Sandy Hook: Some Thoughts

[ZestolPastilevsky]

As someone who's interested in conspiracies in general, you often hear (in the media) about conspiracies alleging Sandy Hook never took place, or something to that effect. Of course, they put their own filter on it, and as a result it's impossible to really organically form your own opinion on the matter, so I went and found out what the people who believe it was a hoax had to say for themselves. The official narrative says that Adam Lanza, and mentally unwell young man, took his parents' gun, shot his mom with it, and then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot a bunch of kids and teachers. Proponents of the hoax allege that either nothing happened, or that it was just sort of a drill. Proponents of the hoax theory present several pieces of evidence for their claims, some more compelling than others. So going point by point I'll present my thoughts.

The hoax theorists case can be viewed at:

1. Crisis actors were used because the people at Sandy Hook appear visually similar to some people at other crises, and many of the parents were, by profession, actors and entertainers. My objection to this argument is the fact that in a country of 350,000,000 people, it's by no means impossible to have people who look similar to one another. Furthermore, some people get into acting to make a living. That's just life. This claim generally falls flat, and I think most people would agree with that. The exception is for Mr. Parker, who is on video literally laughing and chit chatting with people prior to giving a statement...about his son being killed. This certainly raises a red flag, however, it says nothing about the other people involved.

2. Dash-cam footage from a police car in the parking lot shows no kids being evacuated at the time of or soon after the shooting. I think the hole in this piece of evidence is that it makes an assumption about what route the kids took being led out of the school. The kids were taken to the firehouse, and indeed the shortest path would pass right in front of that dash cam. HOWEVER, the shortest path in this case, was visible from a lot of windows as it required exit from a wider part of the building. It was also obstructed by parked cars. The safest route, in fact, would have actually avoided the area viewed by the dash cam in question.

3. An article was published in which the principal was interviewed in person. The catch? The principal was dead. She could not possibly have been interviewed. Furthermore, apparently the date the webpage on which the article was created was a day before the shooting. I also don't think this is particularly compelling because of the fact that the press in the US is notorious for sloppy reporting stemming from a desire to be the first to report on something. Factor in the panic of the day, and the reported could have easily misidentified the principal. Regarding the webpage creation date, that, more likely, is tied to the press being in a rush. If they'd created a blank page the day before, and then filled it in on the day of the shooting, then a computer would indeed say that the page was created the day before a shooting.

 

[rightwinger]

It is senseless to try to argue logic with conspiracy theorists

 

[SweetSue92]

As someone who's interested in conspiracies in general, you often hear (in the media) about conspiracies alleging Sandy Hook never took place, or something to that effect. Of course, they put their own filter on it, and as a result it's impossible to really organically form your own opinion on the matter, so I went and found out what the people who believe it was a hoax had to say for themselves. The official narrative says that Adam Lanza, and mentally unwell young man, took his parents' gun, shot his mom with it, and then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot a bunch of kids and teachers. Proponents of the hoax allege that either nothing happened, or that it was just sort of a drill. Proponents of the hoax theory present several pieces of evidence for their claims, some more compelling than others. So going point by point I'll present my thoughts.

The hoax theorists case can be viewed at:

1. Crisis actors were used because the people at Sandy Hook appear visually similar to some people at other crises, and many of the parents were, by profession, actors and entertainers. My objection to this argument is the fact that in a country of 350,000,000 people, it's by no means impossible to have people who look similar to one another. Furthermore, some people get into acting to make a living. That's just life. This claim generally falls flat, and I think most people would agree with that. The exception is for Mr. Parker, who is on video literally laughing and chit chatting with people prior to giving a statement...about his son being killed. This certainly raises a red flag, however, it says nothing about the other people involved.

2. Dash-cam footage from a police car in the parking lot shows no kids being evacuated at the time of or soon after the shooting. I think the hole in this piece of evidence is that it makes an assumption about what route the kids took being led out of the school. The kids were taken to the firehouse, and indeed the shortest path would pass right in front of that dash cam. HOWEVER, the shortest path in this case, was visible from a lot of windows as it required exit from a wider part of the building. It was also obstructed by parked cars. The safest route, in fact, would have actually avoided the area viewed by the dash cam in question.

3. An article was published in which the principal was interviewed in person. The catch? The principal was dead. She could not possibly have been interviewed. Furthermore, apparently the date the webpage on which the article was created was a day before the shooting. I also don't think this is particularly compelling because of the fact that the press in the US is notorious for sloppy reporting stemming from a desire to be the first to report on something. Factor in the panic of the day, and the reported could have easily misidentified the principal. Regarding the webpage creation date, that, more likely, is tied to the press being in a rush. If they'd created a blank page the day before, and then filled it in on the day of the shooting, then a computer would indeed say that the page was created the day before a shooting.

Just because some conspiracy theories turned out to be true doesn't mean all of them are.

Real children actually died at Sandy Hook. Do I trust the govt? No. Do I think they would plot to shoot literal first graders to grab at our guns?

Again. No.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

4. This is though was one of the weakest pieces of evidence. The theorists point out that LEOs all parked at the neighbor's house on the day of the shooting, and not at the Lanza family's home. Well...duh. If there may be an armed gunman involved, you're not just gonna park your vehicle right in front of the windows of a building he may be occupying. The house next door was located behind a thicket of trees, and was visible from fewer windows. It was the logical choice for LEOs to roll up.

5. Their weakest piece of evidence is followed up by one of their strongest. Over the next few months following the shooting, concerted efforts were made by state and local governments to make inaccessible to the public information related to the shooting, the shooter, or the victims. This sort of behavior certainly is suspect on the part of the government. There isn't much compelling reason to keep this information from the public. Doubly so if the information supports the official line. It's worth noting that today some records are indeed accessible. I'll get to those later.

6. Eugene Rosen was a local who appeared on a number of interviews being hailed for saving a number of kids. The problem? The consistency of his story was nonexistent. It was riddled with things that didn't add up. Ranging from places, to timelines, to the number of kids involved. Furthermore, I'd just like to add my opinion that his interviews seem very acted. In this case, I'm inclined to agree with the hoax theorists. I think it's very possible that this man is a liar and a grifter.

Edit to paragraph 6: obviously, Rosen being a grifter wouldn't mean that the shooting was a fake.

 

[SweetSue92]

It is senseless to try to argue logic with conspiracy theorists

You fell for this. Take all the seats.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

7. Next we have the case of Robert Skuba. Mr. Skuba apparently owns a hair salon and cut Adam Lanza's hair. Conspiracy theorists correctly note that public records indicate that Mr. Skuba's hair-cutting license expired way before the shooting took place. That said, I'm not entirely sold on this particular situation. Depending on how stringent license inspections are, Mr. Skuba could have just been flaunting the law. Furthermore, if you look up his business, everything seems to suggest that not only is it totally legit, but that it existed prior to the shooting. Mr. Skuba is definitely legit, as is his business. However, as was the case with Mr. Rosen, it's very possible that he's a grifter trying to get his time in the spotlight, and that he never actually cut Lanza's hair. This of course, doesn't make the shooting a hoax.

8. Large numbers of articles had cache dates indicating that they were written before the shooting took place. While this point is potentially very compelling, and would be a smoking gun, I can't say much about it since I wasn't able to independently verify it with my crude attempts to do so. I wanna refer back to paragraph three where I laid out a possibility for how this could happen. The official line is that these were glitches on Googles part. While a glitch is unlikely it is not impossible. This point is worth looking into further.

9. Referring back to paragraph four, some public records related to the shooting were made available. Among these were forensic reports. Proponents of the hoax theory point to the fact that a teacher's DNA was found on parts of the firearm/cartridge where you wouldn't expect them, and that Lanza's DNA was not found on certain items. In the trunk of Lanza's car was an unused shotgun (AK style, great shotgun). It had no DNA from Lanza on it. The issue is that it really proves nothing. Doubly so because the gun wasn't used. The teacher's DNA was found on shell casings and magazines from the rifle that was used. However, in a crime scene of this nature it's not totally unlikely for such a thing to happen. Even if the magazine and cartridges were inside the weapon, it's still possible for third party DNA to get in there. It's worth noting that DNA is a finicky thing. Lanza shot his mom with a .22, but his DNA was found only on the forearm of the weapon, and not the grip. While this point is slightly odd, and worth scrutinizing further, I don't think it's smoking gun proof in and of itself.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

10. Proponents of the hoax theory say that people were just wandering in circles by the firehouse, and show a brief clip, probably less than 10 seconds long as their evidence. This doesn't pan out, because at no point do you actually see a person go in one side of the building, and come back out the other. Furthermore, and I'll get to this in a later point, there's a completely plausible explanation for people milling around the scene.

11. His brother was incorrectly identified as the shooter for the first few hours as a result of Lanza carrying the brother's ID on him. Some proponents of the hoax theory go as far as to say that they're the same person. While I concede that Lanza carrying his estranged brother's ID around was most unusual, it really doesn't prove anything in and of itself, and if Lanza wanted to be a petty little asshole, he could stick it to his brother just by causing him to get mixed up in the affair. The notion that Adam had no brother seems very unlikely. The two don't look very similar, and there'd be no point for the government to add this layer of deception to the plot. What would the authorities' motive for making up a fake brother be? It's far more likely that this was a cause of confusion, and crappy press.

12. Ambulances on site did not actually perform triage on very many people. Suspicious, right? Not at all. Sandy Hook Elementary School was a crime scene. When LEOs got to the site, if they determined immediately that someone was dead, they'd leave them where they fell so as to not disturb the crime scene. Paramedics and EMTs were, therefore, just sort of milling around the firehouse. What else was there for them to do? And, being blocked in by other cars, where else would they even go? A lot of people showed up basically as spectators to a ghoulish event. But there's nothing to suggest anything out of the ordinary or unexplainable took place here. On the contrary, in fact.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

13. A lot of money changed hands as a result of the shooting. Millions in grants, donations, etc. Proponents of the hoax theory state that this is evidence of a financial motive for what took place. The thing is that there are more discreet ways of moving the money (for instance modern art). Furthermore, the parents already lost their kids (assuming you choose to believe the official government line), at that point, why not at least accept the silver lining and get rich off of it? It's ghoulish sounding, but turning down the money wouldn't bring your kid back anyway, so why not take it?

14. Proponents of the hoax theory suggest that the shooting was designed to help push through anti-gun legislation. On the state and local levels, it did do that. However it did that in firmly blue states that were already quite anti-gun to begin with, and to the best of my knowledge, the shooting resulted in no federal level legislation.

In general, a large amount of evidence put forth by proponents of the hoax theory point to the fact that details here and there don't add up, or were reported incorrectly. The thing is that none of this information when considered in a vacuum suggests that the shooting never happened. Even when considered together, it doesn't point to a hoax. Ultimately, I think the official line is largely more plausible than the hoax theory. However I think a number of bad actors took advantage of the situation. When all is said and done, though I generally think the evidence points towards the official line being accurate, I do think some questions should be asked about...
1. Lanza having his brother's ID.
2. DNA being found in certain places where it didn't belong.
3. Potential grifters.
4. Attempts to shut down access to information.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

It is senseless to try to argue logic with conspiracy theorists

I'm less interested in arguing in this thread. I just felt like making this since I've now heard both sides of the story and just wanted to post some of my thoughts on the matter. And to say that it's senseless to argue logic with conspiracy theorists is...very base and naive. To just discount what someone says because they're a conspiracy theorist, is really just sort of gaslighting.

Just because some conspiracy theories turned out to be true doesn't mean all of them are.

Real children actually died at Sandy Hook. Do I trust the govt? No. Do I think they would plot to shoot literal first graders to grab at our guns?

Again. No.

I generally agree. Granted, I dunno if I'd put it past the government to do something awful to control public opinion. After all, the FBI always says, "the shooter was on our radar." And god knows it's become clear that the government didn't do everything it could have to stop 9/11.

 

[JGalt]

It is senseless to try to argue logic with conspiracy theorists

It's even more senseless to believe that more gun control laws would have prevented the shooting. Lanza obtained the Bushmaster XM15 rifle by murdering his own mother with a .22 rifle.

 

[BULLDOG]

Interesting thoughts, but you have convinced no one. Those conspiracy theorists will easily add another layer of theory on top of everything that has already been said, and claim they were right all along. There have always been mistakes made by reporters and news organizations. Great damage was done to our society when unethical people convinced large numbers that those mistakes, which should be exposed are the same as proof that everything reported is a lie.

 

[rightwinger]

It's even more senseless to believe that more gun control laws would have prevented the shooting. Lanza obtained the Bushmaster XM15 rifle by murdering his own mother with a .22 rifle.

The kid was a recognized nut job
He scared people

He should not be anywhere near a gun

 

[petro]

There were no crisis actors.
Just real parents who lost their children. One pair of those parents is my wife's aunt and uncle and I have personally met them several times.
No, I am not naming names as they have been harrassed by weirdos and do gooders who insist on inserting themselves into a tragedy that didn't involve them.
One certain poster tried in vain to get me to doxx them as proof of my claim and I basically told him to fuck off.
I simply no longer respond to those conspiracy nuts.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Just because some conspiracy theories turned out to be true doesn't mean all of them are.

Real children actually died at Sandy Hook. Do I trust the govt? No. Do I think they would plot to shoot literal first graders to grab at our guns?

Again. No.

Yet, people like Eric "the racist" Holder and Merrick Garland allowed mentally ill people to acquire weapons that should never of been sold to them. That way when those "Crazy" Democrat voters go on their shooting sprees, then these AG's can hear the cries from the left saying "ban all guns".

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job - NaturalNews.com

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

Interesting thoughts, but you have convinced no one. Those conspiracy theorists will easily add another layer of theory on top of everything that has already been said, and claim they were right all along. There have always been mistakes made by reporters and news organizations. Great damage was done to our society when unethical people convinced large numbers that those mistakes, which should be exposed are the same as proof that everything reported is a lie.

Well I think the main purpose of my writing this was to better inform neutral readers. Granted, I'd encourage the curious to do their own research and form their own opinion, irrespective of my take.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

There were no crisis actors.
Just real parents who lost their children. One pair of those parents is my wife's aunt and uncle and I have personally met them several times.
No, I am not naming names as they have been harrassed by weirdos and do gooders who insist on inserting themselves into a tragedy that didn't involve them.
One certain poster tried in vain to get me to doxx them as proof of my claim and I basically told him to fuck off.
I simply no longer respond to those conspiracy nuts.

I generally agree. But what's with that dude who was laughing as he gave a press conference to talk about the fact that his kid had been killed? How does one explain such behavior?

 

[petro]

I generally agree. But what's with that dude who was laughing as he gave a press conference to talk about the fact that his kid had been killed? How does one explain such behavior?

Didn't watch it and probably won't.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well I think the main purpose of my writing this was to better inform neutral readers. Granted, I'd encourage the curious to do their own research and form their own opinion, irrespective of my take.

If there were any neutral readers, the facts would have convinced them by now. Don't get me wrong. Your post was accurate and succinct. I just don't hold out much hope for reaching conspiracy theory nuts. Sadly, "do your own research" has begun to mean "believe the craziest theory you can find"

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

If there were any neutral readers, the facts would have convinced them by now. Don't get me wrong. Your post was accurate and succinct. I just don't hold out much hope for reaching conspiracy theory nuts. Sadly, "do your own research" has begun to mean "believe the craziest theory you can find"

Oh well, at least hopefully it was an interesting read and someone somewhere got something out of it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh well, at least hopefully it was an interesting read and someone somewhere got something out of it.

Perhaps I took my critique a little too far. It's a good thread, and you don't need me shitting on it. I'm just at a loss when it comes to reintroducing reality to hard core cult members.