By Craig McKee
It’s like a conspiracy theory on steroids.
Everything about the Sandy Hook shooting is more emotional, more perplexing, and more polarizing than any single “conspiracy” event in recent memory. Questions, theories, and challenges to what we’ve been told by authorities and the media are coming up faster and more frequently than we’ve seen in just about any other similar circumstance.
Confirmed facts are in short supply while emotion rules the day. Children are involved, so convincing people to question the facts is even more difficult than it would otherwise be. It seems that questioning potential conspiracies is something you can do as long as you keep your doubts in good taste. It’s hard to meet that standard when you’re questioning whether the mass shooting of children was actually a staged event (or at least featured more than one shooter).
Those who are usually allies in the fight for truth are finding themselves strongly disagreeing with each other over whether Sandy Hook was a false flag event or a tragedy perpetrated by one troubled young man. Some feel the holes in the official story are just so numerous that something is definitely up. Others think that 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy researchers are damaging their credibility by challenging the truth of this event. Still others think that only some of the points being made are damaging because they make accusations that are not proven.
There has been so much interest in the subject – and so many questions raised – that the mainstream media has had no choice but to take notice. Predictably, they have been on the attack, ridiculing what has come to be called (unfortunately), the Sandy Hook Truth movement.
So the question then becomes, when it comes to conspiracies, is bad publicity better than no publicity? That’s because the mainstream media is giving the emerging “movement” a lot of very bad publicity in recent days.
They have cherry picked statements from people like by Florida Atlantic University professor James Tracy who has questioned whether Sandy Hook happened as reported. Tracy’s comments have received huge media play, and he is now being investigated by the university. We’ll find out if he ends up losing losing his job over this.
If you’d like to support Tracy, I’d suggest you write to FAU provost Dr. Brenda Claiborne and urge her to stand behind him and his right to free speech as I did last Friday. Here is a link offering contact info for Claiborne and other officials: http://www.fau.edu/provost/staff.php. Or you can email her directly at this address: firstname.lastname@example.org Tracy’s essays have been intelligent and thoughtfu,l and he has taken heat simply because he is a professor. We should support him.
The attacks on Tracy have come notably from CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Cooper, of course, focused entirely on the most sensational claims that have been made about the shooting. He made no effort to hide his disgust in his initial report on the subject that focused on Tracy’s remarks. Usually, he explained, CNN wouldn’t dignify such “conspiracy theories” with the network’s valuable air time (I know, it’s hard not to laugh at that), but this was SO OUTRAGEOUS that they made an exception.
But the most chilling part came at the end when he pointed out that Tracy isn’t one of those regular conspiracy theorists (usually we can be found living under rocks you know), he is actually a tenured university professor whose salary is paid BY THE TAXPAYER!
Get it? Freedom of speech is one thing but not if your fellow citizens are helping you pay your rent and not if you’re teaching impressionable young people. Cooper, who is now giving Piers Morgan a run for his money as the most despicable member of the CNN disinfo team, didn’t even pay lip service to looking at the issue fairly. Not to be outdone, RT’s Abby Martin laid into conspiracy theorists for their “fear-mongering paranoia.” Jesse Ventura has also written an article opposing the idea of Sandy Hook as a false flag.
While Tracy has been taking most of the individual heat, the media and the public have been going after “conspiracy theorists” (we’re all one group, you know – unanimous about everything!) by using the more provocative statements that have been made about Sandy Hook.
In some cases they have taken statements out of context and used them to indict everyone who questions truth of what we’ve been told. Through it all they have steadfastly ignored the fact-based questions, anomalies, and contradictions that have been pointed out about the official version of the event.
Undeterred by the media onslaught, ordinary people with the willingness to ask questions are seeking out information on their own. The YouTube video “Sandy Hook Fully Exposed” has received an incredible 11 million hits in just a few days. Part 2 is now online.
While the media have been vilifying conspiracy theorists, there have been some heated debates among those who agree on false flag operations like 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. Some have chosen to stick to the hard evidence while others have focused on some of the more disturbing oddities.
Some are horrified by suggestions that parents were actually actors, that a little girl killed in the shooting wasn’t actually dead, and that a man who took surviving children into his home was “in on it.” Others are pushing ahead undeterred, relentlessly pointing out the things in this story that make no sense or that the media has ignored.
When it comes to the mainstream attention to the Sandy Hook researchers, I’m more of a “glass half full” person.
I think those who question the story do have to be responsible in who they accuse and what they suggest. On the other hand, I’m concerned about those who are claiming to “debunk” the event based on speculation and a focus on the most extreme and weak pieces of evidence. I particularly find it odd when 9/11 truth activists do this, since it is a tactic of those who would have us believe that the world is just as we are told it is by the powers that be.
I offered the opinion that father Robbie Parker was putting on an act when he spoke in front of cameras about the shooting. Given that the rest of my previous piece focused on questions about hard evidence, it could be argued (and has been) that I should not have made this statement, which was purely an opinion. This may well be the case, but my opinion about Mr. Parker’s appearance has not changed.
Having said that I do think we have to keep our focus on facts although when it comes to what the media will report, I’m not sure it matters that much. They’ll find things to ridicule if they want to, even if 99% of commentary about the shooting sticks to well-argued arguments about hard evidence. Without professors making controversial statements, would the media even bother to cover challenges to the official Sandy Hook story?
One member of the 911 Truth movement has been trying to make the case that all the anomalies of Sandy Hook can be explained and that there is zero evidence of any conspiracy. Jeff Prager, who is also on record as believing 9/11 to be a nuclear event, offered explanations for a number of contentious points on the Kevin Barrett radio show recently.
But while Prager says he examined vast amounts of media coverage for several days following the shooting to determine what was reported when, his explanations leave something to be desired. For example, his explanation for why Sandy Hook school nurse Sally Cox claimed to have known Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy, stating that she was an experienced kindergarten teacher (early reports that she was a teacher at Sandy Hook proved to be false): “She’s a flippin’ loon.”
The fact that Cox apparently claimed to have known Nancy Lanza deserves more examination than just calling her a name. Prager also suggested that unidentified individuals who were taken into custody could just have been innocently walking around.
If Prager’s intent is to caution us against jumping to conclusions and not doing our homework, then I applaud it. But from what I heard, he is just coming up with possible explanations for the anomalies and catching some false statements and claims. But just because some claims are sloppy and false does not mean that there aren’t many other points that merit suspicion.
Police video shows two guns in trunk
It seems that every day a new piece of evidence comes to light that can’t be explained by the official story. Because of the proliferation of questions about the firearms found at the scene that day by police, a decision was made last week to clarify which weapons were found. But instead of clearing up the confusion, they’ve added to the mystery.
According to a press release from the Connecticut State Police from last Friday:
“Seized inside the school were the following: a Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips; a Glock 10 mm handgun; and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. Seized from the suspect’s car in parking lot was a Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun.”
The problem is that this appears to be contradicted by the police’s own video, shot the night of the shooting. The video (an extended version of what a lot of people have already seen) clearly shows two crime scene investigators in white suits walking away from the car alleged to have been driven by shooting suspect Adam Lanza, each carrying long guns. Unless one of these guns was the same one allegedly found inside the school, which has been taken from inside the school to the parking lot, then we have a problem.
Unless the Bushmaster was moved from where it was found inside the school and taken to where the trunk of the car was being searched (I’m not sure why they would do that), then how can police account for the second gun found being carried away from the car on the night of Dec. 14? Could it be that earlier reports that only handguns were found inside the school were correct? And could one of the two guns being carried from the car have been the Bushmaster?
If the latter is true, then how can we account for the claim of chief medical examiner H. Wayne Carver that all those killed were shot with the rifle? And then there is the claim that the school was littered with spent .223 shells.
It’s interesting that shortly after the shooting, Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance threatened to arrest and prosecut people who distribute false information on the Internet about the Sandy Hook event.
If that’s not the definition of irony, I don’t know what is.
It’s ironic because the false information associated with Sandy Hook has come primarily from the mainstream media along with federal and state officials and unnamed “law enforcement” sources. I wonder if any of those will be prosecuted by Lt. Vance and his crack team.
The sheer number of false reports we’ve seen in this case is cause enough for suspicion. Most chalk it up to confusion, but those who are content with this explanation have likely never worked as reporters. Yes, a journalist at the scene of a disaster might be interviewing regular citizens who say conflicting things, but it’s simply not normal that media would publish dozens of false reports from unnamed law enforcement sources.
Just on the subject of guns we heard reports that the rifle was found in the trunk of the car and two handguns were found with the alleged gunman. Later, NBC told us that this was wrong and that there were FOUR handguns found inside the school and ONLY handguns. But that didn’t quite fit with the claim that the victims were killed with a rifle or that spent .223 shells were found all over the school, so it changed again.
Then, of course, we have the growing number of Sandy Hook fundraising web pages, Facebook pages, blogs, and even obituaries that are dated BEFORE the shooting. That subject deserves a lot more attention. Yes, some have come up with possible explanations for some one of these – but all six? The odds that they are all computer glitches are astronomical.
So we have a shooting with facts that don’t add up. We have conspiracy researchers telling us there is no conspiracy. And we have more and more questions being asked and more and more anomalies being uncovered every day.
We largely missed the boat on the utterly bogus “lone gunman” Aurora shooting; let’s not let that happen this time.