My view: Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. (Part 1)

On the day that I have chosen to publish this post, it is exactly six months since the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. It is a Friday, with one week until the summer break begins, marking the end of a traumatizing academic year for Sandy Hook. It was also a Friday, with one week left until a school holiday, when tragedy descended upon the Connecticut school. Half a year on, the painful memories remain.

In the days that followed the tragedy, many people began flooding on to social media sites, venting their angry and speculation-driven opinions about the truth behind the horrifying events of December 14th, 2012.

This is always the case after most global events, there were conspiracy theories appearing in the days following 9/11, the death of Osama bin Laden, and even after the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year.

All I can say is, scum rises to the surface. But now, six months on, it’s time to put an end to these conspiracy theories, once and for all. Hoaxers always condescend and belittle people for not believing their anti-media propaganda, yet they can never acknowledge the failings of their own ‘theories’. This blog post shows exactly how rubbish their claims are.

Image

Having read and (seriously) considered many of these ‘theories’ on the YouTube comments pages, I have come to the conclusion that they are not fact based. In fact each and every one of these theories can be attributed to opinionated speculation by Internet users who want some attention. The only people who genuinely believe these theories are clueless, the only reason they believe the conspiracy idea, is because they don’t want to believe the alternative. Most of the “hoaxers” are gun-loving Americans who call the Sandy Hook tragedy fake, because the only alternative is to admit that their assault firearms are overly powerful and dangerous for civilian use.

In this post, each of the main points behind the “Sandy Hoax” idea will be debunked, using impartial common sense, statistics, photos and FACTS to support my view of these shockingly offensive conspiracy claims (which are based on internet speculation, naivete and twisted information.

CONTENTS (Part One):

  1. No photos of Crime Scene
  2. No evidence of Bodies
  3. Contradicting stories from the media/eyewitnesses
  4. How many shooters? What weapons were used?
  5. Robbie Parker
  6. Was Sandy Hook a real/functioning school?

1) No Photos of the Crime Scene

Many conspiracy theories have been based upon the idea that because there is no photographic proof of the shooting taking place, it can’t have happened. It is true that no interior photos of the school during the shooting have been released by authorities. This contrasts the Columbine massacre of 1999, where CCTV footage was released of the suspects inside the college building. However this can easily be explained by looking at the plain obvious.

There was only one place in Sandy Hook school where a CCTV camera was running anyway. This was at the front of the school, in the reception area. People seem to have forgotten that within a couple of seconds of entering the reception area, Adam Lanza had shot dead two people already, Dawn Hochsprung (the school principal) and Mary Sherlach (the school psychologist). What with the distressing image of Lanza shooting his way through the locked glass entrance, and these two staff members being gunned down as they tried to apprehend the gunman, what sort of sick-minded person would want to see those images anyway? For the privacy and respect to the people who died in the reception area that day, that footage cannot be released.

Image

Dawn Hochsprung (left) and Mary Sherlach, died in one last, heroic effort to protect Sandy Hook Elementary school.

Elsewhere in the school, there are no confirmed reports of CCTV cameras being in place.

The conspiracy theories also bemoan the lack of crime scene photos, of the school after the tragedy. This is a point that can be simply debunked. According to the website of the Connecticut State Police, the investigation at Sandy Hook is still on-going. This is to be expected, the Columbine investigation conclusion wasn’t published until five years after the massacre.

Whilst Sandy Hook is still a crime scene under investigation, the police cannot publicly release crime scene evidence and information, this includes photographic evidence. Of course, in time, maybe we’ll see photos of bullet holes in the wall, blood on the floor, etc. But whilst the school is still being investigated that won’t happen.

There was an online petition last week, created on the request of the Sandy Hook victims’ families, to block the release of “gruesome crime scene photos and footage.” As far as I can tell, they were referring to photos of their loved ones’ bodies, which some hoaxers had wanted to see publicly, to prove that the investigation was real. Firstly, any person who wants to see a photo of a child’s corpse is a sick, twisted person, and they belong in the same group as Adam Lanza in my opinion. Secondly, the fact that these families are having to campaign to protect the dignity and privacy of their slaughtered loved ones, shows how desperate the conspiracy theorists are.

They are clutching at straws, trying to find anything that will support their case. But the government refusing the release photos of dead bodies is not a supportive point in their “hoax” story. May I just also add, that even if they did release photos of the deceased victims’ bodies, then all the hoaxers will simply say they were photoshopped. That’s the problem with hoaxers, they will keep their desperately false ‘theories’ alive, even if it is a blatantly lost cause.

Aerial footage clearly shows the smashed entrance of the school

Aerial footage clearly shows the smashed entrance of the school

The photo on the left is a snapshot taken from a YouTube video. It is aerial footage of the immediate aftermath at Sandy Hook, and it clearly shows the smashed-up glass entrance to the school. This is the visual evidence that many hoaxers have chosen to ignore.

 The full video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0v4JhQ35Y

2) No evidence of bodies

Many hoaxers also believe that some of the victims’ parents weren’t allowed to see their children’s bodies, after they were murdered at Sandy Hook. Apparently this is a reason to believe that there were no bodies at all. The harrowing fact is, some of the victims’ remains were so badly damaged, that they were kept from the parents’ eyes, to avoid the mental trauma that may have followed. Many of the dead were shot multiple times, in fact some children were apparently shot 11 times. I am not a parent, but I can imagine that seeing my child’s little body, mutilated by 11 rounds of gunfire, would be a torturous sight.

A body on a gurney, outside Sandy Hook school.

But hoaxers are blowing this out of proportion, the families had the choice whether to see their children’s bodies or not. The funeral of Noah Pozner was open-casket, despite him being shot 11 times during the shooting. The lower half of Noah’s face was covered by a cloth (as his jaw had been destroyed by gunfire), but the rest of his body was visible for his family. This information is derived from an interview with that boy’s mother. The link to this is here: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Angela-Carella-Grieving-mothers-who-wanted-the-4208256.php#ixzz2IkfkBrIL.

One of the more ridiculous hoaxer outbursts that I have seen, is that the final resting place of the victims is unknown, and therefore we cannot be sure they exist. To anybody who sees this as a sensible point, you are a moron, why should the victims’ families publicly disclose where there loved ones’ funerals were held or where they were buried/cremated?

3) Contradicting stories from the media/eyewitnesses

In the immediate aftermath of the tragic shooting, there was understandable confusion and a sense of chaos among those who had gathered outside the school building. The news crews and panicking relatives were arriving in numbers, and the police were desperately trying to control the situation and secure the area. At a time of utter turmoil, of course there would be confusion surrounding the true events of what had happened in Connecticut that morning, especially seeing as everyone had had a different experience of the shooting.

The post-shooting chaos is evident in this picture, taken a short distance from Sandy Hook.

The post-shooting chaos is evident in this picture, taken a short distance from Sandy Hook school.

For instance, there was confusion about whether there was one shooter or multiple ones. Confusion about how many people had died, what weapons had been used inside the school, what exactly the shooter had done during his rampage, where the bodies were positioned. The list of initial confusion and contradiction goes on and on, and if there was still so much contradiction now (six months later) then the hoaxers may have had a case. But this confusion is natural after such a momentous, disastrous and tragic event. No one outside the school knew exactly what had happened. Only later, when the official story was released, did things become clearer.

But hoaxers are ignoring all sense, instead they are claiming that all of this contradiction is a clear sign that Sandy Hook was staged. For a start, this makes no sense whatsoever. Even if the shooting was a hoax, then there still would have been a set course of events (in the Sandy Hook script) that people who were acting in this hoax would have to follow. There wouldn’t be contradictions. If anything the contradictions make it even more obvious that this wasn’t staged.

The contradictions themselves stem from the media’s presence outside the school that day. Naturally, each news crew would’ve wanted exclusive information as the tragedy unfolded, therefore they would’ve been asking all sorts of people for their account of the day’s events. Some of these people may have been survivors from the school, others may have been passers-by. Either way, the information these people provided was unreliable, because the only people who could have given a first-hand eyewitness account of the shooting were (by majority) killed in it. Only when the official story was later released, after the police had gathered all the evidence and reliable eyewitness accounts, were the falsities of the original media reports brought to light. Of course not everything the media said was false, but much of their ‘knowledge’ of what happened inside the school was speculation and not factual.

Therefore, the contradictions between the media reports and the official story is no reason to believe the hoaxers stories. It is natural for the media and other people to provide inaccurate information in the immediate aftermath of a major tragedy, and Sandy Hook was no different.

To quote another debunking page about the Sandy Hook conspiracy (link below), “It’s hardly surprising that some witnesses gave contradictory statements, that police initially followed up on the possibility of multiple shooters, or that some news outlets initially reported inaccurate information. All of this is typical in the crush for information…in the wake of disasters involving large numbers of deaths.” The official story is the only account worth reading today, as is contains the investigated information that police obtained from the tragedy.

Linkhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

Factual argument or YouTube speculation?

Factual argument or YouTube       speculation?

One account which is definitely not worth reading is the hoaxers’ accounts. Their account, unlike the official story, is merely Internet speculation, and also full of contradictions. For instance, some hoaxers say that there were multiple shooters, others state that Adam Lanza was the lone gunman. Some hoaxers say that people did die but the government did it, others claim that no one died at all. These contradictions, unlike the ones surrounding the official version, cannot be attributed to the chaos and confusion after the tragedy. Instead they show that the hoaxers’ stories are not fact-based, just misinformed speculation.

4) How many shooters? What weapons were used?

Two of the main points that have arisen from the contradiction argument was the idea of multiple perpetrators and confusion over what firearms were used in Sandy Hook. Both of these ideas have been explained in detail below.

The idea of multiple shooters and suspects can once again be attributed to the chaos around the school soon after the shooting. In their initial sweep of the crime scene, police detained four suspects in precautionary measures. All four of these detainees were released with no charges later in the day.

  • The man in the woods: According the the Newtown Bee, the well publicized case of the suspect in the woods is no reason to believe the theory of multiple shooters. This man was merely an off-duty police officer from another town, who had arrived at Sandy Hook to assist the Newtown police.
  • Chris Manfredonia: This man is the father of a 6-year old girl who attended Sandy Hook, and he was arrested by police as he ran around the perimeter of the school, desperately trying to gain access so he could find his daughter (who survived thanks to her teacher locking her in a closet).
  • Third unidentified man: This man was reportedly arrested by police, close to the Sandy Hook fire station (next to the school), however he was released when police confirmed that he was an innocent passer-by.
  • Christopher Rodia: This man’s name can be heard on a police radio transmission during the shooting, he had initially been wrongly identified as the owner of the impounded car outside Sandy Hook (which Adam Lanza had used). He was pulled over by police in a nearby town but was released when the police realized their mistake.

It was unhelpful that the media used these people in their coverage and the unfolding tragedy, a point which relates back to the idea of the media’s errors causing contradictions in the Sandy Hook story. However in reality, and looking at the detailed explanation of innocence for each detainee (above), it is clear that these four people had no part to play in the shooting that morning. There is therefore, no solid evidence that there was more than one shooter at Sandy Hook that morning.

The police remove a shotgun from the trunk of Lanza's car.

The police remove a shotgun from the trunk of Lanza’s car.

There is also apparent contradiction over what weapons Adam Lanza used during the shooting. The official story states that he used a semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) in the school, but hoaxers question this, because the same weapon was apparently found in the trunk of Lanza’s car (parked by the front entrance of the school).

However this can be simply explained: the firearms found on Lanza’s body inside the school included two handguns, and the AR-15 rifle. The firearm found in the trunk of the car was a shotgun, not a rifle (this is clear from the image above). Therefore there is no evidence to cast doubt over the official story’s claim, that two handguns and an AR-15 were used inside the school.

The Connecticut State Police confirmed this when they issued an update on their website in January this year. This can be found at: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284. They also reveal that Lanza used the AR-15 to murder his victims, then one of the handguns to commit suicide. No other weapons were used in the shooting.

The guns used by Adam Lanza, inside Sandy Hook school

The guns used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook. 

The media (once again) are to blame for the misinformation and contradiction that surrounded this part of the investigation. One day after the shooting (and over a month before the CT State Police officially confirmed what weapons were used), NBC News released false information about the guns which Lanza used. This news report has since circulated on the Internet, and hoaxers hail it as “proof” than an AR-15 was not used. Well, wrong again hoaxers, this is only one of many examples of poor reporting by the media soon after the Sandy Hook tragedy. There is no evidence or proof which states that an AR-15 rifle wasn’t used inside the school during the shooting, apart from one unconfirmed, erroneous news report.

5) Robbie Parker

Robbie Parker, with his wife, in shock after learning of his daughter's death.

Robbie Parker and his wife, in shock after learning of their daughter’s death.

One of the main points used by hoaxers to show that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, is the image of Robbie Parker, father of Emilie Parker (aged 6, murdered during the shooting), smiling during a TV interview just days after the shooting. Out of all the hoaxer/conspiracy ideas, this was probably the toughest one for me to explain. However, after reading the opinion of a professional psychologist and several other explanatory articles, I have an explanation which even the most stubborn hoaxer should find credible.

Emilie Parker, 6, was killed in the shooting.

Emilie Parker, 6, was killed in the shooting.

The ‘suspicious’ TV interview took place two days after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook. Robbie Parker had been photographed in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, looking shocked and in disbelief, an expected reaction when receiving such life-changing and devastating news. 48 hours later, Parker appeared before the world’s media, as one of the first parents to publicly speak about their child’s death. He looked smart and tidy, and spoke in a measured manner about his daughter Emilie. He even offered his condolences to the family of Adam Lanza. However before he began talking about her, he smiled briefly and even giggled momentarily. Hoaxers instantly point to this and say that he isn’t a father, he’s only a crisis actor, but psychological fact and common sense, once again, proves them wrong.

Robbie Parker moments before his TV interview.

Robbie Parker moments before his interview.

Some hoaxers highlight Parker’s neat and tidy appearance, they say that if he had spent the last two days grieving, he wouldn’t look so well-kept. Well, Parker was speaking in front of national media about his daughter, on behalf of his family. With that responsibility, he wouldn’t turn up looking disheveled and unkempt.

Moving swiftly on, the main hoaxer argument is that a man whose daughter died two days earlier, shouldn’t be smiling under any circumstance. Well, firstly, it’s not as if Parker is laughing hysterically. It’s a nervous giggle if anything. Robbie Parker is a normal family man, he isn’t used to national media interviews, and in that nerve-racking situation, it’s understandable to let out some signs of your nerves. Human beings are very diverse creatures, some break down in tears when nervous, some show no emotions, others giggle and smile. It’s natural human behaviour!

The following explanation has been put together using the opinion of psychology professionals. After a traumatic event (e.g. the death of your child), you don’t just remain despondent and miserable for two solid days. Of course, there’s a lot of sadness involved, but naturally you try and cheer yourself and relatives up. Recalling happy memories you have of your children would be relevant to this idea. This is exactly why Robbie Parker would have been smiling. Aside from his nervousness, he was remembering all the happy memories he had of Emilie (for his interview). Whilst he was thinking about those memories, a little smile is natural, happy that he had a few great years with her whilst she was alive. Not to mention the fact that his emotions would’ve been weak after two days of grieving, so he’d have been prone to over-showing of emotion (humor for instance).

Robbie and Emilie Parker

Robbie and Emilie Parker

Parker’s smile can be attributed to his fond memories of his daughter and his nervous giggle was probably due to his nervousness and weak emotions (after two days of grieving). A final point that a hoaxer tried to put forward was the fact that Parker referred to Emilie in the present tense (“is”) during his interview, instead of “was”. This is inane, after Emilie’s recent death, it would’ve been difficult for him to acknowledge that she was no longer alive. So for him to refer to her as if she’s still alive is reasonable.

Finally, if the Parker interview had been part of a hoax, then surely it would’ve been scripted like the rest of the shooting. If Parker (the actor) had laughed during the filming of the interview, then surely it would’ve been eradicated, like a movie outtake. Otherwise, the people orchestrating the hoax would’ve worried about being found out.

6) Was Sandy Hook a real, functioning school?

There have been a number of suggestions by hoaxers that there is no evidence that Sandy Hook was actually a functioning school, since 2010 that is. This, in my opinion is the worst-researched of all the hoaxers’ claims, and therefore the easiest for me to debunk. There are two places on the Internet where this claim is proved to be false; the Sandy Hook school website; and the Twitter account of Dawn Hochsprung (the late principal).

The courtyard of Sandy Hook school, pictured in late-2012.

The courtyard of Sandy Hook school, pictured in late-2012.

Starting with the Sandy Hook website, it is plainly obvious that this is a website of an active institution.  Sandy Hook school is still functioning to this day (although in a new building) and so is the website. The staff list has been updated, and news from the school pours in every week or so. Furthermore, there are two online scrapbooks (one for this academic year and one for last year). There are numerous photos of the school in action, with students’ musical productions, Veteran’s Day celebrations, and more. The links fro these scrapbooks are shown below, and the photo here is a picture taken from the scrapbook for this academic year.

The photo that Dawn Hochsprung tweeted, of a fire drill at Sandy Hook.

The photo that Dawn Hochsprung tweeted, of a fire drill at Sandy Hook.

The other place on the Internet which quashes this hoaxer theory, is the Twitter account of the Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who died during the shooting as she tried to apprehend the gunman. She reportedly adored her job and the school, and this is evident from the enthusiasm she showed by tweeting photos of the school in action, right up until the eve of the shooting. These photos included a fire drill at Sandy Hook in October 2012, and a photo of their Winter concert rehearsal (taken just two days before the shooting).  Several other photos are shown on her Twitter page, and the link to it is also shown below. The dates on these photos show that Sandy Hook school was very much open as usual, right up until the morning of December 14th. This idea about the school being closed since 2010 is nonsense, and it is yet more desperation from the hoaxers.

https://twitter.com/DHochsprung (Dawn Hochsprung’s Twitter page)

http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/AboutUs/Scrapbook20112012/tabid/15581/Default.aspx (Scrapbook 2011-12)

http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/AboutUs/Scrapbook20122013/tabid/18959/Default.aspx (Scrapbook 2012-13)

7) Next Time…

In the second and final installment of this debunking page, I will tackle the following conspiracy points:

  • Are the ‘victims’ still alive?
  • Was the deceased Sandy Hook principal at the Boston Bombing?
  • Is Adam Lanza still alive, and was he a real person?
  • Why were there ‘no tears’ in the aftermath of the tragedy?
  • Online memorial pages created before tragedy?
  • Wouldn’t frantic kids be difficult targets to hit?
  • Why is the entire Sandy Hook school being demolished?

That installment will be released in four days time, on Tuesday 18th June. Hopefully, that would give people a chance to read this first section before the second one is released.

But I’d like to invite all people, hoaxers and believers, to leave comments on this page and I’d be happy to discuss any of the points brought up on this page. Please respect everyone’s views!

There’ll also be a poll at the end of the next section of this page, inviting people to vote on what they think happened at Sandy Hook in December last year, six months ago today.

shvictimsR.I.P to the 26 victims.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

 

PS- I’m sorry but I have had to disable comments on this page, as that section was being regularly abused by people who were not here for a discussion, rather they came to read 1-2 sentences of my blog, and then chuck hateful insults in my direction. I apologise to anyone who genuinely wished to have a proper discussion, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy “hoaxers” ruined it for everyone.

 

6 thoughts on “My view: Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. (Part 1)

  1. Enonesoch Niatsaba

    Hello, I wouldn’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but when a major event occurs and its effect is felt nationally, I do think it is important to discuss and understand the facts matter. This particularly horrific event has made its way into the chambers of Congress, it has caused national debate with regard to gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment, and has formed into legislation which has the ingredients to become a national law. On the rare occasion that something like this happens, it up to us to understand the causes of the event, the nature of the event, and the aftermath of the event. So let me delve into some questions and comments. 1. No Photos Of The Crime Scene: I highly doubt that there are many (there’s always going to be mental ill people that are attracted to these things in strange and unusual ways) people that want to see the pictures of dead children, I think what people would like to have is some kind of visual or audio or physical evidence that event occurred. If there is no information or the information seems restricted or contradictory, one feels as sense of misunderstanding, that some things feel out of place. If people could hear all relevant police audio communications during that time, I think the hoaxers might move on. If people were able to see a picture of Adam Lanza near the school, at the school, or in the school; or a picture (video) of parents/teachers/children running, I think the hoaxers might move on. Even if people were allowed to view the death certificates of the deceased, the hoaxers might move on (Incase you were wondering, wanting to see the death certificates has nothing to do with actually wanting to see certificates themselves, it is the need for understanding, it is piece of paper, and on it is an irrefutable fact. Also, there is not one eye witness that saw Adam shoot anybody. So, No Photos Of the Crime Scene (evidence) has not in any way, shape, or form been debunked and is something that still needs further investigation. 2. No Evidence Of Bodies: I do find it strange that the parents were ‘kept’ from seeing their children. Just the simple statement you made above; “It was for the better for the parents that the final memory they had of their children was them happily going off to school that morning, instead of seeing their destroyed and barely recognizable bodies” shows a very cold and unrealistic view of actuality. Who are you to say it was for the better for the parents? That comment is very strange, and so is the fact that all parents obliged. Also, it is strange that the responders had set out their ‘casualty mats’ and yet there were ‘no bodies’. Why can’t there be seen a drop of blood, anywhere or on anyone? Again, the sealing of the birth certificates is prolonging this ‘hoax’ idea, if they would do what has always been done and make these documents part of the public record, the hoaxers might move on. So, No Evidence of Bodies (evidence) has not in any way, shape, or form been debunked and is something that still needs further investigation. 3. Contradicting Stories From The Media/Eyewitnesses:
    Since you have not explained the official story, nor any contradictory media accounts, I have no response to this inquiry except to say that contradictory theories formed by ‘hoaxers’ would hardly exist if all the evidence was made public (photos, audio, official papers, etc.). Your bias can be clearly seen in the way you focus the majority of your explanation of the view of ‘hoaxers’ and not of the specifics/facts. 4. How Many Shooters? What Weapons Where Used?: The Man In The Woods: Obviously this explanation is short and vague and totally inadequate with regard to bringing any avenue for learning about the facts of the event. The man was a police officer from ‘another town’? Which town? How did he get there before everyone else? Why was he running from the police, and when the got him why they announce they caught ‘one’? Why was he wearing camouflage pants? Was he on duty? Was he released because he was a cop from another town, with deep investigation on the matter? Who is the second man in the woods that is referred to as the ‘other one’ when he is detained by the police? I don’t know about the other three, but as for these two individuals there are many questions that remained without public explanation. What weapons were used? With all the gear Adam was wearing he would’ve have had 40lb of weight, which would inhibit his ability to conduct such a massacre profoundly, with 120lbs frame. What weapons where used is irrelevant if there is no proof either way saying an AR-15 WAS or WASN’T used inside the school during the shooting. So, How Many Shooters? What Weapons Where Used?: (evidence) has not in any way, shape, or form been debunked and is something that still needs further investigation. 5. Robbie Parker: Your entire explanation is groundless and entwined with speculation. Clearly he is responding to something someone just said to him, there are no signs of nervousness until he approaches the mic. When he approaches the mic, his persona moves into a strange and seemingly rehearsed state. Surely by his look one can see when he realized the cameras where on. Your explanation of this video cannot be considered fact as so has no relevance with regard to further understanding the facts of the matter of his mannerism during this interview. 6. Haven’t heard about this one.

  2. gf155575 Post author

    Thanks for commenting. What I wrote in this blog is partly speculation, but it’s based on what we do know for sure about the tragedy. It’s based on interviews and reports published by authorities, the limited photo evidence we do have, and the plain common sense which many hoaxer arguments sadly lack. Of course it’d appear as biased, most hoaxers disgust me due to their deadpan and careless treatment when it comes to major debates and human death. I would never defend that sort of person, but I’ve tried to be as non-biased as possible. In each of my points above, I’ve analysed the background of the hoaxer opinion, only then could I debunk those points. If I just went straight in with my views and didn’t show any regard to what I was arguing against, then that’d be completely biased. And if you think this page is biased, then read the conspiracy theorists’ comments and/or blogs on other sites. They are 100% focused on their opinion and they condescend and insult anyone who disagrees with them. Anyway…

    1) I’m sure the large majority of hoaxers don’t wish to see photos of the bodies, but some definitely do. The Sandy Hook victims’ families got a law signed last week, which stated that no gruesome crime scene photos of the school would be released, so clearly they thought there was a threat of those photos being published. As I said, I’m going by what the CT. Police are saying, and they say that the investigation at the school is still on-going (understandably so), and whilst it’s still active, they can’t release the incriminating evidence (eg. CCTV footage of Lanza). When their investigation is concluded, maybe we’ll see that. But even then, most hoaxers would just say that it’s fake footage, I doubt they’d back down. That in itself is a logical explanation as to why we’ve seen no footage of the shooting, it may not be a conclusive debunking, but it enough to be called a sensible conclusion.

    2) It wasn’t my decision that these parents were kept away from their children’s bodies, once again I’m using what we know (factually) about the incident to make my conclusions. My only speculation comes from why they were kept away. These children were shot several times with an AR-15 at point-blank range (one child was shot 11 times). Their little bodies would be almost unrecognizable after such physical trauma. I believe that, so as not to cause mental trauma to the families, the mangled remains were presented to them, but already in caskets. The final memory of their children would be them smiling, not their destroyed bodies. It’s not cold to suggest that, if anything it’s a sympathy gesture to the families. Their children were gone, the only remains were physically ruined.

    3) I don’t need to explain the whole official story, but basically it is the conclusive account which was released by authorities in the days following the shooting. The media’s presence that day made the contradictions occur, as they interviewed any eyewitness they could. Of course there’d be contradictions in that scenario, it was the aftermath of a major tragedy and everyone had different experiences. The official story/media contradictions can therefore be attributed to the chaos following the incident. But the hoaxers’ contradictions cannot. Yes, if they had all the evidence then they’d be quieter, but no one (public) has all the evidence yet, and it isn’t up to them to speculate in the mean time.

    4) The solution to the ‘multiple shooters’ theory is short but also adequate, nothing more needs to be said about it because it isn’t relevant at all. The man in the woods was confirmed as an off-duty police officer from another town, this was published in the Newtown Bee. If you want more information, read their article on it.The other three ‘suspects’ were all victims of precautionary policing, and they were all released shortly with no charge. The only reason that there is any dispute over the ‘What weapons….” argument is because of an erroneous news report by NBC the day after the tragedy. They claimed to know what weapons were used (but of course they didn’t), and it wasn’t until the CT. Police released their official account of the weapons (a month later) that the truth was uncovered. There’s no proof or solid evidence that an AR-15 wasn’t used in the school.

    Adam Lanza was carrying most of the weight in his assault vest, therefore the majority of the weight would be on his shoulders, and 40lb is a weight that almost any physically healthy adult male would be able to hold. The AR-15 would have been in his hands and that weight wouldn’t have disrupted him because he was familiar with those weapons, as his mother had given him lessons.

    5) My Robbie Parker viewpoint isn’t solely speculative. As I said, the video of his news interview nearly made me believe the hoax theory, but then I read the counter-arguments from people who had either lost a child or were trained in human psychology, and I was given my answer. Parker would have been nervous for the entire time while he was in the video, just because he didn’t show it at first doesn’t mean that he wasn’t internally nervous. Also, for his interview, he’d have been recalling all his memories of Emilie, naturally making him smile at the fond memories of his daughter. His serious face as the interview started would have been his internal nervousness reaching the surface, as he knew he was then on live TV, and he was probably trying to suppress the smile which had been present earlier. The smiling itself though is perfectly explainable and it doesn’t solely point to a hoax idea.

    6) I have seen a number of claims by Sandy Hook hoaxers that the school wasn’t a real school, and it was just an empty building being used for the ‘production’ of the fake-tragedy. Beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence I used on this page, quashes that idea.
    Full Stop.

  3. Riversong

    As an historian of REAL conspiracies, from “Remember the Maine” to the “sneak attack” on Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy and King assassinations and the 9/11 false-flag event, I am disgusted that the so-called “truth movement” has discredited itself with the patently FALSE claims of conspiracy around the Sandy Hook school rampage shooting.

    No one with any real experience in mass-casualty events would question the response or the investigation. Neither were without fault, but both were as good as could be expected under the circumstances.

    Sandy Hook: The Real Story http://riversong.wordpress.com/sandy-hook-the-real-story/

  4. Jess N.

    Hi.
    I appreciate the excellent job you’ve done here. The only point I feel that you didn’t concentrate on, was in fact, Mr. Parker’s actions before the press conference.
    I can grasp the smiling, and possibly even nervous laughing… yet, why would he literally have to make himself almost hyperventilate, to look or seem more genuine on camera? I’ve pondered the idea that maybe, the news reporter, or cameraman wanted the most dramatic portrayal possible and asked him to do that..it’s just hard for me to understand why he’d feel the need to basically play a ‘role’ by appearing so devastated if he was perhaps still in shock?

    1. gf155575 Post author

      I read the opinions of professional psychiatrists wih regards to Robbie Parker’s behaviour. I don’t know better than they do, so I sought out their opinion.

      Robbie Parker wasn’t laughing and and joking, he was smiling. And he was about to go on news cameras, that would show his image around the world! Of course he’s going to focus on getting himself mentally prepared for it. Some call it “getting into character”, me and the doctors call if “composing himself before a major interview”.

      When children die, the parents don’t stay despondent constantly, Their emotions are all over the place, and they subconsciously try to cheer themselves up. (Again this is NOT just my opinion!!). They also comfort themselves by remembering happier times that they had with their kids…they don’t solely focus on the sad moments, because that’s not how the human mind works!

      Again, it is hard to dispute this when it’s being backed up by people who studied for years to understand how humans think.

  5. Megan

    Hi! Thank you so much for this! I am doing a report on it and found your website while I was doing some research. I LOVE how you put that similar doesn’t mean the same because you are absolutely right. There are people who will try to persuade you to believe that their opinion is the right one and I appreciate how you state your opinion but its not shoving down peoples throats opinion. 🙂 I remember getting a text from KSL (another news station) when the shooting happened. We had a lock-down drill earlier that day and when I got that text it brought back memories. I was at a Charter school and there was a man who hopped the fence because he was “shooting birds”, we don’t know if thats what he was actually doing or not but we went into lockdown and he tried to get into the school. He never made it in the school which was good but it was still scary. These types of things never go away. They will haunt you for the rest of your life. It drives me nuts to see people saying that its a Hoax because its not. They can believe that but its not truth. The rumors of it being fake started a couple days after the shooting and its almost been 2 years but that doesn’t stop the rumors.
    Thanks for helping with my report! 🙂

Comments are closed.