Refuting Wolfgang Halbig, a Sandy Hook “truther”

02Mar14

A few days ago a reader forwarded me a story about a former police officer and teacher, who “served as an expert in the Columbine and other school shootings”, and is now claiming the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre never happened.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/02/26/sandy-hook-massacre-contrived-event-says-former-state-trooper-wolfgang-halbig/

This man, Wolfgang Halbig, released an interview in which he listed numerous pieces of evidence which “prove” the event was fabricated. Halbig is a former state trooper and customs agent, plus a onetime educator and apparently a school safety official in Seminole County, Florida. His claims are inflaming those who already believed Sandy Hook was a hoax and pushing those on the fence into the conspiracy camp.

If Halbig’s bio has been reported correctly, it’s pretty impressive. One would think Halbig knows what he’s talking about. If I hadn’t read his list of supposed holes in the story, I might’ve thought he understood school shootings. I’ve Googled Halbig and seen many websites citing his claims, but no refutation from him; in other words, as far as I can tell he did say the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. If he did say that, he’s an idiot; impressive background or not, Halbig doesn’t seem to know the least bit about the realities of school shootings.

Now, a little about me. I’m not a school shooting expert. But I am a 20 year police officer who spent most of my time on night shift patrol in rough areas. I served several years as an adjunct Active Shooter instructor, teaching other officers how to respond to mass shootings. As an instructor I attended advanced active shooter training and played the role of the suspect in numerous exercises. I’m also a 25 year veteran of the Marine Reserve and Army National Guard, and served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a pretty good background in tactics and a decent appreciation of the dynamics of mass shootings.

I’m going to address Halbig’s list of supposed Sandy Hook inaccuracies one by one. I’d ask you to consider my points, compare my background with Halbig’s, and decide for yourself if Halbig’s claims hold any water.

HALBIG’S LIST OF CLAIMS, AND MY REFUTATIONS

Point 1: “When the police arrived at Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) that morning, they parked ¼ mile from the school’s front door instead of doing what first responders are supposed to do in an active shooter event, which is to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible so as to save as many lives as possible.”

When the official Sandy Hook report was released, I also heard rumors of officers parking a quarter mile away. But some of the responding officers have publicly stated they stopped in the school parking lot, rather than a faraway safe spot.

“They made it in under three minutes, arriving in the parking lot while gunfire could still be heard. ‘I got out of the car and grabbed my rifle and it stopped for a second,’ Officer Chapman said. ‘But then we heard more popping. You could tell it was rifle fire. And it was up so close, it sounded like it was coming from outside. So we were all looking around for someone to shoot back at.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/nyregion/horrors-of-newtown-shooting-scene-are-slow-to-fade.html

Are those officers lying? I highly doubt it. I’ve worked for three police departments, two tiny and one which was among the largest in the country. I’ve also worked with police officers from all over the world as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. One thing I know about the vast majority of American cops: when shots are being fired, we charge toward them. One of the proudest moments of my police career occurred in Kosovo. A local police officer was shot at a hotel, and frantic radio reports rang out. I sprinted toward the hotel. Officers from some other countries weren’t too eager to approach that hotel, and a few went the other way. But Americans charged straight into the danger, as I’ve seen them do over and over here in America. I don’t believe for a moment that police officers in Newtown, upon hearing reports of a school massacre, all chose to park a safe distance away.

Besides that, the official report says this: “Upon the receipt of the first 911 call, law enforcement was immediately dispatched to the school. It was fewer than four minutes from the time the first 911 call was received until the first police officer arrived at SHES. It was fewer than five minutes from the time the first 911 call was received until the shooter killed himself. It was fewer than six minutes from the time the first police officer arrived on SHES property to the time the first police officer entered the school building.”

Doesn’t sound to me like officers had to run a quarter mile from their cars to the school.

Point 2: “Paramedics and EMTs (emergency medical technicians) were not allowed to enter the school. Instead they were kept waiting in the Sandy Hook fire station nearby, 500 yards down the road from SHES.”

This is kind of a “Wow, no kidding” statement. EMS protocol has traditionally been to remain out of the immediate danger area until it’s been declared safe by law enforcement. So it’s believable that EMS wasn’t allowed into the school until police cleared it. Whether that was a bad call or not (I think it was), it’s not the least bit suspicious.

Point 3: “Trauma helicopters, which can provide the quickest and best medical services in an emergency, were not sent to Sandy Hook. Life Star, the medical helicopter service at Danbury Hospital’s Trauma Center, told Halbig ‘we were never called, never asked.’”

In decades as a cop, having been on many shootings, stabbings and major accidents, I can only recall medical helicopters being called in on a few occasions. Helicopters require cleared landing zones, which often means clearing traffic from vital roads. This can’t always be done in an urban area, or at least it can’t always be done quickly. Transportation by road is sometimes faster than by air, when the time needed to get the helicopters into the air, clear a landing zone and move casualties to the LZ is taken into account. Ground ambulances can usually get casualties to a closeby hospital before a helicopter can be brought in.

And there are only so many helicopters available. Even if they had been called, some (maybe most) of the casualties would have been transported by ground anyway.

Point 4: “Where were the ambulances to transport the wounded to hospitals?”

Didn’t he just answer his own question? The ambulances were at the Newtown fire station, as mentioned in point 2.

Point 5: “Why did police declare 26 people to be dead within the first 11 minutes of the shooting, when according to Connecticut law, only a doctor can declare someone to be legally dead?”

What difference does that make? I’ve been on plenty of scenes where cops declared someone “DRT”, meaning “Dead Right There”. That’s not an official pronouncement, it’s the officer reporting what’s obvious to him or her. I once found a man who had been dead in his house for at least a week, and I reported him dead on the radio. The man was badly decomposed, obviously dead, but someone else still had to make the official pronouncement. On another call we had someone decapitated by an air bag. Yes we called them dead, and yes someone else had to make the official pronouncement. That’s not suspicious, it’s just legal procedure.

Point 6: “Why did the FBI classify the Sandy Hook massacre? This has never been done before. Even the Columbine School massacre was not classified information. To this day, the FBI report on Sandy Hook remains classified information, not releasable to the public.”

I don’t know anything about the FBI’s report. I do know that the FBI’s report isn’t the determining factor in whether or not this incident really happened. Local and state officers responded and investigated, and their report has been released. Some of the responding officers have spoken publicly about the incident. Radio and 911 transcripts have been released. Parents have made statements. So if the FBI doesn’t release their report, suddenly the entire incident was faked?

Point 7: “Why did the State of Connecticut wait ELEVEN whole months to issue its official final report on the Sandy Hook shootings to the American public? Note that the final report does not include the FBI’s still-classified report.”

Why did the investigation take eleven months? Probably because it was extremely complicated, with two murder scenes, one of which was more complex than any those officers had previously encountered. And that each of the twenty-seven murders had to be individually and exhaustively detailed. And that there was no rush to finish, because there was nobody alive to prosecute, so no concern about a “speedy trial”. And that the investigators knew their report would be torn apart by legions of “truthers” intent on exploiting anything from typographical errors to 30-second timeline mistakes.

So officers took a long time to issue a report on one of the worst tragedies America has ever experienced? It’s a conspiracy! And what would have happened if they had issued the report quickly? “Truthers” would have considered that evidence the entire incident was pre-planned, with the report written beforehand.

Point 8: “Police transmissions don’t lie because they are made by sworn and trained law enforcement officers. On the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, recorded police transmissions said ‘We have multiple weapons inside the [SH] classroom — a rifle and a shotgun.’ But nobody could find the shotgun in the school. Instead, a shotgun was found in the black Honda parked outside the school.”

Oh, brother. This statement makes me question Halbig’s exalted background as a police officer. Any cop who has been on more than one dangerous, adrenaline-charged scene knows officers make mistakes. Suspects are misidentified. People see things that aren’t really there. Cops call out bad directions (I was famous for that). Someone yells something that turns out to not be true and others repeat it. How many officers have reported seeing a weapon, suspicious object, suspicious person or whatever, and later found out they were wrong? Does anyone recall the search for the nonexistent third suspect at the North Hollywood Shootout?

A friend of mine arrived on a disturbance one night. Within seconds of arriving he was on the radio saying, “We really need an ambulance. I have a guy here with his eyeball hanging out, I think he’s been shot in the head.” When I arrived the ambulance was leaving, just as officers entered an apartment searching for the suspect. One of the officers had a shotgun. We found the suspect, and determined he had kicked the victim repeatedly in the head with cowboy boots. No gun was involved.

I went to the hospital to check on the victim. The paramedics who transported him not only told the emergency room staff that the victim had been shot in the head, but that “shots were still being fired when we were leaving the scene.” When I found the victim in a shock room, a doctor was standing over him explaining to a group of doctors in training, “Looks like the entry wound is here and exit is here. We’re going to treat him with [etc. etc.]”. I told the doctor he hadn’t been shot, he had been kicked in the head. The doctor was surprised. Later he told me I was right, there was no gunshot wound. And what the officer thought was an eyeball was actually a flap of forehead skin that had been torn free and was hanging over the victim’s face.

When I talked to the paramedics later, it turned out one of them had spread the “they were shooting as we left” story. He just got scared; he had a patient who looked like he had been shot, he saw officers with pistols and a shotgun going into an apartment, and perceived something that simply didn’t happen. Paramedics are just as professional as cops, just as interested in determining facts. But this one made a gigantic mistake, which was then repeated by several other people including a doctor. Professionals screw up sometimes.

I haven’t heard the radio traffic about two weapons, but if it happened, so what? I’m not the least bit surprised an officer called out something that turned out to be incorrect. It happens all the time. And it’s usually a result of adrenaline, fear, confusion, conflicting witness reports and everything else that cops encounter at high-stress scenes. If Halbig doesn’t know that, then I suspect that during his time as a “cop” he rode a desk far more than a patrol car.

Besides that, it’s pretty damn ridiculous for Halbig to cite the professionalism of police officers while simultaneously accusing every police officer involved in the Sandy Hook investigation of being part of this “conspiracy”.

Point 9: “At 9:45 AM that day, a police officer found a surviving kindergarten-aged girl in the hallway. The officer sent her back into Room 8 — a crime scene with students and teachers shot dead. What police officer would do that?”

Probably an officer who thought, “The room we just searched is clear, but the rest of the school isn’t. I don’t have extra people around to guard this girl or take her to safety. And there may be a suspect still loose in the school. So I should send her back into a safe room, and report her location on the radio.” Ordering her back into that room was probably the best bad option out of a list of bad options.

This comment reminds me of a debate I had before I deployed to Iraq. According to traditional military doctrine, you never, under any circumstances, evacuated a wounded soldier with a dead soldier. In the early years of the Iraq War some soldiers tried to hold on to that doctrine. But it didn’t always make sense. If a Humvee was hit by an IED and all the crewmen were killed or wounded, and they were under small arms fire, it wouldn’t make sense to have other soldiers make multiple trips into the kill zone when they can evacuate everyone at once. You make one trip in, load everyone you can, and get out. Sometimes war just sucks, and you have to do what you have to do.

In active shooter situations, we expect to step over the dead and ignore wounded who are screaming in agony and begging for help. We can expect some of those wounded to be women and children. The first officers on scene have to focus on finding the shooter and stopping the killing; if that means we have to send a little girl into a room full of dead people because it’s the only safe place, that’s what we have to do. In a situation where everything sucks, sometimes we have to make the least sucky decision. That’s the brutal reality.

Point 10: “Similarly, that morning, two Connecticut state troopers entered Room 10 and found an unharmed boy hiding in the bathroom. The troopers ordered the boy to stay in the room — a room with dead people. ‘That’s not police protocol.’”

See my above comment. Sure, that’s not protocol. So what? Does Halbig, with his alleged police background, think cops or anyone else always follow protocol? Amazingly enough, sometimes people don’t exactly follow the training they’ve received. I’m sure everyone reading this would be shocked – shocked! – to hear that teenagers still drive like idiots even after being taught not to. Or that soldiers don’t always hit their targets even after extensive marksmanship training. Or that cops, in the most terrifying, intense, chaotic, confusing scene they’ve ever been on, when they’re experiencing survival stress reactions like tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time speeding up or slowing down, enhanced visual acuity and loss of manual dexterity, might not follow their training to the letter.

Cops are human. I can pretty much guarantee that none of officers at Newtown had responded to anything like the Sandy Hook massacre before. In the heat of the moment, they didn’t exactly follow protocol. Surprised? Me neither.

Point 11: “’Having investigated and given expert testimony on many school shootings, Halbig says ‘I know what tears look like.’ But the parents of slain Sandy Hook children, as we’ve noted here on FOTM, did not cry. (In the now famous case of Robbie Parker, the father of allegedly slain 6-year-old Emilie, he went from laughing and joking to pretending to choke back tears in the blink of an eye.)”

No joke? Not a single parent of a murdered child from Sandy Hook cried? Who the hell are these people then?
article-sandyhook3-0114

parents_cry_20121214170203_640_480

President_Obama_speaks_about_shooting_at_162710000_20121214165119_640_480

And I’d like to know how Halbig or anyone else knows the parent mentioned above was “pretending to choke back tears”. I’ve been around plenty of family members of murder victims, and it’s not unusual for them to go through intense mood swings.

Point 12: “Sandy Hook’s medical examiner Dr. Wayne Carver refused to let the parents see the bodies of their slain children, and instead gave them photos of the bodies, which is ‘unheard of.’ Halbig knows about the inconsolable grief of parents and is himself a parent. Parents whose children had been shot dead ‘would kick the door down’ demanding to see the bodies.”

I’ve never been on a scene where family members were allowed to see the bodies of murder victims. When the bodies are still where they fell, the area around them needs to remain as undisturbed as possible in order to preserve evidence. Until a body is examined and autopsied, the body itself is evidence that needs to be preserved. People not involved in the investigation aren’t allowed to see murder victims at will, they generally won’t see the body until it’s released to a funeral home after the autopsy.

And reasonable people don’t go kicking doors down to see dead bodies. Yes, I’ve been involved in a murder investigation where a mob did try to reach a dead body at an emergency room, and I know of another case where a mob chased a hearse with a dead accident victim to a funeral home. Neither of those cases involved reasonable people. I’ve been on many other murder scenes where family members patiently followed our every instruction, even if they were distraught.

Point 13: “Why was Sandy Hook Elementary School torn down? This is not the case with any of the other schools where shootings had taken place, including Columbine School.”

In this case, the community decided they didn’t want to continue using the school where 20 children and 6 educators were murdered. I don’t find that particularly surprising. Columbine High School wasn’t torn down, but its library, where the majority of victims died, was walled off.

Point 14: “Who installed the new security system at SHES? This should be a matter of public record.”

If it was a contract made by the city, then I imagine it is a matter of public record. What difference does that make? The security system didn’t enable or stop the massacre, and the school’s locked doors were an easily surmountable obstacle to Lanza. If we don’t know who installed the security system, does that signify something?

Point 15: “The shooting-to-death of 26 people would leave 45-60 gallons of blood. Who cleaned it up? What biohazard company was hired to clean the crime scene?”

Wait…what? According to medicinenet.com, a 150-pound body contains approximately 5.5 quarts of blood. With 26 victims that’s 143 quarts. Four quarts make a gallon, so 143 quarts of blood equals 35.75 gallons. And that’s if they were all adults. Children’s bodies hold less blood.

But that doesn’t matter, because when people are shot to death all their blood doesn’t automatically drain from their bodies. Halbig has either never been on a shooting murder scene or he’s completely forgotten what they look like. People bleed out because they have massive injuries and their hearts pump blood out from those injuries. When the heart stops pumping, the blood loss stops. I’ve seen some big pools of blood, but other than in a few serial murderer cases never heard of a murder victim being totally drained of blood.

Yes, that would have been a hell of a mess to clean up, even without the mythical “45-60 gallons of blood”. Was it cleaned up afterward? I don’t know. The school was never reopened, so did it need to be cleaned?

Point 16: “Why is there not even one lawsuit by a Sandy Hook parent against SHES for negligence? Halbig has never ever seen a school shooting without parents suing the school for negligence.”

Is it possible the parents really don’t blame the school for the mentally ill murderer who shot his way through locked doors, killed educators who tried to save their children, then murdered as many people as he could before shooting himself?

Point 17: “Why are there so many fund-raisers for the Sandy Hook shootings? Halbig: ‘I’ve never seen so many fund-raisers’ in the case of Sandy Hook. One fundraising alone, by United Way, netted $17 million, from which ‘every [SH] parent got a big chunk of money.’”

Okay. People donated funds to assist families whose children were brutally murdered. Obviously the incident never happened, because the United Way and others raised money. This proves that United Way was involved in the conspiracy.

I’m just not seeing a reason to throw out a conspiracy flag because Americans raised money to help families who had just suffered unimaginable tragedy.

Point 18: “Alleged shooter Adam Lanza, 20, is said to have Asperger syndrome — a high-functioning (in academics) form of austism. Halbig points out, however, that like those with autism, children with Asperger have ‘very very poor motor skills’ and ‘very poor muscle tone.’ How did Asperger-afflicted Adam Lanza with ‘very poor muscle tone’ carry a rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, and bullets? How did Asperger-afflicted Adam Lanza with ‘very very poor motor skills’ shoot 26 people dead — not wounded — in less than five minutes, firing one bullet roughly every two seconds?”

Unfortunately, I know a lot about autism. My youngest son is moderately autistic. Anyone who thinks everyone on the autism spectrum is affected the same doesn’t understand autism. Yes, some people with autism have poor muscle tone and poor motor skills. That doesn’t mean they can’t operate a weapon. My five year old son could probably hold and fire a rifle (his motor skills are just fine, by the way). There is no reason to believe Lanza was so weak physically that he couldn’t operate a rifle, or carry spare ammunition.

And does Halbig, who is supposed to be such an expert on school shootings, really think anyone needs real weapon-handling skills to murder a bunch of unarmed children? All they need to do is operate the weapon. Unarmed children, especially kindergarteners, aren’t going to do anything more than run or hide. Many would probably freeze in disbelief. Unarmed adults aren’t real hard to kill either, as we’ve seen in many active shooter incidents. Shooting defenseless, terrified people at close range doesn’t require Delta Force skills or even average physical strength.

Besides that, we already know children with little strength can operate an “assault rifle”. We’ve seen pictures and videos of it.

Halbig’s conclusions: “’In my professional opinion [as a school safety consultant], I suspect Sandy Hook was a scripted event that took place, in the planning for two or 2½ years.’…Halbig does not believe any child was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

Halbig sounds like a typical “truther”; he assumes our government, the same government absolutely incapable of even putting a health care website together, can pull off a gigantic conspiracy requiring thousands of willing participants. And these participants wouldn’t all be shadowy, ghostlike federal government Jason Bourne spies, either. Local cops and firefighters, the very people who serve and live in the small community where the massacre was “staged”, would have to willingly lie to the entire nation about it. Children who attended the school would have to lie. All the teachers would have to lie. Local officials would have to willingly play along with a narrative they know is false. People who live near the school would have to lie about hearing gunfire and having children knocking on their doors asking for help. And all these various disparate people, all the cops, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, neighbors, parents, reporters, all the thousands of people associated with the incident, are all in on the conspiracy? They were all part of this “scripted event”, they all knew in advance it was fake? Or did they spontaneously jump into the conspiracy at the first opportunity?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many people did immediately recognize an opportunity to exploit the tragedy for political gain. Some of them doubtless believe in the morality of their cause, some others probably see it as a way to consolidate their own or their party’s power. But exploiting a tragedy isn’t the same thing as faking it.

The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe a bunch of regular, everyday Americans are lying about this. Why would they? Why would guys just like the cops I’ve served with for decades, teachers like my mom, sister and wife, and paramedics like the guys I’ve seen frantically trying to save strangers on many scenes, willingly lie about this? According to Halbig and every truther who agrees with him, not a single child died at Sandy Hook that day. So every cop on that scene lied about dead children they knew weren’t there. Every paramedic who claimed to have treated a victim knows there were no victims. Every neighbor who reported hearing gunfire knows not a shot was fired. Everyone who worked at Sandy Hook, every student there, knows nobody was murdered. But they’re all in on the lie anyway. Because they all passionately want gun control. Or something like that.

Halbig is reportedly going to travel to Newtown himself, so he can ask questions “eyeball to eyeball”. I’d highly suggest he carry a first aid kit. Because if I had lost a son or daughter at Sandy Hook, and some “truther” came around accusing me of lying about the brutal murder of my own child, I know exactly how I’d react.

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com, Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7

Advertisements


932 Responses to “Refuting Wolfgang Halbig, a Sandy Hook “truther””

  1. 1 RandyGC

    My first question to truthers postulating a deep government conspiracy of any type is “why are you still breathing?”. Such a dark conspiracy would be willing and able to arrange any number of “accidents” and “suicides”. I know if I was in charge of security for such an evil operation, Mr Halbig would be forgotten memory by now.

    I have a much more limited experience with public safety communications and Incident Response than you do, but your thought paths correlate with my experience. No idea how things work in Mr Halbig’s universe.

    The radio traffic he highlights and the stories from your background do confirm a truism we use in my office during the early stages of an incident: “first reports are always wrong”. Maybe not in all details, but some of the details will be misunderstood, transcribed improperly, or flat out wrong due to the reasons you list.

    • I agree. For being an almighty, all-capable organization, this shadowy government organization in charge of 9/11, Newtown and the Boston bombing sure does suck at silencing the intrepid internet investigators who are making such a show of exposing it.

      And also agreed on the “first reports are always wrong” comment. I find it ridiculous that some of these truthers actually point to inaccurate media reporting as evidence of a conspiracy. If that’s the case, almost everything the media has ever reported on has been a conspiracy.

      • 3 Stevo

        With moron lemmings like you 2 , why bother..

      • 8 Ken

        It’s so obvious you shills are heating up the disinfo machine because the Sandy Hoax BS story has fallen apart. It’s actually humorous to see.

        It’s ridiculously obvious that this is a shill site. THE PROOF is that when I typed Wolfgang’s name in to Google, this shitty little disinfo site came up as the 2nd link, right after his FB page.

        Why don’t you clowns just erect a flashing neon sign saying :Sand Hoax Shill Site” Bwah ha ha ha ha …….you jackoffs aren’t changing any minds because it’s clear you’re disinfo shills,

        But, it’s good to see you disinfo punks getting deployed. That means the real perps behind this HOAX are getting very nervous.

        • Sure, this is a shill site. Of course, I’m being paid to spew government propaganda. It couldn’t be that, oh, I actually know something about murders and school shootings, and disagree with almost everything Halbig has to say about this one. No, I simply *must* be a paid shill.

          You guys are amazing (and by that, I mean pathetic). If anyone disagrees with you, they’re “shills”. Or hacks. Or Zionists. Or part of the conspiracy. Or all of the above. It’s just not possible anyone could have a different viewpoint than you do. Especially not anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

          Most conspiracists I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with had zero knowledge, experience or training in the fields they’re preaching BS about. How about you? Do you have any actual experience whatsoever with this subject?

          And sure, I’ve been “deployed”. Someone put me up to writing this. You’re such an amazing conspiracy investigator, you somehow figured it out despite the fact that there is zero evidence to suggest it. You’re right, the Zionists/NWO/Illuminati called me, in panic, and begged me to write this. Because they’re terrified their entire hoax is about to fall apart.

          Good god, man. You are the most amazing internet conspiracy investigator on the planet. Which puts you right about even with the best trained monkey. Except that the monkey doesn’t buy into unbelievable bullshit.

          Tell you what, as soon as this vast conspiracy does fall apart, make sure you let me know. I’m sure it’ll fall apart right around the same time the JFK assassination conspiracy falls apart. And the moon landing conspiracy. And the 9/11 conspiracy. And the Boston Bombing conspiracy. They’ll all fall apart any second now. I’m waiting for it to happen… still waiting… still waiting…

          And by the way, thanks for letting me know my essay comes up second. It’s nice to see that my disinformation and propaganda efforts have been so successful. Your reading and commenting here has helped make that happen, so I owe you one. 🙂

          • 10 Shill Killer

            Hey shill boy, YOU’RE SHITTY LITTLE SITE IS NOW COMING UP BEFORE WOLGANGS OWN FB PAGE……Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ……

            AGAIN, WHY NOT JUST PUT UP A FLASHING NEON SIGN SAYING “THIS SHITTY LITTLE, CIA FUNDED SHILL SITE IS NOW BEING PROMOTED TO THE NUMBER ONE SEARCH LINK FOR WOLGANG HALBIG WHEN SOMEONES SEARCHES GOOGLE/CIA.

            Good God. You clowns are so blatant it’s actually humorous…ha ha ha ha ha ha …..You will have zero effect. I won’t waste anymore time here.

            I urge SH truth researchers to leave this site to the shills.

            This is a well known tactic. They want you to focus energy battling a neon sign flashing SHILL SITE. Don’t do it.

            These clowns are internet actors in the way the SH parents etc were. Let them have their fake conversations with each other while we provide financial and legal support for Wolf.

          • Damn it! I’ve been outed as a CIA plant! Now I have to fire my handlers and invent a new identity!

            I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for you meddling truthers!

            Once again, I must praise your investigative prowess. You found out my site is actually funded by the CIA, which I didn’t even know.

            How much does the CIA pay me? I haven’t seen a dime, so them bastards better send a check, pronto.

            Oh, and I respectfully add my voice to your request that “SH truth researchers” leave my site. Pretty much all you “researchers” have done is make accusations with no ass at all behind them (“You’re a shill! You’re funded by the CIA! You’re part of the conspiracy!”).

            But now I have to drop the serious talk, and be funny for a moment…

            You call me a shill and claim I’m being funded by the CIA.Yet you’re sending money to Halbig?

            HAHAHAHAHA!

            Please, keep sending him money. In fact, send him your entire life savings.

            And please, waste no more time on my site. That will make us both happy.

          • 12 djstcroix

            Absolutely beautiful sir. I salute you. May god bless you and your family.

        • 13 Redblues

          I have been a paid Government Shill my entire life. I’ve lived in Connecticut for decades now only because the government paid me to. We’ve all been planning the mass murder in Sandy Hook since before i was even born. That’s why I live down the road from Newtown, because they pay me. They also pay me to volunteer as an EMT, pay me to stay married to the individual who introduced me to the friends who were in the building during the shootings & paid me to join the same ambulance corps where one of the victims was an explorer, paid me to sign on for shifts with a medic who’s Newtown crew was on scene that day. Sigh. It only took the infinite, sharp-eyed wisdom of a basement dwelling troofer WHO THINKS TYPING ALL IN CAPS MAKES ONE SOUND WISE AND INFORMED, AND AUTOMATICALLY MAKES ONE RIGHT, NO MATTER HOW ILL-INFORMED AND INSANE to see right through me! Why, I’m crushed! Also, I haven’t gotten one dime of my lifetime payments in Shillbucks yet. Could you please look into that for me, oh Brilliant One? Pleeeeeeease?

        • 14 Sandy Hoax was fake

          Sorry, but I got to say I think Chris is a Shill too. Anyone with half a brain who looks at the COMPLETE story and the oddities and shit that doesnt make sense, can tell this was a BS event to attack the gun rights of Citizens of the USA.

          • How much of a brain do you need to realize the government still hasn’t taken your guns?

          • 16 brian

            how much of a brain do you need to realize that just about every theory ( worth debunking ) has been debunked , how much of a brain do you need to realize that the theorist are running out of theories and are cherry picking small details as in ,they just heard that DHS was there , when its been shown in videos that they arrived that afternoon , it was no secret .

      • 17 Bloody Bucket

        Hey…I’m back from watching my “Quincy M.E.” binge viewing!

        OK….remember my mention of TWO severed femoral arteries?

        Scenario:

        IED explodes. Man down.
        68 Whiskeys and as Barack would say “corpsemen” abound.
        Man down has TWO tibia and fibula blown away along with all the flesh.
        An instant double amputee.

        The docs and corpsmen have 2 options.

        1) Compresses and litter (or gurney). Put man on litter (or gurney), elevate femur bones above heart while casualty has direct pressure with compresses applied.

        2) Sit the casualty up in a wheelchair, do a half-assed gauze wrap with no pressure applied. Go for a wild wheelchair ride for 150 yards.

        Which options would they choose?

        C’mon genius. You’ve been there!

        • 18 Bloody Bucket

          It’s not a complete hoax…just like SHES, people died and were injured…BUT…and it is a BIG but….

          Enjoy.

          The very next day “Jeff Bauman” and Cowboy Carlos (from the Dominican Republic…who had a Devil Dog son die in Iraq on Carlos’ birthday) are on Facebook with Jeff sitting up in bed, laughing, smiling….no IVs…no morphine pump…NO sign of trauma. Happy and smiling!
          Carlos and Cindy Sheehan. Code Pink.
          Carlos tried to kill himself and the Marine detail sent to tell him that his son died. Lucky for him there was a quick thinking Marine or Carlos never would have got the chance wheel “Jeff” down the street…and pose with him everywhere…Bruins…Celtics…Red Sox…and Patriot games.

          Cindy ain’t in the game anymore. Carlos is.

          Code Pink..

          Have you worked with dogs?
          I’m starting to like you Hernandez.

          • Bucket, you make me miss the good old days. No, I don’t mean dealing with casualties (didn’t have to do much of that overseas, fortunately). What I mean is, dealing with third-world populations who are pathologically incapable of staying on topic.

            As to your hypothetical: I probably wouldn’t handle it that way. But in a mass casualty situation, with fear of another bomb in the area, mass chaos, adrenaline and everything else, gosh, I might not do everything exactly according to the book.

            But here’s a question for you. Carlos is a peace activist. Are you suggesting Carlos is part of a conspiracy to fake the results of the Boston Bombing? So he just pretended to assist Bauman, who must have had previous injuries?

            Sure, let’s go there. Bauman was there wearing fake legs. Then when the bombs went off, he ran to the nearest detonation (couldn’t have already been there, he would have been risking death), quickly took off the fake legs to expose what appeared to be traumatic amputations, then just hoped Carlos would be the person who came to assist? Or was Carlos close by, waiting for Bauman to quickly “de-leg”, so he could rush to help him?

            And what happened to the fake legs? Wait, don’t tell me… someone was waiting to rush in and get rid of the legs. But wait… wouldn’t someone notice Bauman’s legs just disappeared?

            Yup, Code Pink. They were part of the conspiracy. Everyone knows those bunch of moronic, hysterical anti-war women conspired with the Tsarnaev brothers to bomb the Marathon. There’s no other explanation.

            So, once again…

            What was the exculpatory evidence you claim was in Rousseau’s car? Exculpatory is a big word. It means there was evidence in that car that would have cleared someone of guilt (presumably Lanza). You claimed the car contained this evidence. Yet you won’t answer the simple questions of what it was, or how you know.

            Nobody in this discussion has commented more than you. I haven’t censored a single word you’ve written. I’m asking you to back up what you emphatically claimed earlier in the debate. And not only do you refuse to do that, but you keep injecting completely unrelated topics, like your ridiculous suggestion that Carlos and Jeff Bauman are part of a conspiracy to promote Code Pink. Or something.

            So put up or shut up. Back up the claim you made earlier. Your continued attempts to deflect attention from your own statements are laughable.

          • 20 Wayland

            I came upon a motorcycle crash. The biker had slammed into the back wheel of a pickup. The mans leg was gashed open past the bone at the knee. There was more gash than leg and blood was spurting. I tied a belt round the good part of the leg tightly. The man was on his mobile to his mum but I expected him to lose consciousness because at some point he would either feel the pain or have too low blood pressure. By the time medical people arrived he was unconscious. His leg was like raw meat with plenty of blood. I soaked up loads of his blood in my sweater. The medics wanted it, presumably so they could reuse the blood and put it back in him. I don’t know. There was a lot of blood on the road which the fire brigade washed away. It was not that orange stuff like we see at the Boston bombing but the red stuff, dark red.

      • 21 Judy Dale

        Mr. Hernandez, I have only just recently came across Mr. Halbig’s questions regarding Sandy Hook. As I think back over the horrendous aftermath, I remember thinking some questions not regarding the media as, I agree, that in looking for the scoop, they tend to report first, and check facts later. That being said, what I have concerns about is what has been ‘not’ said, at least with my not so in depth reading- by the investigators. 1. Were the other two people detained in the woods identified and thoroughly vetted as to what they were doing there and was that addressed in the final report? 2.Were there photos of the front door where Lanza shot his way through, if not, why not? Would this not help with some of the security breech questions? 3. Wouldn’t it be pertinent that the security company responsible for the system be identified and questioned- or was this addressed in the investigation? 4. Did the investigators find out how and why Lanza had his brother’s identification and if not, why it is not pertinent information? 5. Did the investigation address why some facebook postings were prior to the tragedy – or is their proof that dates can be “off” on this? 6. Why did the investigation dwell on the motive of Lanza- because he was obviously crazy, rather than the crime scene? 6. It really is not strange to you that there were only what, 3-4 survivors, did the investigation really address who declared all of the victims dead? If Lanza killed himself so quickly after he shot all his victims, why again wouldn’t it have been safe to let first responders in to see if they could save any lives, very soon after police arrived? 7. I know sounds maybe ridiculous for last question, but isn’t it more than a little strange to you too, that PORTA potties were at the scene within a few hours, who would think of that during a tragedy, when there are restrooms in the school and in the firehouse?

        • Judy,

          Thank you for your comment, and the tone of your post. I’ll answer as well as I can, as I think you’ve brought up many points that on the surface seem suspicious to the lay person, but aren’t the least bit suspicious on further examination.

          1) Three people were detained near the school, including the two in the woods. They were addressed in the official report, which says two of them were reporters and one was a parent. I’m trying to pull that quote up to post it, but I don’t have a real good internet connection where I currently am and may have to post it later.

          2) I don’t know if the pictures of the actual door are included in the report. I don’t believe there’s any question about the door. Lanza reportedly shot his was through a locked door, which is utterly believable. School doors aren’t built to be bulletproof; my understanding is that it was a glass door, he put several rounds through it and walked through. What question do you have about a security breach? I don’t think there are any questions about the security breach, it’s pretty straightforward info. At pretty much any school anywhere in the country, someone could shoot their way through the door.

          3) I personally don’t believe the security company is pertinent to the investigation. The school was not intended to have a security system capable of holding off a heavily armed man, it had a security system that allowed school staff to see who was coming inside. As a cop who has trained for school shooting incidents, that’s a gigantic flaw I see at every school that lacks armed security. Schools won’t, and shouldn’t, be built like prisons. But since we know we can’t keep armed bad guys out, we should have armed good guys already there. Sandy Hook’s fate didn’t rest on the security system; almost no school’s security system will keep an armed murderer out.

          What about the school security system do you think is pertinent to the investigation?

          4) with Lanza dead, how does anyone determine exactly why he had his brother’s ID? Lanza is really the only one who could answer that. All I would need to know is, “Does this ID on this dead guy actually belong to this dead guy?” If not, I need to know who the dead guy really is. If I discover his fake ID belonged to someone close to him and he had easy access to it, I wouldn’t be suspicious. If the ID belonged to someone apparently unrelated, then I would follow up to see how he got it.

          What does Lanza being in possession of his brother’s ID signify to you?

          5) I’m not aware of the FB postings. Who posted them, and what did they say?

          6) I have to disagree with you about the report dwelling on Lanza’s motives rather than the crime scene. The report exhaustively details the crime scene investigation.

          7) (actually, you had two sixes) The small number of gunshot wound survivors is not surprising to me. Lanza was shooting children at close range with an AR-15. The rounds did exactly what they were designed to do, cause massive injuries and death. In combat, most injuries aren’t fatal; however, this wasn’t combat. In combat, you generally have to get lucky to make a fatal hit (due to movement, long distances, adrenaline, incoming fire, etc). At SH, Lanza was completely unchallenged and was shooting defenseless children at extremely close range with a high-powered rifle. Why is it surprising that most of those children, and adults, died?

          I don’t know who declared each of the victims dead. I’d bet the same person didn’t declare each one dead. And I’m not concerned about it. If Lanza shot and killed them, they were dead. Whether an officer declared them dead under specific laws relating to mass casualty situations (as can apparently happen in some states) or officers simply reported them dead and the formal pronouncement was made later, that doesn’t change the fact that Lanza actually shot and killed them.

          Okay, regarding your question about bringing portajohns to the scene. This is a big one, because as far as I can tell people believe the portajohns and water indicate prior planning, because there were bathrooms at the school and fire station and therefore no need to bring extra water and bathroom resources (unless it was a drill of some kind).

          After the incident, hundreds of police officers, EMS personnel, local, state and federal officials, plus hundreds of members of the media, came to the site. This was not a surprise, as any major shooting incident draws that kind of response. So local government representatives made arrangements for additional bathroom resources and extra water. I guarantee you the fire station could not support the needs of hundreds of people who were going to be in the area for days.

          Having taken National Incident Management Courses and attended FEMA Continuity of Operations training, I don’t find the water, portajohns (or check-in sign) the least bit surprising or suspicious.

          Regarding your point about using bathrooms in the school I can say any officer there would answer “Hell no.” Sandy Hook became one big crime scene. Generally speaking, when police officers clear a crime scene, they go as big as reasonably possible. It’s better to make the crime scene too big than too small. The best way to handle a scene like Sandy Hook would be to rope off the entire school grounds. Exterior doors would be locked and/or guards posted, the parking lot would be taped off, access to any part of the school grounds would be controlled. People WOULD NOT be allowed into the school to use the bathroom or drink water. That would be called “contaminating the crime scene”.

          About allowing in EMS after they found Lanza dead: I mentioned this in an earlier comment. In law enforcement active shooter training, we usually teach the “plus one” rule. “If there’s one, there’s another”. The point isn’t to teach people to look for nonexistent suspects, it’s to teach them not to assume there’s only one bad guy (there have been multiple suspects in a few incidents). As a cop, if I were clearing SH and found Lanza dead, I WOULD NOT declare the school clear. I would report that we had found a dead suspect, and direct officers to continue clearing the school. EMS protocol has generally been to stay away until the scene is declared safe. I understand that some EMS agencies are now training paramedics and EMTs to enter before the scene is cleared, which I think is a better idea. So I’d agree that EMS should have entered earlier; however, I understand that protocol and training dictated otherwise.

          Please let me know what the FB postings said, I’m genuinely curious about them. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect them to be evidence of anything sinister; if they were, conspiracy web sites would be broadcasting them all over the place. This is the first mention I’ve heard of them.

          And again, thank you for your comment, and I hope you continue to participate in this discussion.

          • 23 alcade

            I understand that some EMS agencies are now training paramedics and EMTs to enter before the scene is cleared, which I think is a better idea.

            Can you elaborate on this? I’m a volunteer fireman and EMT in IL and our local protocol is to stage at a safe location until the scene is clear. I haven’t heard of any agency doing otherwise, so perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by entering a scene before its cleared.

            As an OT aside, we’ve been called out to assist PD at accident scenes when a suspected drunk or criminal has left the scene. They’ve usually ask us to set up our floodlights and scan the corn/bean fields with thermal imaging cameras. Sometimes, however, we’ve been asked to walk through the fields with them to assist in the search.

            Is this common practice in TX? As a captain, I have a big problem with this because I have a responsibility for my crew’s safety. Add to that the fact that we have no police powers, and the officers are never kind enough to advise us to bring our own personal weapons from home. So we have a bunch of non-PD walking unarmed through the night, looking for a possible criminal, while wearing bulky cumbersome fire gear with bright flashlights and covered in “shoot me!” reflectors.

          • Alcade,

            My understanding (and I’m far from an expert) is that some EMS agencies are giving selected individuals additional tactical training so they can accompany police at mass shooting incidents. We learned at Columbine that officers can’t stop to provide medical aid if the school hasn’t been cleared, and EMS won’t come in until it’s been cleared. So what happens to wounded people who desperately need help? Some of them, like teacher/coach Dave Sanders, will bleed to death while officers take hours to search for suspects who are already dead, and fully-equipped EMS personnel wait outside.

            One of my former soldiers is a paramedic instructor who did some tactical medic training. He told me about the effort at some agencies to train specific individuals to enter hot zones. Brocky gave some examples from the SH report of EMS medics who entered the school with police before it was cleared. I’ve contacted my former soldier to ask for more specifics, but he hasn’t responded yet.

          • So you have the Tsarnaev brothers tried and convicted already? And Adam Lanza has been proven to be guilty of whatever happened in Sandy Hook on 12-14-12 because…why, exactly? Who witnessed the shootings? Who saw the dead bodies? Am I required to believe law enforcement? Why, they don’t lie like the rest of humanity? I don’t have to prove that Adam Lanza is not guilty of murder. The state of Connecticut has that burden. The fact that we have heard (from that day on) repeated over and over that “Adam Lanza killed his mother, then drove to the school and killed 20 students and six educators..” doesnt make it truthful. I have read Stephen J Sedenskys report. I am not convinced. When taken in its entirety, Sandy hook is the real life Twilight Zone. I cannot simply ignore the hideously bizarre behavior and testimony of everyone who jumped in front of a microphone. I will not bow down to the condescending first responder brotherhood mentality (you included) that demands we honor their testimony above all else. If we can just see Lanza shooting his way in (oh, jeez…cant…state of the art security didn’t record); if we can maybe get an answer as to how swat teams (or whoever) missed two women hiding in a closet FOR NEARLY FOUR HOURS (and why they would not have come out…oh I don’t know..maybe a couple of hours earlier?)…or…fine, don’t show crime scene or coroner photos of the children, but how about the adults? How about crime scene photos that resemble the scene of a massacre, not the redacted nonsense released (and I have painstakingly watched every second of them) by Ct. St Police. No photos or video even after the bodies were removed. I don’t give a rats ass how much training or experience you have had. Did you see any photo or video evidence? Can you produce some tangible evidence that Adam Lanza is guilty of mass murder? Or do we just have to take your word for it, because you are taking the word of brother-in-law enforcement who were alleged witnesses? I cant even get a feel for whether or not you even care to know the truth about Sandy Hook. It seems to me you got a bug in your tookis regarding Wolf Halbig. The only thing I care about regarding Sandy Hook is the WHOLE truth, which appears to be the most lonely outpost in Newtown.

          • Joe,

            Here’s the simple yet blindingly obvious fact you conspiracy theorists miss, over and over. You say you don’t trust the police or government. Fair enough. Yet you ignore the fact that a conspiracy like this would require the willing participation of thousands of everyday people. Not just cops. Not just government employees. I’ve gone down this list before, but I’ll do it again.

            In addition to the first responders, the surviving teachers would have to lie. The parents would have to lie. Neighbors who lived near the school would have to lie about hearing gunfire. Local and national media would have to lie. Emergency room doctors and nurses would have to lie. Funeral home employees would have to lie. And in over a year, not one of those many people has broken. Not one. Not a single emergency room doctor has said, “This isn’t true, we never treated anyone with a gunshot that day.” Not a single funeral home director has said, “Hey man, I talked to all the local funeral homes and none of us saw a single body.” Not a single family member of the six educators “allegedly” killed that day has said, “What? She’s not dead, I just talked to her.”

            All these people are carrying out this lie for the government? Our government can’t keep a secret to save lives (literally). Stuff gets intentionally leaked all the time. Yet this conspiracy, involving so many regular people, has been so masterfully executed that over a year later you conspiracy theorists can’t point to a single person and say “I have evidence THIS person carried out THIS act to fake the Sandy Hook massacre”?

            As far as the women hiding in the closet, I’ll bet you never searched a school. There are lots of places to hide. SWAT teams didn’t find the women for several hours, and they didn’t come out because they were scared? How shocking.

            There’s no video of Lanza shooting his way into the school? There’s no video of Cho killing 32 students at VA Tech either. There’s no video of Ted Bundy murdering all the women he confessed to murdering. There’s no video of the guy who pointed a gun at me one night before another officer shot him. I guess those things never happened.

            You don’t give a rat’s ass how much experience and training I have? That’s funny. The reason you conspiracy nutjobs jizzed all over yourselves when Halbig spoke up was because he’s supposed to have so much experience and training.

          • If Lanza was found dead from a gunshot wound, then the crime scene was then secure because his suicide would have been incontestable evidence of death by one’s own hand, which would have indicated to any sane person that he was an insane person acting alone, with the intent of killing himself in the end. End of any other conceivable theory. Plus, if officers arrived within minutes and found the shot students that quickly, why would a PD officer waste time personally checking every child instead of calling for the EMTs to get to any possible survivors as quickly as possible? What in the world would have had a higher priority than that? Protecting their own butts? When the killer was already dead? I don’t think so.

        • 1.Yes they were identified as parents. Cant recall if its FInal report why dont you go read it and find out? Why havent you read it?

          2.No there was no camera capable of recording at the front door.
          3 No,what relevance is it who installed the camera?
          4.DOnt know
          5 Facebook dates arent relevant to the investigation but the answer is easily obtained via a google search.
          6 Both were important both were addressed
          6(2) WHy would it be strange there were 4 survivors? All shooting/terrorist attacks have some survivors,what number is acceptable to you? Yes investigation and final report covers declaration of death. Police did not know if there was a 2nd shooter hence people werent allowed in.
          7 The school was a crime scene you cannot have hundreds of cops paramedics etc passing through it. So it made perfect sense to have porta potties on scene.

          Most of those answers are available in final report go and read it,educate yourself.

      • 29 Wayland

        It’s an interesting argument that in a massive government conspiracy all truthers would be neutralized. Perhaps you think they would be quietly bumped off and forgotten about, certainly that can happen, but then would we know about this or would they be successful? How about a better method is to just let chaps like you do their work for them. That way truthers can shout as much as the like but no one with any credibility would pay them any attention. Indeed the very act of finding truther information credible renders the person a nut-job.

        • Ignoring the Tsarnaev comment? Good choice since some day someone you love may without cause nor evidence be publicly charged with a heinous crime. Wow Chris, let me begin first by thanking you for going down a well trodden road to address issues that you may have touched on before. To take that time must be a heavy burden, and we ALL appreciate it. What a guy. You ARE a hero. Let me begin by asserting clearly that I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist. Do you have any clue as to what that title engenders? It insinuates one who CONTINUALLY and actively searches for contrary evidence to what has OFFICIALLY been presented as being the true and accurate account of a crime or event.
          I would not qualify for such as I officially have only QUESTIONED the official narrative of Sandy Hook. As such, do not refer to me as a conspiracy theorist (although a TRUE conspiracy theorist is driven to expose the truth, and therefore the title is benevolent, and not malignant). When you begin your response to me by stating that the position that I take is fair in not trusting the police or government, are you saying you don’t either? Hmmm….coming from a soldier that is truly incriminating, and should, albeit somewhat forcibly, have you posited in our camp. Ok, now…to know that Sandy Hook is a lie DOES NOT require that I believe in “the willing participation of thousands of everyday people.” It simply requires that I understand that THOSE REQUIRED were complicit. The rest were simply ignorant, if not willfully ignorant. There is no requirement that I believe “thousands” were aware and complicit. That’s your language, and that’s your ignorance (willful?..). And yes, wow, you got me Chris….I have never searched a school. You see, I am a simple, lowly carpenter who will never (nor will ever have the desire to) be confused with a “hero.” I will gladly leave that label to you who proudly don the red, white and blue of the good ole U S of A (who condone all sorts of ungodly depravity…abortion, homosexuality, porn, gambling…). Lots of places to hide for Sarah Cox and Barbara Halstead? What was Sandy Hook school, a military training center or an elementary school? Please Chris, stay focused and don’t embarrass yourself. A school nurse and secretary able to evade a tactical search for a mass killer..for 3.5 hours? THEY WERE IN THE NURSES CLOSET. Was the closet designed with secret compartments? No, just shelves (this is where I have to refrain from a character attack on Chris…). They didn’t come out because they were scared? Well actually, Sarah Cox in an interview stated SHE DID look out and saw ‘scary looking’ people in the courtyard. Nice try Sarah. Lie. As for the Va. Tech slaughter, I am not aware of any conspiratorial contention to that story, and I have seen the video manifesto of Cho (have any of Adam?). And there is no suspicion regarding anything relating to Ted Bundy’s mass killing spree. Bundy admitted to such. Not to mention I can view the crime scene and coroner photos and ACTUALLY SEE the victims (though I have not and have no desire to…where are the ones of Adams victims?). So yeah, Chris, let me repeat…THERE IS NO VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ANY SHOOTER ENTERING SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, NOR IS THERE OF A MASS EXODUS, NOR IS THERE VIDEO OR PHOTO EVIDENCE OF REAL VICTIMS. If you (or any other wanna-be debunker) can provide this, please do so…PLEASE! With regards to your close call, I thank the Lord you are still alive (you were there, I believe you). Let me end by stating I am neither a conspiracy theorist, nor a nutjob. Again, my only concern is the truth…in all matters. With regards to Mr. Halbig, there is no, nor was there ever, such excitement, at least on my part (I will ignore the profane reference to excitement). You self-proclaimed debunkers apparently believe all you need to do is discredit Wolfgang Halbig. But the truth is not subject to opinion, expertise, experience, nor training. It stands on its own merit, and it will not be shaken. It will be honored in the end.

          • Joseph,

            Your comment is too long for me to fully respond to at the moment, but I’ll hit a few points:

            1) WTF are you talking about with the Tsarnaev brothers? I’m not ignoring it or them. I have no reason to believe they didn’t plant the bombs.

            2) Okay, I’m a hero. Sure. Thanks.

            3) Explain the mechanics of how the supposed Sandy Hook conspirators could be simply ignorant of what they’re doing. You’re making the claim. Prove it.

            4) Yes, there is homosexuality, abortion, porn and gambling in the USA. Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with SH. The fact that you inject totally unrelated topics into the discussion is yet another example of how you truthers can’t focus on the actual “investigation”, another example of your collective and pathetic lack of investigative skill, and yet another reason why anyone with a brain doesn’t and shouldn’t take your seriously.

            5) Was SH a school or a military camp? Have you ever searched either one? Both have many places to hide. At Columbine a wounded teacher and several students hid in a room and weren’t found for hours. The teacher was named Dave Sanders and he bled to death before EMS got to him.

            6) A school nurse and a secretary were able to evade a tactical search for a mass killer by hiding in a closet. Why yes they were, and it’s not the least bit suspicious. I don’t consider you lowly for being a carpenter, but your absolute ignorance of tactical realities shows here. During a search, not every door will be forcibly entered; if a door is locked it sometimes must be bypassed. We even carry devices to jam between locked doors and doorframes to jam them closed (if it’s an outward opening door). Those doors will eventually have to be opened, but they may not be addressed until much later in the search. The ability to thoroughly search a building depends on many factors: number of officers available, breaching tool availability, likelihood of a second suspect, etc. How do you think these incidents unfold? Do you think the first officers on the scene open every door and search every single room? Or do they head toward the places where the suspect is most likely to be?

            All you conspiracy theorists (and yes, that includes you) think you understand everything about these incidents. You’re wrong, and you prove it every time you open your mouth. You throwing down your expertise on building searches is about as valid as me telling you how to frame a house (hint: I have no idea how to frame a house, and you have no idea how to clear a school).

            7) So, no murder happened unless YOU see the pictures? I’ve been on lots of murder scenes; in none that I’m aware of were the crime scene photos released to the public. And what if they released the SH photos? Guys like you would claim they’re fake, just like you’re claiming the pictures of Jeff Bauman’s injuries from the Boston Bombing are fake. As someone else commented, you conspiracy theorists are always moving the goal posts.

          • 32 Wayland

            Hello Joeseph,

            “Do you have any clue as to what that title engenders? It insinuates one who CONTINUALLY and actively searches for contrary evidence to what has OFFICIALLY been presented as being the true and accurate account of a crime or event.”

            I myself and proud to be a conspiracy theorist, I know it’s meant as an insult but I take it as a complement. However I would be insulted if I was called a Hero or if given a Nobel prize or a Knighthood since those are generally the people doing the dirty deeds.

            Your normal average person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. However based on past experience anyone in authority or respected or holding any medals or awards should be treated with suspicion and effort should be made to find out exactly the nature of their crimes.

            This is usually not that hard to find their crimes because they are often publicly shown as some amazing virtue. Like the 100 to one kill rate for British Soldiers in Afghanistan is really 99 innocents and one fighter for every British death when taken with other statistics they supply.

            The media are said to have got it wrong when they reported that the nurse saw Adam Lanzas face, however she was interviewed and she did say she saw his face and recognized him because his mother worked at the school. Only later did she say she only saw his feet. So OK you can let the media off for that one but the witness told a huge whopping LIE.

            You can’t let the media off for showing library footage claiming it was live from Sandy Hook. Chris seems to think we should allow the media and authorities to get their facts straight and then that’s the truth. If ‘new information’ means that the story is revised then that’s fine too because it’s the new truth.

            I am not sure why Chris runs this blog. It could be because it’s bound to get plenty of action because SH is such a hot topic. Does he really believe the stuff he comes out with? I am not sure.

            Wayland.

          • Wayland,

            You are quickly becoming tiresome. I run this blog because I’m an author and this is my site. I’ve been blogging for a year and a half, and have written only two posts about conspiracy theorists. Do some basic research.

            And yes, I really believe what I say. Because I actually know something about murders, investigations and school shootings, unlike you guys who “just have questions”.

          • 34 Wayland

            Chris,

            I expect you have figured out by now that SH and other conspiracy theory topics generate a lot of traffic and interest. However this comes at a price, you get severely challenged. If you and I were friends I would not push this point as far as I have. I would just let you live in your little world and occasionally nudge you. In doing what I have been doing I have been very rude and irritating and it’s not surprising that you are getting tired of this.

            If you are some sort of policeman or investigator and author then your objectivity is very valuable to you. This should mean that if someone you dislike says something which could be true, that you are able to examine it honestly and without bias.

            Having sent me to a video which should have shown an American Airlines jet but which did not, I would say you have a long way to go before you can objectively look at facts.

            Good Luck,
            Wayland.

          • I’m on a phone and can’t type a long reply at the moment. FYI, my two conspiracy posts have generated far less interest than my pro-2A posts or my essay about working with the French Army.

            And I’d say you’re the last person who should preach about objectivity. I actually did show you two videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, you reject them as not believable, which I knew you would. Because you’ve already decided it’s a conspiracy, no plane was involved, and you’ll dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

            If that’s your definition of objectivity, then I guess you’re right. I’m not objective.

          • 36 Wayland

            Chris,

            “I actually did show you two videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, you reject them as not believable, which I knew you would. Because you’ve already decided it’s a conspiracy, no plane was involved, and you’ll dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

            If that’s your definition of objectivity, then I guess you’re right. I’m not objective.”

            The videos from the Pentagon look completely genuine to me. Now you are talking about whether I believe they show a plane hitting the Pentagon. Obviously you and I have different beliefs which is fine. However I was really concerned that you might have an actual video of the plane. One that does not rely upon me believing that the explosion was cause by a plane. One that shows the plane.

            This is not the evidence I brought to the table but the evidence you suggested I look at. We all know that CCTV fails to capture crucial things, clearly it does not show the plane. It shows something, which could be the plane. People have done video analysis and shown spiralling smoke trails and one even showed very clearly a silver AA plane with the tail fin. Frankily it’s all a bit too NCIS for my liking, “Abby, could you enhance that, and zoom in, and filter out the smoke.”. Looking at those two videos, even on full screen it does not capture the plane.

            The fact that you ‘believe’ it does means you are not very objective. The explosion is obvious, no belief needed. The plane? Where?

        • Wayland,

          It’s interesting that you think a massive government conspiracy like the one you’re suggesting could be carried out at all. But for the sake of argument, let’s say it is happening. So, this masterful government conspiracy has been exposed by internet investigators with zero investigative background or skill (except, allegedly, for Halbig, and his skills suck). But no action is being taken against any of you guys who are exposing this massive government crime?

          Either the government isn’t so all-powerful as you guys claim, or you guys haven’t really exposed anything at all and don’t need to be “eliminated”. Either way, your arguments don’t hold water.

          • 38 Wayland

            What you say about the media is not borne out by the evidence. This is just one example; Allison Wyatt. The photo used was the wrong one yet it was not just one media outlet that used that photo. The real mother of the real child kicked up a huge stink about this in social media and alternative media, it did not make much of an impression in mainstream media. So no the MSM are not going to expose things.

            You say no action is being taken against people like me but then how would you learn about it? The argument is pointless because of our entrenched positions. Years ago people thought the Y2K computer bug would distroy the world. However people like myself were paid a great deal of money to ensure nothing bad happened. Was the money wasted or did we save the world? It’s an unanswerable question, like your suggestion that the powers that control MSM would silence people like me. How would you ever know if someone was killed in a car crash or shot by the police? You would only get the MSM version which would not admit that they were behind it. It’s as pointless of me to suggest that they were killed to silence them as it is for you to say no one gets killed to silence them. You will have to do better than that.

          • You guys keep referring to media stupidity as if that’s evidence they conspired with the government. The media fucks up just about every story they report on. I guess I’ve been the victim of media conspiracies as a cop, because I’ve had reporters completely screw up simple stories about scenes I was on. I was interviewed for a magazine once and not only did the reporter misquote me, she even got my last name wrong. Media incompetence doesn’t equal collusion. It’s just par for the course.

            There are numerous very loud conspiracy theorists around. Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones, Halbig, etc. No action has been taken against them (other than Halbig allegedly being threatened, which you have to trust his claim about, which of course all you guys do even though there’s no other evidence). If one of those guys was killed, or arrested, or disappeared, there’d be a hell of an uproar. But that hasn’t happened. And I’m not going to apply your circular, nonsensical argument that we should believe it’s happening, even though there’s no evidence, because we wouldn’t know if it did happen.

            You guys need to learn this simple lesson, and make it your mantra: “If you’re going to make a claim, back it with evidence.”

          • 40 Wayland

            Referring to Wyatt photo is to show that the press do collude or at least copy each other which means they come out with the same story even when it’s wrong. My example would not have worked so well if I had chosen a child whose photo had not have changed.

            As for government collusion the press are given info from the government and police etc on which they report. Typically they will report a statement given by a police chief or corinor.

            If the media are reporting from a false event then the news that they are reporting will be false since they don’t critically examine it. They will even embelish it with their own BS as seen with the Newtown school swat team drill footage they passed off as live from SH.

            As for whacking Alex Jones you are dead right there would be a big stink, everyone knows that. It’s a pointless discussion because you say they would have done it and I respond with oh but there would be a big stink and it would draw more attention to what they want to hide. It’s pointless to bring that up. However Brightbart died and there was quite a big stink. You may remember the DC Madam interviewed by Alex Jones and he got her to say she was not thinking of committing suicide and 3 weeks later she has committed suicide. That did not actually create that big a stink, at least not in the MSM where you would pay it attention.

            There is plenty of evidence that whistle blowers and reporters get whacked, it’s just not conclusive enough for you. It never will be because the people we say are behind it are the people who you expect to tell you if something is news or not. It’s a no win argument until you widen your scoop for knowledge and stop making excuses for these people.

    • 41 Nerv

      I liked the article because it gives me a different point of view, but if you listen to most of Halbigs interviews he admits these questions are not very damning. He says that these were just some questions that he had, it’s the way the refusal of the police to say anything about Sandy Hook that is the story. Also I was wondering if you could do a follow up I think he’s up to 34 questions now. He even had to file a FOIA and they are still refusing to give him information. They are arresting people who are asking questions in Connectecticut. So as far as I can tell you kind of missed the point of the questions.

      Is it normal for Police departments to act this way? Your article for me didn’t refute anything for me, it just makes me wonder even more why they won’t answer these dumb questions. He can’t even get questions answered from the people who rented out port a johns because the police told them not to speak. This article only reinforces for me that they have something to hide if they didn’t why wouldn’t they just answer some dumb guys questions?

      Also Lt. Vance has made some vance has made some very weird comments, and the ties between the people involved in sandy hook with eric holder, the fact that DOJ is giving money to the police involved in sandy hook, the weird crap with CNN showing police running into a different school. A lot of weird stuff is going on up there.

      • 42 Nerv

        YYou know what now I’m kinda mad about this article, it is super misleading. You missed the entire point of Mr. Halbigs original questions and why they were important. Again the reason he made a list of questions was to tell people how secretive the cops are being in conn. by not answering these dumb questions, instead you are painting people as retarded, when it seems like your comprehension skills are the ones that are lacking.

        • Nerv,

          According to the DCclothesline.com article I cited, and several other sites, Halbig did in fact claim the incident never happened. To my knowledge, Halbig hasn’t denied making that claim. So no, the issue isn’t just that Halbig has questions. The issue is that he says no children were killed that day, and that the entire event was scripted.

          I’ll look into the rest of his questions, but I think you’re the one missing the point.

          • 44 john merryweather

            I believe that WolfGang is entitled to his opinion. he does not claim that any thing he said is a fact. I would focus on the questions that he is asking and why he is being threatened by the police for asking questions.

          • Of course he’s entitled to his opinion, as am I, as are you. Nobody is trying to remove his ability to have an opinion.

            Halbig did say (as near as I can tell) that no children were killed at SH that day, and that the massacre was a “scripted event”.

            As far as Halbig being “threatened”, the only information we have on that is Halbig’s own words, which I personally don’t assign any credibility to.

          • 46 Wayland

            Halbig is between a rock and a hard place. If he seems to think that children died due to a gunman entering the school then he annoys anyone who see this as total theater. If he asks pertinent questions then people such as yourself see him as a conspiracy nutter and poo-poo his questions rather than provide answers.

          • Welcome to adulthood, Wayland. Yes, everything we think or say will be opposed by someone else. Anyone who has a problem with that needs to grow up.

            And yes, I did provide answers. 45-60 gallons of blood? Bullshit. Someone on the autism spectrum is too weak to carry a weapon and ammo? Bullshit. Police transmissions are always perfect? Bullshit. Officers would never send a kid back into a room with dead people? Bullshit.

            He’s not asking pertinent questions. He’s asking stupid questions and making stupid claims because he knows conspiracy theorists will embrace him and give him money. And he’s even claiming “I’ve been threatened by the police!”, which all of you are buying hook line and sinker, despite the fact that there’s no evidence for it other than his claim.

          • 48 Wayland

            Chris yes you provided some answers but you glossed aver a lot. I don’t really trust Wolgang, I think he has set himself up to fail. Why would he say 45 gallons of blood when the blood stays in the body once it’s dead and when most of the bodies were small? Clearly this was an easy target. It allowed you to avoid answering the question of who cleared up the blood. There are photos which showed blood in places and different photos showed no blood in those places. A ‘rational’ explanation that would suit your version is that someone cleared up the blood. This needs answering because otherwise the explanation that the blood was video forgery is valid. You are basically not answering the questions you set out to answer but simply saying it’s a stupid question.

            I don’t think your heart is really in this. You assumed that SH was a real event and you don’t actually look into the possibility that it was faked.

      • 49 Redblues

        “They are arresting people who are asking questions in Connectecticut. ”
        “They” who? When? Where? Who exactly did “They” arrest? Names, dates, and charges please. Arrests and charges filed are a matter of public record, so you should have no trouble documenting your claim. Of course, that *would* require accepting a matter of public record, something troofers are pathologically unable to do. So how will you “prove” that? Wait! I know! How about a YouTube rant?! That will show us!

    • 50 lockwood

      Hey you fools don’t get any sand in your panties while you have your F”n head in the sand or do you have stuck up some place instead, this is a shill site, sandy hoax is just that, a hoax!
      Now now just keep drinking your koolaid and repeat my government would never kill anyone, they should be the only ones with guns because they can be trusted but we can’t!

      • You are a funny man. I’ve written at length about the importance of the 2nd Amendment. I started writing about it right after SH. All the essays I’ve written about it are stored in a secret government facility code-named “my blog”. If you have the powers of a real conspiracy investigator or “truth researcher”, you’ll look on my secret blog and find them. They’re written in a secret code called “English”.

        People like you are one of the biggest threats to gun rights. Because you make people think gun rights advocates are all extremist, conspiracy-theorist psychos.

    • 53 Zephyr

      Newtown policee didn’t declare 26 casualties within 11 minutes. In fact, they didn’t declare an MCI at all – which is the problem. 30 minutes into the call, not one, single NPD man had told dispatch there were any more than 2 down. And when Bob Nute at Newtown did finally hear “call for everything,” that did not come from a police officer, but from a volunteer EMT. You can hear it in Nute’s voice – it’s been 30 minutes, and no one has told him there were many, many injured. Nute knows his 2 ambulances will be gone in minutes, leaving zero. Yes, zero ambulances at the scene with over two dozen injured parties remaining. THAT is the reason the state of Connecticut has scrambled from day one to obscure, seal, muddy, and withhold documents from Newtown.

  2. Re: Point 5:
    I can’t speak to CT law. In CA, even a lowly beat cop or EMT can pronounce death, due to such obvious indicators as
    > decapitation (If your head and your body are in separate places, you’re dead)
    > burned (to a crisp)
    > flattened (under rubble or debris, like a car, train, or freeway overpass)
    >post-mortem lividity (body white on top, purple on the bottom from pooled blood)
    > rigor mortis (if you’re stiff, you’re *a* stiff)
    > decompostition of remains

    But it goes further than that, nationwide. The standard (not the only, but prevalent) MCI (mass casualty Incident) medical protocol is START (Simple Triage And Rapid Treatment).
    When your resources (which for a lone cop looking for an active shooter are nil) are overwhelmed by the needs, the START protocols apply. At that point, someone who is non-responsive and pulseless, or even with a pulse, but with breaths of less than 6 or greater than 30 after a simple head tilt, is encountered, the protocol is to write them off as Non-Salvageable/Dead, and move on. If you have triage tags, their color is black, for a reason.
    Only someone with absolutely no experience at mass casualty incidents nor any bare training for same wouldn’t know this.

    Re: Point 15
    Kudos on doing the math, you are correct.
    Blood volume for pediatric patients is approx. 80ml/kg. A 50th percentile 6-year-old weighs 20-25 kg, so a typical child at Sandy Hook would have 2 liters of blood. There were 20 child victims aged 6 and 7 at Sandy Hook, and 5 female teachers. That’s roughly going to be 90 liters, which is 22.5 gallons, half that alleged by Halbig, and that’s only in play if someone hung them up to drain every last drop out of them, which didn’t happen. It’s not uncommon for people shot even through the heart or great vessels to bleed externally to a minimal degree, or not at all, as it pools internally while they die, in the lungs and chest.
    So Halbig can’t count, can’t think, and once again, doesn’t know what he’s talking about – probably out his back end.
    And apparently goes on about his ignorance at length.

    Those are simply the points he gets wrong that fall closer to my neighborhood of expertise, along with the other sixteen in yours you dissected with precision.
    Your points make sense, and his plainly don’t. One can only hope he gets the donkey punch he’s got coming from some number of next-of-kins at Sandy Hook, and the sooner the better. Ideally posted on YouTube.

    • Aesop,

      I actually had to take a few extra looks at the blood issue. Was it really that simple, did Halbig blow it that badly with his 45-60 gallons estimate? After double and triple checking, it’s obvious that yes, he did. And assuming ALL the blood would have drained from every victim? How the hell did he figure that?

      Thanks for commenting Aesop, always good to hear from you.

      • If there were no victims then there was no blood to clean up. If there were victims then the blood would have to be absorbed by pads because there was no water in the building. Why not?

        Because it was slated for demolition. It had been closed in the fall of 2007, so it was not a school, had no teachers, no staff, no anything. What is the proof of that? It is the internet archive known as the Wayback Machine. It retained the record of the school’s website internet traffic.

        After the Christmas break, traffic almost ceased altogether, while before it had been normal and active. That shows that the school closed down and that meant it was available for an exercise in changing the public’s perception, a la a Pearl Harbor type tragedy, -as was the only conceivable rationale for Fast & Furious which was very ill conceived.

        No matter how much good or poor questions & answers are bantered about, the Wayback Machine record trumps them all. That school was closed and nothing can explain away its record of having essentially zero internet traffic other than it being closed down. Records of it being open, legitimate records, could show the web-archive record to be false or misleading in some inexplicable way, but what are the odds of that happening?

    • 57 lockwood

      Well i’ll I can tell you obviously have not looked at any of the real evidence and the really simple one is this. Show me the f—-n tapes of the shooter and the bodies and we will shut up its pretty f—-n simple you f—-n simpletons that want to argue this adnosium, show the fucken tapes and that will be the end of it, until then sandy hoax is total f—-n rubbish and they are all actors now prove there not and prove that adam fucken lanza even existed. WTF, come on Michael Moore show the bodies one more time and show the footage which does not exist, so until then your arguments are excriment!

      • Really.

        So if you saw pictures, you’d shut up? I doubt it.

        Let me ask you, have you seen pictures of Jeff Bauman after his legs were blown off at the Boston Marathon bombing? Lots of people have seen those pictures. And all the conspiracy theory nutjobs are claiming they’re fake.

        It’s my belief that you would do the same thing if you were shown pictures of the victims at SH.

        • 59 Wayland

          Yes you are right, it’s now too late to make Sandy Hook look honest. Evidence which at one time would have been accepted now seems fake due to the fact it was with held so long. The longer it is with held the less believable it becomes. Is that a good enough reason to never release it?
          As soon as any incident looks suspicious there is always problems with the CCTV. Diana, 9/11 Pentagon, 7/7, Ian Thomlinson and now Sandy Hook. You might claim they look suspicious because the CCTV failed but then you would not accept that sort of BS coming from someone else so why spout it yourself?

          • The current generation of CSI shows and Jason Bourne movies have convinced people that there’s always video and there’s always DNA. I’ve been on a lot of scenes at businesses that had security systems that either didn’t record (monitoring only), or they hadn’t changed out the media and the system ran out of storage space. There IS video of a plane hitting the Pentagon; not surprisingly, guys like you are claiming “that’s fake!” Popular Mechanics, in their book debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, said it best when they referred to your collective mentality as “heads I win, tails you lose”. If pictures or video of the murders aren’t released, you claim “there’s no video because it didn’t happen!” If it is released, you claim “that’s fake because it never happened!” So the rational response is to completely ignore you guys, because no matter what you see, you’re still going to insist this was a government conspiracy.

        • 61 Wayland

          I have had to work with CCTV too. It’s very frustrating when it has failed to record something or the cameras are broken or the action happens where the cameras don’t show. However saying there is footage showing a plane hitting the Pentagon is simply making out that you are amongst some privileged group shown the missing video tapes. It’s all very well you saying you’ve seen it but since I have not seen it and I have been waiting for it to show up on YouTube how am I supposed to trust you? They claim to have got passengers DNA from the Pentagon crash and they claim that the plane vaporized.

          • Yes, I’m in the privileged group of people who has seen that footage. This privileged group is called “people with internet access” and they can see the video on a shadowy, top secret web site code-named “Wikipedia”.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

            Two videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon are embedded in the article. Go ahead and watch. But to save you time, I’ll go ahead and make your next comment for you: “Those videos are fake!”

            And nobody claimed the plane “vaporized” when it hit the Pentagon. You got that comment from that stupid “9/11 Loose Change” video, which even the creator admitted was screwed up (but he fixed it later, honest!). On the same top-secret Wikipedia article there are photos with airplane debris visible outside the Pentagon. In Popular Mechanics’ book refuting 9/11 conspiracy theories there’s a picture of landing gear that punched through several walls and reached far inside the building.

            But you claim there’s no video, and no debris. Even though it’s easily available from open sources. You totally suck at real investigation. Which makes you a fantastic conspiracy investigator.

        • 63 Wayland

          Chris regarding the 2 Pentagon videos.

          How can you see the plane in these videos?
          There are two frames where something moves on the right, just before the explosions. This looks like a passenger jet to you?

      • 64 Redblues

        Entitled morbid busybodies with no connection to law enforcement are never shown bodies or crime scenes just because they feel like looking at them. You have no authority to demand to see any Sandy Hook victim’s body as proof of anything. It is offensive to demand such a thing, much less to assume it is somehow your legal right to have those demands politely accommodated, by anyone. Get over yourself.

        • 65 arnash

          “You have no authority to demand to see any Sandy Hook victim’s body as proof of anything.”
          Hey genius, he didn’t ask to see any “victim’s body”. He demanded to see the TAPE of the shooter and the bodies. Such a tape would exist if the “event” were real, but it was NOT real so no such tape exists and so no one can be “allowed” to see it no matter who they are. Even the governor cannot see that which does not exist.
          But you, in your corrupt defensive of the indefensible fraud of Newtown get on your moral high horse instead of behind a lectern of logic to demonstrate the proof or logic of the fraudulent pretense. You despicably attempt to silence all questions by burying the inquirer under a load of moral outrage and guilt. That is the lowest that you can descend to in a logical contest of facts and reason, but it’s not too low for the desperate who have no proof of anything.

          • “Hey genius, he didn’t ask to see any “victim’s body”. He demanded to see the TAPE of the shooter and the bodies. Such a tape would exist if the “event” were real, ”

            He demanded to see photograph evidence of the deaths of victims and shooter. That would require showing the victims’ and shooters’ bodies. That is never done in any murder case, though sometimes that material leaks out. I vividly remember seeing the body of a baby in the arms of a firefighter in Oklahoma City right after the bombing there.

            It doesn’t take a genius to understand that that’s what Redblues was commenting on. Civilians do not get to just decide they want to see video or photos of the dead after a shooting like this. Besides, there have been so many mass shootings since then (many that don’t even make the national news for various reasons) that it’s puzzling this particular one draws so much denial.

            So let’s assume that law enforcement always makes video of the crime scene in this case. Redblues is correct in saying that it would be unprecedented and a violation of the rights and dignity of the families involved to show it to curious civilians.

          • 67 Steve

            Not to mention, if a video were released, the hoaxers would likely claim it’s fake.
            .

  3. 68 JimP

    Re: Point 5

    Here in Rural East Bugtussle, it is the County Attourney or his appointed representatives that declare people legally dead. The County Attourney has appointed each and every Sherriff’s Deputy his respresentaive in matters of this sort. In practice, on scene, the Deputies ask the senior EMT on scene if the presumed deceased is in fact deceased….. I have not seen them fail to concur ….

    As for Mass Casualty Incidents, what Aesop said is so: When the number of Patients exceeds your available resources, you triage: If they can’t breathe adequately with a simple repositioning of the head, they are “tagged black” ….. and it’s a damned hard thing to do, but you save the ones you can. Here in Rural East Bugtussle, we have a Volunteer Fire and Rescue squad with two ambulances, 7 Fire trucks of various sorts, and around two dozen members, with between 3 and 8 folks generally available for calls ….. a two vehichle 10-45 with multiple passengers can very well be a MCI….

    Re: Point 15

    I have seen some horrific trauma cases that bled very little at all- seems to me, the quicker they died the less they bled. Also, carpet and upholstery soaks up a huge amount of blood ….. if the school was carpeted, as ours is, clean-up would consist of tearing out the affected carpet … if the building was to be torn down, I doubt even that was done.

    -JimP

    • Jim,

      I remember one scene where a guy got hit with several 7.62×39 rounds. He was hit several times center mass, and took a round in each elbow. I was surprised at the absolute lack of blood; he must have been switched off by one of the first rounds, and didn’t even bleed from the elbow wounds. I remember being surprised at how clean and bloodless those wounds were.

      About the carpet, I’m sure cleanup would have been a little more complicated than that. I’ve seen what was left after a family of 5 took an AK magazine into their car in Kosovo. It wasn’t just blood, that car was a slaughterhouse. Tissue had been blown all over the place, it wasn’t just on the floorboards.

      And talk about crazy luck. One member of the family, a teenage girl, was sitting on one end of the back seat. The first half of the mag was fired from directly ahead, the second half from the side. The rest of her family was completely butchered, but not a single round touched her.

  4. 70 Scot M

    I’m glad to see this rebuttal written out in a logical, orderly manner. One of the things you do well Chris, is that you remain objective when replying or responding to something like this, rather than delving into the insulting, name calling rhetoric that many less-than-level-headed people tend to sometimes do. I hope it’s alright with you, but I invited Mr Halbig to come take part in this discussion, since after looking it up, he seems pleased to respond to any attempt to refute what he has to say. So I guess we’ll see if he actually bites.

    • Scot,

      Well, I did call him an idiot, but it was conditional. I’d like to hear his side of this debate, not someone else’s interpretation of his opinion. Thanks for inviting him, we’ll see if he shows.

      • 72 Scot M

        He seems awfully intent on having people call him, he hands out his number like no tomorrow, this is the reply i got back:
        call me because as a 20 police ooficer you observed the clear lkanding zones.. 352-729-2559 you shouold be embrassed by your comments as a fellow LEO…wolfgang

        Told him I wasn’t the LEO, you were, and he said, “have you call him”. Idk if thats something you want to do, then maybe give us the details of the chat, or not. Just wanted to let you know what he said Chris.

        • I’m on a phone and can’t type a long response, so I’ll just say this:

          HAHAHAHA!

          Sorry for the immaturity, but “Ooficer Halbig” just doesn’t sound very credible to me.

          He does sound like a well-qualified “truther” though. 🙂

          • 74 Scot M

            I hear you buddy. The more I see him post on his Facebook page, the more he comes off as an Alex Jones-tyor loudmouth who acts like a tough guy teenager. Less and less credible each time. And someone who feels the need to spout off their mile-long resume every time someone sneezes just reeks of self-absorption

        • 75 Alex

          Scott, how were you able to contact Wolfgang? I’m intrigued to have a few words with him myself….

          • 76 Scot M

            Alex,
            I simply looked him up on Facebook. He took my friend request within a day. Now, I’m not certain it’s HIS personal page and that he’s the owner/operator, but it sure looks/sounds like it.
            In any case, despite Derek’s comment at the bottom, the interactions I had with him sounded more like am arrogant teenage jock them a supposed “professional”. As you saw from the bit that I pasted above, his commentary is rife with spelling errors, and he loves to toot his own horn and repeatedly spout off his ENTIRE resume. At the same time, he apparently welcomes doubters to get in touch with him, usually by handing out his phone number. Good luck!

      • 77 Scot M

        You’d know better than I, but if it were me, I’d call from a blocked number… he sounds a little crazy. Kinda weird he’s so interested in people calling him, and making a point that ” he actually gives out his cell phone number”. Mentions it all the time on his FB page.

  5. Why are people so willing to believe fiction?

    Chris, I think Americans who don’t care for a particular administration look harder for deception than most. We must admit that our leadership has stretched the truth in the past sighting the Tokin Gulf incident and more recently questions about Benghazi.

    Not trying to start another debate on an off topic but I am trying to understand why some may be skeptical. Sandy Hook started the new push toward “what is being called the gun grab” in America. From a conservative point of view the liberal logic in taking so called “assault rifles” and gun free zones makes no sense at all. If you check the stats taking away conceal permits does not lower crime. It seems this perceived faulted logic is also a contributing factor in a lack of trust with our administration.

    When transparency is not available in things such as Benghazi the mind wonders and tends to look for fault in other things. There does seem to be an agenda against the rights of Americans filled with half truths and propaganda considering the logic of gun control. The spying doesn’t make people want to trust, I think there are contributing factors.

    I’m not saying that other topics mentioned are true or false but it may be why people don’t trust things even if it is the truth.

    • Patrick,

      Definitely, so many people hate the current administration they’re willing to argue with it if it says the sky is blue. I don’t trust the fed govt’s words on “reasonable, common sense” gun control, I think they want general disarmament. But that’s the federal government. I don’t believe all the regular Joes in Newtown jumped into a conspiracy with them.

      Good observation, I should have mentioned something about that in my essay. Thanks Patrick.

      • 80 Wayland

        If you take yourself as an example, people are more willing to accept the more mundane and normal explanation, the ‘rational’ explanation than something with such wide repercussions as government and media conspiracy. With a crime scene such as SH the area can be controlled by those in the know. However as you have pointed out it would be impossible to pull this off perfectly, hence the anomalies pointed out by truthers. In the short term this does not matter because volunteers who believe the official version such as yourself will step in to smooth over the damage. Is what you are doing wise and sensible or would it make more sense for you to be extremely skeptical and not make allowances for suspected conspirators to slip away?

        • With a crime scene such as SH you have hundreds of first responders spontaneously responding from multiple agencies. You have parents showing up. You have local and national media arriving. You have curious onlookers with cell phones (as happens in every major incident). So how, with thousands of people on that scene, was it controlled by “those in the know”? Did a small group of officers who were in on the conspiracy keep all the other, uninvolved officers out? Did a small group of conspiratorial paramedics and EMTs go in, then block all the others from coming in? If so, you’re still accusing local cops, who live in Newtown, of being complicit. If you’re claiming that, show some evidence. All you guys have are questions (mostly stupid questions). If you have any evidence, anything at all, lay it out. Put up or shut up.

          • 82 Wayland

            In answer to your request for proof you should go to YouTube TeamWakeEmUP and Watch Sandy Hook Ultimate.

            It is likely that the participants were in a drill and the school had been closed for months. Parents would not be showing up. Vance has run such drills before. Since no one was hurt there would have been no need for ream EMTs and no need for hospitals to be involved. The media showed a drill featuring an armed SWAT team which took place at a different Newtown school one afternoon as if it was live footage from Sandy Hook that morning. Clear evidence that the media will feed fake material into the news. I don’t know the full SH story but if you think you do then how are you filtering the fake stuff from the real stuff? You already told me, you wait until the media get their story straight and you accept that version.

          • There’s clear evidence it was only a drill and the school had been closed for months? Where is this “clear evidence”?

            Wait, don’t tell me; it’s on a video from a conspiracy web site.

            And again, who gives a rat’s ass if the media screws up a story. Yes they mess things up, and no they’re not above putting the wrong video on if that’s all they have. Your constant refrain “But the media didn’t report the real story!” is like saying “But I swear the sun rises in the East!” Yes, you’re right. So freaking’ what.

          • 84 Wayland

            Chris,

            “who gives a rat’s ass if the media screws up a story”
            You are making allowances for media lies. Showing a video which would have to have been fetched from the archives as if it’s happening today is not a screw up, it’s a lie. We receive the story via the media who clearly lie and that does not bother you, you don’t give a rat’s arse. Except you don’t like to call it lying, you call it a screwup.

            Jane Standley made a bit of a ‘cockup’ (Bristish screwup) when she reported WTC7 collapsing 20mins before it did whilst it’s standing in the background behind her. Hers was not the only report that it had collapsed. In addition to that BBC Radio 4 was reporting that they had demolished it because it was too badly damaged to save. “Another massive skyscraper has fallen but this time it was intentionally demolished for safety reasons having become too badly damaged”

            With your personal experience of the media you know they get the story wrong. Mine too. What the reader sees is actual news, what you see is your name spelled wrong and the wrong facts. When the media all agree on a story how do you know it’s right? When they make stuff up like the swat team video and the Wyatt photo how do you know they are not still making it up?

            BBC interviewed a nurse in a Syran hospital. She had a medical mask over her mouth although no one else did. She could have taken it off when talking to the Beeb. She kept it on and there are now two different news reports using the same footage. In one she says Napalm and in the other she says Chemical Weapons. Someone in the media has altered the footage. RT say the BBC did it.

            Obviously evidence from a conspiracy site will be biased towards a conspiracy theory, you should still watch it. Your blog is biased, as I have pointed out in other posts and as has been admitted on this site by your supporters. You even admit it yourself with ‘who gives a rat’s ass’.

        • 85 Steve

          The reason it’s the “rational” explanation is because it’s “rational.” It’s not a matter of blindly trusting the government or the media. It’s a matter of one person with mental problems going into a building and killing more than two dozen people is much more plausible than an elaborate plot that requires the cooperation and lifelong silence of thousands of people.

          • No sane person can say that a mentally unbalanced, non-Muslim-fanatic, having homicidal tendencies would direct them at innocent children and not adults. That is NOT a rational argument. No rational mind can explain it.

            But neither can Fast & Furious be explained as “a screw-up” since it was methodically deliberate, and criminal, and anti-American, and anti-everything rational, -except extremist ideology that rejects concern about methods and only judges actions based on results. Loss of a few lives is a small price to pay for preventing the deaths of tens of thousands. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.
            Why wouldn’t you follow that logic if you had no moral center and no empathy? obama–nation.com -the broadest conspiracy ever…

          • 87 Steve

            We’ll probably never know why Adam Lanza did what he did. We do know that he did it.
            If you think something else happened, tell us what you think happened and give your best evidence. Tell us how the government hired the actors and bought off or threatened pretty much all of Southwestern Connecticut.

    • Yes, exactly, with the proven track record of govt. false flag events such as Tonkin, Op. Gladio, Op. Northwoods, et al, you have to expect a lot of questions when an event is used to further an authoritarian anti 2nd Amendment agenda. Connecticut is past the gun registration phase and is about to begin full on gun confiscation!! I dont know Halbig but I hear him asking valid questions of state employees, filing very relevant FOIA requests and getting stonewalled at every turn. The whole circumstance around the Newtown shooting is so weird as to defy all belief so I appreciate people with the gumption to get up and ask questions. The weirdest thing I noticed was you never saw 500 kids being evacuated, you saw the same picture of 15 kids in a line on every TV newsfeed.
      There are a lot of questions but there is also a COMPLETE lockdown of information from the state and the actors. Halbig has to file suit just to get a few answers?-I hope he is successful, I cant wait to get a few, myself. God Bless us all.

      • Hippie,

        I can see one of your points. I run in some extremely pro-2A, suspicious of government circles, and within hours of the Sandy Hook shooting some people I knew were expecting exactly what happened: the federal government used the SH massacre as justification to further restrict the 2A. If that hadn’t happened, I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be any conspiracy theories.

        Your other points, however, don’t stand. There is no “complete lockdown” of information, the report was released. The facts of the shooting don’t “defy belief” either. A guy with mental problems and an AR-15 murdered 26 defenseless women and children. What defies belief about that? Massacres like that have happened way too many times.

        As far as the reason why Halbig is being stonewalled, I suspect it’s because he’s an uninvolved pain in the ass who’s just causing problems. Like the “moon landing truther” who Buzz Aldrin punched; was Aldrin “stonewalling” him, or refusing to engage with him because he’s a moron who’s doing nothing but causing problems?

        I don’t know. On one hand, I’d like to see Halbig get the information he wants, just to shut him up. On the other hand, I’m fairly certain that even if he was given every last piece of information, he’d still find ridiculous non-issues to complain about. Like he’s already done.

        • 90 Lance F

          It’s amazing to see how human beings respond to various traumatizing matters and the most common responses seem to be 1) sacrificing rights to maintain safety and 2) distancing themselves from the event by making the event seem fake.

          As for the current attempts at banning weapons, the supreme court appears to be on the side of maintaining the amendment deeming California’s ban, on both open and concealed carries, unconstitutional and declared the state a “shall issue” state.

          Anyways, good job hooking and jabbing you old man!

  6. 91 Jeff Wood

    Chris, serious admiration for your achievement in penning this clear, logical, grounded piece without losing your temper, at least in print…

  7. 93 Nicole H

    Thank you Chris. I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone thinks this was a hoax. I will always ignore hoaxers, but it’s good to know there are some people willing to address them appropriately and sensibly.

    • Nicole,

      As Patrick mentioned, people are so distrustful of the administration they question every claim the admin makes. I understand that to a degree, but if President Obama says the sun rises in the east, it really rises in the east. Not everything associated with the government is a hoax.

      Thanks for commenting, Nicole.

  8. 95 SPEMack

    Chris, as always, well written, logical, and insightful.

    You can look at the Troopers, Cops, and EMTs on scene and tell from the frustation and despair evident in thier mannerisms that something truly evil happened.

    There is something oddly American about running to the sounds of guns.

    Sidenote: Order your book in paperback yesterday.

    • I don’t know how ANYONE can claim that incident never happened. It’s ridiculous. The level of “investigation” from these truthers is about as good as the idiots who found pictures of cops in plainclothes at the Boston Marathon bombing, with one wearing a Punisher hat, and announced “Navy SEALs planted the Boston bombs! One of these two guys was wearing the same hat as Chris Kyle!”

      Speaking of Americans running to the sound of the guns, did you ever see the movie The Mummy? When the Brits and Americans get into a shootout with the Magi on the river boat, the Americans are whooping and hollering, just having a good time. One of the Brits looks at them in disgust and sneers, “Americans.” That’s pretty much how we are, and how some of the world looks at us.

      Thanks for the buy, hope I get to autograph it for you in person someday.

      • 97 Keeping an open mind....

        I don’t think that he is saying it never happened….he is saying that there is way more to the story than what we are being told. With everything else we are being lied to about, we are doing a disservice to ourselves by not at least admitting this very basic fact…we don’t know what we don’t know and anything is possible…even if you don’t think its probable.

        • 98 Scot M

          That is false, he is absolutely saying it never happened, and no kids (or adults) died that day. Read his article.

        • In the DCclothesline article I linked, Halbig’s claim is that no children were killed at Sandy Hook, and that the entire event was scripted. If he had simply said there were unanswered questions, I could understand that. If he said there were serious concerns with the investigation, I wouldn’t argue. But he claims the incident never happened. And that’s what I don’t accept.

          I understand your decision to keep an open mind, and I can respect that. Thank you for commenting.

  9. 100 Joe in PNG

    (An analogy stolen from Bill Whittle) One can go to the North Gulf coast of Florida, and with care, pick out individual grains of sand that are black in colour- and perhaps fill a bucket with black sand. Then one can talk about the black sand beaches of North Florida, and prove that fact with the bucket of black sand they honestly picked up on the beaches. But, as pretty much anyone who has been to the Florida Gulf coast knows, those beaches are white sand.

    This is what Truthers do.

    • Good analogy Joe, thanks. That reminds me of Popular Mechanics’ explanation of the “argument by anomaly”, where thousands of pieces of evidence are disregarded because “truthers” decide that one item doesn’t make sense.

  10. 102 flyingtigercomics

    Great essay. I put up a quick and dirty first run through refutation myself, and I AM someone who is satisfied on the facts that the Sandy Hook event has, at the very least, some egregious lapdog media / local weirdo issues.

    But being sane I am also satisfied that it was a real event, people died, responders ran the full spectrum from brilliant to… not so brilliant. I think after the event is where the real ongoing evil sprang up, to make book on a mass murder / spree killer situation and compound the montrousness of the day with their own bloody moneymaking crap.

    And I have to say that another large stream of evil is the totally bugshit crazy people who will literally believe anything like they’re third world savages or something whilst at the same time denying basic common sense verifiable facts. THAT is scary.

    • Tiger,

      I can understand your point of view on this. Just as in every major event, the media made several missteps and mistakes, and in general supported the gun control craze that arose after the incident. As in every incident, we can look back and identify bad decisions. And none of that even suggests the incident never happened.

      I bet I could go to a truther convention, stand at a podium and make up something on the spot like, “Everyone knows all the Jewish kids were removed from Sandy Hook an hour before the shooting. And Adam Lanza had known contacts with Israeli Intelligence services.” And the crowd would believe it.

      • 104 flyingtigercomics

        I agree, there would be an immediate belief in any such statement or “big lie”.

        What you’re looking at is a community or section of society so frightened and dissociated that they will believe any rumour.

        They need to relax. Even if the world was the dark arena they believe it to be – they need to relax. Make smart decisions. Trust but verify.

        But that isn’t how it’s playing out. And the lapdog media just keep throwing them bones in the form of outright lies in reports, sometimes even deliberate “trolling” in how they report stuff.

  11. 105 flyingtigercomics

    Reblogged this on Flying Tiger Comics.

  12. 106 Vicki

    “IF YOU HAVE NO FEAR, THEY HAVE NO POWER” – Les Visible

    There is no Sheriff in Connecticut, no opportunity for a Citizen’s Grand Jury.
    Connecticut is the only state where they could pull this off.

    This us the reason for their entire HOAX
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nM7-671LAcg

    Assessment of Victims made by:
    “They are Matthew Cassavechia, John Reed, and Bernie Meehan”

    In ct state law you must be a licensed medical professional to declare someone dead. Do these gentlemen have such credentials?

    • “TRUTHERS DESPERATELY WANT UNBELIEVABLE CONSPIRACIES TO EXIST, SO THAT THEY GET TO BE ‘EXPERTS’ ON SOMETHING.” – Me

      Ah, yes. You have figured out the conspiracy by watching a YouTube video. I’m in awe of your investigative prowess.

      Just putting this out there, but states don’t have sheriffs, counties do.

      A citizens’ Grand Jury would have two things to do with a conspiracy involving thousands of regular people: jack and shit.

      You obviously didn’t read my essay, you heard about it, rushed here and posted a comment citing your bullshit “evidence” (this video proves everything!”). Read point #5 in my essay, it addresses your supposedly unassailable point about declaring people dead.

  13. 108 Indie776

    So… This article does raise some good points. There was 453 students enrolled at SHES. How man students were seen evacuating?
    A line of only 12-14. That’s it! And to this day. I haven’t seen someone like Robbie Parker ever approach that mic for a presser. You will never convince me that his behavior was legit. Still haven’t seen any tears. Lol. Even in your photographs. No tears! Why go on TV and beg for money? All the others have the poor little puppy dog sad faces, here’s a penny for their terrible acting performances. When these Sandy Hook families went from victim to political activist, they’re fair game. When they’re trying to change the second amendment, I have every right question their credibility.

    • Only 12-14 students were seen evacuating. Right. I can’t link to the photos here, but I just Googled “Sandy Hook students evacuated” and saw numerous pictures of students being led away from the school by officers and parents. Yes, there’s only one picture of students being led outside in a line. So obviously, those were the only students evacuated. Because conspiracy.

      Maybe you didn’t know this, but cameras don’t capture everything that happens at any critical incident. There are plenty of pictures of students leaving SHES. There’s only one picture I know of where the students are in a neat line. That proves… well, nothing.

      Don’t know who Robbie Parker is. Don’t give a damn. Don’t care too much about anyone begging for money either (that’s happened after other incidents like this as well). What I do know is that a bunch of cops, teachers and paramedics responded to a massacre. Those are the people who have to be in on the “conspiracy”. And nobody, not you or Halbig or anyone else, has given any evidence those guys are lying about what happened that day.

      • Oh, and let me add: you’re absolutely right about questioning anyone who is trying in any way to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights.

      • An objective observer would not have written what you wrote. He would have said only that a bunch of cops, teachers, and paramedics responded to something (not “a massacre”, -facts NOT in evidence). What it was is unknown though it was reported to be something unbelievable that remains to be proven, and not by “common sense” but by facts.
        You are oblivious to the nature of what a conspiracy-fake incident is. It is a realistic, believable, convincing imitation of reality involving credible, and intelligent, and authorization people such as yourself.

        There may have been a couple dozen LE officers at the scene, and none of them entered the building because it was “sealed” for crime-scene investigators.
        You could have actual public employees fulfilling their roles in a normal and uninvolved manner, intermixed with conspirator actors playing their roles while to the press and public the whole scene would seem like something that would be too horrible to even contemplate being a fraud on the public, and guess what… that would be the most convincing “reason” to believe the official line.
        The more unthinkable a “big lie” is, the easier it is to convince people that no one would even dream of pulling off such a huge fraud. That was the principle that the Nazis put into print, possibly by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
        So beware of your own natural rationality because it is the very foundation that sinister long-term thinkers with a cold-blooded agenda would rely on to sway your opinion to the side that is most believable based on everyday experience. It is essentially an infallible approach to deception. The more rational a person is, the more easily he is convinced that what seems to him as being irrational must simply be false, even if it is true… though unimaginable. It’s like playing 3-dimensional chess versus two dimensional checkers.

        • And you could have evidence, rather than an intricate fantasy you concocted to convince yourself, no one else, that this never happened.

          I have real, actual experience on murder scenes. I have a real, detailed police report explaining what happened on the Sandy Hook murder scene. And I know of real, actual people who were there.

          You have a fantasy.

  14. 113 Ken Kalos

    Thank you Sir…………..enough said !! Hopefully, the followers will change directions !

  15. 114 newbie engineer

    chris hernandez the author is a troll and/or a shill, as his article is so full of irrelevant fodder and contains absolutely no facts. SH was scripted and liars lie. Why else would the dumb medical examiner say, ” I hope they don’t have this come crashing down on them later.”

    • Newbie,

      Yes, I’m a troll. I’m so dedicated to being a troll I cleverly spent 25 years in the military and 20 years as a cop just to sharpen my trolling skills. You found me out.

      Oh, and I’m a shill too. It’s actually really difficult to be a shill and a troll at the same time, but I’ve somehow managed to pull it off. I guess I’m shilling my own books, which have nothing to do with Sandy Hook or any other school massacre. I suppose if I write any opinion that you don’t agree with, I’m a troll/shill. Noted.

      I think you’re a little unclear on what “facts” are. For example, the 5.5 quarts of blood contained in a 150 lb human body is fact. Halbig’s “45-60 gallons of blood” claim is in fact not true. Halbig’s belief that shooting victims totally drain of blood is also untrue; I pointed out the fact that people stop bleeding when their hearts stop.

      Likewise with the stupid “autistic people aren’t strong enough to handle a weapon” and “police transmissions don’t lie” statements. I refuted them with facts.

      Funny how you buy Halbig’s obvious bullshit claims about those things. Because it’s a conspiracy and you know it. It must be very difficult knowing the real truth about everything. But I’m sure it’ll all be worth it the day the truth is revealed and everyone tells you “Good god newbie, you were right all along! If only we had listened to you! You’re so intelligent, the rest of us are totally stupid sheeple!”

      People like you make me smile, newbie. 🙂

  16. 117 Stevo

    Lemmings suck.

    • When I was in a police academy I got into an argument with a black female cadet about OJ Simpson. She insisted he had been framed by the police, and paid no attention to any of the physical evidence.

      I brought up a recent OJ interview. The cadet knew nothing about it. I pointed out that he had said, “Let’s say I did commit this crime. Obviously that means I loved her very much, right?”

      The female cadet immediately answered, “He didn’t mean it. He just said it for publicity.” Even though she knew nothing about the interview, she immediately dismissed it because it didn’t fit what the just *knew* about the murder. Evidence meant nothing. Incriminating statements meant nothing. She knew he had been framed by racists and that was the end of it.

      You’re no different than she was.

  17. 120 Franko

    Just sounds like you are trying to out-credential Wolfgang.

    • Except that I refuted each of his points. So no, your claim is incorrect.

      • 122 Nerv

        The questions were not meant to prove sandy hook was fake. The reason he was stressing the questions is that they were not offensive and could get noone in trouble. Yet they won’t answer them, they eeven lost a FOIA lawsuit from Halbig and still won’t release any information. Halbig claims they have called him and told him to stop asking questions. So in a strange way your article supports halbigs position, because none of these answers would have been hard to give.

        Please go watch the actual interviews and you will see that I am right, this article is either misleading intentionally or the author never even listened to the iinterviews.

        • 123 Scot M

          Except it could also be contested that all these things that Halbig says are happening to him are more or less hearsay. I believe Chris addressed the specific points, that yes Halbig meant to be portrayed as “proof” that the event didn’t happen, or at the very least didn’t happen the way we’re told, and was a constructed event.

          • 124 Nerv

            Well why doesn’t someone just answer his questions then? If they did, we wouldn’t be talking about the questions in the first place. Why are politicians scrambling to make laws that keep anything sandy hook related from being released. Why did they arrest that other guy for calling the coroners office? If they would just let everyone know what happened noone would be discussing any of this.

    • That wouldn’t be hard. chrishernandezauthor made a meal out of Wolfgang.

    • 126 flyingtigercomics

      If Mr. Hernandez was actually trying to out-credential Halbig- he succeeded.

      Also, Halbig made the appeal to authority, he can hardly complain if someone puts theirs on the table next to his and hey it’s bigger.

  18. 127 Derek Milesborough

    “Halbig sounds like a typical “truther””

    Actually, having heard the radio interview from which the quotes you address here are culled, he genuinely doesn’t. He sounds like a coherent, lucid, and above all genuine guy in search of answers.

    As to whether the official Sandy Hook story is the truth, a lie, or a mixture of truth and lie, I don’t know. I’m one of those people who isn’t afraid to sit on the fence until genuinely irrefutable evidence is revealed – and with SH, I have yet to be convincingly swayed one way or the other.

    • 128 Scot M

      Derek, see my comment above in regards to Halbig’s “genuine lucidness”

    • Derek,

      His claims sound like a typical truther’s. He cherrypicks what he thinks are inconsistencies, then uses them as evidence to “prove” thousands of regular people are deliberately faking a gigantic, well-documented event.

      I’d guess that if SH hadn’t been used as a gun control justification, nobody would have questioned whether or not it happened. There would be no reason to be on the fence if the tragedy wasn’t being exploited for political purposes.

      • 130 Derek Milesborough

        Well obviously you’re entitled to your opinion on him “cherry-picking” pieces of info, I honestly didn’t get that impression after hearing the interview. That’s just a matter of opinion, but hey… there’s numerous 9/11 and Moon Landing type conspiracy docs on youtube made by guys trying to make crazy assumptions based on grainy photos, you know the type I mean….to my mind, Halbig is not one of ‘those guys’.

        I’m not saying your responses here sound don’t sound entirely credible to me, because they do. It’s when the whole thing becomes a kind of dick-waving contest, when each side becomes more intent proving the other wrong than proving themselves right, that the whole argument kinda breaks down and you get name calling and cheap shots. I really hate the word “truther”. It’s best to examine each case on its own merits.

        @Scott M – yes I saw your communication from Halbig (apparently). He doesn’t look to hot on typing…perhaps he’s dyslexic, or was having a bad day? 🙂

        • Derek,

          Fair enough, I get your point. I’ve tried to not turn this into a dick-measuring contest, mainly by pointing out that I ain’t no expert on nuthin’. I believe my arguments stand on their own, but I’m definitely biased.

          And regarding the word “truther”, it’s my understanding that’s what many of them call themselves. I didn’t use it as an insult, but I knew I would get personal insults from some of them for speaking out against Halbig (and the comments bear that out). I try not to engage in insults, but I’m not going to be anyone’s punching bag.

          Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it.

  19. What is wrong with someone saying to ask questions? This isn’t a military operation in which questioning a command can get you killed…

    We are living at a time when we are openly lied to by everyone in our government at all levels. Our President has been quoted as lying so many times in the past term it’s ridiculous!

    So why should we believe anything in which things don’t fit the puzzle, questions being asked aren’t receiving answers that make sense,… and there appear to be people behind this with agendas in place that fit really nicely in with these so called random events.

    I say question everything all the time, because that is the only way to pick out the bs from the truth and decipher the truth out of the lies… anyone having a problem with the truth has a larger agenda that needs looking at!

    • 1) Nobody said it’s wrong to ask questions.

      2) In the military nobody will kill you for asking questions about a military operation. I’ve been on tons of military operations and asked questions about almost all of them. The fact that you believe people are killed for asking questions in the military is probably a pretty good indication of your willingness to believe ridiculous claims about anything involving the government.

      3) I don’t disagree with your statement about us being lied to by the federal government, and I’ve written about that in the past. But this alleged Sandy Hook conspiracy would require thousands of regular people to lie, not just the federal government.

      4.1) The pieces that truthers think “don’t fit” actually do fit, but since the average Sandy Hook truther knows nothing about police work or murders they just won’t believe it. See my points above about the amount of blood on the scene, police radio transmissions, decisions to send kids back into areas where dead people were, and the physical capabilities of people with autism. None of those “don’t fit”.

      4.2) You’re absolutely right people are using these events to further their own agendas. In my opinion that’s the only reason anyone doubts these incidents happen, because so many people are so quick to use them as justification for removing our freedoms.

      5.1) Question everything all the time? What good does that do if you don’t know what you’re talking about? If a molecular physicist explains what protons and neutrons are, and I say “You’re lying! I’ve never seen a proton or a neutron, they don’t exist!”, have I accomplished anything other than making myself look like an idiot? Halbig uses his background to convince truthers he knows what he’s talking about, then he makes blatantly stupid claims that show he doesn’t know the first thing about murders or police operations. But he’s questioning everything, and accomplishing nothing. Other than riling up people who probably already agreed with him.

      5.2) People who have a problem with the truth need to be looked at. Agreed. Most truthers are pathologically incapable of handling truth. Their questions and accusations reveal no truths, but do illustrate their own mental state.

  20. 134 Lisa

    Youtube video Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2,3,4 and 5 dimensions is fairly convincing proof this was a layered event. How did they keep hundreds of people silent? May I refer you to Hamford WA where part of the Manhattan Project occurred. One hundred fifty thousand people were kept silent about their involvement of building the first three nuclear reactors, top scientists across three states were mum as well. It does happen, can happen and did happen where people, thousands upon thousands were mum about what they were doing. Sandy Hook and Boston were just some of the latest to bring about a security state.

    • None of the people involved in the Manhattan Project were elementary school children. Are the former Sandy Hook students willingly involved in a conspiracy? According to you, they know nobody was killed that day. Do you think this mastermind federal government plan depends on 6 year old children staying silent about the conspiracy for the rest of their lives?

      Anyone involved in a secret operation like the Manhattan Project has a security clearance and signs a Non-Disclosure Agreement. They’re vetted, investigated and cleared to participate (and remember, the Manhattan Project didn’t remain a secret). An alleged SHES conspiracy would require thousands of regular people, without training, clearances or any apparent motive for cooperating to willingly lie, and be trusted by the government to always lie. All the cops, EMS personnel, reporters, parents, neighbors, teachers, school janitors and food service workers, medical examiners, emergency room doctors, nurses, assistants, other patients who were already there when SHES casualties arrived, funeral home directors, morticians, maybe even priests officiating at funerals, would have to lie in order to maintain the cover up. If any one of these thousands of people broke their silence and said, “I can’t do this anymore, this is all a lie,” the conspiracy would collapse. Do you really think the massive, all-powerful, mastermind Man from U.N.C.L.E. organization is just “hoping” none of these people will ever break down and tell the truth?

  21. 136 Bloody Bucket

    You and Halbig are both “Babes Lost in the Woods”. At least Halbig is taking steps towards enlightenment.

    For you…ignore the other stuff. Start focusing on the mundane in Newtown. The devil is in the details.

    Like for instance: Did you ever see a gunshot death scene with next to zero blood splatter inside a confined room? Here’s your clue. Nancy Lanza’s bed. It is the only one where you will actually see blood.
    Not much of a bleed out. Pillow removed before photo.
    How may times have you seen JFK’s brain blown out in the Zapruder film? That’s right. We’re supposedly adults. Proof son. Proof.
    I don’t care if it was a .22LR (x 4). There would still be some bone and brain on the walls and ceiling. Go count them. 2 specks. That’s it.

    CNN has never apologized for their “St. Rose of Lima “SWAT” team running into a school WITHOUT weapons or kevlar video loop” which played all that Friday morning and afternoon over and over again. Why is that? Why? Why go to all that trouble to scare the crap out of St. Rose of Lima’s parishioners?
    THEN SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF THEM AGAIN AT SUNDAY MASS…with a phoned in bomb and shooter scare? And the calls can’t be traced? The NSA must of been having their Xmas party that Sunday explaining why the calls can’t be traced. Do you think? Huh? Maybe?

    Gilles Rousseau…never being allowed to see his dead daughter, the substitute teacher, but yet LEO fish her car keys off of Lauren’s corpse and after her bullet ridden car was photographed (it’s in there with Nancy’s bedroom scenes) Gilles drives away with exculpatory evidence.
    Amazing. Considering that there were cars in front of and next to hers in the SH parking lot.

    Go ahead. Refute away all day.
    I’m just getting started.

    • Yes, Halbig is “enlightened”, which apparently involves failing to understand human physiology or the basics of criminal investigations. Sure.

      1) Why yes, I have in fact seen a crime scene with no blood spatter. I was on one scene where a man was found laying in the road. No blood, no shell casings, no obvious signs of trauma. We found one small hole in a pant leg, but couldn’t tell if it was a bullet hole or not. It wasn’t until the medical examiners showed up and rolled him over that we saw a small amount of blood underneath from a bullet wound in the back of his head, and discovered the tiny hole in his pants was from a .22 round.

      2) Not much of a bleed out? That’s because not everyone who’s shot bleeds out. Wounds that kill quickly stop the heart from beating, which stops the bleeding. If you think every shooting victim bleeds out, you’re about as good of a criminal investigator as Halbig. Which makes you well-qualified to be a conspiracy theorist.

      So tell me, how many murder scene have YOU been on? Please share your experience with us.

      3) You compare the impact of a 6.5mm military rifle round to a .22? Do you really think the effect is the same? Apparently you do, so I’ll spoon-feed you some information: a small round with very little power behind it somehow doesn’t do nearly as much damage as a large round with a lot of power behind it. So no, I don’t expect Nancy Lanza’s murder scene to look anything like JFK’s limo after his assassination.

      And if Nancy was laying in bed when she was killed, and Adam was standing over her firing downward with a .22, there would have to be blood and brain on the walls and ceiling, even though the rounds traveled downward?

      Don’t tell me: you’ve watched plenty of CSI shows, so you just know what murder scenes always look like.

      4) Should I give even half a damn how bad CNN’s reporting is? Who cares how bad they botch everything they report. Unless you mean… my god… CNN is part of the conspiracy!

      5) Gilles Rousseau was given car keys by an officer. I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s say it is. If the medical examiner had already removed her personal effects and determined that the keys weren’t of evidentiary value, the keys could be documented and turned over to family. Nothing shocking or suspicious about that. So, how is it that you know “exculpatory evidence” was in the car? What was this evidence, and how did you become aware of it?

      Proof, son, proof.

      You’re just getting started? I’m terrified. You’ve already shown, just like your enlightened buddy Halbig, that you have at best a tenuous grasp on the realities of crime scenes. You’ve injected CNN into this “conspiracy”, as if their bad reporting after the crime somehow suggests the incident didn’t happen. You’ve claimed “exculpatory evidence” was removed from the scene; this wasn’t a maybe, this was a definitive claim. Yet you didn’t explain what this obviously exculpatory evidence was, or how YOU are aware of its existence. So please, let’s hear it. I’m all ready to refute away.

      • 138 Bloody Bucket

        Yep…FOUR holes in the head and TWO specks and yeah…she didn’t have a pant leg over her head.
        As for a 6.5mm round shot from a Carcano from behind JFK’s head that made his head violently jerk BACKWARDS defying all Newtonian physics, you just go ahead and keep on believing fairy tales. I have a Carcano. They are POS rifles. During the Winter War, Mussolini shipped boatloads to Mannerheim. His boys would shoot a Russian, drop the Carcano and pick up the Mosin-Nagent. Have you ever fired either one? How about a .50 caliber Barrett? That’s neither here nor there, is it?
        Sorry. If you shoot somebody in the head FOUR times at close range THERE WILL BE SPLATTER. Head, son…not a leg with a pant leg for cover. I highly doubt that little squint kid of Nancy’s had the physical ability to hold a pillow over her face and fire the rifle at the same time..but you can go there if you’d like. My point again…why no pics? They had to have a SPECIAL session of the Connecticut legislature to make all the photos “private” yet they released photos that show little, next to nothing. Like I said, proof son, proof. SHOW ME. We are all adults. You’re missing the point. If they have nothing to hide, then show it. Don’t just take the government’s good “word” as fact.

        Answer the questions about CNN’s “bad reporting”. It’s not bad, it IS criminally negligent. It caused a REAL panic. It was never retracted. Again…why go to all that trouble to hire a helicopter and have a “half dressed” for battle “SWAT” team sans weapons RUN to a school that is a little over a mile away from Sandy Hook? If you had a kid at St. Rose that morning, you would have been Oscar Mike like shit out a goose and you’d still be fuming. And it was recorded in September 2012. I don’t feel like explaining Euclidean geometry, gnomons, shadows, and sunlight angles to you…but if you were the least bit curious, GO THERE.

        Gilles Rousseau was interviewed by the CBC, that’s how I became aware of it….There’s a lot of Canucks still scratching their heads on that one. So you are LEO, huh? I guess if a car is shot up in Texas and its dead owner is a few dozen yards away, it’s NOT evidence? Quit being silly. The pictures are also in THE EVIDENCE photos that were put out in November. Like I said….Every picture tells a story, don’t it?

        Now…one parting question and then refute this too. A hundred twelve pound, five foot numb nuts with Asperger’s humps ALL that gear up to the entrance and shoots the window out, then proceeds on a rampage, using a SEMI…repeat…SEMI AR-15. squeezing off 6 loaded mags, some only halfway, dropping and loading another full mag (154 shots total) of 5.56 NATO (I bet you still think it was .223…why the lies for so long? That’s OK…the “official” report says that’s “irrelevant” since they can fire both rounds. Really?) UNDER five minutes and achieves a 99% kill rate?
        The 911 tapes released counters that supposed “fact”. Neither claim supports the other. Give them a listen, you’ll have an epiphany. Very sporadic with long intervals between shots. (and it doesn’t sound anything at all like a 5.56 NATO) Less than 600 seconds and 154 shots. Amazing.

        • 1) Four downward .22 shots, there’s very little blood on the wall, and none on the ceiling. No, that doesn’t strike me as odd. Once again, what’s YOUR crime scene training and experience?

          2) I own a Carcano, but have never fired it. I have fired a Moisin-Nagant and a Barrett .50. Who cares? The point I made is that a 6.5 Carcano is a much more powerful round than a .22. A 6.5 can cause massive trauma, a .22 won’t cause the same amount of damage. Do you disagree with that?

          3) I love how you conspiracists think. Yesterday you brought up the Zapruder film as evidence of what rifle shots to the head actually do. Now you say the Zapruder film is “fairy tale”. No kidding? Is the video fake? It does in fact show Kennedy’s head snap forward and then violently backward. I couldn’t tell you for certain why that happened, but the video sure proves it did happen, didn’t it? In the book “Case Closed”, Gerald Posner says Kennedy had a brace under his jacket to keep him upright, the same braces that people in parades use. According to Posner, his body bounced back against the brace, explaining the backward head snap. True? I don’t know. It’s certainly plausible though, isn’t it?

          Don’t tell me… you already know for a fact that’s not true.

          So how about you decide whether or not the video is evidence to support your case, or it’s a “fairy tale”. If it’s part of some conspiracy, use your brain and stop citing it to support your argument.

          4) Lanza wasn’t strong enough to hold a .22 rifle and a pillow at the same time? A Savage Mk II-F .22 rifle (the Nancy Lanza murder weapon, according to Wikipedia) weighs a whopping 5.5 pounds. I was firing a .22 rifle when I was much younger and smaller than Adam Lanza. Not much strength is needed to handle a lightweight .22. In one of the videos in my essay, a young girl easily handles a much heavier “assault rifle”, shotgun and pistol.

          But even if Lanza was as weak as you think he was, if he couldn’t hold a 5.5 lb rifle and a pillow at the same time, is it possible he, oh, maybe laid the pillow on his sleeping mother’s head and then put both hands on the rifle?

          Wait, don’t tell me… you already know for certain that didn’t happen.

          5) Why haven’t the crime scene photos been released? Couldn’t tell you. I know that in some states all evidence becomes public, in others it’s not. I’m not shocked the crime scene photos weren’t released. Were the OJ Simpson murder photos released? Do crime scene photos from every murder scene get released?

          And if they were, guys like you who have never been on a murder scene in your lives would point out stupid “inconsistencies” like “Wait! Everyone knows people who get shot with AR-15s fall with their feet pointing west!” and claim the photos are fake.

          6) Reference CNN: who gives a f**k? I don’t know anything about the reporting you keep ranting about, but who cares? So CNN once again said/did something stupid. Maybe they even did something criminal, as you say. Does that prove the incident never happened? Sandy Hook was covered by numerous media outlets, from local papers to major international agencies. So if CNN’s reporting sucked, that proves… what?

          7) Your Rousseau video shows someone claiming to be her father, showing a car with a round through it. For the sake of argument, I’ll accept that as true. If it’s the case, I’d ask if the officers documented the damage, decided there was no further evidentiary value, and released the car. If they didn’t, then yes, I’d consider that an error in the investigation. Which would prove… get ready… officers make mistakes sometimes. You might be shocked to discover that criminal investigations are conducted by imperfect human beings. Look at the OJ Simpson investigation; there were plenty of mistakes, so do you argue that OJ was framed? After some of the Manson Family murders, officers didn’t follow up on the suspects’ own statements about where the murder weapons were discarded, and reporters found them months later. Do you argue that the Manson Family never committed any murders?

          But you’re not answering my original question. You didn’t just claim the car contained evidence, you claimed it contained *exculpatory* evidence. What was the exculpatory evidence?

          8) Lanza humped “all that gear” (a rifle and magazines) into the school. Not hard to believe at all, the rifle is lightweight and the loaded mags weigh only about a pound each. Then he murders a bunch of unarmed, unresisting educators and children (mostly children) at close range. I guess that’s hard to believe, since no other active shooter attack has ever happened *eyeroll*. At VA Tech, Cho killed more people, with less powerful weapons. But I guess he was part of the conspiracy too.

          9) In your last paragraph, what lie are you referring to? You made some allusion to 5.56 and .223 being different; sure, commercial .223 ammo usually differs from issue 5.56 ammo. The slight differences in ballistics would make no difference at all at close range. I’ve fired thousands of rounds of .223 through my personal M4 (Rock River Entry Tactical), and hundreds of rounds of issued 5.56 at a military carbine match. They sure as hell don’t sound different.

          10) Regarding the 911 tapes, unless the tapes cover the entire length of the incident, the slow rate of fire you cited is irrelevant. You can easily put 154 rounds through an AR-15 in ten minutes (first you said five minutes, then “less than 600 seconds”). I could put 5 mags through an M4 in well under 5 minutes. That would be a pretty high rate of fire, and I wouldn’t guess that Lanza fired at the exact same rate of fire throughout the entire incident. Sometimes he’d have a lot of targets, such as when he was in the classrooms, and sometimes he wouldn’t, like when he was searching the hallways. So in some of the 911 recordings, the rate of fire is slow? That’s not surprising, unless you think every murderer must fire his weapon at a consistent rate during the duration of his crime.

          Once again, here are my questions for you:

          What’s your crime scene investigation experience and/or training?

          What’s the exculpatory evidence you claimed was in Rousseau’s car?

          Why are you citing the Zapruder film as evidence of what rifle rounds really do, and then claiming it shows something that could not have happened?

          • 140 Bloody Bucket

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-YeEgq5sO7NQWRJOXBsWVhNVFk/edit

            Chew on this for a while.
            Tell me what you spit out.

            Focus, son. Focus.

            So who killed Nancy Lanza?

            I see a different shooter than Adam. Trigger and cartridges…both not Adam. Maybe he was wearing surgical gloves huh? Why would he care? How else can this be explained that he was the killer? The only DNA from Adam is on the fore arm of the Savage…the rest is a mystery…especially the cartridges.

            And who is the convicted New York felon?
            And why has this never been reported in the news?

          • Hmm. So if this document is real, it says DNA from a convicted felon was found on an envelope flap and on cartridges. Let’s say that’s true. Does that DNA eliminate Adam as the murderer? It’s definitely worth investigating, and I’d bet the officers did. If internet investigators found it, it’s pretty much guaranteed the police did too (especially since it’s in what appears to be an official document from the investigation).

            You realize, not every investigative lead is an “aha!” moment that identifies the “true” killer. You need to stop watching CSI.

            Why hasn’t this been reported in the media? Couldn’t tell you. I’d guess that nobody considers it newsworthy, because, as noted earlier, not every investigative lead is a major discovery. Are you suggesting that every single media outlet in the country is in on the conspiracy, since none of them (according to you) have reported it?

            By the way, you’re dodging easy questions, which convinces me you have something to hide and are part of a conspiracy. So I’ll ask you again:

            What’s your crime scene investigation experience and/or training?

            What’s the exculpatory evidence you claimed was in Rousseau’s car?

            Why are you citing the Zapruder film as evidence of what rifle rounds really do, and then claiming it shows something that could not have happened?

          • 142 Bloody Bucket

            What’s your credentials, prick face? Quantico? Red House? Why do you keep asking?
            As Hillary Clinton once famously said “What does it matter?”

            Thread killer.
            Worried about Rousseau’s car, are ya? No need.

            Hummingbirds and Paperclips don’t mean shit to me.

            Welcome to Culperland.

            Bloody Bucket should have been your first clue. You met a few in Kosovo.

            Go ahead and let it ride.
            Sorry, I’m all out of challenge coins and POGs.

            Wait! I got one POG left to play!

          • 1) I’ve explained my credentials, “prick face” [giggle].

            2) Why do I keep asking? Because it’s pertinent to the conversation, and you refuse to answer. So you must have something to hide, just like the CT State Police and FBI.

            Actually, you probably won’t answer because you have zero insight into investigations or school shootings, and are simply parroting what you read on conspiracy web sites.

            3) Worried about the car? No. Interested? Yes.

            4) Hummingbirds and paperclips… uh, sure. Don’t know what that means, but my response is “turnips and antifreeze!”

            Bonus points if you know what comic strip that’s from.

            5) Culperland? Never been there. How’s the night life?

            6) So you’re PA NG. Does this somehow qualify as crime scene investigation experience? Please, explain.

            Play that POG, brother! 🙂

          • 144 Bloody Bucket

            You.

            You’re it.

            “POG” didn’t even exist back in my day, son.

            Bonus points if you know how Hummingbird and Paperclip are related.
            Bonus points if you know Terminal Lance.
            Extra extra bonus points to name the first defendant to skate on “Insanity by reason of Asperger’s”.

            There is no “if” or “appears” and as far as “aha! moments” go. This is just a drop in a bucket.
            It seemed to have slipped past the censors, like my posts to you.
            What does it matter?

            Those are FALSE documents from the investigation?
            Says YOU?
            3:)

          • 1) WTF are you talking about now? I ask three very simple questions, and I get rants about Terminal Lance/Hummingbirds and Paperclips/defendants with Asperger’s.

            I see your lips moving, but all I hear is “deflect, deflect, deflect”.

            2) Censors? You have evidence this information mistakenly slipped past censors? So in this grand, complex conspiracy involving thousands of regular people, someone inadvertently let slip DNA evidence documents which prove Adam didn’t kill his mother?

            Except that they don’t prove Adam didn’t kill his mother, do they?

            3) I didn’t say those documents were false, did I? And I even said, “let’s say that’s true”. I’m not intimately familiar with all the thousands of official documents related to this investigation, and I’d bet you’re not either.

            So, once again:

            What’s YOUR crime scene investigation experience or training?

            What’s the “exculpatory evidence” which YOU definitively claimed was in Rousseau’s car?

            Why are you using the Zapruder film as evidence to support your claims, then saying it’s a “fairy tale”?

          • 146 Bloody Bucket

            No wonder they are called jarheads! LOL!

            Look! Zapruder! Film! Seen! Known!
            Comparison.
            SHES! Nothing! Nada! Zilch! ZERO! SHOW! PICTURES!

            Car! No! DNA! SWABBED! BULLET! HOLES! EVIDENCE! GONE FOREVER! WHY?
            ANOTHER! SCHOOL! ONE! MILE! AWAY! TERRORIZED! TWICE! IN! 48! HOURS! WHY?

            Now I’ll form sentences to see if you understand.

            We have seen JFK’s head blown apart a thousand times in motion.
            Nobody made this “sealed” “confidential””never to be disclosed””national security” evidence. It is public KNOWLEDGE.
            SHES…nothing to see here, move along…no, you may not see the autopsy photos or ANY of the bodies. Why? Why the secrecy? Because! Well, because isn’t good enough.

            A murdered substitute teacher’s car is shot up and it is not germane? Why? Because! Well, because is NOT good enough.

            The same with St. Rose. CONNECTICUT STATE TROOPERS IN UNIFORM ARE SEEN Storming this school over and over and over again THAT very morning. Why? Because! Well, because it is NOT good enough.

            At least Wolfie is curious. You close your eyes and cover your ears and act like a child who refuses to listen.
            Wolfie will fail. The gubbermint is currently reaming his ass with a battering ram. Before long he’ll be accused of raping puppies and kittens.

            Is anybody home? Lights on but nobody is answering the door.

            One more time. Red House.

            Good answer on the femoral arteries being severed. Only an idiot would raise the heart above a bleed out. It is almost a guaranteed death sentence if you do.
            Are you ready to go there?

            Have you ever worked with dogs?

          • Yes, we’ve send the Zapruder film thousands of times. And you claimed it showed an impossible event, a fairy tale.

            Now you’re insisting it’s real.

            Why do you claim this real video shows something that could never happen?

            I realize that using ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!! is a point of pride for truthers, but how about you calm down and actually answer the questions I’m asking you?

  22. 148 Joe in PNG

    One of the absolute dumbest thing said by truthers is the classic “the government lied about (x), so they also must be lying about (y).”
    By that same logic, if Truther person has ever sped in an automobile, they must be guilty of puppy buggery! Poor, poor puppies.

  23. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I would like to recommend my fully reference, linked and documented post on the Sandy Hook State Police Report, which I do not contend says this was a staged event or that there were actors. However, there are many, serious questions raised in this post (ongoing) that have not been covered by the MSM: http://sleepbutawhile.com/2014/01/12/inconvenient-truth-60-the-sandy-hook-police-report/ and thank you again.

    • Sleep,

      I will check that out. I don’t have a problem with anyone saying questions remain unanswered (as you’re saying). I only have an issue with anyone who claims the incident never occurred, or was scripted. Thank you for commenting, and I hope you continue to participate in the discussions I’ve begun.

    • Sleep,

      I glanced over it, and it looked interesting… until I saw the pictures of Adam as a toddler dressed in camouflage clothing, with your question “Could this be evidence that Adam was part of MK Ultra? Was he being prepped to be a Manchurian Candidate?”

      And with that, I’d say your essay lost credibility. Many kids are photographed wearing military-style clothing. Are they all “MK Ultra Manchurian Candidates”? Do you have any evidence Lanza had anything all to do with any such secret (or imaginary) programs?

      Just asking questions doesn’t prove anything. Even if the questions are, to put it mildly, fantastic.

      • Unlike you, I read your ENTIRE post, and yes I agree children are dressed in camo…they are not photographed as a baby with a gun in their hand, and grenade in their lap…thank you for reading my post, but no thanks for not reading it thoroughly…

        • How does that picture, even with a gun and grenade, suggest connection to “MK Ultra” or being raised as a “Manchurian Candidate”? Do you have any evidence at all to back that suggestion?

          • 154 Bloody Bucket

            Hummingbirds and Paperclips might! LOL! Christ, you’re dumb.
            Being played and has no clue…

            Just keep on doing what you do best.
            Everybody turns out the lights in Culperland when it gets dark and it is getting darker for you by the minute.

            Just like Halbig. Never heard of Rousseau, never heard of Rodia, never heard of lack of DNA on Nancy’s murder weapon or casings. Never heard of the busted garage door. Never heard Adam was shot in the lower back of the head and the wound exited out of the top of his skull through his black boonie. Never heard the Civic had 4 open doors and discarded clothing that wasn’t Adam’s left on the ground. Doesn’t know who the seven CSP “SWAT” team members are who were part of a CNN psy-op at St. Rose. Can’t explain why a bomb threat call can’t be traced to the same place.

            Can’t name the NIMS/ICS/MCI commander. (Neither can anybody else!)

            What does it matter!

          • Ah, Bucket. I know you’re just longing for the day every official guy like me is proven wrong, and we’ll have to say “Darn it, Bucket! If only we had listened to you, since all along you knew the real truth!”

            You’re correct, I don’t know every detail of *any* investigation. I don’t know who the first officer in the door at Columbine was. But Columbine happened. I don’t know who the sniper was who shot Huberty at the San Ysidro McDonald’s, but I know Huberty murdered a bunch of people there. I don’t know the names of the first officers into Norris Hall at VA Tech, but I know Cho murdered 30 students and teachers there. In this case, don’t know who Rodia is, never heard of a busted garage door. Don’t give a rat’s ass who the SWAT team guys at St Rose were (and didn’t you say that event happened before SH, and is therefore totally unconnected? So who cares who was on that team?).

            I guarantee that YOU don’t know every detail of the investigation either.

            I know that the officers and EMS who responded found 26 innocent people murdered, and Lanza dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Now you’re trying to tell me the incident never happened, because I don’t know who was on the SWAT team at St Rose?

            And you still won’t answer three simple questions.

            What’s your criminal investigation experience or training?

            What’s the alleged exculpatory evidence you definitively stated was in Rousseau’s car?

            Why are you using the Zapruder film as evidence to support your claims, while simultaneously claiming it’s fake?

            Funny how you just keep avoiding those simple questions, Bucket. I guess you have something to hide.

          • “Was this an instance of MK Ultra training the toddler from the very beginning to be a Manchurian Candidate?” is not a suggestion, it is an open ended question, and if you read the entire post, and might I suggest the referenced parts of the state police report, you will see, as I have, that there is many things that have never been mentioned by the MSM. I might also suggest you reading my posts on Manchurian Candidates, fully referenced from CIA documents which I include…Do I sway towards the idea that he was a manchurian candidate? Yes, but do I KNOW it? No. Anyone who reads the ENTIRE posting, with each link to the exact part of the State Police Report, would, I think have many questions to ask also…thank you again for taking the time to “skim” my post…take 15 minutes and read the entire post, with references to the quotes taken directly from the Police Report and see if you don’t find anything at all disturbing about what we have been told…again, thanks…

          • Sleep,

            I would call your reference to MK Ultra and Manchurian Candidates more than simply open ended questions. They’re suggesting answers. Like the question, “Why have Clark Kent and Superman never been in the same room together?” That’s not simply a question, it’s an implied answer.

            In the LE world, if an investigator threw an “open ended question” about MK Ultra or Manchurian Candidates into an investigation, without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the suspect had any connection to them, that investigator would likely be laughed out of the room. An investigation doesn’t follow “what could have happened” or “what if the suspect was involved in…”, they follow what the actual evidence suggests.

            Put it this way. Let’s say we have a murder at a housing project. A young man is found dead in a courtyard in the middle of the night, from a gunshot wound. Police arrive and find that the man has an extensive criminal history of drug-dealing offenses, is a documented gang member, and had numerous baggies of crack cocaine in his pocket.

            The initial investigation would likely focus on a dispute over drugs. It wouldn’t focus on the “open ended question” of whether the victim had ties to Jewish intelligence services, or that he was murdered for secretly selling human body parts to Guatemala, or that he was part of MK Ultra.

            If there’s no reason to suspect it, there’s no reason to inject it into the investigation.

          • Again, have you looked at the entire post? And the actual quotes from the actual document? I did all the work for anyone who wants to see it, you don’t have to search, you can just follow the link to each document. Failing that, I don’t see how you will see what I see..thanks..

          • Sleep,

            It doesn’t matter how well you may have documented the existence of MK Ultra or Manchurian Candidates. Do you have any evidence linking either of those to Lanza? If you don’t, then there’s no reason whatsoever to inject them into the “investigation”. By doing so, you lose credibility.

            I’m not going to chase down every supposed piece of evidence someone claims to have on a web site. If you have evidence to suggest Lanza was part of MK Ultra or was an MC, please lay it out.

          • 160 Bloody Bucket

            You don’t have enough spare change to pay attention.

            I never said it didn’t happen. I have suggested Adam had company. And from the official reports, it supports your theory of LEO not being more certain there were more shooters. There were. At least two. In the official reports while the scene was being processed, Adam was listed as being shot with an entry wound IN THE LOWER BACK OF THE HEAD and the exit wound went through the top of HIS SKULL and out his BLACK BOONIE. Odd, huh? Are Connecticut detectives just plain ignorant because when Carver gets a hold of him it becomes intraoral with no pictures of the back of the head listed. I will grant you the fact that a 112lb kid COULD (but unlikely) possibly hump 31lbs of gear into that building. I won’t however exclude the fact DNA from a convicted NY felon was found on a Christmas card meant for the dead kids. DON’T YOU FIND THAT THE LEAST BIT ODD? And the hard drive to his computer is expertly and I MEAN expertly destroyed…(remember, this kid had issues, he could barely tie his shoes) providing cover for what? That might explain why all four of the Civic’s doors were left open. He had company.
            Rousseau’s car? It wasn’t riddled with bullets at SHES. And if it wasn’t at SHES, where? Substitutes are known to arrive early. That’s the way of the world. If YOUR vehicle was shot up, wouldn’t YOU immediately file a police report and contact your carrier and file a damage claim? Without a doubt you would. Well, neither a police report or insurance claim exists. You’d be worried too…and don’t go claiming “Oh, it was deer season and Lauren thought nothing of it.” Her family is very active in the anti-gun crowd. She was probably hijacked on the way to SHES. A very easy “in” to the school. Look at the positioning of the entry and exit holes on her car. It’s in the official report. Those pictures were released. I’m going to assume it’s was warning shots since no blood was found. And it was never processed for DNA.
            You can claim sloppy human error if you’d like to but that isn’t going to stop a thinking person from looking at this Charlie Foxtrot without a jaundiced eye.
            No explanation. Can YOU think of one? I’ve tried.
            And I never claimed Zapruder was fake, I mentioned that to support the fact that photos need to be released. Christ, your reading abilities are next to zero.
            Geeze, credentials again? Start reading between the lines so you can get a caboose for your train of thought.
            You and Wolf do have something in common. You are both late in coming to the dance.
            I believe people died at SHES.
            The same with the Boston Marathon.
            I just don’t buy the official BS.
            Like “Jeff Bauman, Boston Strong”.
            Answer this one question before I take you down that rabbit hole. In BCT and AIT..or Iraq…or of any of the shit you’ve had to deal with in the daily life of being a cop on the beat: If a victim of two severed femoral arteries is bleeding out, do you elevate the heart ABOVE the wound? This should be an easy one for you.

          • Bucket,

            Let’s talk about reading comprehension.

            Find anywhere in my essay where I said the investigation was perfect. Find anywhere where I said every official statement must be believed.

            I decided to speak up about Halbig because he claimed the incident never happened. That no children were killed at SHES, and that it was a “scripted event”.

            If you believe it did happen, then about 90% of our arguments disappear.

            I keep asking you about credentials because your statements indicate you don’t understand crime scene investigations or reality. For example, your insistence that .22 rounds fired downward into someone in bed would have to produce spatter on the ceiling. No, it wouldn’t. Put a pillow over the victim’s head and I’m surprised there’s any spatter at all.

            Likewise, I keep asking about the Zapruder film because you used it as supporting evidence, then claimed it showed soothes ething that could not have happened. So which is it? Is it a real video of a real event, or does it show a “fairy tale” (your words).

            Might this be a window into your soul? You claim JFK’s head snapping backward is a physical impossibility, yet we clearly see it happen on the video YOU say is real. So which is it, Bucket? There are only two options here: either you’re wrong to say the video is real, or you’re wrong to say the head snapback is a fairy tale.

            Here’s why it’s important. You think you understand crimes oh so well. You think you understand what bullets do. Yet your “fairy tale” comment clearly shows you don’t. Which casts doubt over many of your claimed “impossibilities” regarding this crime.

            Would I or any trained person put someone’s heart above their wound? Not if we could avoid it.

            So back to my questions, which you still won’t answer.

            I’m sure you have no background at all in this, which is why you now say credentials aren’t important. So I don’t need to ask that one again.

            What was the exculpatory evidence you claim was in Rousseau’s car?

            Do you now admit you were wrong to say JFK’s head snapback was a fairy tale?

            I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to give honest answers. You’ve already proven you won’t.

  24. 162 DW

    Your A fool!!!! But that’s ok God forgave you.

  25. 164 Lisbeth Sissel

    Interesting, unscientific, uninformed article. Having studied this event for eight months I can tell you it reads like somebody who just glanced over a few web pages and tried to make up reasons to fit their belief.

    The fact is that all of your ‘refutations’ are quite a joke to those who actually know the full breadth and scope of the thing.

    And you do a massive, massive disservice to your fellow citizens by glossing over this thing so obtusely.

    The fact is that practically everything the guy mentioned is pretty much impossible or inexplicable.

    You can’t have 20 kids shot who aren’t taken to the hospital and hooked up to life-support machines. That is something that would never happen.

    Wolfgang only mentioned about 5% of the problems with Sandy Hook and he left out many important things.

    And all of you who have used this article to reaffirm your delusions are only further led down the dark hallway of self-deception.

    I would stake my life on the fact that Sandy Hook was staged. There is no gray area about it. The fuckers staged the thing for whatever reason and then covered it up with closed caskets, blocking records, classifying reports and demolishing the school.

    Those of you who are not interested in ‘looking further’ or who ‘don’t care who Robbie Parker is’ are not true to yourselves. You’re not honest, you’re not fair, you’re part of the problem.

    And articles like this are a slap in the face to the actual victims of this bullshit tragedy: the citizens of the U.S.

    • “Interesting, unscientific, uninformed article. Having studied this event for eight months I can tell you it reads like somebody who just glanced over a few web pages and tried to make up reasons to fit their belief.”

      Really. And how did YOU study this event? Was it by reading web pages? What’s your actual experience and/or training in anything related to this incident?

      “The fact is that all of your ‘refutations’ are quite a joke to those who actually know the full breadth and scope of the thing.”

      Ah. Refutations such as the amount of blood a human body actually contains? Refutations such as family members not being allowed into crime scenes to see dead family members?

      How is it that YOU know the breadth and scope of the whole thing?

      “And you do a massive, massive disservice to your fellow citizens by glossing over this thing so obtusely.

      The fact is that practically everything the guy mentioned is pretty much impossible or inexplicable.”

      It’s not “glossing over”. It’s “explaining rationally”.

      “You can’t have 20 kids shot who aren’t taken to the hospital and hooked up to life-support machines. That is something that would never happen.”

      Yes you can. Yes it would. Is your claim based on any crime scene or EMS experience whatsoever? Do you think if police find someone shot multiple times, obviously dead, and EMS arrives and pronounces them dead, they’re still hooked up to life support? If that’s the case, EMS has done it wrong on just about every murder scene I’ve ever been on.

      “Wolfgang only mentioned about 5% of the problems with Sandy Hook and he left out many important things.

      And all of you who have used this article to reaffirm your delusions are only further led down the dark hallway of self-deception.”

      What you just described is called “projection”. You think I’m affirming delusions? Look in a mirror.

      “I would stake my life on the fact that Sandy Hook was staged. There is no gray area about it. The fuckers staged the thing for whatever reason and then covered it up with closed caskets, blocking records, classifying reports and demolishing the school.”

      That’s nice. Does you staking your life somehow prove something? People can swear on whatever they want. That’s worth just about nothing, unless there’s something to back it up.

      “Those of you who are not interested in ‘looking further’ or who ‘don’t care who Robbie Parker is’ are not true to yourselves. You’re not honest, you’re not fair, you’re part of the problem.

      And articles like this are a slap in the face to the actual victims of this bullshit tragedy: the citizens of the U.S.”

      Uh huh. What I’m saying is, we have more than enough reason to believe the Sandy Hook massacre did in fact happen. You can throw Robbie Parker into it, or any other names. Maybe there’s something to investigate, maybe not. But it did happen, and you have to be a fool to believe thousands of regular Joes are participating in a conspiracy to fake it.

      I’d say there are 27 victims, and they were all killed in Newtown that day.

  26. Although there is no doubt that mainstream media is often responsible for ensuring propaganda furthering specific causes (mainly political); most of the popular alternative news outlets available via the Internet are equally manipulative and dangerous.

    The main problem arising amid such propaganda techniques from both information sources; is that real conspiracies (of which historically there have; and will continue to be many) become the object of derision or contempt.

    That said; to my mind there is no tangible evidence to suggest that the Sandy Hook shootings remotely fall under the umbrella of a real conspiracy.

    The majority of the most popular alternative news outlets ‘promoting’ this so called ‘theory’ have long since lost any sincerity or credibility they may have formerly possessed; and now appear to revolve around only massive ego, vanity and financial incentive.

    Money and it’s influences play a large role in human behavior; and you only have to peruse the paid advertising on some of these sites to recognise that maintaining high principles and morality are not high on their agenda. They also use the same techniques demonstrated by Mainstream media sources; manipulate reason and emotion in order to persuade one to believe in their particular ‘something’ or ‘someone’.

    • Interesting comment, biblar. I haven’t spent much time on conspiracy web sites, but the little bit I’ve seen is right in line with what you say: they’re all selling conspiracy books, or prepper supplies. I keep advertising off of my site, the only thing I sell are military fiction novels which have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.

      Thanks for commenting, and drop by anytime.

  27. 170 miguel

    your points are almost all without merit.
    Your so-called ‘refutations’ are bogus and without substance.
    Point 2: The gunman was supposedly found dead, by self inflicted gunshot wound, eight minutes into the search. EMTs could have THEN been allowed into the building. RIGHT?
    Point 3: The alleged incident occurred at a SCHOOL. No place for a helicopter to land? How about taking a look at photos of the area? Ever seen a school before? How about one in Connecticut? They are surrounded by WIDE OPEN FIELDS with TONS of space to land 10 helicopters…
    Helicopters not always available? On a weekday morning in rural CT? Sure they weren’t. Believe me they have nothing better to do…
    Point 4: Where were the ambulances? At the Fire Station, you say – a quarter mile away, at least…
    Gee Whiz – that sounds like the perfect, best place for them to be – doesn’t it, folks?
    Point 5: The children were supposedly declared dead 11 minutes into the search. By police. Only a doctor can declare someone dead…
    What does it matter? A gravely wounded child can have a very weak pulse, yet still be clinging to life. An ignorant buffoon cop is qualified to determine that a wounded child does not need medical attention?
    Yeah right. Lawsuit City.
    But what does it matter?
    Funny that not a single law suit was brought by anyone, for any reason related to this alleged event..
    To the author – the so-called ‘cop’ with all this experience: You are a fool. You expose your own ignorance, stupidity and complicity through your extremely weak and utterly foolish attempt to refute Mr.Halbigs points. There is no need to continue – but if anyone wishes I will be happy to refute all your irrational, juvenile refutations in exacting detail.

    • Point 2: LE active shooter trainers usually teach the “plus one” rule. “If there’s one, there’s another”. Finding one suspect dead absolutely does not mean the entire school is clear, it means one suspect is dead. Sometimes that can lead to constant “what iffing”, but in general it’s a good rule to follow. So no, EMS would not have been allowed into the school the moment the shooter was found dead. They most likely wouldn’t have been allowed in until the entire school was cleared.

      Point 3: Medevac helicopters aren’t going to be allowed into a “hot” zone. Just like ambulances, they’re kept away until the area is declared safe. The decision not to use helicopters may have been a bad call, I don’t know. But that would have been the decision of the senior EMS people on the scene, and they may have decided no time would be saved (if, for example, patients would have to be loaded into ambulances and then unloaded to put them in helicopters.

      Also, open areas around the school don’t automatically equal cleared landing zones. Pilots also take wires into account. And if the cleared areas are in places where vehicles can’t go, they’re not going to expect cops and paramedics to carry patients by hand to the LZ.

      Point 4: Yes, they ambulances were at the fire station. Numerous pictures of the ambulances staged at the fire station are available on the net. Even Halbig believes this. I’d agree with you, the station was NOT the best place for them to be, but staging them away from the immediate danger area is protocol for almost every EMS agency in the nation.

      Point 5: The police reported them dead. As I wrote above, it’s not the least bit unusual for police to report what’s obvious to them on a scene. I’ve reported people dead many times. And Aesop explained further, that in some states, in some cases, officers actually can declare people dead.

      My last word as a “so called cop” is that there is no reason to believe this incident never happened, as Halbig claims.

      I find it hilarious that you accuse me of “complicity”. Tell me, am I now part of the conspiracy?

  28. 172 miguel

    Not a single ‘wounded’ child from that day. Nothing.
    That means the gunman – this 20 year old kid – had to get up close, concentrate, focus and aim directly at 5 and 6 year old children and place each shot with such an exactitude as to guarantee a kill – not once, twice or even ten times – but over 20 times.
    Satan himself could not have even done such a thing.
    It is an all but physical impossibility. He would have grown sick, weak and unable to continue after several kills.
    If you have ever aimed a weapon and fired upon an innocent human being, you know that it is an extremely difficult thing to do.
    Until I and a million other people have seen at least one image – of either a dead child, a wounded child, an autopsy photo, or…even a photo of a child in a casket – we will never believe another so-called ‘official story’ about anything – from anyone in our government – whether, local, state or federal. Ever again.
    And this is precisely what I think the government wants, out of this alleged tragedy: for us to discover that they are liars – and for us to grow angry and distrustful towards them – so we will, in turn, rebel and revolt against them – so they, in turn, can arrest, kill and imprison as many of us as they can, placing us in all those ‘FEMA CAMPS’ that they have spent the past ten+ years building. They want to bring about THE END, people, of the current world as we know it.
    BIBLICAL SH!T, people.
    Prepare yourselves. With the Armor of God, the Armor of Jesus. The Armor of Truth.

    • Yes, Lanza had to get close and shoot innocent children at close range. And that’s impossible. It’s never happened. It didn’t happen at the San Ysidro McDonald’s, or during the Holocaust, or at Srebrenica, or any of the other massacres committed throughout human history. Nobody would ever shoot innocent children from close range. Right?

      What planet do you live on?

      Oh, wait. You live in fear of being placed in a FEMA Camp. You’re worried about the End of Days.

      In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever to attempt rational debate with you.

      Have a nice life.

  29. 174 Jay

    Have you personally refuted halbig ? If not why not?

    • I have not personally contacted him. A reader forwarded him my essay, and he sent a poorly written response asking me to call him. I’m not going to do that, he’s welcome to respond here if he likes.

      • 176 Chris Long

        So why will you not contact him?

        • Why should I?

          He put his views on the web. I’ve done the same thing. He’s been invited here, and he’s chosen not to comment (thus far). I don’t have any intention of changing his mind anyway.

          I don’t mean to sound confrontational toward you, sorry if it comes across that way. But I think very little of Halbig’s opinions and am not going to any extra effort to try to get him to debate me.

  30. 178 flyingtigercomics

    Firstly, I have never been more embarassed by my “own side” of a debate in my life. If researchers generally really are the unbalanced and unprofessional woo cultists some are seeming to be on this thread, God help us all because it puts all of us between a would-be totalitarian political-journalist wannabe elite and a magical thinking population of neobarbarians, with far too few exceptions.

    Secondly,

    http://flyingtigercomics.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/factual-analysis-of-sandy-hook-evidence/

    “The Deadliest Minute” breaks down, using the ACTUAL REPORTED EVENTS, how it could have happened.

    Please note that the guy analysing it in his video is still leaving the door open on the real mysteries, but if you want to see what Adam Lanza could have done to a pile of kids trying to get into a bathroom, with one too many adults already in there unwittingly stopping them, watch the guy shooting a pile of watermelons at the same range as the Sandy Hook shooter.

    • Take heart, Tiger. A few of us are trying to maintain some rationality and objectivity. 🙂

      I will check out that post, thanks for the link.

      • 180 flyingtigercomics

        He’s a brave guy for putting his videos up, he isn’t getting a lot of credit for his rationality or his hard work. His takedown of Halbig’s asshattery is epic. And convincing. 🙂

  31. 181 Stevo

    Hacks

  32. 183 Gord

    Wishful thinking, refusing to believe the truth, lying to yourself, that is what I see here, Sandy Hook never happened the way the media has presented it, it was fabricated and used politically by the present government, you can say what you want, you can refute and deny it, it’s painful to think the government would use such an event for political purposes.
    You sir, of all people know quite well what the government is capable of, to call anyone who doesn’t believe the story as ridiculous, just goes to show how easy it is to fool people like you or you are foolishly allowing yourself to be a willing partner to this mind fuck!

    • Something doesn’t become truth simply because you believe it is. Nor does it become truth simply because someone is capable of pulling it off. If simply being capable makes someone guilty, well then, you’re guilty of rape.

      It’s not painful to think the government would use a tragedy for political purposes. It sucks, but it’s exactly what I expect. I have no argument with anyone’s claim that the government exploited the SH massacre, but they didn’t create the massacre.

      I call anyone who desperately wants to believe in unbelievable conspiracies ridiculous. It’s ridiculous to disregard the easily believable (mentally ill man murders a bunch of defenseless people then kills himself, just as happened in many other massacres) in favor of the absolutely impossible (thousands of regular people participated in a massive conspiracy coordinated by the Jews/Illuminati/NWO/whatever).

      • 185 Gord

        I appreciate your civil tone it’s very refreshing to talk to adults who can actually think things through, I really hope your right, nothing to see here move on, but Halbig will not let this go, if it is proven to be a massive fraud, I hope you will jump ship.
        If ridiculous is the worst thing you can call people who don’t believe in SH, then you are a gentlemen, indeed.

  33. 187 Chris Long

    Do you work for an agency? CIA, NSA, DHS?

  34. Hello, I very much appreciate your article on Wolgang Halbig and would like to interview you on one of my radio programs about the article and your two books.

  35. 194 Grim Fandango

    Hey – how did you get this tiny little site, with next to zero traffic, come up as the very first response to a gooogle of “wolfgang halbig”? Can you say NSA? I knew that you could! (Try it for yourself, Google “wolfgang halbig” and see what’s up first)

    And, while we’re dedunking, please explain how 20 children were shot to death in a school, and there are zero lawsuits? Oh, and six grown ups too, and still no lawsuits. Not Possible here in the good old litigious USA

    • So the NSA made my site the #1 Google search?

      [Borat voice] “Hiiigh five, NSA!”

      I’d guess my little site comes up as #1 because there aren’t too many people interested in Halbig to begin with, lots of truthers are all riled up that someone would dare challenge what they *know* is true so they’re coming here to attack me, and plenty of people who already agree with me are coming here to have a laugh at people like you.

      But that’s just my guess. You just *know* the NSA is involved. Sure. I’d ask you to prove it, but proof means absolutely nothing to conspiracists. To you, an accusation equals guilt.

      And if nobody files a lawsuit, no murder occurred? I’ll have to write that one down. I didn’t realize the reality of a murder is dependent on legal actions filed afterward.

      Your logic is just unassailable.

      • 196 Grim Fandango

        OK – Please answer this, without the humor.

        How Did You Get Your Lowly Unvisited – UNLINKED TO SITE to come up FIRST on a Google Search for “Wolfgang Halbig”?

        Anyone with any web smarts know how hard it is to get top ranking from Google, actually it is IMPOSSIBLE! It is the most coveted secret in webland, and can result in millions in sales for those that can achieve it.

        But somehow, your little site out in the weeds comes up FIRST on a search for someone’s name, even beating out the actual FaceBook page of that person.

        You can’t even pay Google to get what you got. If you Pay Google for a top of page ranking, you are marked with an advertising indicator, which your result does not have.

        • My site probably isn’t as unvisited and lowly as you think. It’s not big, but it has a decent readership. Second, I checked out Halbig’s FB page and his new one just got started recently, so it probably doesn’t have that many readers yet. Third, you guys are driving up the ranking. For several days now almost every comment on my site has been from conspiracists. If you keep coming here and commenting, you’re going to drive up the stats.

          Again, I’d guess that Halbig doesn’t have as many interested readers as you or he thinks. It’s probably not hard to beat his FB page, if 50 readers go to his but 51 come to my web site.

          Here’s the real kicker, though. You saw that my site came in above his, so you immediately determined the NSA was involved. That’s what you conspiracists do; you see some fact, and without any supporting evidence take it to be absolute proof of something sinister. That’s why nobody will ever take you seriously as an investigator.

          You’re correct that I don’t pay Google for rankings. I also don’t have advertising on this site, other than for my novels (which are military fiction, not related to SH). So could it be that more people are reading my site, than have been to Halbig’s FB page?

          So let’s go over this again. You have zero supporting evidence that the NSA is driving my site’s ranking. I’m telling you that I have zero connection to the NSA. I’m also asking you to please provide some evidence that the NSA is involved with my lowly web site. You’re not going to find any evidence, because it doesn’t exist.

          Yet you’ll still insist, and tell all your conspiracist friends, that you *know* the NSA is driving this web site. And your friends will believe it. Because conspiracists don’t understand investigations or even basic logic.

          • 198 Grim Fandango

            Hits on a site do not affect the ranking hardly at all.

            What drives the ranking is – how many other sites actually post a link to your site, and how much traffic goes through those links.

            There is no way other than collusion that you can beat any of Halbig’s sites, as he is being massively linked, and you, well not so much, if at all

          • 199 Grim Fandango

            Based on the facts about web ranking that I have put forward here, you should be able to see that it is absolutely impossible for your site to come up first on a Google search in front of the man’s own site you are denouncing.

            So, you are either in collusion with those that can manipulate the rankings (Google/NSA) or – you are an unknowing useful prop, meaning the NSA is secretly pumping your site up without your knowledge.

            Only you know the answer to that riddle. But if you are ignorant of what is giving you such a tail wind, then I ask that you consider why they would be surreptitiously promoting your viewpoint. If Wolfgang is wrong, and there were children murdered, why would they even bother themselves with this secret promotion of the contrary opinion? They wouldn’t need to do this, they would have the TRUTH on their side.

            Submitted for your consideration

          • Well, I have no connection to the NSA. I’m not colluding with anyone to boost my ranking.

            On one hand, I have a web designer saying there’s nothing at all unusual about my page being #1. On the other, I have a truther, who has already shown a rather desperate tendency to make baseless declarations without a shred of evidence, insisting I’m either colluding with the NSA or am an unwilling pawn of the NSA.

            Hmmm…

            Could be the web designer is lying, or is an NSA plant. Could be I colluded with the NSA, then they “flashy-thinged” my eyes to wipe out my memory. Could be it’s blatantly obvious the NSA is propping my rankings, but gosh darn it, I’m just blind to the truth/a lemming/such a sheeple that I refuse to see it.

            Or could be that, to this point, more people have looked at my post about Halbig than have been to Halbig’s new FB page.

            Let’s take a guess about what option you’re going to believe.

            There’s no evidence at all to support your NSA accusations. None. If you had any, you’d list it.

            So instead of looking for actual evidence, you insist “It must be true! There’s no other explanation!” Which is how conspiracists think, and again is why nobody will, or should, take them seriously.

          • 201 Scot M

            Quite frankly Grim, you have not actually put forth any “facts”, you are spouting off information that is partially true and calling it gold. What you are saying in regards to Google rankings and people or other sites linking Chris’s blog here ARE true, they are not the whole picture, that is only part of the enormity that is Google’s search engine algorithm.

            Either way, what’s to say that there AREN’T more people out on the web linking Chris’s site, as opposed to, say, Wolfgang’s? No way of knowing for sure. I don’t know, Chris doesn’t know, and I’ll bet you don’t either.

        • 202 Scot M

          Please, let me answer this and enlighten you sir. Getting the top search result on Google is NOT difficult, especially when we’re talking about the type of content we’re dealing with here. Not that Chris’s blog is unknown by any means, but rather because the topic and the two names associated with this present discussion are getting a lot of hits in recent days, compared to “normal”. Chris has a decent reader base, so between us sharing it, and all the truther crazies telling their buddies to come and “call out” the “paid NSA hack” Chris Hernandez, there’s a lot of searches and hits for this blog, therefore making it a number 1 search result.

          That, is the way Google works. It’s how their engine was designed… it’s not rocket science and voodoo magic, or even about paying to get guarenteed results (though some companies do, and that’s when you get the advertising).

          And before you get started, no I’m not a YouTube warrior or armchair expert on anything, I’m an IT engineer that knows web development. It’s all easy stuff, no conspiracy here.

  36. 203 Wyatt Hill

    You can face up to the fact that your bosses are are bunch of friged up criminal- 26 little Christmas tree behind the firehouse- memoral and donation pages created before the event- Evacuation photos dated to October 2012-

    • Uh huh. My bosses are all in Texas. And sure, all those pictures of children leaving SH are from before the massacre. Thousands of regular people all over CT are lying about an event that never happened.

      Wow. You’ve convinced me. I’m now a conspiracist.

  37. 205 kevin

    Chris- I read the whole thing last night. Every word of this post and the responses. Now while I agree with most of your responses to Wolfgang’s queries, I do have a few others to throw at you. It seems that Wolfgang hasn’t done as much “research” as he claims.

    Why is there a an electronic sign saying to “sign in”?
    Why and who ordered the porta potties?
    Why and who provided the large quantity of water bottles at the firehouse so soon?

    All these things are readily visible in photos/video of Sandy Hook in the immediate aftermath, and some, possibly earlier.

    These are all normal things that would be at an active shooter drill.

    Not that it’s necessary Chris, but my credentials almost mirror your’s, except I’m older and served during the First Gulf War, plus a volunteer fire fighter.

    • 206 Gina

      All that water at the firehouse certainly is curious. It’s like they want us to believe that firefighters would just happen to have cases and cases of water on hand. Since you’re a volunteer firefighter, I’m sure you know, it’s not like you have a physically strenuous job and would need to stay well hydrated.

    • Kevin,

      As a firefighter, I’m sure you’re familiar with the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

      Please take a look at this document.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fema.gov%2Fincident-command-system&ei=GjwmU_v9LOqs2gXW1oHQCA&usg=AFQjCNH_DkGBVp0r4oqDrt4GEoghGzk6hA

      It’s a NIMS manual, published December 2008. On page 130 of the manual (142 of the PDF) you’ll find the “Incident Check-In List”.

      “8. ICS 211 – Incident Check-In List
      ICS 211 documents the check-in process. Check-in recorders report check-in information to the Resources Unit.”

      At a major incident where the Incident Command System is activated, people responding to assist do check in at the Command Post. This typically doesn’t happen early in an incident, it happens when enough resources are on scene that a CP can be set up. I personally think first responders can be sidetracked by the NIMS, and waste time and energy trying to control and coordinate when they should be handling the problem. For example, in one of the radio transmissions from Columbine, a supervisor can be heard talking about setting up a CP within about a minute of the first reports of shots being fired (reciting from memory here, I may be off on the time). Since Columbine 9/11 happened, and NIMS is now pushed even more onto first responders.

      One of my soldiers responded to the fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas. He and several other service members arrived around the same time. They were immediately directed to a CP, where they had to sign in. They then received assignments to search damaged houses.

      I’ve seen mention and photos of the big electronic “everyone must check in here” sign on a couple of conspiracy web sites. All that proves is that the people on those sites aren’t familiar with NIMS. I’d be surprised if you’re not familiar with it either.

      My initial reaction, upon seeing that sign, is that it was brought to the CP after the scene was stabilized. Same thing with the portajohns. Same thing with the water.

      Are you suggesting there was a conspiracy, and as part of the conspiracy, the conspirators brought in a big electronic sign advertising the fact that what was happening “wasn’t real”? And they left this gigantic piece of “proof” out in the open, where anyone could take pictures of it?

      As far as the water, I’d say supervisors had it brought to the fire station, again after the scene was stabilized. But I kinda like Gina’s answer better.

      • 208 kevin

        I believe you are misunderstanding Gina’s comment’s sir. She’s simply stating that all the water at the firehouse is suspicious. Then she continues by adding that firefighter’s don’t need water and that our job isn’t strenuous. Well, she’s half right. The large amount of water is curious, but I assure Gina(if you read this) that carrying full fireman gear, with heavy jacket, boots, and helmet, all the while dragging a heavy water hose in 90 degree weather is “strenuous”. Or the opposite extreme. Try doing all that in 0 degree weather or below. Ice coats everything including the hydrants.

        I’m familiar with NMIS, but not to the extent you are apparently. We live in an area that is almost entirely volunteer FD’s, so we all have regular jobs and respond when called. My best info shows the sign was up at 10:30AM, about 30 minutes after the incident was declared over. I can’t say the sign was up earlier as I have no visual proof of it prior to that time. If the incident commander was on the ground in the first 30 minutes(shooting occurred between 9:30-9:45AM)after the shooting was ordering an “electronic check-in sign” in his first few minutes on site, he should be immediately relieved. My quest is to find out when the sign was placed there. Obviously, the sign being up that quick present’s problems. If the sign was up before the shooing, well, game over.

        So Chris, you’d have no problem with me sending a couple letters inquiring about who/when placed the “electronic check-in sign” and the porta potties?

        If so, may I add your name to the query?

        • Kevin,

          I’ll send a more detailed response later, don’t have time now. But here’s the main message:

          1) You do not have permission to add my name for anything. I’m not a truther. I’m not accusing anyone of being involved in a conspiracy. I’m not accusing the first responders of incompetence or collusion. If you want to add yet another ridiculous letter demanding answers to something that’s already been answered, do it on your own. I have nothing to do with any truther’s demands.

          2) No, the incident commander doesn’t need to be relieved for bringing an electronic check-in sign to the scene. If everything that could be done at the school was being done, there’s no problem with someone at the scene (we don’t know if it was the incident commander) calling for needed resources.

          3) I’m pretty sure Gina was giving a you a smartass answer.

          • 210 Gina

            Sorry, I was being a bit of a smartass, but I prefer the term “snarky.” I would expect most firehouses are well stocked with bottled water and I’m guessing they don’t buy it a bottle at a time at 7-11. I believe some localities even have rules about how much water has to be on hand. But what do I know. I would also find it perfectly reasonable if some administrative support person went through a checklist of things to do in an emergency and ordered additional water and port a potties to be delivered. Don’t local and state governments have such plans in place so they can be quickly implemented in a disaster?

          • Gina,

            You’re not showing nearly the amount of paranoia required to comment on this discussion. Sure, first responders who routinely handle emergency calls might be expected to keep extra supplies of critical resources on hand. I mean, that’s just common sense. But obviously you’re not seeing the “real” truth:

            Extra water at a fire station means those firefighters are part of the conspiracy to fake the deaths of 20 children and 6 educators. There’s no other explanation.

            Well, yes, there is another explanation. Many agencies have plans in place to obtain needed resources for critical incidents. But good god, why would you choose to believe a perfectly reasonable, valid explanation like that, when you can just as easily say “They had water at a fire station! That proves there was a conspiracy!” ?

            Gina, you complete me. 🙂

          • 212 kevin

            ” If you want to add yet another ridiculous letter demanding answers to something that’s already been answered”-Chirs

            I believe you said earlier the questions have not been answered. Did they release answers while this thread was on-going?

            I have one more question and then I will exit your blog.

            IF, I can prove to you that there were NO 1rst or 2nd grader’s even at Sandy Hook, would you reconsider this whole thing?

          • Where did I say the questions hadn’t been answered? I’m not asking those questions.

            Someone followed the NIMS protocol and required everyone to sign in at the CP. So what? That’s what agencies are trained to do. They brought water and portajohns to provide for the needs of the hundreds of people who would be at that scene until it was cleared. So what? That’s not indicative of anything, other than “someone realized there wasn’t enough water at the fire station, and weren’t enough bathrooms for hundreds of people.”

            That’s not suspicious, Kevin.

            If you could prove there were no first or second graders at SH, sure, that would grab my attention. But I have a feeling your “proof” is going to be a link to some internet video. So I’ll let you know now, if your proof is on a conspiracy web site, and you’re just going to give me a link, don’t expect me to chase it down. If you have proof, lay it out.

      • 214 flyingtigercomics

        So much of this type of ill feeling towards Sandy Hook- and it’s ill feeling driving it- is because the fakery of the lapdog media on the scene- the infamous Anderson Cooper crocodile tears on green screen, Eugene Rosen the attention whore- turned people from sympathetic to hostile. But the hostility initially was about the horrible insincierity of the disaster porn media puppets and some of the clearly loving the attention offsiders like Rosen.

        Once other incongruous (to civilians) things appeared, it seemed to feed the notion that whether the event was “real” or not (so odd to even write that thought) far too many people in front of the camera were LOVING it. From there, the staginess of the disaster reaction looked like collusion with a media confirmed to be addicted to narrative over reality.

        And worst of all, as numerous communications experts have pointed out- the lapdog media reacts to confrontation when it’s caught lying… BY LYING SOME MORE! Crazy, irrational deeply dishonest behaviour.

        But not trusting lapdog media does not equal not trusting physical evidence, rational thought and observation. It’s just a damned shame the lapdog media’s brought so many people to such a mental state.

        “How do you know who your daddy is? Coz your momma tells you so”

  38. EDIT FROM CHRIS HERNANDEZ AUTHOR:

    This is the first comment from a conspiracist I’ve had to edit. Mark Barnes didn’t say anything in his comment, he just posted a link to a YouTube video. Sorry conspiracists, this isn’t the place to just throw up links to BS videos that supposedly “prove” something. If you have a comment I’ll be happy to post it, as I have for every other conspiracist who has chosen to comment here. But I’m not going to post links to stupid videos with no accompanying explanation or comment. Thanks,

    Chris

  39. The ‘Every Single Event Is A Conspiracy’ Disease; has reached epic proportions. Logic and critical analysis have left the building.

    If the reasoning is that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax created in order to bring in more Gun Controls then why bother with a hoax; why not just organise and carry out the real thing?

    The impact and aftermath would be far more satisfactory; and all these pesky conspiracy theorists would not have to contend with the many ‘mistakes’ made during the productions.

    After all; this demonic Government and it’s equally demonic controllers are monstrous lunatics who want to put everyone into Fema Camps before bringing about their ‘end’. In which case does logic not tell us that killing a couple of dozen kids to further an important agenda would mean less than nothing to a band of psychopaths to whom human life means absolutely nothing?

  40. 217 Jaspab

    Conspiracy theorists always shift the goalposts, launching into “He’s a shill” mode. They actually ignore the point in question…ie Halbig is completely wrong in his assumptions. He’s just another item to add to the list of debunked crap. The definition of “shill” should be changed to “anyone who proves so called truthers wrong”.

  41. Nothing, I mean, NOTHING, anyone has said here or by Mr. Halbig has proved ANYTHING to me regarding Sandy Hook and possible cover-up. It is bizarre, however, that the person appearing as James Holmes attorney turned out to be a Sandy Hook parent. That IS kind of. . . ________ (fill in the blank).

    On the bigger picture, there seems to be some rampant bigotry toward people who are suspicious of certain events, being labeled “conspiracy theorists,” as if there is an official title. To you I would ask, do you not believe that ANY conspiracies have ever taken place?

    It is a childish naivete that excludes the possibility of conspiracy. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, JFK, are all proof that conspiracies DO happen and happen at the highest levels.

    • John,

      I agree that it is childish naivete to assume any government would never lie to further its own interests. However, the incidents you listed (Tonkin, Northwood, etc) occurred far from the public eye, at a time when no internet existed, and were conducted by the military or very senior levels of the federal government. Operation Northwoods (which was never carried out) isn’t in any way equivalent to what a Sandy Hook conspiracy would entail. SH would have required thousands of regular people to be involved, not people who were vetted, had security clearances, signed nondisclosure agreements and performed their work in private.

      Regarding the SH parent who was Holmes attorney, please list a legitimate link to that information. Conspiracy theorists have a bad track record of making accusations because people vaguely look alike. For example, last night I found a bunch of ridiculous propaganda pictures that supposedly “prove” Jeff Bauman, who lost his legs at the Boston Marathon bombing, was actually Nick Vogt, who had previously lost his legs in Afghanistan. Other than being white and thin, they don’t even look alike.

  42. 220 Brocky

    “The pieces that truthers think “don’t fit” actually do fit, but since the average Sandy Hook truther knows nothing about police work or murders they just won’t believe it. See my points above about the amount of blood on the scene, police radio transmissions, decisions to send kids back into areas where dead people were, and the physical capabilities of people with autism. None of those “don’t fit”.”

    Chris h, you made a good attempt at answering the questions but I’m afraid you fell a bit short. The problem is that you don’t know many of the facts about the incident or the questions being asked. You’re giving some answers based on your opinions and experience and not based on the known facts. You do, to your credit, admit that you don’t know much about it and as such your answers are lacking. I only read to the 80th post above and couldn’t stand it anymore when the hoaxers started commenting, they don’t get any facts right at all, even the ones that have been following the story since it happened. Mind you, they’re only interested in bluescreen and Christmas trees at the firehouse and not the truth. I’ll try to get to the rest of the 80 posts later. Halbig can easily be silenced. That is to say, many of his questions are easily answered. Others are too ridiculous too answer. One of his newer questions, 33 total, is why does Adam Nanza’s car trunk look so clean? Very suspicious to the trained eye don’t you think? He must keep his car trunk like a pig pen. No offence to any police officers out there. Another question is why didn’t the parents of the two children, that were taken to the hospital and died, not donate their organs to needy children? It’s questions like these that … well I don’t know, you finish that line off for me. And, it may be out there and I haven’t looked but as the accuracy of Truthers go, there is a high probability that information on organ donation may never have been released. Truthers, or rather, Hoaxers claim that Police involved with the shooting incident and investigation refuse to answer all his questions. Completely false. He may have asked a couple and the cop he spoke to didn’t know the answer. Big deal. The other answers are out there if he would have looked and he is only a nobody like everyone else so why should they waste their time if the answers are already out to the public? Final definite answers to his questions should be posted somewhere so this little idea about a hoax can go away to where it belongs. The idea is very disrespectful to the families involved. A couple of the 33 questions might remain unsatisfactory to some, like why the donation money to the families and why were first responders given money, if that is true, only because they don’t believe in helping others. Halbig who claims to be somebody because of his credentials, without a doubt, knows less facts about Sandy Hook than anyone who has spent a small amount of time on it. It doesn’t look like he even tried to answer some of his questions or is not very good in the investigation department. He asks a question only because he can’t hear properly. He also got many of his questions off of lame ass U tube hoax videos and never bothered to check how full of BS they are, you, Chris h, are going to be amazed at some.

    You have corrected him, and the issue came up again in comments above, about the amount of blood involved. The amount is not part of the question, that only shows that Halbig is a poor investigator and can’t do simple math. The question is, with whatever amount of blood spilled during that tragic day, who cleaned it all up? Apparently he contacted one of the officers involved with the investigation who didn’t know. We know it was cleaned up because one daughter of the slain principal, who was perhaps the last relative of the victims to visit the school, said the carpet in the rooms were ripped up and gone. She finally made her mind up to go to the school. All families, when they were ready, had an opportunity to visit the place their loved ones died, time to reflect alone, and any questions they had were answered. The police report crime scene photos show the hallway where the two women were killed, the blood is not on the floor so we know it was cleaned up. Halbig, as you know, does not believe any people were killed. He concluded that since the officer he spoke to, I think it was Vance, couldn’t give him an answer as to who cleaned the blood up, it therefore, could only mean nobody cleaned up the blood because there was no blood to be cleaned up. No blood means no bodies. No bodies mean no massacre. Quite the deduction Sherlock, don’t you think? Now this blood clean up question deserves your informed opinion. Or does it belong with the clean trunk and organ donation questions? Here again, his mind tells him the parents didn’t donate their dead children’s organs because there were no dead children. Either that or it’s a very stupid question like anyone would first think. I seriously don’t know why anyone wastes their time on this guy, myself included.

    “police radio transmissions”

    As for Halbig being hard of hearing. He either can’t hear properly or he watched a u tube hoax video and ripped the mistake from there. A professional is he? I’ll find you the utube if you like. One of his questions involves the radio transmissions of an officer saying what guns were found in the school. Problem is the officer didn’t say all the guns were found “in the school” like Halbig claims. It only takes a slight movement of the index finger to repeat the tape. That same officer was also the one that found the shotgun on the backseat of the shooter’s car and locked it in the trunk. He did so at a time when it was thought there were two shooters involved and only one was as yet found dead. They didn’t suspect there were two shooters involved because of it being the safe thing to do, like you suggested, but because of evidence of two shooters. The two jackets on the ground near the suspects car and Natalie Hammond telling them, while they were dressing her wounds in the school, that she saw the shooter and he was dressed in black and wearing a mask. The dead shooter in room 10 they had just found had no mask with him. Officer Cario pushed Natalie out of the school on a wheeled office chair while officer Dragon, both certified EMTs BTW, with drawn gun covered him out of the school. A kid that escaped Soto’s class also later said the shooter wore a mask. My opinion? People’s facial features change some when they’re sick, drunk, or without sleep etc. Lanza was a skinny pale kid with odd facial features, he was also in a mental state of insanity at the time and killing people like that? Emotionless blank stare? And those that saw him did so for only an instant.

    You can see how the facts change both the questions and answers of course.

    “decisions to send kids back into areas where dead people were,”

    That little girl that came out of room 8, where most of the little victims lay dead piled up in the small bathroom, did so at a time not when that room was already searched and the shooter found. Three officers, in active shooter formation, had just entered the front lobby through the boiler room and found the two dead women near the start of the north corridor leading off the lobby. No shooter was found yet and no rooms were yet searched. The shooting had already stopped before they got into the school and they hesitated there in the lobby for a short time. Their options were to go down the west corridor, the north corridor or into one of three remaining rooms off of the lobby, and they already suspected two shooters because of the 2 jackets. 60 feet down the north corridor the little girl came out of room 8. Between the girl and the officers in the lobby were 5 or 6 doorways. You may have to explain the rest to Halbig from that point forward but that is why they told the girl to go back into the room. Twice I think. Officer Vanghele is the one that told her to go back into the room and Halbig knows his name and this is what his question is referring to. I can’t understand how he can know Vanghele’s name but not know the story. Someone left out the pertinent information, it’s all there in the final Police report and hoaxers (Truthers) don’t read that. Halbig certainly hasn’t either or else no one would of ever have heard of him. Other police then entered the school at the lobby and the search commenced with active shooter formations. Some went down the west corridor, cafeteria door, some went down the north and searched room 12 then 10. A one, officer Penna, the same that locked the shotgun in the car trunk and later made the police transmission of the guns found, was the first to enter room 8 and see the little girl and the other victims. He told her to stay there, because two shooters were yet unfound to him, while he went back up the corridor to room 10 where he saw one dead shooter on the floor and told the other officers in the room that he had a girl to take out of 8, they told him to GO. They covered him as he ran her out down the corridor and out of the school because of the other suspected shooter still at large.

  43. 221 Brocky

    About point 1. You are right about a rumour. Halbig goes running with this and says somewhere that many of the Newtown police parked 1/4 mile away. That would put them in front of the firehouse. Like you say, all evidence points to the fact that the first responders parked in the school parking lot. Although 2 police units that came shortly later parked in the driveway to the parking lot they were both very near the end of it by the school lot which a police dash cam video shows. It shows no police vehicles farther away than those 2 units and all others in the school parking lot. The article below is the accusation but false.

    http://articles.courant.com/2013-11-22/news/hc-sandy-hook-police-response-20131122_1_local-officers-state-police-chaotic-scene

    Point 2: “Paramedics and EMTs (emergency medical technicians) were not allowed to enter the school. Instead they were kept waiting in the Sandy Hook fire station nearby, 500 yards down the road from SHES.”

    Point 5: “Why did police declare 26 people to be dead within the first 11 minutes of the shooting, when according to Connecticut law, only a doctor can declare someone to be legally dead?”

    You are bang on with answering point 2. Protocol is for EMS to remain out of the immediate danger area. Halbig thinks that no medical technicians were not ever allowed to enter the school and it was the police that pronounced the victims dead and not only presume dead. Like you talk about there is a acceptable definition of dead when it is obvious. One paramedic said that in one of the rooms they entered, room 8, they did a quick assessment of all the victims and found one child victim without a head wound. In another interview Halbig asks:

    “who was the person that didn’t allow paramedics into the building and who declared the victims dead?

    Why did you not allow the Paramedics and EMT’S inside the school after 11 minutes?

    Who was the person who declared all 20 children and six school staff members legally dead? Who?”

    Two police EMTs were in the building and the person that let the paramedics in was Sgt Cario. The paramedics were Mathew Cassavechia – Tactically trained paramedic and Director of emergency medical services for Danbury hospital. John Reed – Tactically trained paramedic and Supervisor of emergency medical services for Danbury hospital. Bernie Meeham – licensed paramedic since 1984. Cassavechia was in communication with the Emergency Medical Control Physician D. Pat Broderick at Danbury. Those are the people that pronounced the victims dead after EMTs discovered them dead. They went into the building under police escort before it was secured while it was still unknown if there was another shooter. Four separate patient assessments were made to guarantee no one was resuscitatable. All victims were formally triaged using the SMART triage program. All victims including those with obvious fatal head wounds were reassessed with a secondary triage with the cardiac monitor and triage tags applied with EKG printout and presumption protocol was followed.

    What you said about tactical paramedics? Yep.

    Point 8: “Police transmissions don’t lie because they are made by sworn and trained law enforcement officers. On the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, recorded police transmissions said ‘We have multiple weapons inside the [SH] classroom — a rifle and a shotgun.’ But nobody could find the shotgun in the school. Instead, a shotgun was found in the black Honda parked outside the school.”

    Another interviewed heard Halbig saying: “Police transmissions don’t lie” and “the public doesn’t understand how to listen to radio transmissions”

    “Someone” doesn’t understand how to listen to radio transmissions.

    The officer did not say “in the classroom” he said “D5 Be advised we should have multiple weapons including long rifles and shotgun.” It was officer Penna who said that and he was the same officer that took the shotgun from the backseat of the suspects car and locked it in the trunk when there was still one possible shooter at large and Penna was also in room 8 and also room 10 where the shooter was found with the other weapons.

    I touched on that in my earlier post but wanted to post what Penna actually did say.
    Remember what I said in that earlier post about how amazed you are going to be about some of the other questions?

    “Why have 26 small Christmas trees behind the Sandy Hook Volunteer fire house on Dec 14, 2012 and then decorate them on Dec 15, 2012 after the shooting? Why?”

    The idea here is that only 26 trees were already there before the day of the massacre and were put behind the firehouse to have them ready for when someone from NC (part of the plan) bought them for memorials, one for each victim. You won’t believe it but people actually take this BS as proof that it was already planned that there would be 26 fictitious victims.

    And seriously, do you think anyone from the Newtown or State police should concern themselves over these questions? Stop the video below at 0:08 the first time through and try to count all the trees off the corner of the firehouse that are stacked along both sides of a white looking railing. I get over 15 each time. Count all you can see in that frame if you can. Here is the u tube video below. Also, watch for a check in sign at the front of the firehouse. Stop the vid at 0:08.

    26 Christmas Trees at Sandy Hook Firehouse on Morning of Shooting

    It’s an annual christmas tree sale, running 12 years already and 500 trees were trucked in for the 2012 season, many photos to prove it. There were far more than only 26 trees still there on that Friday. The hoaxer of the video didn’t count any of the many trees that were in front of the firehouse either.

    • Brock,

      I’ve been busy this weekend and haven’t had time to reply, but wanted to thank you for your long and detailed comments. I will get to them as soon as I have time. I appreciate your insight and perspective on this.

    • Brock,

      Okay, I have a little more time now. You’re correct that I didn’t go into detail on my answers; that was because the conspiracy claims are so ridiculous on their face, they don’t require specific counterarguments. What I mean is, if someone claims their Ford Pinto can fly, I don’t have to pull out a Ford Pinto Manual and quote the page that says “This vehicle cannot fly”. The SH truthers are claiming no children were killed, ALL the police at the scene are lying, ALL the media members are lying, all the parents, all the surviving students, all the surviving teachers, all the neighbors, all the paramedics and firefighters, all the emergency room staff, etc. All these thousands of disparate people (including children) are lying to achieve some political goal. And in the year-plus since SH, not a single one of these thousands of people has broken and said “I can’t lie anymore, this massacre never happened”. That’s not believable on its face.

      I haven’t read all the details of the report, as you have. Based on what I know about the conspiracy mindset, I can tell you that any conspiracist will simply look at the facts you laid out from the report and say “Those are all lies.” They’re doing the same thing with the pictures of Jeff Bauman’s horrible wounds from the Boston Bombing; “Those are fake, Bauman’s not his real name, Carlos Arredondo and the people helping the fake Bauman are part of the conspiracy,” and so on.

      Facts don’t count much to a conspiracist if those facts are provided by anyone connected to any government. That’s why I emphasized the impossibility of their claims (i.e. “There would have been 45-60 gallons of blood”).

      You make very good points, and appear to have researched quite a bit. Unfortunately, I think Johnny Conspiracy Theorist is going to dismiss all your points out of hand.

      Thanks for commenting, and for all the detail. I hope you come back and participate more often.

  44. 224 Steve

    Hi, I liked this article. For more than a year now, these conspiracy theorists have really bothered me.
    If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask a more general question. the FAU professor, James Tracy, who has written about Halbig on his blog, claims that the Sandy Hook shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing were “drills” or “drills that went live.”
    I’ve seen local media coverage of various mass casualty drills through the years and I have a sister-in-law who worked at a hospital who has been a part of such drills. In those cases, the drills were never portrayed as anything other than drills. Everyone involved in the drill was aware that it was a drill. They were not covered by the media as if they were actual tragic events with actual casualties.
    In your experience in the military and in law enforcement, have there ever been drills that involved civilians who were unwittingly involved in the drill and perhaps even seriously injured or killed? Have any such drills to your knowledge been portrayed by the media as actual real-life mass casualty events?
    It’s always been my contention that if the Sandy Hook shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing were drills, we would have known that they were drills and they would not have been covered beyond the local media. We would not have national and international media reporting that something really happened where people were really killed and injured.
    Am I right about that?
    Thank you again.

    • 225 flyingtigercomics

      Tracy is backing off of the “hoax” thing and is back in the much more sensible middle ground of asking about the MEDIA handling of the event rather than the event itself.

      I warned him when the usual suspects first turned up with their wootard stuff that he would be smeared by association with them… And he was.

      He’s a media lecturer, and on the subject of the lying bastardry of the lapdog media he is on rock solid ground. When he started giving a platform to Fetzer and Shafquat he lost credibility, and he lost more when he allowed himself to be drawn into the Babysitters Club squabbling between Alex Jones and his enemies in the alternative media DVD sales force.

      There are some real questions but one of them shouldn’t be “did it happen”. Alleging with no evidence that an event WITH evidence didn’t happen is psychotic.

      • 226 Wayland

        The first question should be, did it happen? The next question should be, what evidence do we have? Then, what happened?
        If we suspect a hoax then we have to be very careful who is investigating. It should not be investigated by the people we suspect of perpetrating the hoax, that is obvious. Initial reports should be included because if this is a crime we should not be allowing the criminals opportunity to get their story straight.

        • 227 flyingtigercomics

          In terms of getting a story straight, there is going to be an oppressive lapdog media narrative come what may. And as with Barry Soetoro, communism in schools, obamacare, FDA corruption, climate change and so many others, that narrative will be promoted even if someone gets on TV with perpetrators admitting guilt that contradicts the official version.

          • 228 Wayland

            I remember when UK TV Channel 4 showed “The great Global Warming Swindle” in 2005. They were criticized because the documentary did not show both sides of the argument in a balanced way. However had they simply shown the case for accepting Global Warming as a fact and not shown the other side they would not have been criticized.Warmists will argue that they don’t have to prove their case because most people accept it as true, only those people attempting to prove something most people don’t accept have to play by the rules of arguing equally for both sides.

      • 229 Steve

        For a professor of communication, Tracy seems rather ignorant of the news gathering process. The reality is that in any breaking news situation, there are always going to be less-than-accurate initial accounts of what happened that will need to be corrected later once everyone has had time to sort things out.
        If you look at everyday events like a bar fight or a car accident, you’ll have a half-dozen witnesses giving different accounts of what happened. In an event like the Sandy Hook shooting, which is a million times more chaotic and confusing, that’s even more true. In sports, you have trained, professional officials with years of experience who know exactly what to look for and are just feet away from the action and they sometimes get the call wrong. If that can happen, I’m sure ordinary people seeing something they’ve never seen before in their lives might get some of the facts wrong when telling people what happened.
        A century ago, when all we had were newspapers, reporters could be wrong about things all day in the newsroom but as long as they got it right by the time the presses started rolling, that was all that mattered.
        These days, the media does not have that luxury. They’re reporting things as they happen and as a result, they’re bound to report some things that are not correct and need to be corrected later.
        If Tracy does not understand this, he should not have his job.

        • 230 flyingtigercomics

          Russian proverb: “He lies like an eyewitness”.

          And yes, Tracy seems rather… naive… in his associations and his analysis.

        • 231 Wayland

          “…initial accounts of what happened that will need to be corrected later once everyone has had time to sort things out.” – Well you might accept this but if you arrested a gang for a crime then allowing them to collaborate to get their story straight would be unacceptable. You are coming at this as if the media and witnesses are not trying to concoct a story. The evidence says that they concoct things like using the wrong photo of one of the children and then all copy each other to make sure they are all telling the same story rather than investigate. It would be easy to feed these people hoax info and no one would get in trouble because you find this acceptable.

          • 232 Steve

            Well, they’re not trying to concoct anything.

          • 233 Brocky

            “The evidence says that they concoct things like using the wrong photo of one of the children and then all copy each other to make sure they are all telling the same story rather than investigate.”

            There is no evidence that they concoct things like using the wrong photo of one child. The strangest thing about Sandy Hook is that the Hoaxers get an over whelming amount of facts wrong. Trying to set any of them straight on those facts is impossible. They will refuse to see the truth as it actually happened. Did the mass media use the wrong photo of Allison Wyatt? No, of course not. All media outlets had all photos of the victims on the first Monday after the Friday massacre. Allison’s photo, the real Allison that was killed at Sandy Hook, had her photo published on that Monday and possibly Sunday as well. The photo of the other girl, Lilly Gaubert, appeared later in the Uk Dailymail and on some social media sites. Lilly’s mother wrote for help in correcting the error. It is unknown who first used Lilly’s photo and if it was a mistake or intentional. The main point to remember is that the real Allison’s photo was first out media wide.

            Media and witnesses were not trying to concoct a story. A story that is concocted does not have the media mistakes that all quickly developing stories have. Mistakes are later corrected as more information comes in.

          • 234 Wayland

            Hello Brocky,

            I am quoting you from the email because your post is missing;

            ““The evidence says that they concoct things like using the wrong photo of one of the children and then all copy each other to make sure they are all telling the same story rather than investigate.” – by Wayland

            There is no evidence that they concoct things like using the wrong photo of one child. The strangest thing about Sandy Hook is that the Hoaxers get an over whelming amount of facts wrong. Trying to set any of them straight on those facts is impossible. They will refuse to see the truth as it actually happened. Did the mass media use the wrong photo of Allison Wyatt? No, of course not. All media outlets had all photos of the victims on the first Monday after the Friday massacre. Allison’s photo, the real Allison that was killed at Sandy Hook, had her photo published on that Monday and possibly Sunday as well. The photo of the other girl, Lilly Gaubert, appeared later in the Uk Dailymail and on some social media sites. Lilly’s mother wrote for help in correcting the error. It is unknown who first used Lilly’s photo and if it was a mistake or intentional. The main point to remember is that the real Allison’s photo was first out media wide.” – end quote

            So you are saying the press published the correct photo of Allison Wyatt to start with then later the Daily Mail published the wrong one? It seems the wrong photo was first used on Facebook and then copied by the DM.

            You also say that ALL the media outlets had ALL the correct photos on the Monday. Pretty much all showing the SAME photos by the looks of it. You see how when they try and put the info together themselves they come up with conflicting into but when they are all later given the same press release all their stories match. Yet you say they don’t copy each other but simply read from the same hymn sheet.

            What do you suppose is the reason why conspiracy theorists are so keen to say Sandy Hook is a hoax?

        • 235 Wayland

          “Well, they’re not trying to concoct anything” – Steve.
          That says it all. Whether they are trying to concoct something is the entire point of this blog. How can Chris refute anything if he does not allow for the possibility that the accusation is true before investigating? Yet they still don’t have their story straight after all this time. Still they have to hide evidence by sealing it from public view. Plenty of evidence that the story changed many times which is what would happen if they were concocting something.

          • 236 Steve

            The story changed because what they thought happened at first actually didn’t happen and when the facts were learned corrections were made. That’s how it works. If a reporter makes a mistake, he corrects it. That’s what professionals do.
            “The media” is not some big monolithic thing. They are several competing entities that can’t agree on where to go to lunch much less agree on advancing some nefarious agenda. Any reporter who had solid proof that this did not happen would have a career-defining story and would report it.
            Chris does not need to allow for the possibility that the accusation (that it was faked) is true. If you’re making the claim, you need to supply the evidence. It’s an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.

          • 237 Brocky

            Yes the media first published the correct photo of Allison. Yes I do recall that a facebook page was first to use the picture of Lily. According to a forum it was unknown who first used the photo. The Hsu girl was the last to have her picture posted, perhaps on Tuesday by some media. I’m going to say most may have had all the photos on Monday. Allison was published by Monday.

            “You see how when they try and put the info together themselves they come up with conflicting into”

            I assume you are referring to conflicting info that started to come out on Friday morning?

            “but when they are all later given the same press release all their stories match”.

            Are you referring to the photos? I don’t think I get your drift. Different media outlets scrambling to put out the news of a quickly breaking story is different than them publishing the same photos of the same 26 victims. Or what press release are you referring to?

            “Yet you say they don’t copy each other but simply read from the same hymn sheet.”

            I think I’m slow tonight. I said what about them not copying each other?

            I’m not sure why they are so keen. They’re paranoid. I’ve wondered that if they come to realize the truth about SH will they think that it means there is reason to take their guns away? The only thing I’ve heard about taking the guns away from Americans came from a young sibling of a first grade victim. Some are so sure their rights are trying to be taken away, that someone wants to turn the US into a police state. I guess a hoax would confirm that for them. I’m not sure. Why are so many of them so keen to readily believe every anomaly or inconsistency without any fact checking? So many quickly believe greenscreen, Christmas trees etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Actors? Dead children showing up at the superbowl even though the kids don’t even look alike. They even have a kid included in that group that couldn’t speak, but now she’s in a choir? And when you point out the facts and give evidence they ignore it.

            Why do you think they are so keen?

          • 238 Wayland

            People defend their world view because they are invested in it. For SH to be a hoax goes against the very core of people like yourself. This same reasoning maybe why us SH truthers won’t accept that this was a real event.

            Is it possible to let the facts speak for themselves or is it doubtful that we know the facts.

            For example you accept that the date of a Facebook memorial page predates that of the event. Lets call that a fact that we both agree on.

            The problem comes with the interpretation. This can be explained away as having been a page with different content that was re-purposed as a memorial page.

            In a normal crime such reasoning would not be accepted. However with SH it is ‘easier’ to go with an existing web page being altered than a huge conspiracy.

            This fact and others do point to a conspiracy to hoax the public but they can all be dismissed creatively. Then you can congratulate yourselves on having totally debunked the SH truthers.

            Another example is the school being buldozed. Perhaps you will tell me this is a lie and it’s still there. Or perhaps you will say it’s perfectly understandable. In fact it’s a gift to anyone who thinks SH is a hoax and is yet another point you cannot argue.

    • Steve,

      Sorry for the delayed response, I’ve been tied up for about a week. I’ve participated in many school shooting training exercises, and there is no possibility that SH was a “drill that went live”. Whenever we train with simunition rounds, every participant is searched to ensure they don’t have any real weapons on them, not even knives. A drill, even if it was a surprise event, wouldn’t involve a civilian with three live weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo.

      I’ve heard of one drill that was carried out without students’ prior knowledge, where an officer went into a classroom and fired blanks. That was a pretty controversial incident, and the officer is lucky none of the students (I think it happened at a college) were armed.

      I’ll have to look up Tracy’s claims. I wonder if he thinks Lanza was somehow part of this alleged drill. It’s pretty amazing that anyone thinks cops would give a kid with mental problems weapons and ammo and have them go into a school for a training exercise.

      Thanks for your comment, Steve.

  45. 240 Brocky

    No problem, I just wanted to add a few things to what you were saying. What I said about the paramedics pronouncing the victims dead in the school, just to be clear, police discovered the victims dead and two of those policemen were EMT.

    One of them, Sgt Cario, prepared the paramedics on the way in for what they were about to see, told them that this will be the worst day of their life. Cario had the worst of it. Before the paramedics entered the school Cario took 11 small shot up bodies out of the room 8 bathroom himself and laid them on the floor one at a time to check for life signs. The last three he was able to confirm dead on the bathroom floor. This kind of stuff can’t be made up. And some people wonder why there was relief resources made available to the first responders. Cario gets my outmost respect.

  46. 241 Brocky

    I forgot to post a photo of the firehouse with a better look of all the trees that were behind and also in front. You can see a little white sign near the left edge of the photo which is the tree sale sign and in front of the red car an opening where people enter through to pick out their trees and 2 floodlights against the firehouse wall, which can be seen better in an early news video from that day. Quite the set up, but they have been doing it for years. There is also no check in sign in front.

    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sandy+hook+ct&FORM=HDRSC2&id=4589C8CAA00A6B9A7C871585CEE65450B4F7FBFA&selectedIndex=770#view=detail&id=109814A533EA87F3F00EE01888C0326F2F35EFE5&selectedIndex=223

  47. 243 Stevo

    This was a hoax and all that don’t think so are dopes. Der.

  48. 244 alfred

    Trauma helicopters are only for emergencies. It only makes sense they didn’t arrive.

  49. Hello Mr. Hernandez, first off I want to thank you for your service to our country. I have just finished reading the entire blog, and comments. I want to say that this is the first website that I have found that both sides have (for the most part) have had a rational discussion about SH that has not resulted in mud slinging, and name calling. I have followed this since the day it happened, and no I have no training, or experience with crime scenes, or murder cases. I live in the south, so I only know what I have read, and watched on television, and yes YouTube videos. I have not been to Connecticut, or done any real “boots on the ground” investigation. I agree that some of the hoax videos out there are reaching, but some do make you scratch your head, and think. I want to get your take on a few questions, because I believe you did a good job addressing the questions above based on your previous experience’s, and common sense.

    1. I think the guy above was asking a good question above, but fell short about the teachers car with the 3 bullet holes. Where the car was located that morning in the parking lot could not have received the bullet entry holes from stray bullets being fired from inside the school. The car is pictured that morning parked about 8 to 9 parking spaces to the left of the school entrance, the classrooms where the victims were found were not not on that side of the school. If they were bullets from the shooters gun, they would have had to travel through several walls (brick) before reaching the car. I could not find anywhere in the official police report that identify these shots. This is where you have experience, would the police report not have touched on this since the bullet holes were a distance away from the actual shooting? And we could chalk this up as another error in the police reporting. Or for all we know this car could had been shot days, weeks before 12/14, and it was a coincidence, even though the father is on tv claiming these bullet holes occurred during the school shooting. I find this interesting cause it could lead you to believe that shots were fired outside before or after entering the school.

    2. We seen area footage being filmed from a news helicopter the morning of the shooting, we see officers chase a man from the school through the woods to the left of the school where he was caught soon after. There is proof this happened, I have only found 1 explanation of who this guy was. I read that this was a father that was there to make gingerbread houses with their kids that day. Why would he run away from law enforcement? Ok maybe he had a couple of warrants we don’t know about, and he was trying to get away. Why has he not been interviewed by the media? Maybe he is embarrassed that his child was in the school, and he hit the woods running, instead of trying to protect his child that was endangered of being killed. But wait he was seen running from behind the school, and was reported that he was trying to get into school. I guess we will never know, because I have only found 1 article from the LA Times that even reported this. Why wouldnt more news sources be interested in reporting this story? Maybe he is camera shy, or trying to stay away from the media.

    Either way the above ties in with this, we see footage of this man being chased into the woods, and we also see police checking buildings outside, this leads me to believe that this is taking place very soon after the shooting. It was reported that SH had at the least 300 enrolled students to the max of 600 students enrolled, lets just say there were 295 that day. When the man being chased into the woods, was this before the students were evacuated to the firehouse? Or after? I have read the reason we did not see the 295 students being evacuated from the school to the firehouse in a single file line as reported was because this happened before the news cameras showed up. If this is true than the father was trying to enter the back of the school long after the shooting took place. Does that not seem odd? That he was able to breech police boundaries of a crime scene to be chased down in the woods?

    Then we have the picture of the 15 or so students being escorted out in a single file line, this picture was used a lot. It later came out that this picture was tweeted out from November 2012 from the principal with a caption “shooter Drill at Sandy Hook” now I could be wrong about this, because it was also reported that it was taken by a photographer from the Newtown bee newspaper. So this would suggest that there were news photographers there, but this was the only picture of the evacuation of 295 students? That’s something else that makes you think that’s weird.

    I have many more of the things things that makes you stand back and ask why that happened like that. I understand this was a live tragic event, and things are all happening so fast that it would not go the same as it would during less stressful and chaos time.

    I am not saying it did happen or it didn’t, I like to think I can distinguish between logic and a lie. I have also wondered if this happened in my similar small town like Newtown would the people in this community be able to keep a hoax of this magnitude quite? If I didn’t have a child at the school that day then I would not had been there, and if I didn’t have children of this age, chances are I’m not going to know the parents, since all the families except for 3 who had a child that was killed that day had only moved there within the last 2 years. And let’s just say I did know this was staged who am I going to tell? Not a news station that reported this is going to give me air time to say this. Also Lt Vance had a press conference the days after that anyone giving information or false information to media or news networks would be arrested. The town of Newton was also on a 90 day gag order. Did you know this? Google it. Why were every family assigned a police officer that stayed and lived with them for weeks after the shooting? I will post more later, and I am not doubting your blog, I am just bringing more questions to be discussed, and nothing I have posted directly says this is a hoax, I’m just a normal person who doesn’t jump on every conspiracy wagon that rolls through town. Thanks for your time and providing a platform to discuss this topic.

    • Crimson,

      I’ll be tied up all day today, but I can begin to address your questions tonight. Thank you for the reasonable, rational and polite tone of your comment.

    • Crimson,

      Not blowing you off, just been tied up with some major family stuff. I will respond as soon as I have time, hopefully tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

    • 250 Priscilla

      http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting-spurs-fake-adam-lanza/story?id=18000970
      Apparently, one can be prosecuted for:
      1) Threats
      2) Misappropriation of an identity for financial gain
      3) Intentionally impeding a police investigation
      I wonder how these incidences fall under the heading of mere “misinformation”, but it seems Lt. Vance’s warning could have a chilling effect on speech. I guess we will never know the answer becsuse no one wants to ask or answer the question. Vance’s remark really jumped out at me at the live press conference. I was surprised there was no follow up question.


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


%d bloggers like this: