Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

It was degraded and slightly fuzzy so the blue bled over slightly where the two colors touched. It only happens for a single frame and is barely noticeable. What seems more likely?

A. The video was recorded and showed on tv, someone then recorded the video from their tv, then put it on the internet, then someone copied that and made it into a youtube video, and during the process of converting to different formats with different compression rates and different frame rates minor anomalies appeared on the image.

B. The poorer quality video was the original one they showed on a major news network, which they then enhanced and edited after someone on youtube pointed out the flaw that it revealed they faked the scene?

You are ignoring UM's other points. Are you just refusing to acknowledge them because you agree or because you can't argue against them? You could be totally right about what you are saying, but that doesn't prove that it's the wrong corner of the wrong building. It proves the guy was being a sensationalist asshole who didn't do enough investigation because he was too lazy, didn't want to because it went against his point, or is just stupid. However, that only proves that she does not go through the wood. Alright, point established. What is your argument for the building or the corner being different than the one he claims it to be? You can see from the third video and the aerial that it is indeed the corner he claims, the pole sticking up off the wooden corner is in both shots and the angle and view matches as well. If you want to claim that the camera field of view has been lowered on the news videos then that is one thing, but it is clearly the same corner.

Except the wall looks nothing at all similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It was degraded and slightly fuzzy so the blue bled over slightly where the two colors touched. It only happens for a single frame and is barely noticeable. What seems more likely?

A. The video was recorded and showed on tv, someone then recorded the video from their tv, then put it on the internet, then someone copied that and made it into a youtube video, and during the process of converting to different formats with different compression rates and different frame rates minor anomalies appeared on the image.

B. The poorer quality video was the original one they showed on a major news network, which they then enhanced and edited after someone on youtube pointed out the flaw that it revealed they faked the scene?

---

After what all I have seen, I would say B. Did you see Anderson Cooper's nose disappear in an interview of an alleged Sandy Hook victim's mother?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxAWy_bUuio

Are you saying that a multiple copying process can cause people to look like they are walking through each other? Maybe it can. I have no reason to believe it at this point.

My biggest issue in this part of our discussion is where that building is. I showed you an aerial view of the firehouse premises and showed you a building that you are saying is not the same one that is in the video. Where is the distant building in the video? This extra one is on the premises in this picture:

Attachment 5792

Where is the other one?

Attachment 5733

I don't know what happened to the first picture in my last post. I am editing this post because it failed again. I will just post a web page link with it.

http://sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/...-fire-station/

So there's that building. Where is the background building that is in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGfYMBh5Fo

Here are two more aerial views of the firehouse premises:

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/16/66/27.../5/628x471.jpg

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2012/...tVxf.St.4.jpeg

Where is that mysterious building?

That video of his nose disappearing is pretty much evidence of what I am talking about. Why would that happen if they were using a green screen? Do you think his nose was painted green? Of course not, that is absurd. Standing in front of a green screen wouldn't cut anything off that wasn't green. That is the entire purpose of the technology. The computer fills in everything that is the color of the background. So unless you think his nose was green, it wouldn't cut it off.

All these minor things you are pointed out is due to pixelation from high quality video to lower quality video. It happens all the time. I really can't believe that you never seen a photo that has become pixelated before. That is why the high quality videos look normal and the low quality videos have minor things like colors bleeding over from one object to another.

I think I remember seeing a video where a victim of the shooting was the same person as another school shooting, both dead.

Quote:

---

Newtown Votes to Rebuild Sandy Hook Elementary
Oct. 6, 2013

By GILLIAN MOHNEY and ALEXIS SHAW via Good Morning America
The town will be allotted $50 million in state funds to rebuild the school.

A new facility will be built away from the initial site so that a memorial could be built in its place.

Newtown, Connecticut Votes to Rebuild Sandy Hook Elementary - ABC News

---

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i6Xt1hmm8Scg.jpg

A traditional way to wipe out evidence. That’s how they demolished so said Bin Laden house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That video of his nose disappearing is pretty much evidence of what I am talking about. Why would that happen if they were using a green screen? Do you think his nose was painted green? Of course not, that is absurd. Standing in front of a green screen wouldn't cut anything off that wasn't green. That is the entire purpose of the technology. The computer fills in everything that is the color of the background. So unless you think his nose was green, it wouldn't cut it off.

All these minor things you are pointed out is due to pixelation from high quality video to lower quality video. It happens all the time. I really can't believe that you never seen a photo that has become pixelated before. That is why the high quality videos look normal and the low quality videos have minor things like colors bleeding over from one object to another.

---

Split green screen use causes visual boundaries. When something crosses the boundary, it does not show up on film. You can see an exact line that marks the cut off for Anderson Cooper's nose.


I am going to ask you again... Where is that building in the firehouse video located in reality? I can't find it on the firehouse premises in photographs.

That is because you can't see it clearly. The building in the background that they call the 'shed' actually looks like the front of the main building to me. You can't get a good reference point of anything from a foot of wall, and a building blocked by dozens of cars and trucks.

Also, if you think they are using a split green screen and putting the two images together, that means the two people where filmed in different locations, why would they do that if they were hired actors? Your theory is so convoluted. You film two actors in separate rooms on a green screen, then put the image together to make it seem like they were in the same room? Why? How does that make any sense at all?

The image is clearly just suffering from minor damage due to the switch in compression rate when it was converted to a lower quality film format.

CNN is based in Atlanta, not Newtown, Connecticut. Anderson might have had Atlanta business to deal with. Split screens are a convenience.

Are you now saying that the two background buildings are the same building? Earlier, you argued that they are two different buildings. Never mind the traffic at the place. There are tons of photographs of the firehouse from multiple days. That building is nowhere to be found on the premises.

No, I am saying that the building in the background might be the front of the main building, and that the other wall might not be a building at all. Which is exactly what I said at that start, that I thought it was probably not a building but some kind of temporarily structure.

Though I have to ask something. Why did you use two photos that showed a ton of people at the firehouse, if you are arguing that no one was at the firehouse? If you are arguing they are actors in front of a green screen and they were never at the firehouse, why use photos showing people at the firehouse? Either the aerial photos directly refute your theory that no one was at the firehouse, or you are knowing comparing the video to photos that you believe were faked.

Can you find a picture of the main building looking like that? I can't.

I said you can find plenty of other photos of the firehouse if you are not satisfied with the ones I have posted. There are zillions of them. I am not arguing that nobody was at the firehouse. I am arguing that some studio shenanigans might have taken place for putting on a show. Film makers use green screens all the time for convenience and other bonuses.

That makes no sense. If the actors were there on location, and the cameras were there on location, why would you not take pictures of them there? Why would you make fake pictures on a green screen? That makes no logical sense what so ever. Please explain why a person would hire a bunch of actors and pay off the fire department to make a hoax, send everyone to the firehouse and film it, then not use the footage and instead make a green screen of the location and fake people in front of it?

Also the photo you posted shows the front of the building and it looks just like that. Though it doesn't really matter if it is the main building or the shed. The issue was it's relation to the other objects which you can't really make out clearly, and if they are temporary or movable objects, they are not going to be in any photos taken during other times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That makes no sense. If the actors were there on location, and the cameras were there on location, why would you not take pictures of them there? Why would you make fake pictures on a green screen? That makes no logical sense what so ever. Please explain why a person would hire a bunch of actors and pay off the fire department to make a hoax, send everyone to the firehouse and film it, then not use the footage and instead make a green screen of the location and fake people in front of it?

---

For that matter, why use green screens at all? For maximum production effect and convenience. They could concentrate on a few actors at a time, take after take, and then hit the production room and put everything together in the artful way of their choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Also the photo you posted shows the front of the building and it looks just like that. Though it doesn't really matter if it is the main building or the shed. The issue was it's relation to the other objects which you can't really make out clearly, and if they are temporary or movable objects, they are not going to be in any photos taken during other times.

---

That building we were trying to figure out earlier is not the front of the firehouse. You yourself said it is not the shed, so I am asking where it is. It is nowhere to be found on the firehouse premises except in that bizarre video.

This is the front of the firehouse:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CDcQ9QEwAQ

http://wfsb.images.worldnow.com/images/20482945_BG1.JPG

Where is this building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGfYMBh5Fo

I meant the building in the back might be the front of the firehouse. I don't know what that wall on the side is, I am not even sure that it is a building. If it isn't, then that would explain why you can't find it.

It is not the front of the firehouse. I just posted the front of the firehouse. That's not it. One of the pictures shows the entire premises. That building is not there.

Here are lots of firehouse angles, along with mysterious pictures of the man in the blue jacket in front of the building in question:

http://www.metabunk.org/threads/debu...g-photos.1173/

That video helps. So that white wall is the main building, and that second building in the background, is that building the guy said it was in your original video. So he was right. I didn't think the white wall was the main building because it was smooth but from the other video you can see it isn't smooth it is just blurred in the image, probably due to glare of the sun on the white wall.

Any way if you look at that thread you posted there is an image showing the light of sight which touchings both the corner of the front building and shows the building behind it. So that angle is definitely possible.

If so, that building is outrageously closer in the video, not just sort of closer like the fence in the pictures you posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

A traditional way to wipe out evidence. That’s how they demolished so said Bin Laden house.

---

So imagine you have some kind of evidence that the voting process was a sham? You've taken a straw pall of Newtown, have you? Spoken to some of the residents? Any of the residents? Any kind of basic journalistic research whatsoever?

What are you talking about? In the first picture the house in the background takes up nearly the entire screen, and in the last picture the house takes up like 1/8th of the screen. The house looks closer in the photo I posted than in the video you posted in the first photo, and it looks further away than the shed actually is in the last photo. Also those are just examples, the distortion can even be worse than that depending on the lens.

I was talking about the fence in the pictures you posted that have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.

The full length Sandy Hook - The Documentary 2013 video got taken down from YouTube, but the documentary is still up in two parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwIvy1GXRU

http://www.youtube.com/verify_contro...%3DkE5Gpwwrblc

Look at the house instead of the fence, the difference is even more dramatic so you can easily see how huge the difference can be due to the lens shape and size.

Oh, I see it. Do you have any info on what caused that?

Here is a picture of two lens, one using a wide view and one using a narrow view. The objects are both the same size in both images, but as you can see the second object in the first photo takes up a larger portion of the camera's field of view, thus would appear bigger.

The camera people weren't in the parking lot, but they wanted to see people's faces. So they used cameras with a very narrow field of view in order to zoom in closer to the people they were filming, as a side effect the background appears larger than you might be used to seeing.