"It ain't what we don't know that hurts us; it's what we think we know that ain't so"--Will Rogers
The Sandy Hook experience has divided Americans, most of whom have been convinced by media coverage that it was a real event, where a young man massacred 20 children and six adults before killing himself.
Another
substantial segment of the US population has taken a closer look at the
evidence and drawn the conclusion it was a hoax, where no children
really died: it was an elaborate psy-op to promote gun control.
Americans
are hard pressed to sort these things out, because they are hit with a
blizzard of reports that appear to confirm the official account, leaving
them in the predicament of not being able to tell if it was real or
fake.
It
matters even more today because gun control has become one of the
defining issues of politics in America, where leading Democrats (Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton) are using their authority as President (in
the first instance) to issue Executive Orders constraining our 2nd
Amendment rights and (in the second) threatening to impose liability
laws upon their manufacturers for their use by those who buy them. Ben
Carson, on the Republican side, has observed that Jews would have been
better able to fend off The Third Reich had they not been disarmed; and
Matt Drudge has challenged the President to demonstrate his sincerity by
giving up his (heavily armed) Secret Service protection.
The
appeals to Sandy Hook (shooting 20 children), the Charleston shooting
(of nine blacks) and the Oregon shooting (where college students were
asked their religion and those responding "Christian" were shot in the
head) have struck some observers as appearing to be calculated to
instill fear into specific targeted subpopulations of the American
community: parents, blacks and Christians, for example, where it's as
though we were experiencing a series of psy-ops to
convince the public that we ought to give up our guns. That troubles
many, because disarming populations has all-too-often occurred to set
the stage for tyranny in world history past. What if Sandy Hook was only an illusion?
Probabilities vs. Certainties
Knowledge of
historical events (based upon documents and records, photos and videos
and witness testimony, for example) can never be “definitive and
certain”. You only know your own origin in life (where
and when you were born and the parents who brought you into this world)
on the basis of information that could have been faked. Even DNA
comparisons can be invalid or mistaken on purpose or by accident. Your
belief about today’s day/month/year is
something else of which you have no direct and certain knowledge but
rather have a host of sources of information, such as newspapers and
television reports, which collectively confirm your belief but could be
fabricated or faked, but which are almost always accurate and true.
The occurrence of
an elaborate hoax intended to fool the people does not occur often, but
there can be no doubt that it does sometimes occur. The Warren Report (1964),
for example, provides an indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone
assassin of JFK, where the evidence for that conclusion was carefully
selected and, in some cases, completely fabricated. The backyard
photographs were faked, for example, and the home movies of the
assassination were edited. That he had been captured in a famous photo
taken during the shooting was suppressed. (Check out The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) or many articles about JFK at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com for abundant proof, if you like.) These things can and sometimes do happen. And one of them happened here.
If you only read the government’s account, you might very well be
convinced that JFK had been killed by Lee Oswald. And if you only paid
attention to the mass media, you would probably believe that 20 children
died at Sandy Hook. Once you acknowledge that some of the evidence has
been fabricated or faked, however, the case begins to assume a
completely different character. This does not mean we cannot know what
happened in this instance, but it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man. New
evidence or alternative hypotheses may thus require us to revised our
position by rejecting hypotheses we previously accepted, accepting
hypotheses we previously rejected and leaving others in suspense. We now
know more about Sandy Hook.
Inference to the best explanation
The principle known as “inference to the best explanation”, has the
potential to turn every American into a critical thinker in comparing
alternative hypotheses. In relation to Sandy Hook, there are two
alternatives, which have consequences that would also be true (or
probably true) if they were true and others that would be false (or
probably false) if they were not (setting the alleged suicide by Adam
Lanza to the side):
(h1) Sandy Hook was a real event, where 20 children and 6 adults were killed at a school;(h2) Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax, where a drill was conducted and no children died.
But the key
to understanding is making an appraisal of which of these hypotheses is
better supported by the evidence. We can think of the evidence as effects of one or another hypothesis as their cause. When one hypothesis makes the effects more probable than the other, it is more likely to be true and the alternative false. For
the shooting to have been real, the school had to have been operational
in 2012; yet we have indication after indication that it had been abandoned by 2008 (which you will discover in Chapters 2 and 3),
including not only its deplorable physical condition (both inside and
out), but also that it was not in compliance with both federal and state
laws required in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act:
Analogously, we know from past
experience that the names, ages and sex of victims of crimes are almost
invariably printed in newspaper accounts of crimes. In this case,
however, the final reports coming from the Connecticut authorities did
not include them. That is a very odd aspect of this event, but an
attempt has been made to explain it away on the ground of preserving the
privacy of the families of the victims. But if there were victims,
their families already know they are dead. There is no evident benefit
to the families, if it was real, but a major element of the cover up, if
it was not.
From the date of the event, we have a photograph taken from a CT State Police chopper at 9:15 AM/ET, which is 20 minutes before the
first 911 call came in; there was no surge of EMTs into the building to
rush those little bodies off to hospitals, where doctors could
pronounce them dead or alive; virtually all of the emergency vehicles
were kept at the Firehouse, which became the center of activity as
opposed to the school; the parents were not even allowed to identify
their children, which was done using photos. As a parent myself, I can
emphasize that there is no way I could have been kept from viewing the
body of a child of mine, where the conduct of the "parents" in this case
is unlike that of any parents I have ever known, where these many
oddities are confirmed by Chapter 5.
Other circumstantial anomalies * the Attorney General of Connecticut argued against releasing the 911 calls, where the court ruled against him;* the Clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid issuing death certificates;* a special panel of the state legislature recommended that any state employee who released information about Sandy Hook other than via Freedom of Information Act request be prosecuted as an E-felony with a five year sentence; and,* those who were hired to participate in the demolition of the school building were required to sign life-time gag orders that prohibit them from talking about what they saw or did not see during its destruction.
Each
of these qualifies as a “fact” insofar as its truth can be confirmed by
research you can conduct yourself. Admittedly, if all the information
accessible via the internet about Sandy Hook were fabricated or faked,
that would not be the case. But I know of no one who seriously contests
any of these points. So ask yourself, what
is the probability that these five claims (if we also include the
missing names, ages and sex from the final report) would be true if
Sandy Hook had been a real event? And by comparison, what is the probability these five claims would be true if Sandy Hook had been a hoax? Which hypothesis is more likely to be true?
The Governor's Press Conference
The day of the shooting, Governor Dan Malloy and his Lt. Governor held a press conference, during which he observed that they had been “spoken to” that something like this might happen. That got me thinking about, “something like this”? What could that mean. There are only two alternatives:
(a) that he had been told there would be a shooting in a school in his state, in which case he, as governor, should have warned school districts to be on high alert and make sure it did not happen, which he did not do; or,
(b) that he had been told they would be taking an abandoned school and using it as a prop for a drill, which would be presented to the public as real to promote an aggressive gun-control agenda, which is the case here.
And when I looked into recent visits with the Governor to determine by whom he might have been "spoken to", I discovered that Attorney General Eric Holder had met with him on 27 November 2012 to discuss "Operation Longevity", a special interest of the Attorney General and the President of the United Staes for promoting gun control. Mark my words. The evidence presented here demonstrates that the school was closed by 2008; that there were no students to evacuate; that Adam Lanza appears to have been a work of fiction; and that the teachers, the parents, the Newtown School Board, the State Police, the Medical Examiner and the Governor--and by extension the Attorney General and the President--were all complicit in the deception.
We have the FEMA manual
And I am not just talking about the sign, "Everyone must check in", the Port-a-Potties,
the boxes of bottled water and pizza cartons at the Firehouse, the name
tags on lanyards and parents bringing their children to (what was
supposed to be) a child shooting massacre! WE HAVE THE FEMA MANUAL. It
stipulates that everyone must register and that refreshments and
restrooms will be provided. Some participants did not realize that the
official event was not until the 14th: We now know why some of the donation pages went up a day early and why Adam Lanza was recorded as having died on the 13th! Don't take my word for it, because you can read it for yourself. I included it here as Appendix A.
The Requirement of Total Evidence
Indeed, scientific reasoning specifically and rational inquiries generally must satisfy the requirement of total evidence: in the search for truth, reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence, where
evidence is relevant when its presence or absence (or truth or falsity)
makes a difference to the outcome, typically on the basis of
considerations of probability. According to the official report on Sandy Hook by Danbury States Attorney Stephen Sedensky (to which we refer as "The Sedensky Report"),
there were 489 children present that day. Minus 20 murdered, there
ought to have been 469 to evacuate (as well as around 70 more teachers,
administrators and staff). But we have no pictures of their evacuation.
What we have instead this "iconic" photograph:
It has sometimes been said that "You can't prove a falsehood true!" But
that assertion overlooks the role of false clams and fabricated
evidence. We have here a photograph purporting to show a string of
children being led away from the school to safety by a policewoman on
the scene. This photo was published on the front page of virtually every
newspaper in the world--and shown endless times on television. It was
undoubtedly the single most important form of proof in convincing the
public around the world that Sandy Hook was real. But there is a catch: the photograph was staged! And
we know that not on the basis of the weaker evidence that there are too
many leaves on the trees and no frost for this to be a 28 degree day in
December but because Shannon Hicks took a second photograph!
Rearranging the kids to get a better shot
It's bad enough that we have a series of parents looking on, some with their arms cross or their hands in their pockets--which is certainly not what we would expect in an emergency situation. It gets much worse when you realize that the police woman has stopped the children to rearrange them to get "a better shot"! Here's a comparison that shows what was going on and demonstrates--as conclusively as anyone could have the right to expect--that the first photograph was staged to create the false impression that there was an emergency and that these kids needed to be removed from a threat at the earliest possible opportunity--which would not leave time to stop and rearrange them as follows:
We not only know that Shannon Hicks was "in on the game" by taking these photos (as early as in October) in preparation for this elaborate charade but we also know that there was no evacuation. The claim is sometimes made that “You can’t prove a negative!” But that turns out to be false. When evidence that ought to be present if an hypothesis were true is not present, then the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence. Suppose you were told there is an elephant in your living room. If you go there and find no indications of the presence of an elephant, you are completely justified in inferring that there is no elephant in your living room.
If 469 kids should have been there, if the event was real, but they are
not there, you are completely justified in inferring it was not real. An
evacuation would have looked something like this, with strings of
children led by other police officers or teachers performing their duty
under stress. But we have DashCam footage at the locations in the
parking lot where, according to official police records, the evacuation
was taking place--and there is nothing there! Just as the absence
of signs of the presence of an elephant in your living room is proof of
the absence of an elephant, the absence of signs of the presence of
children undergoing evacuation is proof that no evacuation was taking
place.
More parking lot anomalies--and a stunner!
Inspection of the vehicles in the parking lot in front of the school shows that they are parked in the wrong direction (which should have been nose-in), given the arrangement for driving into the lot. The image itself suggests of a group of drivers methodically filling up the lot with used or abandoned cars, driving straight into the designated parking places without regard for how they should have been arranged. Once again we ask, “What is the probability that the lot would be filled with cars parked in the wrong direction, if this had been a real event? What if this had been a drill?” Truly stunning, however, is the discovery of a series of photographs that display setting the stage early in the morning for the events that would transpire this day, including this one from Chapter 8:
Notice that the windows of Classroom 10 are not shot out and the flag is up. Wayne Carver can be seen behind the man in the blue evidence suit. This photograph is taken from one of the elevated cameras we have discovered that were mounted around the parking lot to record the drill. The mortuary tent is not there yet, which makes this early morning. Could we have more decisive proof?
When an hypothesis has been confirmed by abundant evidence and no alternative explanation is reasonable, it has been established “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Hypothesis (h1), that Sandy Hook was real, has been falsified and (h2), that this was an elaborate hoax, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Benefits to the Participants
Other pay-offs, bribes and hush-money--and under the circumstances, is there something more appropriate to call it?--are documented in Chapter 5. When debate was taking place over the choice between refurbishing the old school or constructing a new one, The Newtown Bee published about the presence of asbestos, lead and PCBs in the building, which had no doubt factored in the earlier decision to abandon the school in 2008. Newtown received $50,000,000 to build a brand new K-4 elementary school. I surveyed the cost of comparable cost for K-4 schools across the nation and discovered they average $7,000,000, which reflects the generous benefits that a community might accrue from cooperating covertly with the federal government in the pursuit of its political agenda.
The Gun-Control Agenda
Obama himself praised the sweeping gun confiscation that took place in Australia in the late 1990s and said:
“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown,” Obama said. “And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.”
And while they haven’t seen a mass shooting since, local officials say that gun violence on the continent is much worse than it was before the tougher gun policies went into effect.Meanwhile, the one thing that the President failed to recognize is that gun crime in the U.S. is on the decline. According to a PEW research study, gun crime is down 49% since 1993. Another study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that non-fatal gun crime is actually down 70% since the same time. Even the President’s own study performed by the Center for Disease Control reached a similar conclusion: “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report states. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.” What these studies show is there’s a clear agenda being carried out by the Mainstream Media to make it seem like mass shootings are the norm. As soon as a mass shooting happens, it reverberates through all the major news networks for weeks, much like an echo after the initial shot. Because of this, much of the nation seems to believe that gun violence, particularly school shootings, is on the rise even with evidence that points to the contrary.
The reasons behind this
aggressive behavior by the administration, even when gun violence has
been falling in the United States, involves deep questions about the
role of DHS in our society and why America has been devolving into a
totalitarian state. I was born a year-and-a-day before Pearl Harbor, as
my father used to put it; and I would never have imagined in my wildest
dreams that the United States of American could descend into a
bottomless pit of lies, deceit and deception.
Faking a school shooting to instill fear into a population is an act of terrorism,
where it has become clear that this instance was brought to us by
officials at every level of the Connecticut government from the teachers
and reporters to the State Police and the Newtown School board to the
Governor and the Attorney General and the President himself. And this is
the ugly legacy of Barack Hussein Obama.
NOTE: This is the republication of my blog for 24 October 2015 as we approach the fourth observance of an elaborate scam. The book was banned by amazon.com less than four months after having been placed on sale and having sold over 500 copies between 22 October and 19 November 2015. We now have a new publisher and the book can be obtained again at moonrockbooks.com in both black-and-white and color editions.
NOTE: This is the republication of my blog for 24 October 2015 as we approach the fourth observance of an elaborate scam. The book was banned by amazon.com less than four months after having been placed on sale and having sold over 500 copies between 22 October and 19 November 2015. We now have a new publisher and the book can be obtained again at moonrockbooks.com in both black-and-white and color editions.
