painter shared is UGH. If that is the best the defenders of the official side can do, then the official Sandy Hook story is in serious doo-doo.

    1. Thanks Adam for your observations. I found the David Cullen videos about Columbine equally “ugh” {grin}. I had studied that inside out for years, as it was a large part of the curriculum of prior to 9/11 events.

      The whole “human interest” angle that Cullen uses is your same old TV-type emotional-narrative technique. What is left totally out is the intelligence connections of the parents of the Trench Coat boys. As well as a penumbra of other glaring inconsistencies that go down the Memory Hole as far as Cullen’s narrative is concerned.

      Having spent some 12 to 16 hours a day devoted to the Sandy Hook incident since the morning it took place, I am certain that “the official Sandy Hook story is in serious doo-doo.”
      And the “anti-gun” agenda being the motivation for the staging of this event is so in your face that anyone failing to see that needs to visit the Wizard and get a new brain, and a bit of courage as well.

      \\][//

      1. I hope your reference to anti-gun agenda does not include thinking that the 2nd Amendment was included to help citizens against their government. As I replied to Adam earlier today, it was included to ‘help’ citizens have militia in slave-owning states to put down slave revolts. The target was the ‘darkie’.

        On another note, I have appreciated your skepticism about what Robbie Parker’s breathing is supposed to mean.

      2. “I hope your reference to anti-gun agenda does not include thinking that the 2nd Amendment was included to help citizens against their government.”~Paul Zarembka

        Oh but I absolutely do claim that the 2nd Amendment was included to give the people the ability to fight despotic government. The historical record is too clear on this to disregard.

        But beyond that, these rights we speak to hear today are not given as a grant by government. And I have spoken to that clearly enough already and will not repeat myself over and over again to those who do not hold these truths to be self evident.

        This has gone beyond academic debate as we are soon to be thrown into a life and death struggle with tyranny. I do hope that you are clear on this. As I just reminded Painter: There are hard lines being drawn, and either you will stand on the side of liberty and freedom, or you will fall into line behind the tyranny now being imposed.

        \\][//

      3. Paul Zarembka,

        Why can you not see? That it matters not whether they are called the militia, the police, the national guard, the army, or mercenaries, buy giving up the right to bear arms, one puts themselves precisely in the place of the black slaves on the plantations of the south. You have then become the slaves of the corporate plantation and the neofeudalism that has been planned for you for more than two hundred years.

        \\][//

      4. Well HR1 suffice it to say we see eye to eye.

        Paul I responded to your comment about the reason for the 2nd ammendment above.

      5. RuffAdam,

        You mentioned above “knowing quite a bit about the Constitution”…

        Myself as well, I have been a serious student of the Constitution for at least 40 years. I have read the minutes of the debates in Philadelphia, the Federalist Papers of course, but the Anti-Federalist papers as well, which there are many more of than the pro-federal accounts. I have read most of Thomas Jefferson’s writings and many books on the Revolution of 1776.

        For me the premier political text of all time is The Declaration of Independence – especially Jefferson’s original, before suffering editing by the committee. He made it absolutely clear that it would be hypocritical to proclaim these “self evident rights” for all men, and continue the institution of slavery. But these stanza’s were edited out, as politically impractical.

        But it was in times such as those, where “political practicality” should be abandoned, not for ‘idealistic’ reasons, but to attend to the most sound reasoning one is capable of. The eventual unpractical aspects of hypocrisy will and did then eventually come back to haunt you; as the Civil War did only a generation after the revolution.

        In understanding the Constitution, the most important thing to understand is that it is a Common Law document, written in the common language of the time – it is not written in statutory [Roman] legalese. While there are a few instances of common usage of English that differ from today, such as the word “regulated” in the 2nd Amendment, most of the language is still very much as today’s.

        There is some need to understand formal construction, to determine such issues as just when it is that the President becomes ‘Commander in Chief’. And that issue has been muddied by the lawyerly types, as well as the dim. The President is NOT elected as standing ‘Commander in Chief’ in peace time. He must be called to duty by a declaration of war by the legislative branch. Some will complain, “well who is commander in chief, if not the president??” – as written in the Constitution, there was to be no ‘standing army’ that lasted longer than the commission for a particular event of war. So in fact there was no need for a permanent commander in chief.

        At any rate, it has all become so twisted throughout the history of the nation, being constructed by utter disingenuous politicians–LAWYERS, that there is absolutely zero official adherence to the document today, other than rhetorical pretense of reverence.

        \\][//

  66. “Anderson Cooper was born on June 3, 1967,[3] in New York City, New York, the younger son of the writer Wyatt Emory Cooper and the artist, designer, writer, and heiress Gloria Vanderbilt. His maternal grandparents were millionaire equestrian Reginald Claypoole Vanderbilt and socialite Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt, and his maternal great-great-great-grandfather was Cornelius Vanderbilt of the prominent Vanderbilt shipping and railroad fortune.[4]
    At the age of nine, he appeared on To Tell the Truth as an impostor.[8]…{grin}
    During college, Cooper spent two summers as an intern at the Central Intelligence Agency. Although he technically has no formal journalistic education, he opted to pursue a career in journalism rather than stay with the agency after school. [^ Bercovici, Jeff (2006-09-06). “Anderson Cooper’s CIA secret”. Radar. http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/anderson-coopers-cia-secret.php. Retrieved 2007-06-30.]
    Cooper decided to enlist the help of a friend in making a fake press pass. At the time, Cooper was working as a fact checker for the small news agency Channel One.
    In 2000 he switched career paths, taking a job as the host of ABC’s reality show The Mole.”~wiki

    Ah…El Topo, “The Mole” – how apropos. If anyone knows what a ‘mole’ is in intelligence work, this is truly ironic.

    “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
    – William Colby, former CIA director

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    – William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

    “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”
    – James Angleton, head of CIA counter intelligence from 1954-1974

    \\][//

  67. Here’s an article I can agree with:

    http://www.alternet.org/why-we-cant-ignore-sandy-hook-truthers?akid=9943.284777.IzgFvt&rd=1&src=newsletter779751&t=10&paging=off

    As to the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” does not mean an “unregulated mass of armed citizens” dedicated to the perpetuation of the firearms industry by buying and concealing the latest in man-slaughtering technology.

    You all display a collective and disgusting lack of empathy and common sense. You “gun enthusiasts” are desperate to show how this Newtown shooting has nothing to do with the NRA obstruction of any sane gun laws and making money off guns by corporate lobbyists. If you didn’t personally put the semi-automatic into the shooter’s hand and say, “Kill ‘em” you think you are fine. But you aren’t.

    The reality is that the NRA has spent years developing policies, blocking or creating laws that ensure these horrible shootings happen on a regular basis. Their work ranges from laws blocking research on gun violence to outlawing the use of computers to keep track of weapons. It’s disgusting.

    And about that Constitution: Taking up arms against your entire government as “the enemy” is not called Patriotism – it is called Treason. I understand that a rogue element within our government carried out the attacks of 9/11…but that is quite a different matter and we have ample proof that 9/11 was an inside job (if our citizens cares to look).

    We have some crazy politics in this country when Conservatives refuse to cut Defense spending – yet they hoard guns and ammo to defend themselves in case the military turns on them. The only result of this Newtown shooting is that most people suddenly “woke up” and saw that military style weapons (whose only purpose is to kill human beings) – should NOT be in the hands of ordinary citizens.

    It makes me cringe when I meet someone who claims to be a fellow 9/11 truther – who easily buys every crackpot theory they stumble over – just as long as it involves the “big bad scary government.”

    The unhinged ramblings with no proof about “Cullen is an FBI agent” and people are watching us day and night – get real here. Why not challenge ALL the wacky unsubstantiated stuff that is said in this comment section…and not only the person who disagrees with you all about Newtown.

    I have the right and freedom to live and work in this country and be safe from harm and intimidation by unregulated, self-appointed, self-righteous macho wackos carrying military style assault weapons….just because they can.

    1. I live in New Zealand so I have no view at all on the gun laws of the USA.

      On Columbine, Cullen is doing what other authors have done with 9/11 – that is embed the myth deeper just in case people start to doubt it. If everyone got it wrong at Columbine, then that includes the people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE (Cullen wasn’t) who independently named other people who were present and shooting. Trauma does not cause multiple people to name another person as a shooter if the person was not there shooting. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is the witness statements of the people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE.

      How was the Pentagon myth dissolved? By CIT interviewing the witnesses WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE and piecing together the real path of the plane.

      I am not at all convinced that the Painter here is the Painter I know from 9/11. That Painter sees the world for how it is ……

    2. Painter: I’d like to respond in bullet form to some of your comments.

      Your response “You all” is an over-generalization in blanket form. Mention specifics, if possible, next time.

      There are literally thousands of gun laws on the books and most are not enforceable. I think it is clear that too many laws leads to lack of respect for the rule of law, not less laws.

      I think our government has committed treason and in other cases, misprision of treason.

      Rogue elements? Like NORAD, FAA and then Vice-President Cheney. It’s clear more than rogue elements are at full-scale assault of the American people.

      I agree that people of different political persuasions can have “crazy” views and your point is taken with me. I’ve abandoned the “we” vs. “them” paradigm of who is good versus who is bad to attempting to gathering the facts as best as can be ascertained. The left vs. right paradigm is a divide and conquer tactic of the power elite.

      I still think many people have have also “awakened” that there is a clear agenda to take guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens as well.

      Your comment about 9/11 truthers and crackpots is a bit of a strawman. Truthers come in all shapes, sizes and colors as well as all forms of religious and areligious thought.

      It’s clear to me that the New World Order is on the fast track and the police state apparatus is in gear. The last obstacle to full implementation is to disarm the public.

      All financial and communication transactions are tracked in real time, bro. That qualifies for being watched day and night.

      You won’t have the right to live and work in this country if you give up those rights, buddy.

    3. “It makes me cringe when I meet someone who claims to be a fellow 9/11 truther – who easily buys every crackpot theory they stumble over – just as long as it involves the “big bad scary government.”” – Painter

      So the government isn’t big or bad or scary? They don’t regularly execute false flag operations? They don’t trample over our rights? They don’t murder people all over the globe? They don’t have an agenda?

      Painter – It is clear that you support the banning of “assault weapons” from “ordinary citizens”. So my response to you on that is simple. We will be on opposings sides in the upcomming civil war. Sad but true.

      By the way Painter why aren’t you pushing for a ban on “box cutters” since they have killed more people than all the mass shootings combined?

      Anyway it makes me cringe to waste my time talking to someone so hopelessly lost as you Painter.

  68. “As to the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” does not mean an “unregulated mass of armed citizens” dedicated to the perpetuation of the firearms industry by buying and concealing the latest in man-slaughtering technology.”~Painter

    The 2nd Amendment is explicit in it’s charge that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The term “well regulated” in the 1770s means “having regular familiarity with firearms” as in “the Regulars”, a term used for an army well trained in the use of their weapons. “Regulated” did NOT mean regulations for owning or bearing these arms, as the language continued from the first sentence to the second is very clear as to the intent.

    You do NOT “have the right and freedom to live and work in this country and be safe from harm…” at the expense of refusing others their natural rights to self protection.
    Review my post – Hybridrogue1 JANUARY 16, 2013 – 9:54 PM
    And understand this – the government nor the majority neither grants nor takes away these rights, they are INALIENABLE. They may not be taken away by diktat or legislation.

    Now, as far as who is committing “treason” here. It can be no more obvious than it already is that this so-called “government” is ultra vires in toto. This ‘government’ receives it’s grant of authority by a oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. The arbitrary disregard of this oath, no matter how popularly supported is unlawful and is indeed an act of treason to that Constitution.

    You posit that “a rogue element within our government carried out the attacks of 9/11,” and this is simply unmitigated poppycock. This entire system is and has been “rogue” since at least the establishment of the National Security Act in 1947, and was being manipulated towards that end by as early as 1913 with the establishment of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act.

    To use your words; It makes me cringe when I meet someone who claims to be a fellow 9/11 truther – who is so uninformed as to the deeper history of this nation and the machinations of power.

    There are hard lines being drawn Painter, and either you will stand on the side of liberty and freedom, or you will fall into line behind the tyranny now being imposed.

    \\]]//

  69. WHAT??

    Have all of these “Truthers” suddenly forgotten the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, that Torture is now an accepted “legal” method, that our rights have been under relentless attack from a despotic government that came boldly out of the closet in jackboots after 9/11?

    To posit that all of this has taken place because of “rogue elements” is asinine, absurd and utterly ludicrous. These are the CLEARLY actions of the entire system.

    This is all too utterly amazing to see here, I am totally bowled over by the absolute stupidity of some of the commentary developing on this blog.

    \\][//

  70. Painter, (and everyone else)

    Speaking for myself here, and not anyone else, I did not start looking at “Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories” by beginning with an agenda (“Barack wants to grab all our guns!”) and working backwards. My only reason for involving myself in this discussion is that at this point, we know we’ve historically been lied to about MANY things. Gulf of Tonkin, the ’60’s assassinations, OKC, 9/11, 7/7, etc. When you realize you’ve been lied to about all these things, you never take the official govt/media stories at face value ever again.

    Do you remember the “incubator babies hoax” that led to public support of Gulf War I? Until the Canadian media exposed it as fraud beyond doubt, it would have been considered unthinkably offensive to suggest that the 15-year-old crying Kuwaiti girl testifying before Congress could possibly be acting, fake tears and all.

    Personally, I am going to take the Richard Gage approach with regard to Sandy Hook; I am simply going to look at all the available data and see what does add up and what doesn’t. Like AE911Truth, I am going to refrain from speculating as to exactly WHO is responsible for Sandy Hook, should it be a hoax, and simply point people to the “facts” that don’t add up.

    I would agree with what OSS said at the top of this thread: question, yes; accuse, no. Now, personally, I am quite weirded out by the behavior of Robbie Parker as well as the McDonnell family. It doesn’t sit right with me. That being said, I am going to refrain from accusing them of being actors because all I have is my opinion. So far, with the available information, accusing these people of being actors is a far different cry from the case of Lloyde England with regard to the 9/11 Pentagon attack. We can safely call him a fake witness because not only is his story contradicted by numerous other witnesses, but he himself couldn’t keep his own story straight. Finally, when he thought he wasn’t being recorded, he virtually admitted involvement in the operation. However, with Sandy Hook, this Gene Rosen character seems to be pretty dubious; not so much in his behavior, but in the things he actually says, and the fact that his account changes from interview to interview. Plus, his basic story doesn’t make much sense.

    Now, moving on to the issue of the 2nd Amendment:

    I also agree with Painter and Paul Z. that the Second Amendment is often misunderstood by its proponents, at least in part. Yes, I agree with Adam Ruff and HR that the amendment was written, in part, to take back our own government from Nazi-like rule. After all, when the Jews inside the Warsaw Ghetto did get their hands on ammo, what did they do? They fought back, rather than being led like sheep to the slaughter. Yes, many of them then died in the process when the Nazis shot back, but at least those particular Jews died while defending themselves with dignity. However, I also agree with Painter and Paul Z. that many people take this concept too extremely, to the point where their understanding of history is foggy.

    Before we continue, however, I would warn against characterizing the pro-gun issue as a “right wing” issue. (I say this knowing full well that the article I am about to post refers to “right-wingers” and I think that’s unfortunate.) It should be non-partisan. Just like 9/11 truth is not a left-wing, anti-Bush agenda issue. And yes, I remember around 2006 when some anti-war protesters cringed at the thought of being lumped in with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

    Everyone should read this article from AlterNet.
    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/real-rationale-2nd-amendment-right-wingers-are-totally-ignorant-about?paging=off

    Excerpts:

    The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.

    President George Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, leading a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

    The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat.

    Daniel Shays, the leader of the revolt, was a former Continental Army captain who joined with other veterans and farmers to take up arms against the government for failing to address their economic grievances.

    The rebellion alarmed retired Gen. George Washington who received reports on the developments from old Revolutionary War associates in Massachusetts, such as Gen. Henry Knox and Gen. Benjamin Lincoln. Washington was particularly concerned that the disorder might serve the interests of the British, who had only recently accepted the existence of the United States.

    On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”

    In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the spreading unrest. “What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded: “Many of them appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”

    Behind the Second Amendment

    The Second Amendment dealt with concerns about “security” and the need for trained militias to ensure what the Constitution called “domestic Tranquility.” There was also hesitancy among many Framers about the costs and risks from a large standing army, thus making militias composed of citizens an attractive alternative.

    So, the Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Contrary to some current right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly aimed at maintaining order within the country.

    That point was driven home by the actions of the Second Congress amid another uprising which erupted in 1791 in western Pennsylvania. This anti-tax revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, prompted Congress in 1792 to expand on the idea of “a well-regulated militia” by passing the Militia Acts which required all military-age white males to obtain their own muskets and equipment for service in militias.

    So on that note, yes I would definitely agree with Painter that armed rebellion against the government is not patriotism, but rather, treason. However, I also realize the difference between organizing an armed rebellion due to economic grievances, and having to defend your life if the government were to truly go Nazi.

    Anyway, hopefully that article I posted illustrates to some that this issue has many shades of gray, not the least of which because the amendment was written so long ago when the world was a different place.

    1. One might look into the causes of the insurrections that took place such as the Whiskey Rebellion, and remember that old adage that “The Winners Write History”, and read some of the conditions those who rebelled faced.

      It is nevertheless not 1791 nor 1787, and although it is not even 1776, the analogy to that last date is the closest to our situation now, for the federal government no longer bases itself in nor acts in faith with the federal constitution. Becoming what both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists claimed they were against; the tyranny of a despotic central government.

      Again. allow me to yank you all back into the reality of the present, which is defined by the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, the fact that Torture is now an accepted “legal” method, the executive branch claimes the authority to assassinate any one anywhere on the planet, including American citizens both here and abroad; that our rights have been under relentless attack from a despotic government that came boldly out of the closet in jackboots after 9/11?

      And you really can imagine that there is no sinister intent behind this agenda to disarm the people of this country. The position is utterly preposterous. You and those who agree are actually claiming that they trust this tyrannical syndicate posing as “the government”.

      I suggest reading this argument by Jon Rappoport which is of a similar take as I give here, but with much more attention to the detail of the application of critical thinking to this issue.

      I think that is what is missing with those who are for these gun laws, already in effect by executive decree, a cold critical analysis untainted by emotions. I see plainly that Painter is coming from a place of fear and loathing. I see that he is willing to live on his knees and plead with authority to save him, but the authorities have not saved him from what has already happened despite the fact that these acts were already illegal. And anyone who thinks that law abiding citizens turning in their weapons will change the fact that the gangs and criminals will not is living in a dreamworld. So not only will violence not be halted by these futile measures, but honest citizens will be left defenseless against not only the criminal element, but by a totally corrupt and despotic government.

      Again, I am totally astonished by this foolishness.

      But the bottom line here is, it does not matter what any authority, nor any majority thinks, the right to the means for self defense go beyond the reach of any who would disparage those rights. Those who do not recognize the self evidence of this truth are enchanted with the Communitarian mythos of social engineering that will not change the relationship of man to his free will. They do not grasp that this is about nothing but power and who will wield that power. They have failed to learn the lessons of history, and are on the verge of reliving it in the manner that such things always come to pass – iron-fisted draconian rule, unbridled by law or sanity, for “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

      \\][//

    2. There really are no shades of grey to this issue Adam. A quote from the declaration of independence sums up the primary reason the 2nd ammendment was put into the Constitution.

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      1. Yes Ruffadam,

        Those who defame “conspiracy theory” are obviously clueless to the fact that The Declaration of Independence is in fact the most eloquently written conspiracy theory of all time. The list of abuses by the Crown and it’s agents is exactly the type of argument we see today by critics of this despotic “government”. The Crown was indeed intent upon imposing “absolute Despotism” – and it is clear enough today that this is what the national ‘government’ is intent upon today: Full Spectrum Dominance, an openly stated strategy.

        As I have said many times before, the only sane response to Full Spectrum Dominance is Full Spectrum Defiance.

        I don’t want this fight. They are bringing this fight to us. We are not attacking them, they are pretending victim-hood, they are attacking us by attacking our rights.

        \\][//

  71. It has been clear from the very beginning that there were differences between the industrializing north and the agricultural south int the 1700s. It is also clear that the Constitution was drafted to create a Federal government, not a National government. It was also clear at that time that “citizens” were citizens of the various states and not citizens of a national government.

    It is also clear that the Federalists were disingenuous in this federal plan, and intended a centralized National government to emerge via “practical politics” – that is the ‘rule of men’ and not ‘the rule of law’ to eventually nullify states rights by increments, the disingenuous ‘drip by drip’ process that all despots use to manipulate change that cannot be forced upon a people all at once.

    It is not to defend the indefensible institution of slavery that I attend to these remarks. It is to point to the reality on the ground that the South faced in this struggle.

    However this is no longer the 18th century and the Federal government is no longer a federal government but a National government that has built by intrigue and deception to finalize itself as indeed a despotic national security state, bringing the fears of all who feared an all powerful government throughout the entire history of the United States.

    That this tyranny is here in our face at this very moment cannot by seriously denied. Now to fall back on the excuse of the hypocrisy of the ‘founding fathers’, to demand that the people now allow themselves to be disarmed by this clearly tyrannical government is a compound hypocrisy that is fatal. It is fatal not only for the fools and hypocrites that hold this view, it is fatal to those with enough sense to see what is happening before their eyes.
    It is too late to curse the slave owning founders without also damning ourselves to slavery ourselves under this “Homeland Security State” a panoptic police state so in your face that you have to be criminally naïve not to see it.

    I just read Thom Hartmann’s Neoliberal jabberwacky on the history of the ratification of the Second Amendment. It is bullshit because ALL of the Bill of Rights were challenged by various parties for a great many reasons. The Federalists themselves did not want a bill of rights at all, making the disingenuous argument that future generations might argue that these numbered rights were the only ones. But this argument was made because of there designs for tyranny not any real concern for rights. Madison solved this with the Ninth Amendment. The Federalist lost there pretense, and were forced to concede as there was no rational argument left to leave out a bill of rights.
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

    We are here today under the yoke of an ever tightening grip of a totalitarian police state. And now there are these moronic arguments made against the Constitution – which in fact is the ONLY instrument that grants legitimate authority to any in the federal government. It isn’t only the right to bear arms that is under attack, it is all of our rights to liberty.

    It has been pointed out by those who understand the architecture of political power that the Right and the Left, now the Neocons and the Neoliberals are the pincers of the Hegelian dialectic cycle that drives the nation and the world to the Total State, Hegel’s dream of the nightmare of “the State as God”. We stand or kneel at this threshold now, this very day.

    For myself I intend to stand defiant, and I pity the conscience of those who will in their turn kneel to this tyranny.

    \\][//

  72. ADAM SYED, thanks for understanding my motives here. We have a genuine difference of opinion on this subject.

    ADAM RUFF, you know me very well. Long ago you helped walk me through the minefield set by the trolls on the RRMB – and we’ve been friends ever since.

    That said, I have had personal experience with gun violence in my unbelieveably ordinary peace lovin’ life. The first time I was on a wooden bench in Boston waiting for a bus. I hear cracks and the bench starts splintering all around me. I ran and never looked back. Later that day I heard that another person waiting for a bus was killed by a man with a rifle on a rooftop across the street.

    A man I did not know walked across a crowded street in Manhattan, pulled a gun out of his belt and waved it at my face, – and then he walked away. I do not know why that happened but I was completely undone.

    I was driving on a crowded highway and thought I got hit by a stone. When I got home I heard on the news that someone on a hill was shooting at cars and killed two people and he was never found. Sure enough, I checked my car, called the police and they recovered a bullet from the rear door on the driver’s side.

    I found a bullet hole in my windshield after I returned to retrieve my car that I had parked in a school parking lot in broad daylight.

    So here is my point – gun violence is way too real for me. Paranoid fantasies about fighting a rebellion against a theoretical future fascist government takeover strikes me as a bunch of nonsense compared to any citizen’s right to demand appropriate and reasonable gun safety laws. I’d like to feel safe.

    Way too many people are angry, short tempered and prone to violence. I suspect that these same people are also attracted to the awesome “power” over the life and death of total strangers that carrying a lethal weapon insures.

    In the US, 31,224 people died from gun violence in 2010. If it were true that more guns would make us safer – then we would already be the safest place in the entire world. But we are quite the opposite of that. So in terms of the risk of getting shot, we’re basically Somalia with a better standard of living.

    I feel like I’m wading through some serious squirrel shit in this article and in these comments on Newtown. And it breaks my heart that it is linked via this website to the truth about 9/11.

    1. Painter: You are more likely to die from an infection in a hospital then be killed by a gun. 197,000 people died last year from an infection they acquired in a hospital. Most of the gun violence in this country is due to drug and gang wars, not from people who want to uphold their constitutionally protected right to carry guns.

      Decreasing violence in not as simple as creating more redundant laws which hamper the law abiding citizen but does nothing of the sort to the career criminal. We have a culture of violence that extends beyond just gun violence.

    2. Painter,

      I have had guns pulled on me four times in my life. And one of those times it was a 303 carbine and it was aimed at the center of my chest, the girl with the gun pulled the trigger.
      It went “click”. I was stunned just stood there with no thought in my head at all, until the guy I was with grabbed the gun by the end of the barrel, with one hand, pushed forward and with the other hand slapped the bottom midway and slammed the stock into her chin, knocking her back and leaving him holding the rifle. He was screaming at her in a rage and pulled back the bolt saying it might have been loaded….and it was, a un-fired bullet flew from the chamber. I picked it up. There was a nick on the center bottom. It had misfired.

      I kept that as a souvenir for many years, but eventually lost track of it.

      The other times were pistols. All transcendentally terrifying experiences. Yet I still disagree with your opinion. All of these events can happen anyway, regardless of any law. The only way to get rid of guns is to dis-invent them. That is a delusional dream.

      And the bottom line remains, our opinions cannot change the fact that it is a person’s inalienable right to have the personal means for self defense. This natural law is sacrosanct.
      Every argument against this right fails ultimately upon close critical examination.

      \\][//

    3. Feeling safe is a fantasy, you can’t have it. The reason is that criminals DON’T OBEY THE LAW. The only people gun laws will disarm are good responsible citizens, not the criminals. So if we do things your way the bad guys will have guns and the good guys will not have any. This is the final word on this subject I am going to say to you Painter but my friend Sheriff Richard Mack sums up the whole issue perfectly in the following video:

      Bottom line: the citizens are the malitia and ANY infringement on our right to keep and bear arms is AGAINST THE LAW. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      1. The video with Sheriff Mack is great.

        As he put it so plainly and accurately: “Gun control in America is against the law.”

        It is not an issue up for argument. There is no valid argument for gun control. All gun regulations infringe the natural right to bear arms – all of them. Even ‘background checks are unlawful if that check attends to any other than on point, whether the person buying the gun has been convicted of a violent crime, and is still on parole.
        A person cannot be banned for life of the ability to self defense, unless they are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

        These ideas are surely seen as radical by those who have been lulled into trance by the perception manipulation of the Public Relations Regime. But it is they who are willing to accept tyranny. And it is so clear from their arguments that they have no understanding of the history of the Revolution and the original throwing off of a tyrannical government.

        I do hope that a couple of my favorite commentators here will look more deeply into this issue and realize the critical errors of their thinking.

        \\][//

  73. It is plain to see, that the civil war that this Sandy Hook event was meant to spark has begun. It is in progress verbally on this very thread.

    Count on it; there will be blood…there is already blood and it is the peoples blood drawn by the state. This will continue apace now, until it come to a head as the financial situation worsens. All of this by the age old plan that too many fail to acknowledge.

    gawblesamurkah buckaroos, one and all…

    \\][//

  74. This is an interesting take on Sandy Hook by Wayne Madsen.

    It also is a tie-in to the Columbine shooters, who were allegedly victims of pedophilia, and likely Monarch style MK programming.

    “Newtown, like Fairfield and Stamford, is part of the Diocese of Bridgeport, which got into legal trouble in 2001 due to lawsuits by 23 victims of pedophilia committed by priests. Bishop Edward Egan, then diocese head, was a protector of sexual offender priests, sending them to other areas when parental complaints reached the ears of the police.”

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com

    \\][//

  75. I’ve noticed that some mainstream media reports are labelling Gene Rosen a “hero”. Even if his story is true, what did he do that was heroic? Nothing. Did he risk his own safety? No. He invited some kids into his house.

    Now he’s under attack from conspiracy theorists who accuse him of being an actor. He retorts “There must be some way to morally shame these people…” Well then, let’s hear from the parents of the kids he “sheltered”. That might actually lend some credibility to his story.

  76. Story Number One NBC:
    Original reports were that 3 guns were found at the scene of the Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
    2 HANDGUNS [on dead assailant] & 1 ASSAULT RIFLE [found in trunk of Civic]
    . . . . . . . . .
    The central problem here is that “federal authorities” who ID’d the handguns found at the scene reported two handguns found next to the shooter who was Id’d as Ryan Lanza – shot in the head with one of the pistols.
    There was no rifle at this scene, which clearly would have stood out and been next to or close by the body of the dead alleged shooter.

    It was only later that Ryan Lanza proposed that perhaps he was ID’d as the shooter because “Adam” had his [Ryan’s] ID on him. This was never cleared up by the authorities themselves.

    It is after this first original story came out that the coroner, Carver said unequivocally that all of the wounds of the victims were the result of “the long gun”. It was also reported that casings matching a .223 littered the areas where the shootings took place.
    One cannot POSSIBLY mistake the casings of a large .223 with those of either handguns found on the dead “shooter”.

    The federal officials [FBI] have never retracted the forensic statements made originally. It has been the reporters and the state police who have continued to spin new stories almost daily…

    Yet this has all been tied up neatly in an official story that does not take into account the glaring disparities – the above only being one example.

    \\][//

  77. http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/sandy-hook-massacre-both-long-guns-found-in-trunk-of-car/

    “The video below is of the State Police press conference the night of the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre. What the video insert on the right shows is the extended version of the video we have all seen that the MSM shows when trying to claim that the shotgun is the long weapon that was found inside the trunk of the vehicle but what the FULL version of that video ACTUALLY shows is BOTH the long weapons, the Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun and the Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle, were pulled out of the trunk late in the evening.”~Loman


    Slo-mo 2 long guns removed from trunk of Civic

    Also see: Shots of Children evacuated are from drill at other school >
    http://sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/how-is-st-rose-of-lima-school-and-church-connected-to-sandy-hook-shootings/

    \\][//

    1. I’m clearly missing something. I can’t see two guns being removed from the trunk. And in the still shot I can’t make out what is supposedly the second long gun (top of image).

      1. Did you blow it up to full screen?

        The officer reaching into the trunk continues holding the shotgun in his right hand turning to the techs, then still holding it turned back and reached in with his left hand and pulls out a second long gun. I could see that although I couldn’t identify what kind of rifle it might be.
        . . . . . .. . .
        hmm…I just watched it again and it cuts off now before the guy at the trunk turns back and reaches in the trunk again…???

        My only guess is that Youtube clipped it off in between the first time I saw it and now. I know I saw that the first viewing – just after he holds the gun out to the others, and after he turns back to the car, it went on a few more seconds and he reached in with his left hand…now that isn’t there.

        Something fishy going on here…well something fishy going on with everything to do with this case.

        \\][//

      2. I can’t make out anything from the still shot, and I saved it to file and blew it up…just fuzzy biz.

        But I am really flabbergasted that this second gun being picked up in the trunk was shown and is now missing…it is likely another aspect of the strategy of tension…one of those, “now you see it now you don’t” things – so those who DID see it can be questioned as perhaps ‘seeing things’…

        I want to know why everything is in such little snippets. You know the footage from the helicopter of the weapons being removed from the trunk went on for much longer than what is shown. They surely filmed until the guns were handed over to the techs to establish chain of evidence for themselves. And all we get is the teaser shots…leading again to more speculation.

        PERCEPTION MANIPULATION.

        As I posited before, they WANT this confusion, it causes divisions…it is part of the technique to push forward an agenda to a confused and head-spun population.

        This is all BREAD AND CIRCUSES.

        \\][//

      3. Try this clip.

        Starting at about the 0:33 mark. At the 2:30 mark, when the officers start walking away it’s pretty clear they’re carrying two long rifles.

      4. This should be a good link to the two gun video:

        Don’t know what went wrong with the first URL attempt . Maybe going through the ATS link to get to the video may have had something to do with the original URL not working. Again, the two guns seem to be clearly visible starting at the 2:30 mark.

  78. 5 people were shot at 3 different gun shows on “Gun Appreciation Day” – If the gun advocates behind this year’s unbelievably stupid Inaugural “High Noon” events across the country had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

    Emergency personnel had to be called to the scene of the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot two people at the show’s safety check-in booth just after 1 pm.

    Both victims were transported to an area hospital, and the Raleigh Fire Department announced that the show would be closed for the rest of the day.

    Then there was a charter school (of course) who followed the NRA’s advice and hired a firearms instructor to help protect their students.

    It didn’t work out. That nincompoop left his gun in the student bathroom.

    TODAY’S Headlines: Albuquerque Shooting: Teenager Kills 5 People, Including 3 Children. Evidently there was an assault type weapon involved and the victimes were shot multiple times – each.

    My point is that “ordinary citizens” can be pretty stupid and irresponsible – and they all have access to assault weapons. They should not have access to weapons whose only purpose is to shoot a lot of people – really dead – really fast.

    This is an American psychosis. The very fact that Sandy Hook has prompted such a conversation about gun control only serves to reinforce the idea among an already paranoid population segment that the government must have concocted it.

    President Obama is only proposing mild fixes to make it less likely that mentally disturbed individuals can commit massacres with so-called assault weapons; and even at this early phase, the right-wing gun lobby is screaming about things like tyranny and trampling of the constitution.

    I want to see something meaningful – to keep children safe actually enacted – whether through Congress or executive order.

    This is a uniquely American pyschosis that is deeply ingrained into an alarmingly broad cross-section of our nation’s fabric. It can’t be removed: The only reason we are even discussing solutions is that too many innocent children have died for something not to change in this country pretty darned soon.

    In order to satisfy yourselves and calm your fears – please call for a new investigation into Newtown and then get real about some commn sense gun safety issues.

    1. “President Obama is only proposing mild fixes…”~Painter

      It is obvious that it is futile to try to reason with someone so brainwashed as you are.

      “Mild fixes”…if you have read, and you must have as you posted the list of them, the extent of these “mild fixes,” then it is raging-sirens-glaring-flashing-lights that you don’t have the slightest idea of what is going on around you. You are lost in some Utopian socialist dreamworld, believing the “government” is here to care for you.

      You are obviously so fixated on this one point, “protecting the children” that all else escapes your conscious awareness. ALL of your RIGHTS are down the drain already. This system is complete and utter tyranny. The so-called “government” is completely and totally illegitimate, acting utterly in opposition to the constitution that grants their authority. They are in fact impostors ‘Acting Under the Color of Authority’.

      That you would have the gall to site Alex Seitz-Wald openly on this blog is quite remarkable.
      And for you to contend that you are serious as a ‘Truther’ ,is such obvious bullshit that blends right into the rest of this bullshit of not understanding the rights of liberty, that I cannot help but say that you sir are a fraud, and a pretender as illegitimate as this tyrannical system you support.

      Suck that lollipop for the full flavor to sink in.

      \\][//

  79. Here is a list of Obama’s gun safety proposals. How could you think that “Sandy Hook is a conspiracy” based on this (mild) proposal for reform:

    Here is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence. What on earth do you see here that is so bad?

    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

    11. Nominate an ATF director.

    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

    15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

    President Obama is announcing stricter background checks and an assault weapons ban as part of proposals to stem gun violence.

    1. “Here is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence. What on earth do you see here that is so bad?”~Painter

      If you understood the content of the arguments made heretofore you wouldn’t have to ask what is here that is so bad. If you don’t get it by now, you are obviously not going to get it.

      But you are going to have to live with the repercussions of all of this just like everyone else.

      \\][//

      1. “16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

        My answer to my doctor if he should ask about guns in my home will be: That is none of your God damn business pal and you are no longer my doctor.

      2. The reason that this is in the executive order: “16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” is because of an addendum Harry Reid put into the Affordable Care Act that specifically bans any questioning of patients about firearms ownership. This is passed legislation and is as it stands binding law, that constitutionally must be enforced by the executive branch.

        So as an executive order this would be using “line item veto”, which is also beyond law by legislation and the Constitution. It is also an act of Ex Post Facto, as Obama is doing it after the fact that it has become law. It is an illustration that the rule of law is not in effect at the national level, and we are ruled by despotic diktat.

        But this has been so clear for generations, that it is simply astonishing that anyone can seriously suggest this is a “constitutional republic”.

        \\][//

  80. I don’t think anyone else has posted this . . . It’s a follow up, a part 2 to the video posted a while back, Sandy Hook Fully Exposed . . .

  81. I have to say, that any who quote Alex Seitz-Wald in a favorable light, might as well do the same for Jonathan Kay and Cass Sunstein. He is no less of a PR hack for this Neo-Liberal agenda than the other two.

    Let’s see a telling paragraph from Seitz-Wald:

    “One reason for the explosive growth of the movement is that it builds on existing conspiracy theories, especially classic “black helicopters” anti-government paranoia and theories surrounding 9/11. Not only do Sandy Hook truthers share an epistemological foundation with existing theorists, but the believers are often the very same people. On online message boards dedicated to swapping conspiracy theories, many of the commentators who argue that Sandy Hook was a “false flag” operation actually see it as merely the latest in a long line of other government operations aimed at disarming Americans, such as the shooting in Aurora, Colo., and the Oklahoma City bombing.”
    . . . . . . . .
    That’s right folks there are no such thing as sonic attenuated Black Hawk helicopters
    [even though one buzzed my house in early 2001 – flew directly at the open window I was sitting at in my second story studio..for a frightful moment I really thought it was about to open fire].

    And of course the shooting in Aurora, Colo., and the Oklahoma City bombing, were all exactly what the official story claims.

    And jeeeze this “anti-government paranoia and theories surrounding 9/11″…
    What a buncha tin-hatted crazed nutballs these people are. they should all be put on heavy medication and watched closely so they won’t be a danger to themselves or others…

    Seriously folks, WTF???

    Did the Blue pill suddenly seem just too enticing?

    Does it really “taste like real steak”?

    Cool daddios, when you wake up what you will taste is your own blood while spitting out shattered teeth when the goon squad finally kicks in your door. If you are unlucky enough to be taken alive.

    ~A Paranoid Nutter \\][//

  82. BTW, that graph that Seitz-Wald shows in his article is one reason that the authorities are in total freakout…The Awakening has launched like a missile on January 2013.

    The veils are lifting from eyes…and yet for some here the prospect is too frightening.

    Very strange, strange indeed. Like a light-switch was thrown.

    \\][//

  83. Interview with Larry Pratt “Gun Owners Of America”
    Larry Pratt, what do you think of the reforms announced by president Obama today?
    LARRY PRATT, PRESIDENT, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, VIRGINIA: It’s what we might have expected from someone coming from his point of view and what he’s not at all discussing is the fact that the mass murders that have occurred in our country over the last 20 years have occurred in precisely the kind of gun-free zone that was legally in force in Newtown, Connecticut.

    LEIGH SALES: Massacres have occurred all over the United States, from Virginia to Arizona to Colorado. It is inaccurate and misleading to say that they have only occurred in gun-free zones.

    LARRY PRATT: These were places that occurred at schools which legally were gun-free zones, or the theatre in Colorado was the one out of some seven near where the murderer lived which was posted no guns, and so he chose exactly what he was looking for and I think we have to conclude that gun-free zones are like magnets for these people.

    LEIGH SALES: Why would any civilian need a military-style assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine?

    LARRY PRATT: They’re not military style and they’re not assault rifles. They are defence weapons. They’ve been used by Korean merchants when there was no public order in Los Angeles for days during the LA riots.

    They were used following the breakdown of social order following Hurricane Katrina and average citizens have used them on several occasions when hurricanes in south Florida have simply imploded the normal order of society, police are nowhere to be seen for sometimes days on ends, and so people are on their own.

    LEIGH SALES: What do you think will happen if the US government puts restrictions on gun ownership?

    LARRY PRATT: Well, there are politicians that think that it’s their job to rule us and it’s our job to be ruled and it’s kind of a basic impulse and that’s why we continue to vote politicians out of office because they get a little full of themselves.

    And particularly among Democrats, although not exclusively, we find a tendency to want to control guns because they just don’t like the idea of an armed populace but of course our second amendment says that’s exactly why we are supposed to have an armed populous, so that the Government is mindful that there’s only so far it can go and the people can protect themselves against tyranny.

    LEIGH SALES: But with this armed populace argument, if we take it to its logical conclusion, even if every American had as many weapons as they like, the United States government and its army is always going to have more weapons so therefore no matter how many weapons you have, you’re still going to be defeated so therefore it’s a spurious argument to make.

    LARRY PRATT: Well, that remains to be seen. There have been confrontations before. Actually when we started our country we beat the army of the most powerful empire in the world and we beat them with, starting with our muskets.

    We have reason to be concerned about our government because it’s our government that was running guns deliberately into the hands of the Mexican cartel and the scandal that I’m sure you know of called fast and furious. It’s led to the murder of some 400 Mexicans and counting, two of our federal agents, and so it’s rather stunning that a government that would perpetrate such a monstrous crime is now telling the American gun owner, “You can’t be trusted. We need to have more control over you.” I don’t think so.

    LEIGH SALES: In Australia, the government reacted to a massacre in 1996 by banning the sale, importation and possession of semi-automatic rifles and by removing 700,000 guns from circulation.

    In the 18 years before that we had 13 massacres. After that we had zero. We didn’t have a civil war, the government didn’t come and take all of our stuff away from us. Why not just give it a try in the US?

    LARRY PRATT: Once you’ve given it a try there’s no going back and so in the United States we’re not going to do that. In the United States we are citizens in control of the government and as the Swiss say to this day, a rifle is the emblem of a free man.

    I would have liked to have had the questions asked of OBF to have been answered regarding ALL live video footage on the day of 9/11 being fake.
    For the record I reject planes hit the twin towers but I do not accept what September Clues claim “that all live footage on the day of 9/11 was Computer Generated Imagery.

  84. Here is an article written by Cheri Roberts entitled: Debunking the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Conspiracy PT 1

    http://cherispeak.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/debunking-the-sandy-hook-conspiracy-conspiracy-pt1/

    I would like those of you who are so inclined to read through it and comment on it here. Cheri is I guess a “former” friend now as a result of my comments about her article. I would particularly like HR1 to read her article and comment as well as Craig McKee. Others may find that they agree with the article in part or in total and I am very interested in their comments as well. My initial comments about it are posted at the link above but I have invited Cheri to discuss it here as well.

    1. Dear Ms. Cheri R.,

      My impressions of your part 1 “debunking” are: (a) low-hanging fruit and (b) weak compared to the weight & breadth of the conspiratorial argument.

      For instance, the “truthers” have drudged up at least 6 cases where online memorials or funds etc. were created BEFORE the date of the event. (You also never explain [a] the meaning of the additional arguments that you put on your google searches “as_qdr=y15” or [b] how you came about to know this.)

      Did you happen to notice in a vast majority of the helicopter live-shots how roads, cars, and people were crispy clear whether zoomed out or zoomed in. However, the wooded areas always had this “smokey” look so that even branches of trees on the woods’ edge are hardly clear. The consistent “green” of the playground also screams of digital filtering. Why? And remember the Coroner talking about how FEMA brought in this big “thing” that attached together with velcro? Where was it? Was it being hidden by digital filtering, and if so why? (The police admit that the primary purpose of their helicopter was to chase of the news helicopters, ergo all aerial footage came from a single, controlled source.)

      On the low-handing fruit side, all disinformation is composed of heaps of truth. Yep, making hay out of the hand-me-down dress is low-hanging fruit designed to be spotted as disinfo and trashed (as you do), with an over-arching intent on bringing down any neighboring nuggets of truth that may be contained in the “genre.” It is still rather curious why the “other” public family photo of the Parkers is so blatantly photoshopped. Might be a reason for that, but it could be cleared up with other family photos… that aren’t conveniently available.

      A rant in someone’s video put a nice frame around the situation. With all of the new security and surveillance cameras at SH, where is the video of the “culprit” breaking into the school? Police have admitted that their operations necessitated them breaking into the school, too. I’d like to see those as well.

      But like the video footage of security cameras around the Pentagon and neighboring businesses from 9/11, they aren’t released.

      The handling of SH imagery is all very much stage-managed. Glad that I don’t have cable access and don’t watch news, certainly not real-time.

      If you admit that SH has anomalies — like the location of guns –, then you are putting the cart before the horse a little bit with your grand title of debunking SH.

      //

    2. Hmmm Adam, Cheri speaks of little else than her blowout with you in answering mine and Senor’s comments. Was this “relationship” you two once had deeper than a mere blog affair? Did you know each other in real life? She seems extremely bitter for someone who had a falling apart on the web.

      That is neither here nor there, just a curiosity.

      So far from what is written there; the title of the piece is hyperbole. As Senor and I pointed out she has only addressed the “low hanging fruit” {Sr}.

      She says she will address the harder issues later. Journalism 101 – One does not begin on the weakest leg. [She is fond of J 101, likely as far as she got]. That was a “snark” for her as I am sure she will be reading this.Too Tah Loo Booboo…{grin}

      \\][//

      1. Cheri and I were personal friends once and involved in activism together. She was involved romantically with my friend Greg. I am married and have been for a long long time prior to ever meeting Cheri. Cheri, myself, and Greg tried to work together on Unspun Newz but could not get along and so dissolved the working relationship. That is what the “blowout” is all about. I just don’t think personal issues should be brought into this and it is sad that she has done so. Some of what she is saying about me is untrue but at this point I don’t want to respond because this will just be dragged further into personal issues that have nothing to do with this blog or hers or the article she wrote about Sandy Hook. She accuses me now of “stalking her blog” so from this point on I will never post another word on it and as far as I am concerned we are no longer friends. I guess in a way she is right when she says we haven’t been friends for a long time. It was a mistake for me to comment on her article in the first place, I see that now.

        At any rate I think even some of the “low hanging fruit” she goes after in her article is questionable. I mean to say by that that her “debunking” of these points is shaky at best and not very convincing. I could individually address each point but I think the contributors here have already addressed most of them. Suffice it to say that some of the items she dismisses as ridiculous are not so ridiculous at all.

  85. “would have liked to have had the questions asked of OBF to have been answered regarding ALL live video footage on the day of 9/11 being fake.”~Socrates

    Of course we all would have liked for him to give it a shot. And it is obvious that he didn’t have any of those answers because what he and Shack propose is ludicrous and impossible bullshit. One cannot give rational answers in defense of irrational concepts.

    \\][//

    1. Hybridrogue1

      Thanks for noticing my comment and responding to it. And thanks for not objecting to my understanding that there were NO plane crashes in New-York.

      PS: I heard Joe Biden on the radio a couple of weeks ago say something like this. “The children that were killed at SH were not just shot but their tiny bodies were riddled I repeat riddled with bullet holes”

      I wonder who told him to say that?

      1. “The children that were killed at SH were not just shot but their tiny bodies were riddled I repeat riddled with bullet holes”~Biden

        “I wonder who told him to say that?”~Socrates

        I would surmise that the one who told him to say it was, the Riddler.
        They are likely very close associates.

        \\][//

  86. Since Cheri Roberts, began our particular conversation biased, as to my knowing Adam Ruff, and she has already formed a prejudiced opinion of me, I will address one of the deep epistemic flaws in her thinking in general here:

    She says this in the opening remarks and repeats it again in a comment:

    “We know conspiracies do happen, but we should also know that not everything is a conspiracy…”
    . . . . . . . .
    In face of the overall knowledge that is available in the open record, it can be confidently asserted that the National Security State itself is a ‘conspiracy’. We can equally assert that the so-called “federal government” is completely illegitimate, and constitutionally ultra vires.
    As such, all acts of this “government” are the acts of a conspiratorial syndicate, and the whole system is based on a deep conspiracy maintained by perception manipulation. In this way and on these specific terms it can be reasonably said that “everything is a conspiracy”.
    The conspiracy’s agenda is the very same as the conspiracy Jefferson speaks to in the Declaration of Independence – a plan to impose utter tyranny.

    These thoughts can be expanded into a book sized essay on how the whole system operates and how even petty crime is promoted by this overarching conspiracy, how those caught up in the penal system become “products” to the corporate run prison system, how social inequities feed this system and how the economic conspiracy causes the want and desperation of the lower stratum of society. But my main point is made, that everything done in a conspiratorial system such as this is part of that conspiracy.

    Now as far as the issue of Sandy Hook itself, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that whatever the final truths are as to what really happened, the agenda of the overall conspiracy is furthered by taking PR advantage of the event to infringe further upon the rights of the people. So it is clear that Sandy Hook is part and parcel of the overall conspiracy of imposing the despotic police state.

    \\\\][//

  87. RE Doctors – this is mostly aimed at pediatricians and psychiatrists – who ought to be able to ask about guns if they have a reason to believe that there could be a problem in the home. Nobody has to answer any doctor’s question.

    If Lanza’s mother had been question and someone been willing to discuss that wasn’t a good idea to have guns in THAT home. Also, many women are victim of domestic abuse – and someone needs to ask and discuss what may be in their home.

    And Adam, unless you displayed homicidal or suicidal action or language – I can’t imagine that any doctor would ask you about guns. Did doctors often ask you that before it became illegal to do so? There are people at great risk out there and you need to think beyond yourself on this.

    And there is a lot of Tea/Republican garbage in ObamaCare – that’s how it got passed. Apparently you don’t quite grasp how Congress functions Hybridrogue1. You spew such nonsense about it….you need to pay some attention.

    BEING A TRUTHER: Do you think that a 9/11 truther has to be anti-government and buy all of the crackpot theories out there? Some of us do require scientific evidence.

    REGARDING A A SENSE OF SAFETY – I understand it is not the same thing as actual safety.

    Simple statistics show that people in a room with two guns become more likely to be shot than people in a room with one. People in a room with no guns in it are significantly less likely to be shot than people in a room with one gun in it. Believing that owning a gun makes one less likely to be shot is like saying that owning a car makes one less likely to be in an accident. Not only does it makes no sense, it suggests that one’s assessment of reality is so poor that ownership of either a gun OR a car should be summarily contraindicated.

    I’m thinking that you all could learn something from the Civil Rights Movement about guns:

    Pep. John Lewis corrected Rush Limbaugh’s misrepresentation of the civil rights movement, responding to Limbaugh’s suggestion that Lewis would not “have been beat upside the head” during the march to Selma if he had had a gun.

    Earlier on Friday, Limbaugh had asked on his radio show, “If a lot of African-Americans back in the ’60s had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, you think they would have needed Selma?” He continued, “If John Lewis, who says he was beat upside the head, if John Lewis had had a gun, would he have been beat upside the head on the bridge?”

    During the 1965 march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery in support of voting rights for African-Americans, state troopers beat the unarmed protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Lewis suffered a concussion.

    So here is the full press release from Lewis’ office:

    In an effort to encourage people to resist new gun control legislation, a statement was made on The Rush Limbaugh Show today which misrepresents Civil Rights Movement history. In the shadow of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service, in the year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington in August, and a little more than a month before the annual celebration of the events in Selma, Rep. John Lewis was glad to address this inaccuracy.

    “Our goal in the Civil Rights Movement was not to injure or destroy but to build a sense of community, to reconcile people to the true oneness of all humanity,” said Rep. John Lewis. “African Americans in the 60s could have chosen to arm themselves, but we made a conscious decision not to.”

    “We were convinced that peace could not be achieved through violence. Violence begets violence, and we believed the only way to achieve peaceful ends was through peaceful means. We took a stand against an unjust system, and we decided to use this faith as our shield and the power of compassion as our defense.”

    “And that is why this nation celebrates the genius and the elegance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s work and philosophy. Through the power of non-violent action, Dr. King accomplished something that no movement, no action of government, no war, no legislation, or strategy of politics had ever achieved in this nation’s history.”

    “It was non-violence that not only brought an end to legalized segregation and racial discrimination, but Dr. King’s peaceful work changed the hearts of millions of Americans who stood up for justice and rejected the injury of violence forever.”

    This discussion is really all about your right to keep and carry assault weapons, isn’t it? And it sounds like your barely credible theories around Sandy Hook are just an excuse to justify all that.

    But not to worry, the second Amendment isn’t going away. And the government is not trying to take guns away from us all. In the rural area I live in, the govt would have to create at least 10,000 Waco and Ruby Ridge – type battles in order to make 5 square miles gun free. And what would be the point? There are no plans, resources, money or manpower for any gun grab – and there certainly is no will.

    I agree with Cheri Speak’s article:
    http://cherispeak.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/debunking-the-sandy-hook-conspiracy-conspiracy-pt1/

    I read the comments and I still feel ill that 9/11 truthers make themselves – and unfortunately the rest of us by association – look so illogical, paranoid….and fringe.

    1. Painter,

      You keep speaking to the concept of logical and illogical, so I will get to the central point to all of this: It is most illogical to consider this “government” legitimate. It has been noted here I do not know how many times, that there is no rational argument for considering the current state of affairs constitutional in any way.

      You say that the 2nd Amendment isn’t going away. What kind of delusion is this? ALL of the Amendments, as well as the body of the Constitution is already so many dead letters.
      Why can you not seem to grasp the larger picture here, that this is ALREADY a panoptic maximum security state, a hard core despotic police state?

      I won’t list the unconstitutional acts passed since 9/11 again, as this conversation has grown redundant by all measure.

      There are two key issues that prove the Constitution is dismissed and no longer in effect by this national “government”. The first is, Executive Privilege, which as it stands leaves the executive to rule by diktat with impunity. The second is, Executive War Powers, which are totally constitutionally ultra vires [beyond law].

      As such and as it is, anyone taking an oath to that Constitution and ignoring the true facts of this situation, continuing to go along to get along – is in fact in breach of that oath and acting under Color of Authority.

      You say that I don’t know how Congress works. But I do. I know both how Congress is supposed to work according to the plain written words in the Constitution, and I know how it disregards those words, by making deals and forming clicks and going for the pork where ever it can be gotten. This is called, “practical politics”, but it is not adherence to the rule of law, the supreme rule of law in this land.

      You are not ABOUT to loose your rights, you HAVE already lost them. All of your spitdribble above dismisses these central issues. The so-called “federal government” is not “federal,” it is a “national government” in breach of the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

      If you do not recognize tyranny for what it is today, there is little wonder that you do not recognize the further tyranny that this process will bring.

      To say that I am fed up with arguing against such obvious ignorance is a grand understatement. I have to wonder if you have ever read the Constitution, if so how long has it been, and if so how it is you cannot grasp this. If you can read that document, and then look up and say, yup this is still a constitutional republic, then you are mad.

      \\][//

    2. Painter,

      I don’t have an “assault weapon” – I don’t even have a Bushman, which is not an “assault weapon” – which is simply a euphemism based on the cosmetic appearance of a gun that is no different in operation than a hunting rifle. One shot per trigger pull. You speak of them as if they were machine guns.

      I’ll tell you what pal, you don’t know shit about guns, and you don’t know shit about the Constitution. And worse, you don’t know shit about the real situation we all face here.
      So, I will say this with finality, I don’t care what you think. I have no use for all of this ignorant bullshit you keep coming up with here.

      But don’t think for a moment that this means I won’t point out that bullshit as you continue to spout it.

      \\][//

  88. An excellent, and a essential perspective on the most dangerous weapon in the hands of the system; TELEVISION.
    . . . . . . .
    “Programmed to do what?

    To respond not as an individual, but as a “type of person.”

    It’s as if these people have been manufactured, and the roles they’ve been outfitted with are grotesque cartoons.

    As if they are machine-made cartoons. Something leaps out of them when they appear on television. They laugh, they smile, they act casual, they act “efficient” and stone-faced, they act placid and calm, they act polite, they act happy, they act as if they’ve been cast for a stage play that has nothing to do with the horrific events of the past hours and days in Sandy Hook.”~Jon Rappoport

    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/sandy-hook-actors-robots-androids-television-creations/

    \\][//

    1. Yes, an excellent piece by Jon Rappaport. It should be read by all. Television is the crux of the matter because nearly all of the info for the masses comes via this medium. He writes; “Television creates a model of behaviour that is androidal; flattened and cooked and bent and short-circuited and averaged out. This is what television gives us, and this is what many viewers accept. Not only accept but IMITATE in their lives”.

      As with pop culture in the age of mass media we have art imitating life imitating art imitating life imitating art, round and round we go …. How is one to “behave” when interviewed on TV? The performances by Robbie Parker and the medical examiner Wayne Carver were indeed mind-boggling. Totally unnatural.

      Sure I watch TV but it is with a cynical view. I watch out for the sudden edits in interviews, look for nuggets of truth, listen for the heart-wrenching music accompanying nearly every visual. To me it’s a source of amusement to the disgust of my flatmate as he sits on his sofa goggle-eyed staring at the box drop-jawed … and it’s the ferking advertisements he’s watching !!

      There are also examples where people are interviewed after a traumatic event in which the interviewee is letting real emotions flow. For example after a major earthquake in New Zealand 2010 TV crews were on the streets of Christchurch as the dust was settling. The TV images were hand-held wobbly affairs and the “interviews” with survivors covered in dust were almost unintelligible because the survivors were understandably in shock, their speech inarticulate filled with expletives beeped out for prime time news. It made terrible TV for the producers but what the TV showed was raw footage showing raw emotions from the survivors. But this does not occur after controversial events such as Sandy Hook where the msm assumes control. I’m sure many parents of the victims at Sandy Hook would have been angry and showed it if given the chance. But of course this does not fit the agenda.

      I’m all ears and am following the gun-control aspect but coming from New Zealand as KP mentioned we are in a almost non gun society down here and I have just a basic grasp of what’s written in the US constitution but although I don’t care for guns I do appreciate the need for protection for those of you living in a culture such as the US, as is your right to do so.

      1. Al,
        Until my mom moved cross town I would see TV from time to time when I visited her.
        It was on 24/7 there.

        I would watch some with the same attitude you do. I am so unaccustomed to it the phoniness of it leaps out at me like a dangerous animal. It is mind boggling nonsense.

        That so many just eat this up is a horror story in itself. 21st century schizoid man.

        \\][//

  89. Hello everyone,

    I took the time to read Cheri Roberts’ article, and unfortunately, I was quite underwhelmed. While I look forward with interest to her Part 2, her first crack at it was, imo, weak in that it took the loosest ends and made them front and center. For example, I think the “alive Emilie Parker” thing is by far the weakest claim in the whole theory. And when Cheri attempts to debunk some of the stronger claims, the arguments are poor. She has to resort to accusing charlatan conspiracy theorists of photoshopping a screen shot. And the fact that lots of school shooting drills have occurred in the country, and are not uncommon, this in itself does not decisively refute the possibility that the drill and Sandy Hook were somehow related, especially given the additional strange anomaly of the man in the dark jacket and camo pants, armed, running through the woods. What does seem clear is that the Sandy Hook event has not just a few, but many, strange anomalies. Multiple web pages that were created days before, and in at least 1 case, a month before. Multiple parents whose behavior does not sit right with me. The man in the woods, who the media never mentioned again. The fact that we haven’t seen any video of the event, especially the part where Lanza supposedly shot his way into the school through bullet proof glass. And on and on.

    My ego is checked at the door on this issue. I am not doing this for some kind of conspiracy high. I don’t need to believe in a conspiracy to have a viewpoint on the Second Amendment; my views on the Amendment are as they would be if I were 100% convinced by the official story. Unfortunately, Cheri’s article is laced with “debunker” style innuendo, such as when she says: “Again, it is disgusting that I even need to debunk this lunacy, but as a mother and responsible activist I cannot help myself.” She is behaving alarmingly like some people in the 9/11 truth movement do about 9/11 inside baseball. For example, we all are familiar with how Jon Gold hates the promotion of controlled demolition because it “sounds crazy and turns the public off.” We’ve seen the (most likely synthetic) outrage that any truther could dare to be so irresponsible, no, HATEFUL, as to suggest that Lloyde England is a planted witness, and smear him as a co-conspirator. Along with the general whine about how saying a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, when the general public believes one did, makes us look like kooks:

    Gosh, imagine if someone who lost a loved one on Flight 77 were to stumble across a “truth” site and see people claiming that no plane ever hit the Pentagon? Imagine how offended and outraged they’d be!!!

    I think I have to agree with Barrie Zwicker that “credibility is overrated.”

    1. Yes Adam S,

      Cheri speaks to “Journalism 101” as an “expert” – and yet Journalism in it’s higher forms deals with critical thinking, pattern recognition, and the construction of the writing. Sherrie has made the fatal error in construction of argument. One must first and foremost lay a firm foundation for all of the points to be constructed on top of it.

      As it is, her foundation is made of pure assumption. And that assumption is based on the official story; that Lanza acted alone, killed his mother and drove some stranger’s black Civic to the elementary school dressed to kill but not to die – killed 27 people in a matter of just a few minutes and then killed himself – even though he was armored and armed enough to put up a battle – which if we are to believe the prowess of what he had just done, would have been formidable indeed.

      It is my opinion that this assumption is as absurd as any of the ‘wacky conspiracy theories’ she attempts to debunk on this shaky foundation constructed on presumption.

      And I couldn’t agree with you more about ‘credibility’…who are we attempting to gain credibility with? The lowest common denominator? Those we dare not offend? That is bullshit. We should have one single aim, and that is to discover the truth to the best of our ability.

      \\][//

      1. Well said HR1 I could not agree more. The “worrying about what others think” bullshit is just that, BULLSHIT. I don’t give a rats ass what others think of me, in fact in many cases when certain people do not like me I take it as a compliment. Like Jon Gold for example seems to dispise me and Adam Syed as well. I consider it a badge of honor when such a self righteous blowhard “unfriends” me.

      2. Thanks Mr Ruff,

        I want to take this opportunity in answering you to state to the forum in general as well, that I know the history of the Revolution, from the early Liberty Movement to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence -from that to the direction of the war by the Continental Congress, to the end of hostilities and the drafting of the Articles of Confederation. From there the history of the tensions between the various states that appeared to be fracturing the union, and the proposal for a central federal system by the Federalists. The history of the long debate that took place by pamphleteering and the budding press between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. From that point the machinations of the Federalists to manipulated the representatives to a place where they were met with a pre-laid plan to hold a secret constitutional convention.
        Rather a coup de grace. I have read the debates that went on in that convention.
        I have read the history of the first attempts to ratify that met with opposition demanding a bill of rights, and the two year struggle to get that bill of rights added to the pending constitution.

        I am pulling nothing I say here out of my own hat.

        I also am aware of the intrigue that continued to use that Constitution as a stepping stone by “interpretation” of it for “practical purposes”. And how this drip by drip strategy of practical politics finally succeeded in subverting the Constitution in it’s own name, using it rhetorically for cover of bald usurpation.

        We reached the end of that cycle now and face utter and naked tyranny already built on a existent scaffolding. It is fruition of a long laid plan that began when the Crown powers first caught wind of the Declaration. By the Crown, I speak to not only the royal houses but to the real central power, in the City of London, which is openly referred to as “The Crown”; the economic power, “the Money Changers”, “the Money Power”, the International Bankers…and if you will, the ILLUMINATI.

        We are at the fruition of the NEW WORLD ORDER.

        This is The Final Battle.

        \\][//

  90. I want to make it very clear here to those who think I am too aggressive, and or abrasive in these discussions. I do not consider this some academic debate at a gentleman’s club. The issues we are facing and discussing are critical, literally life and death issues.

    I cannot help but quote Dylan here; “Let us not speak falsely now, for the hour is getting late.

    \\][//

  91. Let us stop this rhetorical spin-jive here Painter. Let is get to the meat of this matter.

    Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?

    If so from where does this authority derive?

    Simple two part question.

    \\][//

  92. Painter,

    I see that you have taken the time to spend over at CR’s blog whining to mama.

    The simple two part question above remains unanswered here.

    Do you have a reasonable answer here?

    If it is in the present queue, pardon me for this prodding.

    \\][//

  93. Paul Joseph Watson – Prison Planet.com – January 22, 2013

    2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

    “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

    Paul Joseph Watson – Prison Planet.com – January 22, 2013

    2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

    “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens.html

    \\][//

  94. The phenomenon grows more interesting by the day… In an irony of ironies, after having endorsed Judy Wood and DEWs, Jesse Ventura has apparently weighed in on this, falling on the side of Painter and company. Check this out:

    http://lewrockwell.com/ventura/sandy-hook-shooting.html

    Beware of Conspiracy Theories About Sandy Hook

    by Jesse Ventura

    “I don’t see enough evidence to think Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. This is more of a tragic event turned into political opportunity than it is a staged event.

    Was there investigative bungling and the sensationalist media reporting unverified stories? Yes.
    Was there confusion and were facts lost and gained in that confusion? Yes.
    Are there people, even witnesses, looking for their 30 seconds in the spotlight? Yes.
    Are there individuals and institutions using and shaping this event for their own political agendas? Yes, and we must keep a very watchful eye on those institutions to keep them from twisting the facts of this event.

    Sadly, everything I mentioned above can, when taken out of context, make one think manipulation is afoot.

    Most chaotic events can come across that way. In examining the event, I don’t see government hands at work mainly because they would have covered their tracks better. We can’t expect them to pull off elaborately planned hoaxes while at the same time leaving behind so many easy “smoking guns” for us to find.

    It took years for independent investigators to uncover JFK. It took years for us to begin scratching out the truth about 9/11. Those of us who study real history, not state sanctioned history, can very easily become just as close minded and biased for conspiracy as those who stand in our way and refuse to accept the truth about our government and the people running it.

    It’s very easy to fall into that trap, especially when knowing how much of our history and world events are not what they appear to be. So please, do not immediately jump up and yell “Fire!” just because someone makes a Youtube video. Research, research, research. You only hurt our cause by promoting false conspiracies and crackpot agendas.

    Much like the Birther conspiracy, I am starting to think that a lot of the so called “evidence” of conspiracy coming out about Sandy Hook is designed and fabricated to make us “conspiracy theorists”, us truth seekers, look foolish. Why? So that when good people argue against the destruction of our Second Amendment they can easily be painted with the “crackpot” brush.

    Part of the reason JFK and 9/11 took so much longer was because of the lack of internet in the former’s era, and the fact that it was still in its relative infancy with the latter’s. On 9/11, the internet had been established but there was still no youtube, and many other tools we take for granted now. People were not taking photos of events in real time and uploading them to the internet within minutes.

    I have more I want to say but I’ll reserve it for later.

    1. Thanks for the info on Ventura Adam,

      I had heard something about this, but didn’t much care. I have never seen Ventura as all that smart to tell you the truth. I think he is an opportunist and schmoozer more than anything else.

      Years to find out about 9/11 – aardvark droppings…I knew the morning it happened. Suspected as soon as the second plane hit, and the usual suspects circled the wagons on media with a clearly scripted message. As soon as I saw the first tower blow up I was certain.

      I was only 16 when the coup d’etat took place in Dallas, and it did take a couple of years to clue into that with, On The Trail of the Assassins – Mark Lane [I believe].

      I still stand by my general analysis spoken above. There is too obviously an overarching systemic conspiracy to reduce us to utter slaves of tyranny.

      I don’t think Ventura is looking at this closely enough but is instead sticking his finger in the air and judging by ‘popularity’ of the issue. I consider Ventura one of the lightweights and a coat-tailer on 9/11.

      Painter and Zarembka have not made any rational contributions to argue against this event as a false flag, they have simply squalled that it is not – and that we are tainting the “movement”…what movement? I don’t see much moving with the “movement” – I see it has been infiltrated and scattered by very clever cointel ops. We wasted half of this thread dealing with one of these operators, who finally with his back up to the wall, had a raging bowel movement that got him canned.

      I think it wise to keep the panoramic view in mind when dealing with the details of anything.
      This Sandy Hook event fits in to the larger picture, it’s part of a trajectory that should be obvious to anyone that has that grasp on the panoramic view.

      I am now reading the term “CT” bandied about by alleged “Truthers” with the same arrogant dismissal as Alex Seitz-Wald, Jonathan Kay, and Cass Sunstein. And THEY claim the WE are doing a disservice to “the movement”. This hipper than thou hypocrisy is stunning in itself, aside from the lame arguments used to dismiss SH as a FF.

      gawblesmurka

      \\][//

      1. — “Painter and Zarembka have not made any rational contributions to argue against this event as a false flag, they have simply squalled that it is not – and that we are tainting the “movement”…what movement?”

        In truth, I have said nothing at all about Sandy Hook except to disagree with Craig and Adam Ruff regarding Robbie Parker’s behavior in one video as evidence. You yourself have shared skepticism on that as evidence, although more circumscribed than I put it.

        I did contribute on the historical background to 2nd amendment, as did Adam Syed who added another perspective. If we need to cite constitutional amendments, the 1st amendment should entitle us to form on our judgments and express them freely without suffering verbal abuse. That includes Painter’s right.

        The tone of your argumentation is not something I can support. You are contributing to virtual civil war on this blog, which makes me (perhaps also some others) very reluctant to contribute anything at all.

        Now I am off to work as I have a full-time job to engage. Craig, may I suggest that you consider some type of policy that would discourage one person from dominating the word count on any blog topic you offer us. Thanks.

      2. Paul Zarembka, and Craig,

        Paul says:

        “If we need to cite constitutional amendments, the 1st amendment should entitle us to form on our judgments and express them freely without suffering verbal abuse.”

        If we are going to site the 1st Amendment, I shall site it myself in light of the above comment. These issues have been in contention from the time that freedom of speech has been considered a natural human right. What Paul is complaining about is “repugnant speech and ideas” – these are protected under the 1st as well.
        We have covered this issue here time and time again as well. I have spoken to it myself in at least a couple of my commentaries here.

        Paul complains that the “tone” of my argumentation is not something he can support.
        And further claims that I am contributing to virtual civil war on this blog,

        It is my contention that the “tone” of my argument falls into the category of protected free speech I just alluded to. As far as the claim that I am contributing to a ” virtual civil war” can be said to be so only so far as I consider that civil war to be generated by those who would disregard my rights to self defense by spurious and factually errant argument. And then turning around and complaining about the “tone” of my argument as having greater bearing than the historical and rational facts surrounding what are natural rights.

        I have not called for either Paul’s or Painter’s remarks to be extinguished, expunged, or done away with in any other way than by rational argument. I would also note that I consider their arguments and ideas to be repugnant from my position. But you do not find me wishing to curtail their attendance to this debate but in fact encourage and invite their attendance.

        As far as my “dominating” the debate and “word count” – it is not my fault, that anyone else is incapable of putting word to print and posting here. I have also spoken to the difference between assertiveness and aggression. We could even refer to the child’s rhyme of “sticks and stones,” but I am very concerned that something such as “tone” is going to be left to override substance in debate.

        Now to that substance as it pertains to Paul’s answer to the quote he took from me;
        I recognize that Paul made some short remarks as to the Parker situation, but I do not see that in any way to have been a successful argument against the assertion that the event was a false flag.
        Second, I did not say that Paul had not made a contribution to the argument on the 2nd Amendment. But he has complained to both issues as connected here. I repeat my assertion that there have been no rational contributions beyond his opening remarks about the Parker situation, which has trivial weight as far as whether or not this event was a false flag.

        I have asked Painter to answer a two part compound question:

        > Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?

        > If so from where does this authority derive?
        . . . . . . . . . .

        There has been no further response from Painter from that time.
        I now invite Paul Zarembka to give his answer to the same.

        \\][//

      3. I am more and more amazed at people who cannot distinguish between assertiveness and aggression. Aggression can proceed under a ‘smiling face’ just as well as by rough language. It is in the intent of the speaker, and what that speaker’s goal is that determines whether it is aggression or not; not the “tone'” in the delivery.

        It should be noted that Amerikans have been “sweet talked” into giving up their rights by slick rhetoric, than by any hard core screaming demagoguery.

        \\][//

  95. “I happen to have a couple audio recordings of phone calls with one of them admitting to their penchant for little girls standing in corners (and I am NOT referring to Mr. Ruff). So if you have no qualms about a pedophile in your midst and propping up or otherwise supporting their “theories” and delusions God save us all.”~Cheri Roberts

    Now, does this have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with anything but a vicious, lowly and cowardly slur to everyone here who might have known Ms Precious in the past?
    Talk about reaching for the shit bucket as “argumentation”. And she holds herself out as some above the fray serious thinker and researcher.

    If the ‘C’ word crosses my mind I won’t print it here…but oh how tempted I am. Since this is the first I have ever heard of the bitch, I certainly have no worry she is referring to me. But now as it stands, she is attempting to get us all looking sideways at each other. This is one of the most underhanded tactics I have seen used by a “Truther” in the whole time I have been blogging.

    She now claims that I have crossed the line to “cyberstalking” by posting some remarks on her thread that called her out for some obvious hypocritical remarks. I have no intention of reading or posting on her site again. If she thinks “popularity” is all that counts – she boasts to more than a thousand hits a day, and has literally “thousands” of facebook friends…
    Keeryst on a kracker, what hubris.

    You are very lucky to have gotten beyond this witch Mr Ruff…what a holier than though oinker this sow is.

    \\][//

  96. I’ve got a feeling that we are going to get the shrinking violet treatment here from Painter Wells…

    “I’m scared…I am not going to talk to the mean rude man.”

    This is the same dodge that OBF used constantly. It still amazes me that there are so many thin skinned nanny huggers that get the vapors over calling them out for their “bullshit”
    There was a national best seller by that title BULLSHIT, by a professor of communications, that was reviewed on NPR with Teri Gross.

    The author explained how valid the term is for what it is used for, as it covers the aspects of calling someone a ‘liar’, of something a “lie”, without determining/accusing, that what is being said is willfully dishonest or whether it could be innocent mistakes. That the term had come into general use precisely for it’s usefulness.

    It adequately covers a lot of situations, and has an edge to it that is recognized as “strong language.” But strong language is just that, strong language is not merely the use of some Anglo-Saxon phrase, but any language that drives a point home assertively. Calling a person a liar is much harsher than saying bullshit. But if it is shown that it is a lie, or an ignorant statement, bullshit has covered both, and if it is merely a statement made in ignorance, one hasn’t ‘stepped over the line’.

    In this rather dainty point of view of these precious souls, they misframe “assertive” as “aggressive.” They assume that ‘strong language’ implies out of control anger, although one who can use such assertiveness effectively is very much in control and articulates precisely what he means in a direct and frank manner. This is what is called, “honest communication.”

    In certain circles honest communication is looked down upon as crass. You will find this attitude in gatherings of such people as Congressmen, and priests, and schmoozing con men. And you will find this attitude rubs off on the led by the nose TVPeople.

    When frank and honest communication is called an “attack,” it is time to question the attitudes and language of the genteel, for those who so readily confuse a strong assertive argument in frank language as an “attack”, will also confuse other aspects of argumentation. They often miss the gist of things, and scramble all manner of signals.

    I could go on with a survey of examples but I won’t. I will just end by saying, I don’t cater kindly to bullshit, spoken or written.

    \\][//

    1. Painter is not here to dialogue in a professional way. I’ve responded to his material with nary a response back. What’s the point of a blog if not to dialogue to and fro? His worldview appears to be guns are fine in the hands of the tyrants and criminals, organized or otherwise.

      One thing I’d like to suggest to you is attempt to realize people come to conclusions at a different pace and knocking people sideways likely will get the opposite results you desire. I have been torn about when to use to the bull whip. I’ve found people just hold grudges and dismiss the message, no matter how logically constructed.

      I’m an admirer of MLK. He’s provided a template if we so choose to use to deal with the power structure.

      1. I take your point Dog Lover,

        But I would hope you would note that I never begin with a “bullwhip”…it is only when an impasse is reached, when there is refusal to address the points made, that I get more assertive and frank.

        When someone just twaddles along with blatantly ignorant assertions, and will not respond – as you note of Painter, it seems there is no other tact than to verbally grab them by the collar and say, “hold on”.

        I want to quote something here that has great relevance to the constitutional arguments going on today….from the WayBack Machine:

        “These events have confirmed Patrick Henry’s warning that secrecy in government is an “abomination”; it is a main instrument in the corruption and arrogation of power. If the nation has not learned that lesson from the secret escalation in Vietnam, from the bold attempt to corrupt the electoral process that surfaced in Watergate, it is unteachable.”~Raoul Berger, 1974
        EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: A CONSTITUTIONAL MYTH
        . . . . . . . .

        Now, just what comes to pass when a nation’s people are “unteachable”?

        We live with the very results of the truth of Berger’s observation. When people are ‘unteachable’ by logic and reason, it is their fate to be taught by fire and blood.
        We are at the cusp of that lesson now.

        \\][//

  97. CNN Caught Red Handed: CNN video of police charge at Sandy Hook is not Sandy Hook
    January 22, 2013 4 – Ralph Lopez

    At the words “they arrived to carnage,” the CNN Anderson Cooper report cuts to helicopter footage of seven police officers charging across a parking lot and toward a school. It is breaking news coverage of the Sandy Hook shooting just hours earlier.

    The three-minute report posted on the day of the shootings at the official CNN website is entitled “Tragedy Strikes at Elementary School.” But the school is almost certainly not Sandy Hook.

    It is St. Rose of Lima School, a private school a few miles away, also in Newtown. Sandy Hook Elementary School is the site where 20 school children were killed on December 14, 2012, and 6 adults. Two adults were wounded, Natalie Hammond and another whom police have not named.

    CNN: “Tragedy Strikes at Elementary School,” at official CNN Youtube channel

    Posted at CNN website. MPEG4 file at Dropbox

    The helicopter footage is broadcast at 8 seconds into the CNN report, and again at time stamp 1:02. A close examination of the landscaping, parking lot markings, and the distinct curvature of the sidewalk reveals that no such terrain exists at Sandy Hook Elementary School. However, a Google Earth satellite photo shows the true location almost beyond a reasonable doubt. After circulating across the Internet for a time, photographic evidence seems to bear out that doubts were founded.

    It is not known whether the rush to the building of the seven officers seen in the clip is a drill. Also unknown is when it took place.

    The GPS coordinates of the area of the St. Rose of Lima School in question are: latitude 41.415154, longitude -73.297764. The street address which can be entered into the Google Earth search box to find the location is 40 Church Hill Rd, Newtown, CT. Google Earth is an Internet tool which allows Internet users to view satellite photos of any place on the planet in minute detail.

    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/01/22/cnn-caught-red-handed-cnn-video-of-police-charge-at-sandy-hook-is-not-sandy-hook/

    \\][//

    1. Yes indeed the corporate monopoly media presents false images all the time. There was a situation after 9/11 where they showed Palastinians cheering and laughing and happy. The media said they were happy 9/11 happened to the USA when in reality it was a group of young Palastinians cheering and happy because there was someone there (probably the reporter himself) throwing candy out to them. So that is how dispicable and evil the media really is, I hope everyone remembers that.

  98. For what it is worth I am hereby asking everyone to stop posting on Cheri’s blog and to stop discussing her article and the other issues that came up there of a personal nature since I don’t want to spoil the conversation here by mixing in personal attacks and personal issues. It is better for all concerned to just drop it and I appologize to everyone involved especially Craig for bringing this controversy here by linking to her article. Everyone is going to do what they are going to do but I had to ask in an effort to cool off the situation.

    Nuff said.

  99. http://now.msn.com/nra-membership-up-250000-in-month-since-sandy-hook

    NRA membership shoots up by 250,000 in month since Sandy Hook
    7 days ago

    In the month following the Sandy Hook massacre, the NRA has enjoyed a sharp spike in membership, with folks who like guns flocking to join as new legislation looms. The National Rifle Association has reported 250,000 new members in the past four weeks, 50,000 of them signing up in the past five days. “I would say every time President Obama opens his mouth … about gun bans and restricting the rights of law abiding Americans, people pay attention to that and sign up,” said the lobby group’s public affairs director Andrew Arulanandam. The new wave of membership brings the lobby group’s total membership to around 4.25 million.

    I hope the executive board of the NRA will use the extra cash it is receiving from its influx of new members to hire some very good gun loving lawyers to ask some very serious questions of the American mainstream media regarding the veracity and accuracy of their journalism.

    Unfortunately the 9/11 truth movement doesn’t have 4.25 million paid up members.

  100. Hey Craig,

    I read this from Adam Ruff this morning;

    “For what it is worth I am hereby asking everyone to stop posting on Cheri’s blog and to stop discussing her article and the other issues that came up there of a personal nature since I don’t want to spoil the conversation here by mixing in personal attacks and personal issues. It is better for all concerned to just drop it and I appologize to everyone involved especially Craig for bringing this controversy here by linking to her article. Everyone is going to do what they are going to do but I had to ask in an effort to cool off the situation.”

    Now as you are aware, I have the greatest respect for Adam, I retain a lot of respect for most of the commentators on the blog, only a couple of exceptions. And those aren’t necessarily ones I disagree with on the 2nd Amendment issue, although I have absolutely no use for Painter.

    But these personal things are neither here nor there, I don’t think political blogs should take personal issues to account other than some small slight exchanges from time to time.

    I don’t have any personal issues with Cheri Roberts. I don’t even know her. But I do have issues with Cheri Roberts’ position as a gatekeeper and public relations person. I think it is unfortunate the Adam finds himself in a personal problem, and don’t understand what that might be, as he and Cheri are not longer friends at any rate. But I cannot see how that has anything to do with what we have learned about her position, her techniques, and how damaging it is, NOT to some amorphous “movement” – but to reason and truth and sanity.

    Ms Roberts has a public blog, as such she is publicly responsible for the positions she espouses. My position is that the way in which I discovered this blog is irrelevant in comparison to the sociopolitical danger I see in the positions propagated there.

    I am perfectly willing to no longer make remarks to the comments section there, as they are not being published at any rate. But I think it unreasonable request to shut down the conversation on that blog’s damaging influence to reason truth and sanity. It should be no more exempt than Solon, Truth Out, The National Review, the New York Times, NBC, CBS….etc etc etc…

    \\][//

  101. Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

    If [Ms. C.R.] thinks “popularity” is all that counts – she boasts to more than a thousand hits a day, and has literally “thousands” of facebook friends…

    My understanding was that she had (including me) one-thousand-and-one readers a month and some five-thousand-five-hundred Facebook friends.

    You were absolutely correct when you wrote:

    [A] vicious, lowly and cowardly slur to everyone here who might have known Ms Precious in the past? … But now as it stands, she is attempting to get us all looking sideways at each other. This is one of the most underhanded tactics I have seen used by a “Truther” in the whole time I have been blogging.

    My jaw kind of dropped how quickly she stooped to her dangerous & damning (but vague) accusations, albeit without a name. I gotta believe that she was hoping for someone to contact her, get the name, do the cyber-smearing on T&S of the target for her, and then forever thereafter have that be part of that person’s “permanent Google record.”

    This was on top of the way (I felt) she mischaracterized Mr. Ruff’s words and actions that I saw read on her page, as well as everyone else attracted by the link to her “debunking” like a moth to the flame. And this was on top of her lame, low-hanging fruit, “debunking only that which was designed-to-be-debunked” article.

    My last posting never made it out of moderation, but one of things I brought up:

    I don’t need to know how you came about such audio and phone records or if they are the sexual deviance confession you claim them to be, although those questions do come to mind in addition to the strange mileage you get from them.

    But then true to spooky ways, *POOF*!!! Now, it is all gone. My words. Mr. Rogue’s words. Ms. JerseyG’s words. And many of Ms. C.R.’s words. Cleaning of the tracks; no such threats were made, nor were any issues with her Partido Uno Debunking of Sandy Hook-’em ever uttered.

    Her blog history is re-written. Almost. I was set up to receive email notifications. I could and probably will recreate most of both sides of the discussion after my entrance, as part of my effort to document (and stand behind) my words. Kind of ironic that the purging of comments from under her “debunk” article puts her in the position of not standing behind her own words.

    Mr. Ruff asked politely:

    [everyone:] stop posting on Cheri’s blog and stop discussing her article.

    Any future postings probably will never get out of the moderating queue. And for the sake of Ms. C.R.’s “target” on T&s, sound advice.

    //

  102. I hope that Mr Ruff will forgive me for taking only half of his well intentioned advice.
    I certainly will not be posting anymore comments over on “that blog”, but as I said in my longer commentary, I do not see that commenting on the dangerous PR there is, or should be out of bounds.

    I do hope he is not having too distressful of blowback from this affair, and wish him all the best.

    Adam, you didn’t do a single thing that was wrong. Don’t let them get you down.

    \\][//

    1. Thank you HR1 I just want to drop the whole thing because I see no profit in it for anyone. I am as convinced as ever that SH was a false flag event, in fact every day I learn more I become even more convinced. In fact as to the gun confiscation agenda being driven by SH there is a great video piece coming out from Alex Jones people about the founding fathers reasons for the 2nd amendment being specifically for our defense against a government gone mad. Many many telling quotes are in it from all the heavyweights. I will post it as soon as it is out on video. I only heard it on the radio so far.

      1. Good Adam, and so be it. There are many important issues at hand, and that issue has been seen for what it is.

        I just finished a commentary that I will be posting next that deals with our rights and attends to the 2nd Amendment in closing.

        \\][//

  103. As for Sandy Hook, we have every rational reason for great suspicion as to this being a psyop. It is far from “wacky” to posit that a system that has an encyclopedic count of this Modus Operendi as well as open and stated Motive, it simply would be unjustified on any reasonable argument to give the ‘government’ and the Public Relations Regime the benefit of the doubt. The system itself is not a ‘person’ who has the right to be “innocent until proven guilty” – neither do officers of the state have 5th Amendment right to remain silent, until and unless they give up their positions of authority.

    As officials of the state apparatus they act under the color of authority and duty bound to answer to the demands of the people as to there knowledge. To claim this is in the public interest should be seen as redundant – but as the relationship of the ‘government’ to the people has been turned around completely during the course of history, most people haven’t the slightest idea as to the power of their individual and collective rights. Openness in government is now seen as some alien concept because of psychological conditioning.

    The tables have been turned so that people accept that the state has the authority to know every single detail of our lives while remaining totally hidden from our eyes. So few seem to comprehend that this is the very definition of a totalitarian state, one that has usurped every power for itself, leaving the people absolutely powerless.

    There are ramifications for every word I have said here. Some of them will seem so shocking at this point as to be held in disbelief. Such is the following argument; it is my assertion that it is in the public interest to know, to have it proven and verified as to the victims of this massacre. To not to simply be assured by the authorities. The consequences of this event are too critical to leave any questions unanswered. The rights of the parents to be left alone to their grieving is a given, but the rights to public disclosure of the details of the deaths of their children is equal to their personal rights. It is the state – the authorities who owe us the answers to prove the event happened as now claimed, and to verify the deaths of these people.

    No one was allowed to physically view the remains of the children, not even the parents. It is public knowledge that at least one parent requested to see their child’s actual body, and this request was denied. What was the reasoning behind this denial? And why is it seen as unreasonable to suspect some sinister agenda as behind this denial?
    It is in the public interest to be told who was detained and why they were released from custody.
    It is in the public interest to know why there are no videos available from the purported security camera system installed in the school.

    An open and public inquest should be made on the Sandy Hook event.

    These issues have nothing to do with morbid curiosity, they have to do with reasonable answers being given as to an event that has led to a controversy over our right as a people to keep and bear arms. A great number of people and public commentary has attempted to claim that this is ridiculous, that the issues are totally unrelated. This is simply absurd. It is too obvious that the event and the sudden rush to new gun regulations are intimately tied to one another. But if one points this obvious fact out, one is called “paranoid” and a “conspiracy theorist.” But even more bizarre is the attempt at historical revisionism as to the 2nd Amendment. And there have been some Kafkaesque stretches of the imagination made here as to the meaning of the Amendment and why it was included in the Bill of Rights, so much theater of the absurd. And that these absurdities are made by men of some intelligence is the most shocking feature of this whole thing.

    \\][//

    1. HR1: People can be intelligent and evil. People can be intelligent and morally compromised. Wasn’t it psychologists that approved of the enhanced interrogation techniques? Psychologist in the mix with MK Ultra and Project Monarch? Werner Von Braun?

      1. Of course Dog Lover,

        You are absolutely right, the evil is certainly intelligent. And as cynical as I am, and no matter how long I have studied and adjusted to this hard truth…I still allow a part of me to be shocked__to remain human, to leave the jade necklace in the drawer and begin anew each day.

        And I recognize that “They know not what they do”…some great majority of them are simply fooled and dupes and repeating scripts. It is the real ponerists — the psychopaths that are at the heart of this, and they have developed a very intricate system to hide within, it is like a masked ball, and everyone has on the same and similar masks. Everyone speaks from the same script, everyone knows this song.

        Conan Doyle spoke to this with the iconic figure of Moriarty in the Sherlock Holmes stories–the genius villain.

        This is one of the reasons I like to ask this question in almost every thread I attend:

        > What does it mean to be well adjusted in a psychotic society?

        \\][//

  104. Please allow me one more entry as a summation of these thoughts:

    It is simply a matter of fact that Adam Lanza has not been proven guilty of murdering these people beyond a reasonable doubt. There has been not a single witness to identify him as the killer, of either his mother or the children and adults at the school.

    The amount of carnage committed, to be attributed to one shooter in the allotted time is enough to cause reasonable doubt. And this doubt is in no way assuaged by the odd behavior of the authorities and the mainstream press. There is proven fraud in CNN’s helicopter footage of the “police charge at Sandy Hook”, proven to be footage of a drill at a preschool in the very same town of Newtown. There is helicopter footage of BOTH long guns being removed from the Civic asserted to have been driven there by Adam Lanza. The first reports given by the FBI forensic team stated that there were only two weapons found on the accused and dead assailant. It is absurd to suppose that the rifle now said to have caused all of the wounds would not have been seen or discovered at the scene. it is absurd to suggest that the later reported brass casings amounting to some hundred rounds could have been mistaken for ejected casings from either handgun.

    And the reasoning of the authorities has not been consistent with certain facts as we know them to be. There are so many unexplained anomalies, ones that have been gone over and highlighted that it is trivial to list them yet again.

    To take as coincidence that this event sparked that push for Gun Control is simply Naïve, and mortally gullible.

    \\][//

  105. Hybridrogue1

    I have studied the SH event but I haven’t studied it as closely as you have Hybridrogue1.
    I have heard it mentioned in one or two mp3 files and You-Tube videos that…

    “No one was allowed to physically view the remains of the children, not even the parents. It is public knowledge that at least one parent requested to see their child’s actual body, and this request was denied”. ~Hybridrogue1

    Each time; before reading what Hybridrogue1 commented above in one of is latest posts… I was inclined to dismiss what I was hearing and was saying to myself “That could not possibly be true”.

    If it is true (and I am more inclined to believe now that it is true) it is obviously very suspicious and contrary to the regular administering of honest police work and that of the coroner in establishing the identity of the dead.

    If there are no dead it is similar to the “Official Version” of 9/11 when it claims planes were used and indeed were crashed on 9/11.

    1. Mr. Rogue wrote:

      No one was allowed to physically view the remains of the children, not even the parents. It is public knowledge that at least one parent requested to see their child’s actual body, and this request was denied.

      I support this contention in part. As far as I know, parents weren’t allowed to view the crime scene, nor were they permitted to see the children’s remains at the coroner’s. Identification happened from the products of Mr. Carver’s photographers.

      However, I have run across instances where the bodies were viewed such as at their open-casket funerals, but this was after the caretakers have done their job.

      Designed for maximum emotional impact.

      http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-17/politics/35887598_1_funeral-director-funeral-program-open-casket

      There were two funerals and a wake for victims Monday, each service commemorating a tragedy of its own. The first was for Jack Pinto, and it unfolded to an unbearable soundtrack of grief that will continue at Honan Funeral Home for most of the coming week. A soprano sang hymns at the altar. A mother sobbed at the side of an open casket. A black hearse idled out back, waiting to transport the coffin to a cemetery up the street.

      http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/168707/wrestling-with-details-of-noah-pozners-killing/

      The details that stuck with me the most — and the details which I felt most conflicted about putting in print — were Veronique Pozner’s descriptions of the damage to her son’s body [Noah Pozner]. He was shot 11 times; she told me that his jaw and his left hand were mostly gone. … “We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away.”

      Many more articles in this vein and with the same victims can be found. Mr. Rogue should be careful to be more precise in his writing, else exceptions to his over-generalizations will undermine his argument on a technicality.

      //

    2. Socrates,

      It is my understanding that identification of the deceased by photographs is standard practice for the coroners office in the US [see:Porto-Rico Autopsy Law].
      What I was referring to was the Canadian father who was denied his request; the only public request I know of. It is possible that it is just bureaucratic red tape nonsense that is the situation with the coroner and this Canadian citizen.

      And I want to state for the record here that I have never accepted the position that this was entirely staged and it was all actors and such. I have made speculations at certain points that this could b possible. But my central hypothesis is that there were indeed these killings, but that it was a hit by black-op pro’s and that Adam Lanza is a patsy.

      Until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Lanza was the killer, I am sticking to this hypothesis. My back up would be Lanza as MK Monarch shooter…because the killings were too efficient for some autistic kid acting alone, and the forensic report of him found dead with only two handguns really spoils the official story – and would need a very convincing explanation as to why something as obvious as the Bushmaster wasn’t seen right away with the dead Lanza.

      We will find out more as this develops, and will have to keep sifting the chaff for kernels, and being careful of spin.

      \\][//

    3. Socrates,

      Now that this thread is pretty much exhausted and a new one begins, I would appreciate it if, in your own words; how you explain away all of the visual evidence of the plane crashing into the second tower.

      \\][//

      1. hybridrogue1
        January 21, 2013 – 6:54 pm

        “An excellent, and a essential perspective on the most dangerous weapon in the hands of the system; TELEVISION”.
        “Programmed to do what?
        To respond not as an individual, but as a “type of person.”~Hybridrogue1

        “Now that this thread is pretty much exhausted and a new one begins, I would appreciate it if, in your own words; how you explain away all of the visual evidence of the plane crashing into the second tower”.~Hybridrogue1

        I fear that you want to believe the “telievision” only when it suits you.

        You don’t believe, do you that the “Perps” after filling the twin towers with whatever it was that demolished them were going to rely on co-opted suicidal Arab Islamic terrorists to fly commercial jets into them?

        Arab Islamic terrorists independent and freely committed to killing themselves for their religious beliefs don’t work for the West or for any Western alphabet soup organization.

        Tell me that you have got beyond this little chestnut?
        Come to think of it, you believe that the planes were guided remotely don’t you?

        Wow: remote controlled aircraft that look like commercial Boeings, now that’s complicated.

        Let me know where you’re at and I’ll provide you with another installment tomorrow.

        Socrates

      2. Socrates,

        I’m afraid that you did not provide a single snippet of substance to your reply of, JANUARY 25, 2013 – 9:33 AM, to explain away all of the visual evidence of the plane crashing into the second tower.

        In fact your quoting of my commentary on television was totally nonsensical.

        Then your construction of the Arab Hijackers gambit only to destruct it in the same motion was….’curious’..then you finish that train of thought with this statement:

        >”Wow: remote controlled aircraft that look like commercial Boeings, now that’s complicated.”

        It is not at all complicated and only relies on slight software updates to an autopilot system already used by these aircraft. This technology was clearly available prior to 2001.

        Let me say Socrates, I do not ask you for a rhetorical circus, I ask you to explain the visual evidence of air crashes at WTC. This is a technical question on how such evidence is in such vast abundance, not merely from television, but thousands of sources; could possibly be denied.

        If you cannot explain this in a concise to the point manner, don’t try a bullshit gumbo on me.

        I will be checking in at the next thread over today –>>
        \\][//

  106. I would like to ask one FINAL time, those who obviously do not understand the natural origin of our personal rights, and who do not understand the words of the 2nd Amendment, the following standing question:

    Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?

    If so from where does this authority derive?
    . . . . . .

    If now reasonable answer is forthcoming, I will assume that you simple do not know how to answer, what is in fact a very simple and elementary question.

    \\][//

    1. “These events have confirmed Patrick Henry’s warning that secrecy in government is an “abomination”; it is a main instrument in the corruption and arrogation of power. If the nation has not learned that lesson from the secret escalation in Vietnam, from the bold attempt to corrupt the electoral process that surfaced in Watergate, it is unteachable.”~Raoul Berger, 1974
      EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: A CONSTITUTIONAL MYTH

      This book in tandem with; PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWER, by Louis Fisher, has all of the historical and textual information needed to successfully argue that the present system is utterly Ultra Vires [beyond law] and totally illegitimate.

      \\][//

  107. Yes there are big holes in Sandy Hook but who are those creating the doubt on top of doubt, that are focusing not on what drugs Lanza was on, but mostly on the claims that parents and friends of Sandy Hook victims are actors, or claiming no one died! This is their focus!
    Paid Propagandists are behind this campaign…they impersonate “conspiracy theorists,”and “truthers<" to confuse and discredit all conspiracies. They help destroy our 2nd Amendment rights by displaying their insane KKK-like hate and desire to divide and conquer using cyber terrorism tactics, while arguing why they should get to keep their guns. They serve as video editors, bloggers, natural health advocates, posing as activists and are funded by CIA, NSA, DOJ, Big Pharma and the Rockefeller banking cartel. They work under Michael Aquino who runs the Temple of Set/ Satan, while claiming that everyone else is a satanist. If you help get this important info out on who these infiltrators are, then you can start conquering the big boys from the grassroots.
    This is where it all starts..with the activists.
    Remember that the conspiracy movement was not just infiltrated by the government, it was created by them from the start. Have you ever wondered who the plants/infiltrators are? Extensive research has been done to figure this out. Research it yourself. It is all true.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2013/01/journalists-give-fbi-links-to-cyber-criminals-defaming-sandy-hook-victims-2451248.html

    1. Yup, just about anyone could be an “agent”…even YOU.

      If you can seriously come here with the advice; “Research it yourself,” to the commentators of this blog, who are all serious researchers, you need to hone your rhetorical chops, and assess what audience you are addressing.

      I am in the “conspiracy movement” myself, and the only thing ‘government’ has to do with me is in that they are “the conspirators” that I am researching. Do you suggest then that the 9/11 Truth Movement was “started by the ‘government’? Perhaps counting Professor Jones and David Lee Griffin as ‘G-Men’?

      Again I ask you, what is YOUR magic version of “truth”?

      \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s