Whatever Happened at Sandy Hook?

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, and shout down any critics as ghouls dancing on the graves of little children.

So while Piers Morgan explodes 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 theatre would jump 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 are 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 genuine free will then what he does with it is up to him, 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 it’s nothing to do with the NRA or the Pope.  Something is wrong with the way Sandy Hook was handled and reported, and it’s so awful that any normal person having only the media as their source of news questions the reality of the event itself.  Ask yourself – how bad does reporting have to be, to make you conclude that the whole thing is one giant fraud?

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 – those gullible, shallow, hysterical, loud-mouthed, Palestinian-hating, delusional, self-obsessed, empty-headed, supine, graphic-laden, celebrity infatuated, camera-ready, cliché ridden drama queen teleprompter readers – are now demonising anyone with the remotest doubts as to what exactly happened.  But it can be easily shown that the American media created all this uncertainty through their conflicting, sloppy, giddy, cheap, and even downright crooked reporting.

wrong school for cops

What was claimed to be a “live feed” of police running into Sandy Hook turned out to be police running into St Rose of Lima preschool, Connecticut. Perhaps CNN was saving time, or perhaps the police were lost and running in to get directions to the right massacre: hard to know.  A blogger made a detailed analysis of the areas surrounding both to illustrate that CNN was not showing a live feed even though helicopters were overhead at the time (click on image for original page)

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.  These two have to be the worst actors I’ve ever seen, and bear in mind I lived in Canada in the late 1960’s:

nick phelps imaginary parent

At first, I was convinced they were one and the same.  But critics informed me that they are not the same couple via some higher resolution photos, and they made a good point.  In any case, we know lots of people look similar, with identical haircuts and partners, and this must be just one of those times.

But then something odd comes to light: the brother (shown below, left) of Victoria Soto bears an uncanny resemblance to a slightly younger child, by 2 to 3 years, shown at right in an earlier photo with other Greenberg individuals:

matthew soto and greenberg sonOnce again, the onus of proof is on whoever points out the flaw, so we may have to write this off as another coincidence.   The following photo shows Victoria Soto, in front of a man giving a weird hand sign:


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.

This isn’t a coincidence.  The Florida couple isn’t the Phelps.  But surrounding characters are linked, in an inexplicable way.


Apparently his name is Michael Greenberg – shown on the right.  Those who doubt the accuracy of Action-Man luvvies like CNN reporter Anderson Cooper were surprised to see a video in which, as his head moves, his nose trembles and disappears as if he were in front of a studio green screen.  But he’s supposed to be reporting live from a funeral: the lighting is definitely indoor lighting, but I thought perhaps they used 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 as they are secretive about it, what about everything else they do?

anderson cooper

Both individuals seem to be flat lighted, that is, lit by crisp indoor sources. The human skin always has components of green, and if in front of a “green screen” can blend in with the background momentarily. It would make sense to film in a studio, and CNN have shown studio characters before pretending to be in Saudi Arabia during a scud missile attack. (In the Saudi skit, the comical actors, reporters, are clearly in a studio, but maintain the pretence that they fear for their lives, one donning a crash helmet and one inexplicably putting on a gas mask, which he sheepishly takes off a few moments later, perhaps realising the absurdity. All the while, with recordings of sirens echoing through the studio, neither character actually leaves the camera-friendly spot they are standing in!)

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 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 fled 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 – I would say complete fiction.  Not only that, but survivors say the explosions came from beneath the train, creating a crater of upflung metal from the floor.  No terrorist with a backpack could have created that.  So if you still think the government is a benign bystander, imagine if it had been you and your children standing on one of those bombs.  This is state-sponsored terrorism.

What makes it worse is that all the CCTV systems were turned off in the stations and in the bus affected.  Is this just bad luck?  I don’t think so.  If we had some CCTV evidence, we could be sure.  But we don’t, which means we have to depend on the government.  Fingers all start to point towards this strange creature.  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.

Pentagon911Attack with words

It’s a very good question!

After 9/11 Bush claimed nobody had imagined such crimes being committed.  It seemed a reasonable explanation until we found out 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.  The small hole in the Pentagon wall shows no sign of an airliner at all.  So, let’s look at the CCTV images from 70 cameras around the perimeter.  “Sorry, we can’t release those, for security reasons.”  How about we see the ones on the motorway over which the airliner flew? “No, security reasons.”

How about from a neighboring hotel? “The FBI confiscated them and threatened us, telling us not to talk about what we saw.”  Uh… the gas station? “FBI confiscated them for security reasons.”  And so on.  So eager are we to grasp at straws that we accept a blurred, distant image of what looks like a missile as if it were a fully loaded airliner.  We want to believe this strange, manipulative, paranoid creature called government is incapable of murder.  And yet we know it is: it gladly sends our children to die in wars.  What exactly is wrong, not with the government who we know to be amoral, but with us?

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.


Shoddy reporting isn’t limited to the larger outlets: Dawn Hochsprung, killed by the shooter, gives a statement, describing how it happened, to the Newtown Bee

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.

usa today

Trauma, drama, tragedy, breaking news – all you can manage. Get it here. But be prepared: a month later the media has completely lost interest and is chasing some new excitement. Depth just isn’t in their nature. And this is the real insult to the victims.

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.

Connecticut Community Copes With Aftermath Of Elementary School Mass Shooting

Like the Aurora press interviews, relevant questions are sidestepped. In Aurora, a member of the crowd loudly asks, “How did he get in? Weren’t there CCTV cameras in the cinema?” which the police officer ignores. Moments later another voice shouts out, “what about the cinema’s CCTV cameras?” to which the policeman falls silent. In Aurora, witnesses inside insist the shooter had at least one and possibly two accomplices. Police confirm they found two gas masks outside. But mainstream media nimbly avoids these tricky questions to frame a much simpler narrative: one man did it. H Wayne Carver II above, providing no answers at all to media questions in Newtown – which they seem content with. After all, he wears a white jacket, and the men around him wear hats

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.


Genuine bereavement: Jackie Kennedy. Genuine glee: Lyndon Johnson and Texan senator

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.


Jessica Rekos’ parents, delighted with something, soon after her shooting


McDonnell parents joke about their child being blown to pieces by an assault rifle a day or so before

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?

china school

Chinese parents mourn children lost in shoddily-built school which collapsed during earthquake.  They are refusing to move, to keep the press attention on the corrupt system which allowed the disaster


Palestinian women mourn relatives killed by Israeli soldiers

Iraq: eleven-year-old Noor is held back by other grieving relatives after US forces attacked and killed family members

And now back to Mrs McDonnell, bereaved parent, robbed of her most precious child:

mcdonell 2

mcdonell 2b

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:

immxqJloYCS1N parker

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.

Image19Above 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.

soto family

If the families themselves don’t appear to be upset, can they be surprised if we’re not either?

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:

photo stolen of lily

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.


Some bloggers believe the “anonymous” Sandy Hook kids singing at the superbowl are none other than the kids who “died” – that is, earlier photos of them were used to create fictitious identities. I was fascinated by one Sandy Hook parent page on twitter which claimed their 5 year old son was fascinated and inspired by certain American swimmers competing live in the Olympics. The only problem with this is that the swimmers in question competed two years before their son was even born

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:

emilie parker photos 3 before and 3 after

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.

ADAM died one day early

Known to be of small build, and have Asperger’s, rendering a person uncoordinated, how could this young man be wearing heavy armor, carrying rifles, ammunition, four pistols, and manage constant firing plus lightning fast reloading? In any case, I have a hard time believing anyone could carry out many shootings the day after he died.

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.


Everyone must check in – why? Because this is a tightly controlled drill, with portaloos, electrified signs, and rehearsed scripts

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.


The “illuminati” have this hand sign? Culd circulating this picture have helped at all?  Definitely not

howland owl

The logo of the “illuminati” is said to be an owl, further stoking the sense of some other agenda

emilie parker gives illuminati sign

To top it off, the Parker family release this picture as a memorial, then close their web page and disappear.

About iain carstairs

I have a great interest in both scientific advances and the beauty of religion, and created www.scienceandreligion.com about 15 years ago with the aim of finding common ground between the scientist and the believer, and to encourage debate between the two sides.
This entry was posted in Lunatic Fringe, Massacres, Metabunk Syndrome, Mick West, Sandy Hook, Sandy Hook fantasy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Whatever Happened at Sandy Hook?

  1. Chief says:

    There are no images captured of the scene from any distance by a person, not with the media, with a camera, cell phone, camcorder of any kind anywhere on the net. All there are is stock AP photos and network news clips. Some one nearby MUST have snapped a few images and posted them; right? No private citezen concerned about the chaos had the presence of mind to snap off a few frames to post on youtube, twitter or flicker? Huh, really? I see a strictly controlled event, like a movie set….just sayin……

    • That’s a good point – I hadn’t thought of that. When you think of ordinary everyday problems in America, like a policeman beating someone up for dancing and so on, there are mobile phones out all over the place pointing in all directions, and the cops have to run back and forth saying, “It’s against the law to film me!” and of course the filmer replies, “no it isn’t,” and keeps filming.

      Since everyone has a mobile phone these days, the absence of such pictures or films is very strange. How many, out of 600 kids in that school, would have at least recorded the sounds over the PA or the reactions of their schoolfriends? You’re quite right, all these clips are very conspicuous by their absence

  2. Sheila says:

    From left to right, the girls pictured are 1) Emilie 2) Madeline (middle sister) 3) Emilie 4) Madeline 5) Emilie (when she was younger) and 6) Madeline.

    Their faces, hair color (ash blond vs golden blond) and hair type (very straight vs. wavy) are quite different once you look closely.

    • I appreciate your comment, and this idea occurred to me too. But the faces look identical to me with a characteristic high forehead rounded below the hairline, parting slightly to her right (Madeleine seems to always have hers slightly to her left). In the second place, photo 5 isn’t an earlier one at all, and must have been taken the same day as photo 3, because her sisters look identical in both photos, and all three are wearing the same clothes.

      The chances of all three fashion-conscious kids wearing the same clothes in two photos, with the same gathered pigtails above the ears for the youngest in both, and the same strands of hair and pigtails for Madeleine in both, and the same hair length and even strands which are adrift in the harline for Emilie, on different days is nil. So 3 and 5 were taken on the same day, and judging from the Obama picture, the girl being held in Obama’s right hand is Madeleine and to her left is Emilie, shown here.

      I’m not a forensic specialist but from the images the media gives, these are conclusions anyone would draw. On its own you would never think about it, but combined with the bizarre Gene Rosen and H Wayne Carver II, the fictitious stories from USA Today, conflicting police reports concerning the most basic facts of weapons, and suspects arrested at the scene, and absence of corroborating evidence, it all looks odd. With zero investigation from the media, people are more or less free to come to their own conclusions.

      To make matters worse none of the parents, apparently, were allowed to see the bodies. And this included Mr Rousseau, whose daughter was a teacher. What parent of a small child would ever accept such a thing? You would have to say your goodbyes, and be convinced your child wasn’t somehow lost in the panic, perhaps kidnapped during the wandering bus escapade, and still alive somewhere. How would you know? You wouldn’t take someone’s word for it and then grin from ear to ear in a photoshoot, even with the president. Not for all the money in the world. You would go to your grave wondering if somehow they got away – like the kids in the ghost bus – and grew up wondering why you didn’t come to find them. Above all, the very last thing on your mind would be to go right home and start a flowery facebook page at lunchtime, surely?

  3. Chief says:


    Find ANY privately recorded, amateur photo or video record of the ensuing chaos from December 14, 2012 in or on the perimeter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School grounds or neighborhood.

    No one from the general public was alarmed enough by sirens, speeding emergency cars, helicopters and gathering news trucks at that time, to follow an ambulance, call and ask a friend, snap a picture or video clip. Not to mention the student and teacher population in the school, the internal security recording system, the nearby fire station, passersby or bystanders during the screaming run-up of emergency vehicles!

    Nothing, not a scrap is posted on You Tube, Flicker, Twitter, Face book, Google or Yahoo unless it is an AP press released photograph or video; (those don’t count for this purpose). By the way, AP and the authorities got sloppy and allowed a photo released of the suspect (patsies) car license plate. It turns out that car is registered to a local drug felon and the car had been currently impounded but then borrowed for a cause….HUM? Another thing about the car: the police approach the vehicle before sending a bomb sniffing dog, then, proceed to break into it to find the gun in the trunk. Then they tape off the area and bring in the dog. WEIRD.


    Smart phones and cameras confiscated by the authorities? Impossible to know who and where to find them all. Scrubbed from the web? Why? What’s the fear? Besides, impossible to do and make it stick. Nobody’s phone would work during that time?…de de de de(twilight zone music playing)…..de de de de. Why are the parents and teachers smiling and cutting up during interviews? Why has the government-media narrative changed so drastically concerning the guns used and the number of suspects apprehended? Where are the bodies? Yea where are they? Did the parents ALL positively identify their children? If so, prove it! Why are the details of the story now buried and/or inaccessible to the public? Where were the body bags in the areal videos? Where were the coroner’s vans, the stretchers with sheets, all the dozens of EMS workers required to respond? Why was there not at least one, non life threatening injury? All dead and the rest, perfectly alive. No glass cuts, slip-falls, no ricochet injuries, no sprains, strains, bruises, fractures or abrasions? Nothing in between? The whole story stinks to high heaven -even worse than 9-11. Pardon the rhyme.

    Obvious and not so obvious Scenarios:

    With no proof that any one died at this point, (sans the phony funerals and memorials), with no proof that the Lanza boy went to the school to do harm and that he died there with the others-the only remote possibility is that they were all (the deceased) gathered there, all together in one area in a relaxed and trusting environment before the gunmen, who before the event unrolled, had just returned from the Lanza home after having slaughtered the mother, and destroying the computer hard drive, then opened fire in a cold, clinical and calculated fashion. (There definitely are ex-military, spec-ops contractors under the influence of mind control, who will carry out these type killings for there CIC). That would explain the two men apprehended in the woods. This was a tightly controlled environment during the taping of the response period, if there was a response period. (It was actually a full production).

    The expandable tent-building command facility was already on site as an “active shooter drill” was being conducted and “crisis actors” were already in place when the drill commander ordered the 911 call. The media was in place and poised to begin recording on count down status. The story aired before all the details could be worked out. Sloppy fake reporting began and the poorly briefed actors began tripping over their stories and changing them, many times in some cases.

    There’s so many more things that don’t line up to support the lone shooter theory. There has been absolutely No evidence shown to the public that supports the narrative given by the government-media complex. All that’s been presented are Exhibits in the form of AP photos, videos and acted out interviews. No one in an official capacity from outside the Disney-run acting community of Newtown, Connecticut has or ever will corroborate any evidence, witness or testimony concerning this event; they are “out of the loop”. This smacks of a written and designed mass media Psy-Op. It was clearly produced for public consumption to further a massive agenda for permanent and fundamental change. In other words to take your freedom away.

  4. Lou says:

    “Pentagon already spent millions to strengthen its walls to try and survive a direct, malicious hit by an airliner.”.

    Well actually it was only the sector that was HIT that was strengthened. About 4/5 of the pentagon WAS NOT STRENGTHENED. Now think about this; the part of the pentagon where all the brass resides did NOT receive added PROTECTED!

    “Now Major I demand my office is protected!”

    Don’t worry mister Secretary your office does not NEED the blast windows.

    “Damn it Major I want those windows.”

    Sir I can promise you all the action is to take place on the exact opposite side from our office.

    Did someone KNOW which part of the pentagon would be hit? To me this is obvious. Why were the WINDOWS reinforced such that most did not BREAK when the blasts struck?

    Because had the windows had not been reinforced they would have been BLOWN OUT. You see the first blasts in the pentagon, just as the first blasts in the WTC was from INSIDE the building BEFORE any object struck from the OUTSIDE..

    Several shaped charges were planted INSIDE the pentagon walls and set off.blasting neat round holes.. These charges were set off about 5 minutes before something did or did not strike the pentagon from the outside.



    • Actually I didn’t know that! I did see an impressve little clip of a missile hitting the Pentagon, obviously filmed from the air. Cheney had a junior come in every few minutes and tell him how far the plane was from hitting the Pentagon. Minetta saw this from himself. When the boy said, “the plane is ten minutes away sir, do the orders still stand?” Cheney snapped, “of course the orders still stand! Have you heard anything to the contrary?!”

      Minetta had no idea what Cheney was doing: he couldn’t have guessed Cheney was trying to co-ordinate a cruise missile with the overpass of the plane.

      But above all this, above all the technical deatils of how Cheney did it, which are hard to prove after ten years, I want to know this:

      The Pentagon is the most heaviliy secured, closely filmed building on the planet. There are CCTV cameras about every 15 feet along the outside and many more on the inside at all levels. Why is it that none of these cameras, all filming and recording furiously through night and day, failed to record a colossal jet airliner, itself the size of a large building, swooping down and hitting the wall in broad daylight?

      The only camera footage released was from a petrol station up the road. If the petrol station’s CCTV is superior to the Pentagon’s, perhaps it would be better to remove all the cameras from the building, and surround it instead with petrol stations

  5. Brook says:

    Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to
    mention that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your
    rss feed and I’m hoping you write once more soon!

  6. Jane Doe says:

    Brilliant appraisal of the situation. Unfortunately, only 1 out of 10 persons in the American public seem capable of even the barest minimum of critical thinking skills these days, and since they are the only ones who will seek out and read the information you present, you are probably preaching to the choir.

    It’s over for the U.S.A in my admittedly cynical, jaded opinion. They’ve been softening up the brains of the masses for 30 years or so with the dumbed down indoctrination they call education, topped off with a healthy serving of “reality TV” and diet Coke.

    What saddens me the most, again in my opinion, is that even were you able to somehow make the comatose masses understand the fraud and evil that’s being perpetrated on them, I don’t think they would care, I really don’t.

    It’s now a spiritual disease, I believe. A terminal cancer in its final stage with no hope of remission.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s