The Sandy Hook tragedy certainly touched the hearts of everyone, activating a debate about gun control in America and reigniting the question, “how could this have happened?” Everyone with a pulpit can now ride a white horse, even a pantomime one. So while Piers Morgan explodes unexpectedly at his guests like a rusty shotgun, others talk rapidly over each other like an AR15 jammed on the Invade Afghanistan setting. One almost wishes someone in the audience would step forward with a Civil War pistol and put us all out of our misery.
The religious face the angry old adage: how could God allow such a thing? The atheists endure the same bitter tone, challenged to offer consolation on a par with “at least my little angel is in Heaven.” Whatever happened at Sandy Hook, it has indeed divided everybody:
“In a recent conversation with a fellow journalist, I voiced my exasperation at the endless talk about faith in God as the only consolation for those devastated by the unfathomable murders in Newtown, Conn. Some of those grieving parents surely believe, as I do, that this is our one and only life.
“Atheists cannot find solace in the idea that dead children are now angels in heaven. “That only shows the limits of atheism,” my colleague replied. “It’s all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are suffering.” Susan Jacoby, NY Times
If a man has free will, what he does is up to him, and not the long-distant source of the Universe itself. Likewise I can’t blame the Big Bang for whoever drilled holes in my fresco simply because the nuclear processes in stars provided him with diamond tipped bits. How could the Big Bang have allowed it? It sounds more than a little feeble minded.
Something is certainly wrong, but this time it’s nothing to do with the NRA or the Pope, though both have their share of faults. Something is wrong with this event in the way it was handled and reported, leading any normal person having only the media as their source of news to question the reality of the event itself.
Any sane person feels enormous empathy for the bereaved. It is the common dread of all parents from the day their child is born. This should go without saying, but in the emotive climate whipped up by the media, voicing any suspicion about the event is tantamount to dancing with glee on the graves of children. It surprises me that even the atheists, usually champions of logic, are mute about its weird absence here, and though ready at a single moment’s notice to unmask and shout down the least sign of scam on the part of the religious, are tamely silent about the carnival atmosphere at Sandy Hook.
And now the massed American media – usually gullible, shallow, self-obsessed, supine, graphic-laden, celebrity infatuated, cliché ridden drama queens – are now demonising anyone with the remotest doubts as to what exactly happened. But, as can be easily shown, it was the American media who created all this uncertainty through their conflicting, sloppy, giddy, cheap, and even downright crooked reporting.
When my son was small, the Dunblane shooting gripped the nation. I well recall trying to imagine how I would feel in the parents’ place – but it was too harrowing to keep in the mind, your beloved child in the cold earth, lifeless, inconsolable and far from your embrace. Later I happened to meet the husband of the teacher who had died. The whole of the event had that awful ring of truth making it far bigger, much worse, than the sum of its parts: it cast a shadow on the mind for years to come.
But with the Newtown event, things are very different. The first thing I noticed is that on the DHS website, an HSEEP event had taken place the morning of the 14th of December, 20 minutes up the road from Sandy Hook. HSEEP is no doubt an in-joke, a play on the word SHEEP, the label for all who blindly swallow whatever the government says. This was an emergency drill to co-ordinate all the different agencies involved, of a shooter in a school. Do the DHS perform these drills regularly, each day in every town? From what I could find on their website, no – this seemed the only one. Imagine the odds. How weird to have a gymnasium full of actors only a short drive from a media event requiring a strong emotional message sent to the nation by cleancut, reliable family types. Still, the mind tries to maintain its worldview, and place this strange fact into some kind of holding file pending explanation.
Some parents interviewed after Sandy Hook do seem to resemble other individuals. Consider Nick Phelps and his wife, who look very much like a well-heeled couple in Florida named, I believe, Greenberg:
At first, I was convinced they were one and the same. But, my critics inform me that they are not the same couple, and showed me higher resolution photos and they made a good point. And in any case, we know lots of people look similar, with identical haircuts and partners, and this must be just one of those odd times.
But then something odd comes to light: the brother (shown below, left) of Victoria Soto bears an uncanny resemblance to a child, shown right in an earlier photo with other Greenberg individuals:
But again the onus of proof is on the person pointing out the flaw, and so we can also write this off as coincidence. The following photo shows the teacher in question, in front of a man giving a weird hand sign:
But then from a sharp eyed blogger, a photo surfaces of a man bearing an uncanny resemblance to the gray haired stranger with the baleful glare behind Soto. The number of people who look at you from under their eyebrows is very very small, especially when a photo is being taken. The parting and the hair, the downturn at the corners of the mouth, slightly higher left nostril, shape of the nose, the whiteness at outer side of the eyebrows, the slight fold under chin, are the same for both men. Shirt done up to the second last button too.
Yes, it could be a coincidence, but now something doesn’t seem right when the situation is taken as a whole. The Florida couple isn’t the Phelps. But surrounding characters seem linked in an inexplicable way.
And apparently his name is Michael Greenberg – shown on the right. Taken as single events we can explain away coincidences, but a handful like that starts to look odd. Then a video of CNN reporter Anderson Cooper surfaces in which, as his head moves, his nose trembles and disappears as if he were in front of a green screen, used in a studio. But he’s supposed to be reporting live from a funeral: the lighting, agreed, does look like indoor lighting, but I thought perhaps they had spotlights to give a more flattering definition. It makes sense to film in a studio; it saves time and money. But the suspicion lingers that they are less than open about it, and if that is so, what about everything else they do?
If we think back to previous disasters which were tipping points in public opinion and ensuing government policy, more details start to nag at the mind, including the timely appearance of characters who seem to know everything before anyone else and given air time immediately on CNN. On the morning of 9/11, multiple drills were taking place involving hijacked airliners with intent to crash into buildings. An excellent film clip exists of a reporter frantically looking for interviews after the towers fell: it’s called “Things Dan Rather would rather you didn’t see” and shows how complicit – or stupid – the media is in deception. The hapless hack finds an eyewitness covered in dust who shouts “yes, I saw it – it was a bomb!” A bomb? You mean, a plane, right? “No, a bomb! I actually saw it go off! A massive explosion, before the plane even hit – it went off right over there – “ but by now the reporter has run off to try his luck elsewhere.
On the morning of 7/7 in London, a private contractor named Peter Power was holding dummy “explosives in backpacks” drills at a handful of tube stations – which, incredibly, turned out moments later to be the same stations in which the exact same disasters unfolded. There are around 270 tube stations, with 30 in the central area alone and 365 days in the year. So yes, it is incredible, because lies tend to magnify over time. Whatmakes it worse is that all the CCTV systems were turned off in the stations and in the bus affected. Is this just bad luck? It could easily be. But it nags at the mind: if only we had some CCTV evidence, we could be sure. But we don’t. At Aurora, everyone wants to know why witness statements reported two people. How did they get in? Let’s check the CCTV. Ah, we can’t release that. At Sandy Hook we hear that Lanza broke a window to get in. But moments later – before the window could be repaired - the firemen also broke a window to get in. Why a different window? Perhaps there’s a reason. Let’s look at the CCTV. Ah, well, we can’t release that. And so we’re stuck in conjecture once more.
After 9/11 Bush claimed nobody had imagined such crimes being committed. It seemed a reasonable explanation, except now we know about the drills that morning. And, it later came to light that the Pentagon already spent millions to strengthen its walls to try and survive a direct, malicious hit by an airliner.
A recent temple shooting in America was described by those inside the temple as carried out by four – yes, four – masked, efficient gunmen who knew their places and unleashed a volley of bullets. But police, arriving half an hour later, blamed a single madman, and discounted all evidence to the contrary. This isn’t crime investigation. This is a prepared story. Or consider the recent case of a shooter who wounded a congresswoman, and whose mugshot was released by Arizona police. It was later exposed as a flimsy photofit of radical TV personality Glenn Beck. The face is a direct copy from the chin to the eyebrows, with the neck area blended a little crudely. The neck and the upper dome of the head show a shadow caused by a light from our upper left, whereas the nose and eyes show a shadow from directly above, as Beck’s photo does. The American media never questioned the photo – this was exposed by a blogger, who was labelled a “conspiracy nut.” But the photo is a fake – you only have to look at it.
Perhaps there was a good reason for tangling up the radical anti-establishment pundit with a mystery assassin, or perhaps it was some kind of mistake. Sure, that’s what it was.
In the scrum of media reporting and multiple news shows airing opinions, it’s easy to blame the fog of the moment. When an American embassy was attacked and set alight, leading to several deaths which Obama described as “not optimal”, the local marines, eager to stem the firefight, were told to stand down. Hilary Clinton later blamed this on “the fog of war”. I have a good imagination, but I can’t imagine any fog of war in which soldiers are told to go home and forget all about it. The American media immediately stopped demanding answers and tamely reported the new version.
And as time goes on, we see less and less evidence, and more and more TV coverage to make up for it. Bin Laden was known to have died many years ago: a friend in Afghanistan was quite certain about this, but so was Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan’s ISI, who has given several interviews to say as much. Bin Laden was known to rely on daily treatment for Marfan Syndrome , to avoid renal failure; to have survived far from an organised medical complex would have been impossible. Neighbours assured the media that bin Laden could not have lived in the house, as it was occupied by a man they knew well. All the neighbours knew each other.
But Islamabad is a long way from American televisions. And so without photographs, with no surviving witnesses, without DNA, or a body, or any testimony of neighbours, an entire country is convinced that a SEAL team found bin Laden, shot him dead, and dumped the body at sea – with the only evidence being a single photo of government officials looking shocked. This is not evidence at all. Can you imagine a court case in which a killer is convicted solely on the evidence of a photo of someone else looking surprised? And yet the American media is convinced: it’s a good thing they don’t run the courts.
Sandy Hook gets very odd when you look closely, and so most people prefer not to look closely, for the same reason abused children split their cognitive faculties to isolate the bad part of their abuser from the good part. This enables some semblance of a cohesive life even when the one they trust most is, every now and then, beating them to a pulp. Without this cognitive fault line, which gives rise to anorexia, bulimia, self-harming and borderline personality disorders to vent the hidden anguish, an individual would have a worldview much too frightening to live with, one in which they must surely be the villain: for everyone knows, parents are trustworthy souls.
Apart from the local circumstances that morning in Sandy Hook, we have helicopters to thank for aerial photos of the scene immediately after the story hit the news. What we see is a school surrounded by cars – surrounded so that ambulances and emergency vehicles could not hope to get out. And from helicopter video we see dozens of police wandering about quite aimlessly. And here’s where the critical faculty of most people splits into two: on the one hand, we’re presented with a nightmare we feel a normal person must sympathise with. We want to be normal. On the other hand, we see no evidence that anyone on the ground is concerned about getting any of the 26 victims the hell away from there in the shortest possible time.
So we start to try and piece together events from witnesses. First and foremost we have the word of Gene Rosen, who describes how a busload of children was dropped at his house, some distance from the school. For 30 minutes he hears stories about teachers bleeding from the mouths while he hands out teddy bears and stuffed toys. But something is odd. In the first place there is also a film of Rosen going through the same anguished story, with the same histrionics, pausing occasionally to check something on his iphone. He refers to the photographer as “Matt” and then corrects himself – while the cameraman remains silent. The cameraman’s website has no contact details and no working email address: the captcha filter gives simple sums, to which it declares all answers incorrect. You’d think photographers would be keen to attract business, but certainly not this one.
In any case, Rosen’s house is much further from the school than the FEMA fire station to which children were apparently taken immediately. So now we have the question which nobody can answer: how does a group of small children flee a shooter’s assault rifle and several pistols, exit the school and escape the care of adults – themselves presumably panic stricken and desperately searching for any opportunity to protect the children in their care from a hail of bullets – find a schoolbus, with a driver who asks no questions and casually drops them off outside a complete stranger’s house, to then disappear as if nothing has happened? Where is the bus driver now for an interview? One thing is sure: they will never be found, and no child interviewed to corroborate the story. Gene’s story even changes in another clip: now there is not just a bus driver but a man with a stern voice shouting that “it’s all gonna be ok”. Why des he not rush out and find the adults, and ask what’s up? Why does he take so long to call the police? Did he call 911, and if so, where is his 911 call? Where is the bus driver, and the stern-voiced man? We only have Gene ranting variations over and over.
So once again searching for evidence we come to a point where we either must consider everyone a fraud – including the police, government, and the hysterical Gene Rosen – or just write Rosen off as a deluded Munchausen type. But hasn’t anyone in the supine, gullible US media checked his story? No. And anyone who does, is labelled by them to be a conspiracy nut.
What exactly did the US media do to clarify the situation? Not much. Above is a reporter giving her eyewitness account, in breaking news, in a school tragedy.
“I happened to run across a woman who had tears in her eyes, and she was being led by two younger women, and I asked if she was okay. It turns out she was the school nurse at Sandy Hook Elementary and was for fifteen years. She described the gunman coming into her office. They met eyes, she jumped under her desk, and he inexplicably just walked out.”
It’s a shame the camera wasn’t there to record it. The nurse later said she saw only the shooter’s legs, as she was under the desk at the time. So already even the simplest of facts are twisted beyond recognition; the news anchor sympathises and then asks whether the school nurse was one of the first people the shooter saw, or if he had already started shooting.
“You know, I didn’t ask her that – she was fairly traumatised, but I did ask, if it was known around the school that this young man, apparently a kindergarten teacher’s son, was an issue, whether he had any problems, and she said, “not at all” and I asked if she knew the suspect’s mother, and she said that she did, and that she was an absolutely loving person, and a very experienced, caring kindergarten teacher – just the sort of person you would want with your five year old son or daughter.”
How does the reporter, arriving at the scene with no advance information, know about the role the shooter’s mother played? How does she even know the mother is local? From where does she get the idea that Lanza’s mother was “apparently a teacher”, something which other reports later contradicted? It’s as if each station is trying to get the most attention, and doing anything possible to achieve this. It’s not important if something is true or false, only that they get your attention for a while, and try to recapture it later when it’s taken by another station with a more dramatic or tragic angle. But in this case her breathless report only creates more problems, according the Daily Mail:
In an interview the killer’s aunt said Nancy Lanza was ‘self-reliant’ and indicated she was a ‘prepper’, or a person who prepares for Doomsday by learning essential survival skills – like how to shoot a gun.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was widely reported that Nancy Lanza was a kindergarten teacher at the elementary school. But Newtown Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson said Saturday that she had ‘never met’ Miss Lanza and that she was not in the school database as a staff member.
Some reports alleged that Nancy had retired from working as an educator many years ago to take care of her son, Adam, who allegedly had behavioral and personality issues. Nancy and Adam lived in a well-to-do part of Newtown, a prosperous community of 27,000 people about 60 miles northeast of New York City.
So now the idea that Adam had no issues, and that his mother was still a local teacher is discredited – and yet this came from a nurse found directly at the scene of the crime. The closer you look, the less sense it makes. Since Mrs Lanza was a heavily armed doomsday prepper, a nurse would never describe her as just the sort of person you’d want looking after your kids; as Adam was known to have mental health issues, a nurse who has just witnessed a mass slaughter is hardly likely to claim he was trouble free.
The nurse claimed in a later interview that she hid first under her desk, and then in a cupboard for more than four hours. But Danbury hospital was already aware of the situation by 10:27, and a 911 call must brought the police a good half an hour before that, because the call was made by Dawn herslf and a colleague while under the desk at 09:30. Where is the media explanation of how and why this woman stayed in a cupboard for three and a half hours after the police arrived and presumably stormed the school?
The Mail – and most other papers- reported that Lanza drove his mother’s car to the school. But in fact the car, confirmed on a police broadcast, belonged to Christopher Rodia, a convicted felon inexplicably released from arrest on five felonies back in July with no bail demands. A rifle is found – in the evening – in the car, as police gingerly remove it from the trunk. Why they waited ten hours to search the car is never explained. And yet Lanza, who never left the school once inside, was supposed to have used the rifle to do the killings – as confirmed by the drunken coroner. A witness is filmed pointing to a suspect in handcuffs in the front of a police car. “He’s right over there,” the man insists. What does the American media do? Rush over and film this man and unravel the whole mystery? Get an interview? Speak to the police about him? No. The story is dropped and never mentioned again in mainstream media. Who was this man? Nobody seems to care.
If a person is given a pair of glasses which turns their vision upside down, after about two weeks, the brain will invert the image to give them a normal view of the world. Removing the glasses, the brain must go through the same processes once more. The mind is concerned with making sense: even a very young child, confronted with meaningless babble cards offered by the new teaching methods, when instructed to pronounce the rubbish exactly as they see it, attempt to convert it to a real word that has meaning to them. They are then told this is wrong and they have failed. But the mind will not be disabused of its reasoning so easily, and the child repeats its “mistake” with the next nonsense card. This is because it makes much more sense to project some deeper, coherent goal on the mindless charade than accept that their teachers – bastions of logic and wisdom – woud waste children’s time insisting they learn gobbledegook words, and recite them like idiots. They have a lot to learn.
Raking the web for meaning we turn to a filmed press conference with H Wayne Carver II, to amass facts supporting our preferred scenario – that a kindly, organised government is doing its level best to manage a terrible disaster. But we come unstuck once more.
Here comes Carver, strutting his expertise on “thousands” of gruesome murders, for some reason surrounded by half a dozen police who seem unnaturally tense, remaining silent throughout, while Carver giggles like a schoolgirl, and so the questions begin: how many children were killed – how many boys, girls? “I don’t know. I don’t know!” he laughs theatrically, throwing his head in the air like a labrador trying to catch a frisbee. Er.. well, let’s put that down to professional detachment. How terrible his day must have been! What was the age of the youngest victim? “I don’t know.” What calibre bullets were used? First he announces the question loudly, looking about expectantly as if hoping someone in the frozen-faced phalanx of police will answer. Silence. No, he doesn’t want to say. His professionalism forbids it. Or maybe his ignorance? Did the shooter kill himself? “Yes.” At last! Some real news! ” No! I don’t know.” Sigh. Three answers – take your pick.
I was impressed to find Carver is on a $300,000 salary but still threatened to quit when Connecticut, perhaps wisely, refused to let him leave his desk job and join the ranks of coroners examining bodies and look for clues. A short time later, the coroner’s department announced they’d thought of a way to save $300,000 from their annual $4.2m budget. Hmmm.
Carver says all the injuries were caused by rifle. He’s very clear about it. In fact it’s the only thing he knows for sure. It’s the one fact he announces. He’s spent the whole day examining them. At last there is something to go on. Sadly it’s not actually true. Oh dear! Pete Williams, NBC justice correspondent and, unlike Carver, seemingly in touch with reality, later says four handguns were found in the school, not two, and no rifle at all. This has come straight “from police and federal officials”. But this is awakward because the event is later turned into the main platform in a crusade to ban assault rifles, and the coroner himself – whether drunk, imbecilic or fantasist – confirms that all wounds were caused by a rifle. According to Carver, he has seen thousands of homicides, so he should know, though he has no idea bout the calibre. Or how many bodies. Or the ages!
When asked whether police did find the rifle in the car, he says, “that is not correct.” But we can see for ourselves a film of officials removing the weapon from the trunk. Perhaps they were at another school? If you can make any sense out of this story, you’re doing very well! The question is not, how could we doubt the event; the question is, how can you not be suspicious? If this story is so damn important, how difficult could it be for someone just to tell us what the Hell happened?
Now came the most emotive, important question of all, which any coroner should have been bracing himself for since the moment he screeched to a halt at the scene of the crime: Were the bodies returned to the families? “Um… I don’t know.” One wonders if he has even set foot inside the school. His enthusiasm leaps momentarily when asked how the bodies were examined.. in a tent perhaps? “It wasn’t a tent,” Carver scoffs, eyes rolling skyward in religious admiration. “It was.. this magnificent.. THING..” Enough of this clown. Already he’s insulting the victims, and our intelligence.
In a separate interview a reporter asks a police officer if the shooter’s mother has connections with the school. The police officer looks stunned and freezes, so much so that I thought the film itself had frozen. But at least five full seconds later he begins a rambling, incoherent monologue about his team having searched the woods nearby – avoiding the question altogether. The US media are satisfied by the presence of a police hat, so they accept this incoherent babble as an answer.
This naiive, even stupid, trust, gives anyone with a wily streak a massive headstart. For example, in 1963, rather than believe the government would help do away with a president who works for peace, people accepted that a magic bullet was a genuine possibility, fired by a completely unknown assailant from a cheap rifle out of an upper story window. Strangely, despite being completely unknown, this nonentity was within moments the subject of a massive manhunt after George Bush Sr distributes his picture to Dallas police. To understand the real nature of the charade, look at a photo of Johnson smiling broadly in response to a fellow Texan’s wink. They’re on AirForce One, and it’s all the more shocking as on his left is Jackie Kennedy, still spattered in blood from her husband’s assassination. Yes, it’s hard to believe; but it’s also very hard to deny, and therein lies the problem.
In Newtown, clearly the shooter’s mother is a sensitive point for Deputy Dawg, and now it would be understandable to think these people cannot be trusted. Because although a widely circulated story by the police themselves was that Mrs Lanza worked for the school, where an argument the previous day somehow triggered the shooting, in fact she had never even set foot in there. Nobody in the school, and nobody in the area had even heard of the Lanza family: they are a total mystery, and now the only two who could answer any questions are dead. It will be no surprise if the only facts ever known about their deaths are what is typed up and handed to CNN and Fox. So, how do we explain the school nurse behaving as if she were part of the Lanza American apple pie family? Clearly, it’s all fiction.
But let’s say we write Carver off as a drunk, Rosen as a lunatic, the nurse as delirious, the reporter as over trusting, the cop as a high school dropout who wasn’t told anything at all before he greeted the world’s media for the most important American story in living memory, and the location as a random one for Lanza. We want to sympathise, and gain some traction on this farce, so we fill in the gaps and observe the reactions of families, whose motivations cannot be in doubt. And this is where the situation becomes too fantastic to be believed.
Every society has their own way of mourning the dead. At Sandy Hook, it seems to be giggling and laughing like 5:00 pm on payday. Only a day or two before, these parents lost their child, cut to ribbons by powerful weapons. Yet they’re well dressed, well slept, dry eyed, and full of energy. Perhaps they are extraordinarily resilient and secure in their faith. But when we compare these photos to Afghan parents bereaved by, say, the American military, or of Chinese parents losing children in a school collapse, or Palestinian mothers bereaved by savage Israelis, we see a weird, glaring difference.
Either the American parents do not feel the same bond with their children as those in other countries – itself an alarming thought – or perhaps they didn’t lose a child at all. Which do you think is the most likely?
And now back to Mrs McDonnell, bereaved parent, robbed of her most precious child:
What on Earth-?! Then let’s take Robbie Parker, a lucid parent who lost his beloved 6 year old daughter Emilie, as he turns up to a press conference on the day of the shooting. But somehow the cameraman catches him on the way in, and we see someone caught in a highly unlikely mood of hilarity:
We know the different feelings which arise without warning on bereavement: I arrived at my father’s funeral fully expecting to talk to him. It all seemed unreasonably serious. How could he not be there, like always? I was devastated to see the urn, next to his smiling photograph: the two could not possibly coexist. But Parker’s child was torn to pieces by an assault rifle a day before: she was in his care, and the media’s images of him smiling and laughing are a sign that nothing has happened to these people at all.
Above is the father of Noel, killed at Sandy Hook, shown on the day of the funeral. “You’ve all seen the photos out there on the internet – they’re real kids. What can I tell ya? Noel in particular loved tacos!” Well, that’s all the evidence I need.
Lt. Paul Vance is filmed in the dark – at least 8 hours after the shootings, saying his first job is to identify the victims so the families can have closure. “It’s what we have to do, legally, by law, and we’re going to do it properly.” But by the time he utters this circular statement, in fact, some hours earlier than that, several facebook pages had already been started for the victims, and garnered hundreds of sympathetic comments. Some pages seem to have been started two days before the shooting itself, and the aim of many seem to be to garner large sums of money: out of an audience of 300m people, if even 1% donate $10, that’s thirty million dollars just from Americans alone.
Disgracefully, even the identity of some of the children is in doubt, and this ought to be the most crucial evidence of all. But nobody even seemed to notice. Consider this photograph:
It seems to show Allison Wyatt, 6, on the right, a victim of the shooting. But it doesn’t. It is a photo of Lily Gaubert, alive and well, taken from her mother Cathy Gaubert’s flickr page without permission. The distraught mother has tried to have it removed from the facebook pages which all seemed to spring up the same day as the shooting, but to no avail. Once something is in the media, it is regarded as fact, no matter its source. This victim, at least, is entirely bogus, and the identity theft by the American media of a genuine child is causing distress to the living! And of course, anyone criticising it is labelled unfeeling to the dead. If Wyatt was a victim, why have her parents not taken steps to replace the stolen photo with her own? Why did nobody from within this tightly knit community notice the fraud? Or doesn’t anyone care? Don’t blame the skeptic if even the family, community, police and media can’t be bothered to respect the victims, of which by now, we can be certain, some were as imaginary as Gene Rosen’s ghostly bus and driver.
Ten days later, without any explanation, the media starts using another picture for Allison, finding one with a similar pose and hair. How long, exactly, does it take to get corrections issued to newspapers? Well, I can tell you. Recently a local paper put some of my work on their front page. It was picked up by Mason’s News Agency of Cambridge, who spoke briefly to me and then issued a story which went to all the main news outlets. When I first laid eyes on the online edition of the Daily Mail, I hit the roof and rang the Mail asking them to correct a glaring error. They only required an email, which I provided, and within minutes the article was changed. Mason’s was also contacted and they immediately issued an update to all their outlets, and except for Yahoo! which seemed beyond contacting, the story was corrected. This took less than half an hour.
If a bereaved parent sees a photo of a stranger in place of their child’s, it could be corrected immediately with very little effort. A ten day delay is inexplicable, especially for media-savvy parents with well-crafted facebook fund raising pages ready to go. And what is worse, the American media never bothers to explain why the victim is now a different child altogether. They never investigate, they never dig, they never question, because they never seem to care. So when a drunken coroner shambles into their view and, in response to serious questions about the worst massacre in memory, giggles and provides no information whatsoever, they are too feeble minded and spineless to stand up and demand facts.
When photos are stolen of children, witnesses given air time for fairytales without any follow up investigation, and when police press releases directly contradicting their own videos are passed on to us as fact with no critical filtering allowed by us, then despite the furore and accusations that greet any skepticism – witness Bill O’Reilly’s drunken misogyny or Kelly’s Hysterical Court – the media must forgive us for being skeptical.
They only have themselves to blame. They are not interested in in-depth reporting – they offer only trauma, sensation and easy certainty. The world is rapidly growing beyond this, and expects a coherent narrative. We are not insensitive. We’re just tired of being fed hastily-prepared rubbish from media types far more interested in their hair and blouse and how much they’ll earn next year than in actual investigation.
How about we examine one last piece of evidence: consider Emilie Parker, cruelly shot down on the morning of December 14th. We know she was killed because the funeral took place in Utah. These photos all show the same bubbly, charming youngster with a zest for life, and in five of the images, taken on three different occasions, she is in her favourite party dress:
The first image, with longer hair, is the earliest, and one of three photos taken before the shooting. Yes, and now here’s the biggest problem of all: three of these pictures were taken afterwards. The parting, the smile, the forehead, the face – they’re clearly all the same child.
Photos 1, 3 and 5 were presented by the family as recent pictures of their own daughter. Photos 2, 4 and 6 were taken well after the shooting and in front of the president himself – with families giving broad smiles for the camera. If you can explain all this, then you understand the mystery of Sandy Hook. If not, perhaps you’ve experienced a cognitive split, preserving a cherished worldview by treating evidence which flatly contradicts it as an anomaly you cannot afford to take seriously. Just don’t ask the American media to investigate this. They’ve rushed off to the next paycheque.
2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow advises that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for military leaders is whether or not they are prepared to fire on U.S. citizens. targets were provided of children, pregnant women and senior citizens with guns. Those who fail to agree are being removed, and observers have noted that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned. There is no doubt America is readying for a civil war, and Sandy Hook seems to be not much more than an easy way to manipulate the remaining population who believe everything they are told, while antagonising those who long ago rumbled the nature of the sinister game. The ensuing discord could prompt a call for martial law, for the people’s own good of course, and only for a short time. Of course.
The American media, as always, remains silent. But what can you expect from elitist-soothing papers like the New York Times, which debate the farce that is Sandy Hook with their weird headlines: “Tears, reflection fill the void in Connecticut” and describe the mass incineration of children at the hands of Obama’s drone masters “a vexing constitutional issue” ? Perhaps, instead of urgently, furiously exercising their right to “question everything you are told” – the rallying cry of Dawkins himself - the atheists keep mum about charades like Sandy Hook because to speak out might exacerbate their image as unfeeling thinkers with no interest in humanity at large. Or perhaps, like the media hacks who work from a script, they wisely limit themselves to pre-formatted castigations of ancient religion.
America is facing a massive economic crash, and social problems which long ago reached the point of no return. Spending trillions on wars, with soldiers committing suicide every day, armies posted on every continent, stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, reviled by half the planet, and facing a growing chorus from states refusing to carry out federal edicts and even petitioning to secede from the union, with a population regularly brutalised by police and the ever-expanding TSA, the US Administration has recently taken delivery of more than one billion hollow point, flesh exploding bullets for the Department of Homeland Security. That’s a lot of target practice. But practice for what?
So now they want to take guns from citizens; many people think they’d better hurry.