The following video, since deleted, investigates the alleged mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012:
The video was reviewed by the popular mythbusting website, Snopes.
Snopes rejects the video's claim that the "official Sandy Hook story" is inconsistent and nebulous. But, as I write, we still do not have the suspect's motive, evidence of bloodshed, or an explanation as to why so many claims about the shooting have been inconsistent, both from official sources and the media. To date, we have heard several claims regarding the number of suspects involved in the shooting, the identity and appearance of the prime suspect and the quantity and variety of weapons allegedly used in the shooting. The media also had different reports regarding whether the father of the suspect survived, whether or not the suspect argued with school officials one day before the shooting, whether the alleged shooter entered the school in normal fashion or whether the principal survived. Sandy Hook school nurse Sarah Cox was even quoted in the media as saying that the mother of the primary suspect was a kindergarten teacher when in fact the suspect's mother was apparently never employed at the school. Moreover, nothing has linked the suspect to the school or the shooting except the media's claim that he is linked. Small wonder the public is skeptical. And, no, Snopes has not debunked the claim that the "official Sandy Hook story" is inconsistent and nebulous; in fact, the "official Sandy Hook story" is demonstratively inconsistent and nebulous.
The video also investigates the possibility of "multiple shooters", but Snopes claims the man detained by police outside the school was released and the "multiple shooter" theory ends there. The man, identified as Chris Manfredonia, had entered school premises to try to reach his daughter, according to reports. But it appears that more than one man was detained on the scene. One man, captured on helicopter video, ran into the woods and according to police was "charging" at them. This is the man who has stirred up a great deal of public suspicion. He may or may not have been "camo pants man", who we are told was an off-duty special ops agent who just happened to be moving by the school when the alleged shooting occurred. Snopes suggestion to close the book on the theory is not acceptable unless Manfredonia, the police-charger and camo pants man were all the same person, and Snopes never addresses the issue. So, again, Snopes has not "debunked" anything.
Snopes dismisses the video's contention that there is a controversy over who owned the car driven by the shooting suspect.Snopes assumes that the public is still stuck on the fact that one police officer inquired about the suspect vehicle on the police radio at the same time that another officer had radioed in for information on "Christopher Rodia" (who had allegedly been stopped for a traffic violation) and the transmissions overlapped on the same radio frequency, so it sounds like they go together. Snopes suggests that the explanation in the CT Post resolves the controversy. But Snopes and the CT Post merely claim that the car allegedly used by the shooting suspect belonged to a "family member" of the suspect. The only way to confirm a vehicle owner is to identify to whom the vehicle is registered; cars are not registered to "family members", they are registered to people, under specific names. So, is there a reason why the press or police are withholding that name or refusing to modifying it just to indicate the relation, and instead saying the car belongs to a "family member"? Perhaps this is a measure to protect the privacy of an unnamed individual and prevent vigilante justice, or even limit the liability of the press and police for disclosing the name. That's fine. But, if your objective is to "debunk", maybe you should mention that the owner is family, name withheld, since it builds credibility.
Snopes does not agree with the video's contention that, after the alleged shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary looked more like a movie set than an actual crime scene. But here's what Sandy Hook Elementary looked like: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2ITHV6k-U); the road is jammed by "crisis responders" in a way that emergency vehicles could not have passed through. There are no evacuated school children to be found. The only group of people anywhere in sight are the individuals who are walking around in circles at the nearby firehouse. This is where the ambulances are parked, incidentally, with their doors left open. The paramedics are doing nothing. Where are the bloodied victims, active ambulances, and other concrete evidence of human emotion in the midst of disaster response? All of these questions come to mind when one compares the Sandy Hook videos to the footage captured after other school shootings, such as the shooting at Columbine (https://youtube/AQ7BA0lj2u0), or the school shooting in Brazil (https://youtube/3id88P6xlUk). Snopes' unsubstantiated dismissal of this argument is second only to Snopes' assertion that it has "debunked" all criticism.
Snopes admits that the memorial page for Sandy Hook was listed on Google with a creation date prior to the shooting, but calls this merely an archiving flaw by Google. Snopes demonstrates how the same flaw can occur in the archiving of other pages on Google. But a host of Facebook posts, web pages and even tweets on Twitter have been found memorializing the shooting on dates which pre-date the actual shooting. None of these points are addressed. (see: here)
The Snopes report concludes that "the video does not document that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax." But the video never claimed to document that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax. In fact, the video never declares to do anything; it merely analyzes the claims, coming from official sources and mainstream media, regarding what is said to have happened. Thus, Snopes' condescending stamp of disapproval is deceptive and manipulative, urging the public to write off something for not doing something that it never claimed to do in the first place. Moreover, Snopes does not even touch upon some of the things mentioned in the film. For example, once the first alleged casualty was named (Natalie Hammond), why did her struggle to recover not become a major news story? And why were no other survivors named? We've seen it again and again, most recently after the Columbine shooting; the media knows that "good stories" tied into tragic news stories generate at least as much public interest as the tragic news stories themselves. Should we assume that the media simply had a change of heart? The Snopes article also fails to mention the absence of photos from bystanders, the Sandy Hook memorial site using a random girl's photo from Google images to represent a victim of the shooting, the "100+ rounds fired" in the "official Sandy Hook story", the lack of security footage where we are told the suspect had tried to purchase a weapon and, lastly, the mystery as to why cars with bullet holes were found in back of the Sandy Hook parking lot, facing away from the school. All of these points are tied to the contentions in the film, such as conflicting media accounts, and have generated a great deal of skepticism from the public regarding the official Sandy Hook shooting story.
While none of this is the "smoking gun" that turns the official Sandy Hook story on its head, one must ask: why is the public being attacked for the investigation team and mainstream media's failure to do its job? To put it in even more easily-understandable terms: if I want you to believe that I am in Alaska right now, is it up to me to prove it, or up to you to find evidence to the contrary?
People should not be ridiculed for wanting irrefutable evidence - especially after the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Vietnam, the Iran Contra affair and, most recently, the media blitz about Iraq and its alleged "weapons of mass destruction", a lie that was used to get the U.S. involved in Iraq. I still recall U.S. President George W. Bush trying to use the American adage ("fool me once...) in a speech to secure support for the plan to attack Iraq in view of 9/11 and the alleged weapons of mass destruction. Well, we are still waiting for those weapons to turn up and justify the lost lives.
Our eyes are wide open because you have betrayed our trust; don't expect us to close them now or anytime soon. And you pieces of shit in the mainstream media and politics brought this onto yourselves.
The video was reviewed by the popular mythbusting website, Snopes.
Snopes rejects the video's claim that the "official Sandy Hook story" is inconsistent and nebulous. But, as I write, we still do not have the suspect's motive, evidence of bloodshed, or an explanation as to why so many claims about the shooting have been inconsistent, both from official sources and the media. To date, we have heard several claims regarding the number of suspects involved in the shooting, the identity and appearance of the prime suspect and the quantity and variety of weapons allegedly used in the shooting. The media also had different reports regarding whether the father of the suspect survived, whether or not the suspect argued with school officials one day before the shooting, whether the alleged shooter entered the school in normal fashion or whether the principal survived. Sandy Hook school nurse Sarah Cox was even quoted in the media as saying that the mother of the primary suspect was a kindergarten teacher when in fact the suspect's mother was apparently never employed at the school. Moreover, nothing has linked the suspect to the school or the shooting except the media's claim that he is linked. Small wonder the public is skeptical. And, no, Snopes has not debunked the claim that the "official Sandy Hook story" is inconsistent and nebulous; in fact, the "official Sandy Hook story" is demonstratively inconsistent and nebulous.
The video also investigates the possibility of "multiple shooters", but Snopes claims the man detained by police outside the school was released and the "multiple shooter" theory ends there. The man, identified as Chris Manfredonia, had entered school premises to try to reach his daughter, according to reports. But it appears that more than one man was detained on the scene. One man, captured on helicopter video, ran into the woods and according to police was "charging" at them. This is the man who has stirred up a great deal of public suspicion. He may or may not have been "camo pants man", who we are told was an off-duty special ops agent who just happened to be moving by the school when the alleged shooting occurred. Snopes suggestion to close the book on the theory is not acceptable unless Manfredonia, the police-charger and camo pants man were all the same person, and Snopes never addresses the issue. So, again, Snopes has not "debunked" anything.
Snopes dismisses the video's contention that there is a controversy over who owned the car driven by the shooting suspect.Snopes assumes that the public is still stuck on the fact that one police officer inquired about the suspect vehicle on the police radio at the same time that another officer had radioed in for information on "Christopher Rodia" (who had allegedly been stopped for a traffic violation) and the transmissions overlapped on the same radio frequency, so it sounds like they go together. Snopes suggests that the explanation in the CT Post resolves the controversy. But Snopes and the CT Post merely claim that the car allegedly used by the shooting suspect belonged to a "family member" of the suspect. The only way to confirm a vehicle owner is to identify to whom the vehicle is registered; cars are not registered to "family members", they are registered to people, under specific names. So, is there a reason why the press or police are withholding that name or refusing to modifying it just to indicate the relation, and instead saying the car belongs to a "family member"? Perhaps this is a measure to protect the privacy of an unnamed individual and prevent vigilante justice, or even limit the liability of the press and police for disclosing the name. That's fine. But, if your objective is to "debunk", maybe you should mention that the owner is family, name withheld, since it builds credibility.
Snopes does not agree with the video's contention that, after the alleged shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary looked more like a movie set than an actual crime scene. But here's what Sandy Hook Elementary looked like: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2ITHV6k-U); the road is jammed by "crisis responders" in a way that emergency vehicles could not have passed through. There are no evacuated school children to be found. The only group of people anywhere in sight are the individuals who are walking around in circles at the nearby firehouse. This is where the ambulances are parked, incidentally, with their doors left open. The paramedics are doing nothing. Where are the bloodied victims, active ambulances, and other concrete evidence of human emotion in the midst of disaster response? All of these questions come to mind when one compares the Sandy Hook videos to the footage captured after other school shootings, such as the shooting at Columbine (https://youtube/AQ7BA0lj2u0), or the school shooting in Brazil (https://youtube/3id88P6xlUk). Snopes' unsubstantiated dismissal of this argument is second only to Snopes' assertion that it has "debunked" all criticism.
Snopes admits that the memorial page for Sandy Hook was listed on Google with a creation date prior to the shooting, but calls this merely an archiving flaw by Google. Snopes demonstrates how the same flaw can occur in the archiving of other pages on Google. But a host of Facebook posts, web pages and even tweets on Twitter have been found memorializing the shooting on dates which pre-date the actual shooting. None of these points are addressed. (see: here)
The Snopes report concludes that "the video does not document that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax." But the video never claimed to document that the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were a staged hoax. In fact, the video never declares to do anything; it merely analyzes the claims, coming from official sources and mainstream media, regarding what is said to have happened. Thus, Snopes' condescending stamp of disapproval is deceptive and manipulative, urging the public to write off something for not doing something that it never claimed to do in the first place. Moreover, Snopes does not even touch upon some of the things mentioned in the film. For example, once the first alleged casualty was named (Natalie Hammond), why did her struggle to recover not become a major news story? And why were no other survivors named? We've seen it again and again, most recently after the Columbine shooting; the media knows that "good stories" tied into tragic news stories generate at least as much public interest as the tragic news stories themselves. Should we assume that the media simply had a change of heart? The Snopes article also fails to mention the absence of photos from bystanders, the Sandy Hook memorial site using a random girl's photo from Google images to represent a victim of the shooting, the "100+ rounds fired" in the "official Sandy Hook story", the lack of security footage where we are told the suspect had tried to purchase a weapon and, lastly, the mystery as to why cars with bullet holes were found in back of the Sandy Hook parking lot, facing away from the school. All of these points are tied to the contentions in the film, such as conflicting media accounts, and have generated a great deal of skepticism from the public regarding the official Sandy Hook shooting story.
While none of this is the "smoking gun" that turns the official Sandy Hook story on its head, one must ask: why is the public being attacked for the investigation team and mainstream media's failure to do its job? To put it in even more easily-understandable terms: if I want you to believe that I am in Alaska right now, is it up to me to prove it, or up to you to find evidence to the contrary?
People should not be ridiculed for wanting irrefutable evidence - especially after the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Vietnam, the Iran Contra affair and, most recently, the media blitz about Iraq and its alleged "weapons of mass destruction", a lie that was used to get the U.S. involved in Iraq. I still recall U.S. President George W. Bush trying to use the American adage ("fool me once...) in a speech to secure support for the plan to attack Iraq in view of 9/11 and the alleged weapons of mass destruction. Well, we are still waiting for those weapons to turn up and justify the lost lives.
Our eyes are wide open because you have betrayed our trust; don't expect us to close them now or anytime soon. And you pieces of shit in the mainstream media and politics brought this onto yourselves.
