I remember feeling so bad about the massacre of those wee ones at Sandy Hook. It was an horrific event and if your heart didn't go out to those poor, poor people then you are probably made of stone.
I'm a father myself, and we have lost three little ones and I felt awful for the parents.
And then Harby sends me this:
...and I either have to question my own sanity, or the fact, the unpalatable fact, that Sandy Hook was no more than a side-show.
Try suspending everything you know (or think you know) for ten minutes as you watch the YouTube clip above.
Sideshow indeed - unpalatable but evidence for it.
Stuff like this can easily be faked by nutters so I like to check it out myself.
At a glance, nothing to support it apart from the Emilie Parker Facebook page that was indeed set up on the 14th.
Couple that with the video of Robbie Parker smiling then making himself look upset before the telly interview (On mine and Max's blog)and you get a big WTF?
I'm gonna some more digging
Not as convincing as Bazza's fake birth cert - that's a doozie.
His explanation for the photograph doesn't seem to stand up.
Both photos have the same girl in the same pose wearing the same clothes.
One is obviously photoshopped from the other. If the Obama picture is the later one, Emilie has been taken from that one and added to the family pic.
That tells me it's a hoax and and the family photo never originally included the girl in the red and black dress
It explains why there have never been any pictures from inside the school.
If this girl was not shot there is no reason to suspect the others were, so where are they?
Jesus H Christ! Didn't believe it so went looking and there's more:
Your wecome cap'n,
I would say I don't know what to say over this but then when one looks at the recent spate of shootings in the US, the disconnects and the drive for bringing in gun control as a result, then one has to realise something incredibly sinister is coming from the US state.
Problem - how do we remove the 2nd amendment
Reaction - kill Americans and blame it on terrorists and nutjobs (whom we kill. Dead men don't speak)
Solution - an easily oppressed disarmed populous
I think another reinvestigation into Dunblane wouldn't go amiss.
"It explains why there have never been any pictures from inside the school. If this girl was not shot there is no reason to suspect the others were, so where are they?"
Maybe sunning it off at some foreign beach resort with those who died on the planes that hit the twin towers on 911? When one does research, one of the top men (Rabbi Dov Zakheim) involved had a company that specialised in remote control planes. A totally unbelievable concept? Watch the video:
This siries is interesting on Youtube:
STAGED HOAX- SANDY HOOK CONNECTICUT SHOOTING
There's 5 vids with some great stuff
I discovered yesterday that I had not read my beloved Daily Mail or indeed the BBC News for OVER ONE WEEK.
I was shocked to discover what I had missed in that week.
ZERO ZILCH NOTHING NADA.
I saw the "Normal" people had been wittering on about ZERO ZILCH NOTHING NADA.
I decided there and then to avoid at all costs, "Normal" people.
People like CommonlyKnownAsDom and his ilk who are not sitting on his arse reading NEWS but are on the front line of FREEDOM
Look at the family photo? Notice amything odd? Look at the body placing - mum on left, dad on right cradling two and off on her own on the right the 'dead' girl. Any family photo would have had the deceased on the left, protected by her mother.
It seems far fetched but then again, I wouldn't put anything past these bastards.
Warmomgers and murderers, so they have plenty of previous form on that one.
There's other stuff that doesn't add up with the official story either. The coroner said that the 7 kids he autopsied were all killed by rifle shots.
The only weapons recovered from the scene were 4 pistols. That nasty black "Assault rifle" he "used" never left the boot of his car, There's video of police removing it from there. The shooter was killed inside the school, so didn't return it to his car.
So where did the rifle shots come from?
Good comments from all. Thanks for the additional links too.
I am at pains to tell people I am not a tinfoil hatter. I look at the most basic questions and I expect a basic answer.
I knew about the .223 rifle shells that littered the school, and I saw the video showing police recovering the weapon from the boot. I also heard the police radio snippets describing up to three assailants.
Like 9/11 and 7/7, I have some problems with the official story on Sandy Hook.
When they make basic mistakes, it must make you at least question what went on.
Hang on there, I'm not sure about this alleged "proof" (and the yank sounds like another moron).
the site was put up before the event and modified later. So what?
The pic of the pres looks Photoshopped, like the girls was added later. Anyone have a link to the original?
It looks like a double bluff to discredit conspiracy theorists. Like the more outlandish 9/11 stories.
"the site was put up before the event and modified later. So what?"
The "what" is the fact that the page was created for a mass murder BEFORE the event so other than the alleged assailant who would have known about it? I'm pretty sure the person taking the blame for this didn't do it.
I'm not saying who is responsible but there's something a miss here, like 9/11 and 7/7, things just don't add up.
Classic problem, reaction, solution by the looks of it but I think we have our own shit do deal with in this country. At least ours are that little bit more convincing.
The fact this site was set up three days before the shooting speaks volumes. As the narrator states "they must think we're stupid". To make a blatant error leaves three possibilities:
1. They really think we're stupid as they have after all been completely indoctrinating us for decades.
2. They're rubbing our noses in it knowing they have complete control over our lives.
3. They've made this mistake on purpose to create more anger, wake more people up in order to bring about the planned people rebellion which they will utterly smash.
I can never understand why people come out with "this looks like disinformation" rubbish. It's merely one joining the dots.
FWIW the 'Dec 11th' date thing would appear to be explainable as follows: -
This lesson shouldn’t need to be taught but you can’t always believe what you read. Case in point, I noticed a couple of individuals posting this story, which purports to provide evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was more than meets the eye:
(Thomas Dishaw) More twists to the Sandy Hook narrative. On December 11 Google indexed the United Way website that offered condolences to the family’s of Sandy Hook.
This is a full three days before the actual shooting that took place on December 14 2012. You can view the Google page here and the United Way page here.
If you go to the Google link provided in the story you’ll notice it’s a search for the results of “sandy hook united way” that appeared on December 11th, 2012. Since the shooting occurred on December 14th, 2012 you wouldn’t expect any results but results appeared for the United Way Sandy School Support Fund webpage. In of itself this appears to be a little fishy but rest assured there is a simple explanation for these results, Google’s date searching mechanism is a little wonky. To demonstrate this I did a search for “sandy hook shooting” on the date of December 1st, 2008 (click to embiggen):
Either the Sandy Hook shooting conspiracy was accidentally leaked to the Internet over four years ago or Google’s search by date function is a bit unreliable. I’ll let you be the judge.
Found at http://christopherburg.com/2013/01/09/dont-believe-everything-you-read/
FFS, how thick are you? An innocent site being put up to publicise the school and later changed to deal with the shooting means absolutely nothing.
To the anonymous who posted the link to Christopher Burg (above) - his refutation has now been proven false. The dated articles in his image do not contain any reference to Sandy Hook. The active, continually-refreshed portions of those webpages (video applets, comments, etc) are what contains those references and are the reason for the links appearing in the Google search. Google is indexing the active content of those pages.
Post a Comment