Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

I was reading through this and I remembered a real incident that highlights how people remember facts in times of tragedy or high-stress.

People can get confused and make mistakes of all kinds when they're upset.

My first job was working at a 7-11, night-shift. It was a neat place to work, and rarely were there serious problems.

One night a man got into an argument with a group of young, Hispanic man in the parking lot. When the conversation seemed finished he walked away to head into the stare, not thinking much about it. Unfortunately one of the young men was quite offended, and as the car containing the group of people backed up and started to drive away, he stuck his arm out of the car window and pointed a gun at the man walking into the store.

Fortunately for the intended victim one of the other young men in the car knocked up the arm of the shooter and the bullet missed the man and went instead through the store-front window and into the ceiling. The broken glass made me look up thinking someone had broken a pickle jar.

When the police arrived and questioned the man he was so shaken up by his near-death that he couldn't describe the men (not even their skin color) nor the car type or color they were driving. Other witnesses had to fill in the details.

It really doesn't take much to upset the human mind in a crisis and cause reason and memory to become faulty. In a situation like Sandy Hook where reporters are scrambling to be the first with key details it's common for reporting mistakes to be made, and some never get properly corrected. I saw the same thing happen here in Austin when a man flew his plane into an IRS building (on purpose), just minutes after his home burst into flames. It turned out he was emotionally unstable but there were quite a few rumors flying around that day, and many reporting mistakes were made.

I'm not saying conspiracy doesn't exist and that governments don't do shady things, but 9/11, Boston, and Sandy Hook are all examples of people grasping for a hidden agenda that wasn't there and turning the reactions following the events into secret plots that are nothing more than the reactions of large groups of upset people and the occasional opportunist who turns tragedy to their benefit.

I know how being upset can mess with people's heads, but I don't understand how it makes a school nurse say what a loving and caring kindergarten teacher the shooter's mother was when she wasn't a kindergarten teacher and didn't even work at the school. I don't understand how a reporter would dream up such a story because she is upset about the news she is reporting. I don't understand how it would make a federal agent say that only hand guns were found in the school if the weapon used was a rifle or make a reporter report that the federal agent said that when he didn't. I don't often see reporters getting so personally affected by their own stories that they go delusional.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't often see reporters getting so personally affected by their own stories that they go delusional.

They're human...they can and do make mistakes.

They're reporters...these days facts aren't always verified before being reported because of the need to be first to report anything.

People do make mistakes, unfortunately there's not really a lot of hard evidence to confirm anything they've said. If Lanza had survived instead, this whole incident would be a criminal defense's wet dream.

This is an example of fake CNN news. It is proven to be fake at the end of the video. There's no mystery here.



If that news report was fake, what other news reports have been fake?

I saw this today and it sums it all up perfectly. It's only about 4 minutes long.

The Word - Truthinews - The Colbert Report - 2013-24-06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The media mistake is more likely, but I can't just declare it the explanation. The type of gun used in the situation and the shooter's mother's job were both reported to be told to the news agencies directly by people who would know. Are "a couple of federal officials" credible sources on what kind of gun was used? Do they ordinarily talk out of their asses about things like this?

Isn't it nice how Pete prefaces his report with a statement about how it's a complex situation with a lot of contradictory information going around? It foreshadows not only the coming quality of his report, but succinctly describes the quality of most reporting done in similar events.

We can look at the owner of the store who sold the weapons to Lanza's mother.

Or the official CTSP report.

Or the medical examiner's report of how the victims died.

I know. I have agreed with you on that several times now. You are not addressing my point about the probability of EVERYBODY reacting in non-tearful ways. Do you understand my point on that?

26 people were killed. Did every immediate family member appear on television? It'd be a large group.

I think information that the kids are still in the school after a mass shooting just happened would come very easily.

Still in the school, maybe. But alive? Dead? Shot? Unharmed? Unlikely.

It wasn't a big school. I have taught at much bigger schools, and by the first December, I knew the names of 100% of the people working there. The school nurse knows all of the teachers, or at least what their names are.

Did Andrea McCarren mention a name to Sally Cox? All decent reports I find say no.

They could pass for identical twins with the same hair part and same outfit. Rod Serling could present that scenario and get good ratings.

I'm interested in what's probable, not possible.

This conspiracy theory is much more supported than other ones. Also, the fact that we have a presidential administration that has been caught living in my phone and my computer and sicking the IRS on political dissenters makes me not trust them a whole lot, to put it mildly.

Don't let your mistrust of the government (or this administration specifically) cloud your judgment. This hypothesis has as much evidence behind it as the anti-vaxxers do, or the 9/11 truthers, or the Obama Birthers.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Isn't it nice how Pete prefaces his report with a statement about how it's a complex situation with a lot of contradictory information going around? It foreshadows not only the coming quality of his report, but succinctly describes the quality of most reporting done in similar events.

They were definitely in some kind of clusterfuck situation.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

We can look at the owner of the store who sold the weapons to Lanza's mother.

Or the official CTSP report.

Or the medical examiner's report of how the victims died.

Okay, there are reports and witnesses. We already knew that. Can you find any video of what went on at the school with frantic parents, kids, employees, and EMS all over the place?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

26 people were killed. Did every immediate family member appear on television? It'd be a large group.

No, but we still have lots of immediate family members speaking in a three part documentary.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Still in the school, maybe. But alive? Dead? Shot? Unharmed? Unlikely.

Under lockdown? Definitely. Not yet determined who is alive, dead, injured, or okay? Definitely.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Did Andrea McCarren mention a name to Sally Cox? All decent reports I find say no.

According to Andrea McCarren, Sally Cox reported the identity of "shooter's mother" to Andrea McCarren. I still don't understand how that could get fucked up.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm interested in what's probable, not possible.

Considering the rest of the Twiligh Zone mystery, I am interested in both. Either Emilie or her body double is in that picture.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Don't let your mistrust of the government (or this administration specifically) cloud your judgment. This hypothesis has as much evidence behind it as the anti-vaxxers do, or the 9/11 truthers, or the Obama Birthers.

I agree that I should be as objective as possible, but I think this conspiracy theory has a ton more evidence and unanswered questions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, there are reports and witnesses. We already knew that. Can you find any video of what went on at the school with frantic parents, kids, employees, and EMS all over the place?

No, but what would you be looking for in the video? The people who would film anything of value would be the media, who were there in force. But as usual, they weren't allowed close enough to the school to get anything good.

No, but we still have lots of immediate family members speaking in a three part documentary.

And EACH AND EVERY ONE of them acted as if nothing was wrong? Give me a timestamp.

According to Andrea McCarren, Sally Cox reported the identity of "shooter's mother" to Andrea McCarren. I still don't understand how that could get fucked up.

But no names were mentioned. Cox evidently knew a kindergarten teacher had been killed. As you said previously, as the school nurse (for 15 years as McCarren reports), she probably knew all of the teachers. Maybe some of their family as well. If she bought into the early (and false) reports of the shooter being that teacher's son, it's entirely reasonable for her to say that there were no indications that the teacher's son had any issues or any problems (since the teacher's real son probably doesn't), and that she thought the teacher was a loving, caring person.

Now, if the name "Nancy Lanza" or "Adam Lanza" had been mentioned, the report probably would've been entirely different.

Considering the rest of the Twiligh Zone mystery, I am interested in both. Either Emilie or her body double is in that picture.

By body double I hope you mean her sister Madeline (since that's who it is).

I agree that I should be as objective as possible, but I think this conspiracy theory has a ton more evidence and unanswered questions.

Is that because you want it to be a hoax? It'd fit the worldview that bad people are out to cause trouble en masse.

They were acting totally normal and all the parents showed emotions, some times sadness and some times they were remembering happy thoughts about their children and they weren't as sad in those moments, but pretty much all the interviews they were showing emotions and all those emotions are normal in the situation.

It is also normal from some conflicting reports to come out as a story is breaking but once the official report came out and it was clear what happened, it never changed and there was no conflicting or strange reports at all.

This is all what normal real life looks like.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, but what would you be looking for in the video? The people who would film anything of value would be the media, who were there in force. But as usual, they weren't allowed close enough to the school to get anything good.

The media didn't even take pictures from a distance or from a helicopter? They filmed the people walking in a circle at the firehouse. Why not the school? About all we have are witnesses, documents, and a photograph of some kids walking with a teacher.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And EACH AND EVERY ONE of them acted as if nothing was wrong? Give me a timestamp.

No, I said that none of them showed a tear (except maybe the Soto sister for a brief moment) or acted the general way people act when they are extremely upset. Remember... What's weird is that a lot of people were interviewed, and finding a tear is like finding a needle in a haystack. Do you understand what I am saying?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

But no names were mentioned. Cox evidently knew a kindergarten teacher had been killed. As you said previously, as the school nurse (for 15 years as McCarren reports), she probably knew all of the teachers. Maybe some of their family as well. If she bought into the early (and false) reports of the shooter being that teacher's son, it's entirely reasonable for her to say that there were no indications that the teacher's son had any issues or any problems (since the teacher's real son probably doesn't), and that she thought the teacher was a loving, caring person.

Now, if the name "Nancy Lanza" or "Adam Lanza" had been mentioned, the report probably would've been entirely different.

That is the best possibility suggestion I have come across yet, but wouldn't the school nurse have found out by then that the kindergarten teacher's son wasn't the shooter? This situation would have been a gossip fest.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

By body double I hope you mean her sister Madeline (since that's who it is).

I mean genetic replica with the same hair part and outfit.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Is that because you want it to be a hoax? It'd fit the worldview that bad people are out to cause trouble en masse.

I would hate for it to be real. It would mean we are almost finished as a country. I just want to get to the bottom of it. Are you in complete denial about the fact that all of the issues come together to form a big picture that is insane?

The person adding comments to the video have no clue what they are saying. I doubt there was any screaming since no one was shot with the opening attack. According to the official timeline the shooter shot through a locked door. There wasn't anyone at the front door when he shot his way in, so who would of screamed? Obviously no one, the screaming would come later when he began shooting people.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The media didn't even take pictures from a distance or from a helicopter? They filmed the people walking in a circle at the firehouse. Why not the school? About all we have are witnesses, documents, and a photograph of some kids walking with a teacher.

I didn't follow the news coverage closely that day. Did they have helicopter shots of the school? Probably. Were they allowed to stand right outside the building and film bodies and/or weapons being pulled out? I doubt it. What exactly would you be looking for? A cameraman following a response team extracting the exact weapons?

No, I said that none of them showed a tear (except maybe the Soto sister for a brief moment) or acted the general way people act when they are extremely upset. Remember... What's weird is that a lot of people were interviewed, and finding a tear is like finding a needle in a haystack. Do you understand what I am saying?

I understand, yes. But I'm challenging the notion that people behave in any "general way" when under severe stress. There will be some commonalities, but others bottle up their grief. Others let it out. Others turn to humor. Others become automatons. Give me a timestamp in your three-part documentary that shows these families so I can comment further.

That is the best possibility suggestion I have come across yet, but wouldn't the school nurse have found out by then that the kindergarten teacher's son wasn't the shooter? This situation would have been a gossip fest.

Depends on when McCarren talked to Cox. Judging by the report it seems to have taken place earlier in the day (the report was given at night).

I would hate for it to be real. It would mean we are almost finished as a country. I just want to get to the bottom of it. Are you in complete denial about the fact that all of the issues come together to form a big picture that is insane?

I deny that these facts form a picture that says Sandy Hook was faked in any way, not just because conspiracy theorists have an awful track record of successfully connecting the appropriate dots, but because the facts do not form such a picture.

What's the point of that video? I don't get the annotations in it either. BS story? What?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I didn't follow the news coverage closely that day. Did they have helicopter shots of the school? Probably. Were they allowed to stand right outside the building and film bodies and/or weapons being pulled out? I doubt it. What exactly would you be looking for? A cameraman following a response team extracting the exact weapons?

That would be good. So would pictures/video of... anything. How about a picture of Adam Lanza entering the school?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I understand, yes. But I'm challenging the notion that people behave in any "general way" when under severe stress. There will be some commonalities, but others bottle up their grief. Others let it out. Others turn to humor. Others become automatons. Give me a timestamp in your three-part documentary that shows these families so I can comment further.

That's right. Grief can be handled in different ways. But somebody in such a large group will cry real tears at some point. Many of the interviews took place within days of the shooting, which happened just six months ago.

Notice something else about the interviews (Have you watched any of them?). Not one person expresses the slightest trace of anger against the shooter. The ones who give any opinions of the incident just bitch about guns and say we need to ban them. Can you imagine the obscene thoughts of hatred you would be having against such a person? Have you heard Ron Goldman talk about O.J. Simpson? Goldman didn't blame the murder of his son on a knife. Have you heard Tupac Shakur's mother talk about Tupac's killer? Have you seen videos of people speaking to juries during sentencing hearings for murderers? Tears are absent from the Sandy Hook interviews, and so are expressions of anger. They are nonexistent. Honestly, do you see the slightest thing strange about that?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Depends on when McCarren talked to Cox. Judging by the report it seems to have taken place earlier in the day (the report was given at night).

That would have given Cox plenty of time to call the news station and say, "Oh, sorry. The school nurse's son didn't really create this horrible tragedy. Sorry about the false information."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I deny that these facts form a picture that says Sandy Hook was faked in any way, not just because conspiracy theorists have an awful track record of successfully connecting the appropriate dots, but because the facts do not form such a picture.

What's the point of that video? I don't get the annotations in it either. BS story? What?

The kid and the teacher tell two seemingly different stories about what they heard. Also, the teacher's story about going into the 3 X 2 bathroom with 15 kids and reading them books is extremely bizarre. If they had their "morning meeting" in a room other than the classroom, why did they not have it in the classroom? If they had the meeting in the classroom, what was a bathroom doing in the classroom? Why did she not keep everybody completely quiet so they wouldn't be detected? Visualize her story. It's more Twilight Zone.

This video adds more perspective.



The maker doesn't agree with the grief or gun report arguments, but I think he is overlooking some important points. The other stuff added is very considerable. The school has been shut down ever since, nobody is allowed on school property, Adam Lanza would have been a better marksman than any other massacre shooter in history, Lanza would have had an assault rifle and practiced to be Rambo with it although assault weapons are illegal in Connecticut and he had not been seen for three years, Lanza's death report says he died on December 13, nobody can explain where the report that he had Aperger's originated, the medical examiner is really shady, reports say there is still an investigation into who a second shooter might have been, the school had a very expensive security system, other things. I saw another video that has a reporter saying that there was no sign of glass being broken for Lanza to enter the school, but people had to check in. How did Lanza get in?

You can go all over YouTube and Google and see actual news reports, interviews, photographs, raised issues, etc. No one video or site I have come across contains all of it. You can do research for miles on this situation. It's pretty fucking crazy.

There is a huge difference between the examples you gave of people being angry with the killers, and sandy hook. In those situations the killer was still alive, in this case the killer was dead. That sense of anger and wanting to make the criminal pay for what he did greatly decreases if the killer is dead. He has suffered his final fate and there is closure.

You don't suddenly stop being pissed at a killer the day after the murder just because he is dead. Jews who went through the Holocaust are mad at Hitler to this day. Also, Tupac's murder case was never solved. A lot points to Biggie Smalls, who was dead when Tupac's mother did the interview I saw. Tell me this isn't a commercial for gun control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gViMvqm7wNU

Were these kids recently murdered, or are they running for office?

Do you know what a green screen is? It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

When an object is past a certain point, the part that is past it will not show up in the video. You can very briefly check this video at 2:09 and 4:39 and see the hoax at work.



?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Pause this video about a tenth of a second after it gets to 1:28. After that, play through that point and watch what happens across the street.



Have you had a vision of Rod Serling yet?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Pause this video about a tenth of a second after it gets to 1:28. After that, play through that point and watch what happens across the street.

[YouTube Video, see above]

Have you had a vision of Rod Serling yet?

No offense or anything, but you really need to get more evidence than some obviously biased YouTube videos that present an apparent change in the distance between a photographer and someone being interviewed as 100% absolute proof that an interview was faked. If this was a huge conspiracy, I think that the conspirators would be a bit more careful to make sure that no-one caught them out.

Hmmm, just had a look at the other videos that "Tinfoilhatdood" has posted and they are pretty suspect, including claims that because the weather got cloudy after some planes flew over, these are secret government chem trails. The clincher: the weather forecast said "Sunny". Unrefutable evidence!

Originally Posted by GJames

No offense or anything, but you really need to get more evidence than some obviously biased YouTube videos that present an apparent change in the distance between a photographer and someone being interviewed as 100% absolute proof that an interview was faked.

I didn't make the video or post the description. Is that the only post of mine you have looked at? Do you honestly claim that I have posted nothing more than that video?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Pause this video about a tenth of a second after it gets to 1:28. After that, play through that point and watch what happens across the street.



Have you had a vision of Rod Serling yet?

That video shows an example of extension distortion and compression distortion, a common issue with camera lenses of different focal lengths. Yeah, I had to Google the terms but I saw this often back when I took photography. It's definitely not a sign that something is weird or faked, merely an illusion caused by the camera optics.

Here's some reading and examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspe..._(photography)
Exploring How Focal Length Affects Images
Perspective and Distortion
Using Telephoto Lenses


Many of these "theories of bizarre things" are posted by people who don't understand how cameras work or are deliberately trying to play on people's natural suspicions by forcing them to focus on things that 'appear' to be wrong, distorting facts and perspectives to further a cause or belief.

That explains one of the issues the video poster raised. The people suddenly appearing closer didn't grab my attention. What I think is really strange is what I said two posts ago.

Pause this video about a tenth of a second after it gets to 1:28. After that, play through that point and watch what happens across the street.

Maybe there is a logical explanation for it, but I don't know what it is. I might have overlooked something in one of your links that could explain it. Did you see my green screen post?

The reason I say I worry for the mental and emotional health of someone who would believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is as follows. There are plenty of ways to debunk the myths of government conspiracy, and that is obvious to see. What is not as clear, are the motivations behind those who claim these conspiracies to be real.

Fact is not on their side; knowledge is missing. So what motivates someone to claim this as real if they have no reasonable explanation?

These are simple diversions; the construction of an alternative reality, replacing the unbearable truth. What is easier, remove and dissociate yourself from truth through elaborate illogical smoke screens, or face the reality that someone can walk into any school in any town to kill anybody's children? Which outcome causes more fear, and which cause of the event demands more control? If the event demands more control, its easier to swallow because then there is something clear to blame. What can we blame when teenagers walk into their own school and blow away their classmates?

Whats the cause and effect when emotion overpowers every other mental faculty. Those other mental pieces begin following the emotion.

This paranoia will probably always exist and its a good reminder to keep level headed. Otherwise you may end up turning dead bodies into talking points.

Also...Lets look at the real genocides in the world. The unrest in Africa precipitated by colonialism, endless wars against invisible "terrorist" enemies, the decimation of natural resources and essential creatures of the environment, the Native population of the Americas, the mass slaughters of people all over the world by inflated despots and tyrants. Address the real problems of humanity and society, instead of wasting time creating elaborate smoke screens.

That's an interesting blanket generalization. Are you familiar with any of the historically documented conspiracies of any of the governments that have ever existed? Have you ever heard of Watergate? Have you ever heard of the Nazis? Iran Contra? Gulf of Tonkin? Bay of Pigs? IRS political targeting? NSA data mining? You might have some reading to do.

http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blog...cies-from.html

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

There are plenty of ways to debunk the myths of government conspiracy, and that is obvious to see.

You made a boast. Now prove its truth. If you can't do that, then you are just making worthless noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I shouldn't have snapped at you earlier Chimpertainment, since obviously your comment wasn't directed at me at all. I got too caught up in the argument. I completely agree with what you just said - people like Alex Jones have definite issues. Obviously it wasn't a 'hoax' in the way the video posters mean, as in no children were even killed. Personally I'm just stumped at why all the parents and family members are like pod people. Yes they seem sad - some of them (those who aren't smiling through their interviews), but sad is not the way I'd expect a bereaved parent or brother or sister to act over the recent death. I'd expect inconsolable - at least from some of them.