1. Tobes

    Tobes Member


    This article is about the famous photo where a group of kids were in a line, being evacuated from the school.

    Here is that photo:

    Here is what Fetzer claims is a photo of the photographer taking the photo.

    Using the shadows in the photos, Fetzer is saying this is somehow proof that it was a drill. I'm not sure how he does it or how that proves anything.

    Here is another photo that Fetzer claims proves his point:

    Here is the conclusion he draws:

    I don't know a lot about the shadow stuff. All I know is that if it were a drill, the government and the media would not have tried to pass it off as a real shooting. They do mass casualty drills all the time. I've read abut them in the news and I've known people who have been involved in them. They're never passed off as anything but a drill.
    But if anyone here would like to debunk the claims about the photos, have at it.
  2. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Jim (or "James") Fetzer.

    The site prohibitions prohibit me from explaining what I "really" think of Jim Fetzer.

    Suffice to say...Jim Fetzer has advocated the "position" that no one died on 9/11 2001.

    That "all" the people who died on that day were "sims".

    "Nuff said about him.....
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I m not reading a Fetzer article because he never makes any sense. but I can tell you the 2 photos your referencing are not the same group of children. but you can already see that, so I'm not sure what to debunk

    add: adding larger photos of the boys who are allegedly the same boy (in similar claims). They arent. different shirts, different pants, different shoes, different hair.



    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    and Shannon Hicks never claimed to have only taken one photo. We have several of her photos that morning and she also took photos of the wounded coming out of the school but parents asked the Bee not to release them. ex:


    PDF linked below
    we also have other pics of evacuating, heres a few of them:

    10320537_801173866567062_6306810959477520086_n. 1908296_801173666567082_3642282240572122612_n.


    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's basically utter nonsense. He's making some very rough estimates of shadow length and angle, and then pretending he can determine an exact date and time from that.

    Using this photo:

    Note the man on the far left is stood approximately on the base of the arrow, on the right corner. His shadow stretches to the right and reaches about to the start of the first diagonal line on the marked chevron area.

    Now he uses the web site Find My Shadow to calculate angles and length multipliers. So I did the same:


    As you can see, Some time around 10 AM on Dec 14th puts the shadow in the right position - but really there's not enough resolution to be sure. Plus it's unclear exactly where his head is relative to his back foot. The writer claims the Dec 14th date is wrong due to the ratio of height to length being wrong, however he uses a specious value of the height, not accounting for stance and the view angle. He then claims that Nov 12th is a better day.


    So the angles don't really change, but the shadows at the same time are shorter. At 10AM on Dec 14th (the actual day) the shadow multiplier is 2.66, and on Nov 12th it's 2.00

    But, reality check, how far is it from the bottom of the arrow to the first diagonal line?
    16 feet. So if the multiplier were actually 2.138 as he "calculated", then the man on the left, who is not even at full height, would be 7.5 feet tall. So clearly Dec 14th is a far better fit than Nov 12th.
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Is the man still employed as a teacher?
  7. Tobes

    Tobes Member

    I think he's retired. His title is "Professor Emeritus."
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Keith Johnson

    Keith Johnson New Member

    This gets a big thumbs up from me, Mick. I'm indebted to you and people like Deirdre who've done some great work on this website. I'll be referencing you, metabunk and this thread in my "debate" with Wolfgang Halbig, who has been referencing Hicks' photo as a (get this) basis for a lawsuit. That's tonight, July 24, between 8PM and 10PM Eastern. Here's details:

    • Like Like x 4
  9. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Fetzer is one of those maroons who threw his hat in with the 9/11 nuke crowd. He said certain elements found in the dust can only come from a nuke.

    Among his words:
    Apparently he blindly accepted the word of another kook. Even more apparently, he didn't realize those numbers can actually be used to determine the yield of a nuke if in fact they came from a nuke. For example, two isotopes of strontium are produced by the fission of uranium: Sr-89 and Sr-90. One megaton of fission will produce 1441 grams of Sr-89+90. 700 ppm in 600,000 tonnes of dust has a mass of 420 million grams. To produce that much strontium via nuclear fission would require a yield of 291,000 megatons. That is over 5800 times the yield of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.

    See Table 9 for production of fission products:
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Because playing with Nukemap is fun, this is what that 291 gigaton bomb would look like:

    The zone of total destruction would reach from Maine to Washington DC, and firestorms would extend evelop most of the eastern US and massive swaths of Canada. The death toll would be in the tens of millions.

    Edit: While playing with Nukemap, I found out that even though Nukemap 2 (which can project casualties) won't accept absurd inputs like 291,000,000 kilotons, the URL can be manipulated to produce them anyway:
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    'Appears' that Mr. Fetzer has never met a "conspiracy theory" he didn't like, nor would pass up the opportunity to take advantage of....in order to "self-aggrandize".
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Nukemap is GREAt fun. if you detonated that nuke a few miles West of Lincoln Nebraska you would burn nearly everyone in the USA, (including all of New York and Los Angeles) as well as nearly everyone in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
    Stick it on London and you give nearly everyone in Europe nasty burns.
  14. Tobes

    Tobes Member

  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    its really verbal debunks. but the hoaxers like 'debate' better.
  16. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Just like a high school debating class, as ong as you can convince people by arguing well, you can "win" a debate, even if you know damn well you are talking complete bunk. so this suits hoaxers well.
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    : ) you've obviously never heard the hoaxers 'debate'.
  18. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    oh I have. It's more about gish galloping and shouting down the opposition with overwhelming numbers and having a "referee" who is on the side of the hoaxers.
    but the point is, it's much easier to "win" a "debate" than to actually find the truth. or even bother looking for it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Case in point.. The Bill Nye Debate at the creationist museum.
  20. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Actually, as one who is one year into his PhD, Fetzer gives me hope, as he is the living embodiment that ANYONE can get a job as an academic, and make a living as a talking head on RT....

    Sorry, O/T....
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    oh, and I forgot about this. the woman Fetzer claims is Shannon Hicks in his photograph (and Shannon Hicks claims is a parent waiting for her kids) IS a parent waiting for her kids. She is seen here later at the firehouse after being reunited with her children.

    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  22. Lucy May

    Lucy May New Member

    My first official contribution to the site, I hope this helps with this particular issue.

    In regard to the claim that the "conga line" evacuation photos were staged, I decided to take a closer look at the photos and it took me a matter of seconds to see they were very wrong about their claims. Of course we already know they're wrong, but here's why.

    They assert that the children were simply rearranged to make it look like a different set of children were being taken out of the school. To be exact, this is Fetzer's wording, and I quote, "We have published several studies of the celebrated Shannon Hicks’ “iconic photograph”, which seems to show children being evacuated from Sandy Hook. But now we have additional proof it was staged, where the children were rearranged into a different sequence to create the “best shot” to convey the false impression that a real emergency was taking place."

    In Fetzer's side-by-side photo, with the red circles indicating that the one child in the dark shirt is the same child both photos, and that the boy in the gray shirt encircled in blue behind him is in one shot, but not in the other. The reason why the boy in the gray shirt is not behind him in the other shot is because the boy(s) in black are two different children.

    I have made notations of the differences to show they are not the same boy and thus, they were not rearranged.

    One more thing I would like to note is that there is only one student that they supposedly rearranged, which doesn't make sense. Why not rearrange them all instead of only one?



    • Like Like x 3
  23. MickeyS

    MickeyS Member

    I don't know if this has been addressed or not regarding Shannon Hicks and her photographs, I believe I did a pretty good job explaining and pointing this debunked claim out to somebody (as well as referencing this thread), but someone else raised a question about press access to a "hot zone" so soon after the shooting. Where in relation to the shooting are these pictures taken and how was Shannon Hicks able to have been granted access so quickly to be able to walk around taking pictures? I hope this question makes sense, if somebody could point me to where this has maybe been discussed because I'm pretty clueless as to what were "hot zones" and what weren't lol. All those marked up diagrams on the aerial photos makes my poor ADD addled brain wobble Btw...I hope you guys recognize me as someone trying to answer somebody's claim and not actually on the Truther Train lol. I think I've been extremely clear as to where I stand with this.
  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Shannon Hicks works for the Newtown Bee so was in town -maybe 2 miles away?- when the first calls went out. As you can see there are also several parents in the parkinglot at that time as well. Basically the first responding police were busy searching for shooters and trying to protect the children... the public wasnt removed from the parkinglot at that time. She didnt have "press access" she just showed up. Her car is actually the white jeep that the crime tape is attached to in the parkinglot.

    Does this help?

    jeepin lot.JPG

    add: article on her story http://time.com/3449676/the-story-behind-the-iconic-photograph-from-sandy-hook/
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2016
  25. MickeyS

    MickeyS Member

    Yes!! Thanks girl! And I especially appreciate the one simple aerial so as not to confuse me too much :D