Debunked: Emilie Parker Still Alive after Sandy Hook

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Unregistered

Guest



so, supposedly, the government is slick enough to pull of this hoax of a massacre that required the cooperation of thousands of people, yet the very same government was supposedly stupid enough to take pictures with a girl that's supposed to be dead? that doesn't compute.
 

iain carstairs

New Member
Wouldn't "disinfo" refer to deliberate lies of some kind? Are you just saying they did a poor job, or that they have covered something up? Any examples?

Yes, i do have some examples and I wish someone can explain them.

CNN showed a "breaking news" clip of supposedly live action of police running into a school. But the school in question was not Sandy Hook - it was St Rose of Lima (image 1)

H Wayne Carver II was a deskbound forensic guy on $299,000 per year, and at a press conference claimed he didn't know how many boys and girls were shot. He said a long rifle was used, and confirmed it, and when a media guy said, "but the long rifle was found in the car?" he was told that wasn't true. But a film exists of the officers taking a rifle out of the car, in the dark.

But it was later reported by Pete Williams, justice correspondent at NBC, that feds assured him no rifle was used in the shooting. Carver didn't seem to know anything at all except the kids were shot everywhere, lots of times, and were wearing kid stuff. We surely already knew all that. Two months later, nobody has any further details.

Media shots of the ambulances show them locked in by other cars. And they seem to be at the fire station, and not the school. Which is odd, because if you have 26 dead or wounded, you'd probably want the triage set up very near the victims. There were no wounded, but the ambulances wouldn't have known that. Signs of life might have been present in the kids, but medical staff were actually turned away. And those that did get there couldn't have got their ambulances out if they'd wanted to. Anyway, put that down to confusion.

The media didn't help themselves by posting pictures of Victoria Soto with a man giving a weird finger sign who later turned out to be a relative of Nick Phelps' wife, Jennifer Greenberg!

The media also didn't help themselves showing footage of grieving parents looking deliriously happy and well rested. Which would be very odd for people who had lost a child the previous day or so and hadn't been allowed to see the body.

Only recently, the media didn't help themselves passing on to us Arizona police's picture of a shooter who injured a congresswoman, which was later shown to be a photoshop job of Glenn Beck. Don't they know their own presenters? Maybe for good reasons they didn't want to show us the real person. But Glenn Beck? Come on! They seem to be making a joke out of it, which I'm sure isn't the right thing to do.

The media didn't help themselves releasing pictures of the Greenberg family pretending to be parents or relatives of Sandy Hook victims. Below the picture of the imaginary Phelps family is the real family in Florida.

They could have showed us the real families, if they had wanted to give genuine information, or, just said, "we don't want to intrude". Which would have been very understandable, and nobody would have blamed them. But hiring actors was a bad idea, because now people think the whole shooting was phoney, which I'm sure it was not. They weren't even good actors.

The idea of actors is good, and is surely to get a clear message across. But if they make the story more confusing, it becomes a bad idea! Especially if the whole lot of them turn up in Florida! The boy to the right of Victoria Soto's brother is Jennifer Greenberg's son; trying not to smile when interviewed about the Soto victim shows he's an inexperienced actor. I'm sure Soto's real family were not impressed by this at all.

All this furore over Sandy Hook is because the story doesn't make sense. Tell us the real story and clear everything up, and nobody can then complain.

Gene Rosen is, I'm sorry to say, mistaken with his bus story. How can children escape a massacre, when even fire officers can't get into the school, and then board a bus, who then drives them PAST the fire station to a complete stranger's house (Gene didn't know any of the kids) and drops them off, then drives away as if nothing is wrong, in the morning of a school day? Where is the bus driver? One thing is sure: she will never be found. Gene then listens to kids talking about the shooting for half an hour! Why didn't he call the police straight away?

The media didn't help themselves releasing a picture of victim Allison Wyatt, 6, on the right of the split photo. But the picture is not Wyatt. It is stolen from Cathy Gaubert's flickr page. And even worse, nobody from Sandy Hook seemed to notice, which is odd if they all knew the girl. Cathy has never even been to Sandy Hook! She has no idea who stole her child's picture.

Cathy tried for ten days to get it removed, because her daughter was alive and well. Eventually the media replaced it with a photo of someone else, I don't know who it really was, but without any explanation. And now Cathy's got this problem of her daughter's photo imprinted on the web as a victim.

Why didn't the press report on who gave them the picture? Why wouldn't they have gone to the family in the first place for a correct picture? Why didn't anyone from Sandy Hook notice for over a week, seeing the pictures every day - and why has Cathy never been given any explanation? That's a story worth reporting on, surely? If only to explain who put the picture on there, and committed the crime. As Policeman Vance said, disseminating wrong info about this is a crime. So where is the investigation?


wrong-school-for-cops.jpg7705784-bin.jpgambulances.jpgdevils-horn-guy-michael-greenberg.jpgibadfx9nygz1iq.pngloughnerbeck.jpgmatthew-soto-and-greenberg-son.jpgnick-phelps-imaginary-parent.jpgphoto-stolen-of-lily.jpgprincipal.jpg

And most people know that Dawn Hochsprung, killed in the shooting, later gave an interview to the Newtown Bee, describing how it happened. I don't know how she did it, but then again, we have the media to thank for this.

When a tragedy like this happens, it's very important for it to be investigated properly. We were told Lanza broke a window to get in. But the firechiefs, when they arrived, also had to break a window to get in. If Lanza can get in through one broken window, couldn't the fire guys have got in through there? Or was it replaced in the intervening half an hour? These details are where the media slip up because, of course, people get confused when a story doesn't make any sense.

As for the Emilie Parker case, yes, of course it's confusing because the girls look the same. Of these 6 photos, 3 were taken before the shooting, and 3 afterwards.

emilie-parker-photos-3-before-and-3-after1.jpg

picture 1 is the earliest, and 3 and 5 were given to us by the media direct from the family. 2, 4, and 6 were taken directly after the shooting. Of course there is confusion among people who watch this on TV. Who can blame them? The media need to have a clear story. What happened to Lanza? His death records show he died on the 13th. Is this a different Lanza? None of it makes any sense, and nobody can now access updated information to explain all the bizarre coincidences. And so people, of course, jump to conclusions.

If the media is going to report on something, let them report on it thoroughly and later explain all the errors they made. If they want to hire actors, it's not a problem - this is acceptable for TV. But they should explain that they are just actors, and then nobody can blame them later. This only makes sense.

And it didn't help matters that DHS's HSEEP were conducting a shooter in school drill just up the road. So people put two and two together and figure maybe the whole thing was a drill? This is fine if it's a drill - people need to be prepared. But they should explain that, and it would be understood and accepted by everyone. If, as it no doubt was, a real tragedy, then the inconsistencies need to be addressed. Otherwise, the next time the media present us with something, people are likely to disbelieve it. And that's what's happening now.

Bear in mind the ONLY information people have about this is from the media. We don't have any other sources! Therefore, if there is a confused and garbled story without any clear facts even now, two months later, who can we blame? Only the media.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Yes, i do have some examples and I wish someone can explain them.

CNN showed a "breaking news" clip of supposedly live action of police running into a school. But the school in question was not Sandy Hook - it was St Rose of Lima (image 1)

H Wayne Carver II was a deskbound forensic guy on $299,000 per year, and at a press conference claimed he didn't know how many boys and girls were shot. He said a long rifle was used, and confirmed it, and when a media guy said, "but the long rifle was found in the car?" he was told that wasn't true. But a film exists of the officers taking a rifle out of the car, in the dark.

But it was later reported by Pete Williams, justice correspondent at NBC, that feds assured him no rifle was used in the shooting. Carver didn't seem to know anything at all except the kids were shot everywhere, lots of times, and were wearing kid stuff. We surely already knew all that. Two months later, nobody has any further details.

...

What I know about the St Rose footage is that it was NOT a 'breaking news story', it was a 'this week some stuff happened' montage, and yes, they were lazy and used footage of another somewhat related story (either a bomb scare or a drill, can't remember) while they mentioned Sandy Hook. Nothing other than sloppy corporate journalism.

As far as the Wayne Carver long rifle report, it was always reported that the rifle was used from that point - maybe the news station was just repeating an un-updated story.
Because the news report said a rifle wasn't used, do you choose to believe that over the report of the coroner rather than assume they are mistaken? You think a pistol did all that damage?
The statements from the police about the murder weapon have always maintained the rifle was used.

What does a photo-shop of Glen Beck in poor taste have to do with anything? Maybe the news station was punked.
Braver men than I can try and address the rest of your points of interest.
 

iain carstairs

New Member
What I know about the St Rose footage is that it was NOT a 'breaking news story', it was a 'this week some stuff happened' montage, and yes, they were lazy and used footage of another somewhat related story (either a bomb scare or a drill, can't remember) while they mentioned Sandy Hook. Nothing other than sloppy corporate journalism.

As far as the Wayne Carver long rifle report, it was always reported that the rifle was used from that point - maybe the news station was just repeating an un-updated story.
Because the news report said a rifle wasn't used, do you choose to believe that over the report of the coroner rather than assume they are mistaken? You think a pistol did all that damage?
The statements from the police about the murder weapon have always maintained the rifle was used.

What does a photo-shop of Glen Beck in poor taste have to do with anything? Maybe the news station was punked.
Braver men than I can try and address the rest of your points of interest.

Well, certainly the media is generally very lazy and sensation hungry. The CNN shot is actually labelled "breaking news" and was supposed to be police rushing into Sandy Hook. It was announced, as live. It is shown that the pyschologist and principal died. So it was shown as Sandy Hook! How does helicopter film of another school entirely become presented as something different? Is this what happened with the victims too, that CNN just showed us any old pictures theycould find? This is massively disrespectful for the dead and wounded and the relatives.

If you were a parent watching this, you would at first think, from the words and announcement, it was your child's school. You might not notice that the orange cones and parking chevrons were from another school, because you hear "Sandy Hook Elementary". If you were a parent with a child at the other school, you would recognise the front of that school, and also panic! So CNN have created panic and confusion right from the start, and Metabunk still asks, why people doubt the media? Next time they show police storming a school, should we assume it's just a handy film? next time they show victims, should we just assume they are any old file photos? Are they a reliable source of information, or not? If not, why are we even paying attention to them?

Suppose you recognised your husband as part of the police unit rushing in - you'd panic then too, when in fact he might actually be having a doughnut at the station. It's all very confusing indeed. But who do we blame? We have to blame the media.

The media only have themselves to blame. They don't report anything which takes a little bit of investigation. The political journalist was very clear in his statement, which came out later that eveing - long after the sgtory was supposed to be settled - and which you can find on YouTube, that at least two federal sources confirmed to him that only pistols were used. And of course, you're right, people wonder how he could have done so much damage with pistols. But the TV station doesn't retract that statement. And then the police are actually shown taking a rifle out of the trunk of Christopher Rodia's car. So there's confusion there too.

What is odd about Metabunk is that they already seem to know all the answers! They know what is right, and what is wrong. Which is hard to explain, since most people - even the police, the coroner and the witnesses and the media - seem very confused indeed. Certainly all who watch the media get very confused. But you seem to have better sources, and I'm sure everyone would like to know what they are; a lot of people ask these questions and get nowehere as nobody ever seems to know the answers. For example, a Canadian couple (I'm also Canadian) drove to Sandy Hook to offer their condolences. But they couldn't find anyone who knew any of the victims or the families. They went to restaurants, asked around the area - nobody knew anything or would say anything. And Sandy Hook isn't really such a big place.

So of course they went to the police station, to offer their sympathy and try to get a little information to give to the people back home who were all confused from watching the media say one thing and then another. But they were told they would not get any information from the Police and that even filming them was an offence. So, no information at all. They went to Sandy Hook with sympathy - as did we all - but came out thinking the whole thing must have been a trick. That's not good! And not good for the media's image. It's a good thing sites like Metabunk exist - because many people, me included, want to know all about these discrepancies.

What you forget is that people have a warm heart. They sympathise. There is always support from people. But if, later, they feel they have been tricked in some way, things turn sour very quickly, and it gets amplified via social media. They simply want to ask, what really happened? And then, the normal thing to do is sympathise, because like anyone, they would like to help, as long as they know they haven't been tricked.

I mention the Glenn Beck pic only to give an example of the media doing silly things - which then bounces back later the next time they cry wolf. The picture on the left was actually released by Arizona police. You can check this for yourself. It appeared in numerous publications afterwards, and is already accepted by many as a picture of the shooter. But it isn't. It's Glenn Beck! How does this happen, when disseminating wrong information about violent criminals must surely be a crime? Where is the investigative journalism now, to unearth the full story of who in the Arizona police department got punked? Suddenly nobody is interested. How can you wonder why people distrust the media more and more? It's so bad now that they could say it was daylight, and people would feel obliged to check for themselves.

It is not the suspicious people who are to blame - if we didn't want the full story, we wouldn't be asking questions. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be trying to find out what really happened. If we were as disinterested as the media - who now have rushed on to some other sensational story and left all the victims behind in this mess of doubt - then you could rightly blame us. But unlike the media, we are still interested.

What would be terribly disrespectful to the victims is to never ask questions about how they died, how the whole thing happened, and why it was all such a mess. To never question the media's casual treatment of the whole thing as just another gimmick to get viewers and readers, and then watch the media abandon the whole thing when the questions get too deep - wow, that would be very disrespectful to their memory indeed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Iain, would pick the one thing that you feel is most indicative of a conspiracy or cover up?

Please check to ensure it's not already been debunked, to save time.
 

iain carstairs

New Member
Iain, would pick the one thing that you feel is most indicative of a conspiracy or cover up?

Please check to ensure it's not already been debunked, to save time.

You have got me wrong. I don't say it's a conspiracy. You people here seem obsessed with them, like in the McCarthy days, when anyone asking questions was a commie. Anyone today asking questions is labelled by Metabunk as a conspiracy theorist.

All the points are important. When someone asks, why are the media not trusted, or why do people think Sandy Hook is at least partly, a deception, it means only an overwhelming barrage of points can explain. All of the above have been pointed out by numerous sources. None of the above would be possible if the story had been explained even once, in a coherent manner.

My interest is to draw as much attention to these disparities. What the furore shows is that nobody has the answers. People are expected to watch nonsense on the media and swallow it whole, and if they have questions, they are supposed to just shut up, or are called "conpsiracy theorists."

None of the points I mention are theories - they are questions. So we should be called "questioners". And as we all know, the only people really interested in truth are the ones who ask questions. Those who don't ask questions, or who treat all questions as "conspiracies" cannot expect to be seen in the same light as those who do. There is something intrinsically wrong with people who never have doubts, and who never ask questions. If we discount that such people can really be mentally subnormal, the only other conclusion is they are fanatics; others would call them paid shills.
 

iain carstairs

New Member
How can I possibly tell? It's a huge mess and nobody knows what to believe. Who do we blame for that? But when the next thing that happens is gun control laws, you do start to wonder. I'm not in America so none of this affects me directly. But I do sympathise with those who suspect the whole thing is a fraud - as I can see, they have good reason to think so.

The media is bad enough, but they have no control over the coroner, who knows nothing at all. They have no control over the police, who say different things at different times. I'm sure they didn't bring actors to the set with them. So who did that? We don't know. It's an open question but the media aren't interested in covering the most curious part - that none of the story actually has any credible witnesses.

I personally just see it as a series of appearances by people who don't really have any idea what actually happened, who were told to stand here and say this or that, and of course as soon as you find a hole in their story, they vanish into thin air. So what really happened is anyone's guess
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I personally just see it as a series of appearances by people who don't really have any idea what actually happened, who were told to stand here and say this or that, and of course as soon as you find a hole in their story, they vanish into thin air. So what really happened is anyone's guess

Clearly then you think it was a conspiracy, there must have been some secret plan for those people to "stand there and say this and that".

Can't you point to what you think is the most egregious example?
 

iain carstairs

New Member
Clearly then you think it was a conspiracy, there must have been some secret plan for those people to "stand there and say this and that".

Can't you point to what you think is the most egregious example?

I don't say it was a conspiracy. What I say is that such a big mess must originate from a number of sources. You don't just ring actors up at 09:30, having heard of a shooting, and have them there by 10:00 am. You would need to organise them in advance. So, since actors were clearly used, and some of their names are even known, they must have been arranged in advance.

If they were arranged in advance even by one day, it means the whole thing must also have been arranged in advance. And therefore, it cannot be an unexpected shooting. So the investigation should focus on the actors. Perhaps they were in the neighborhood and wanted to help out. This is a reasonable explanation.

There's ample reason to doubt what the media have said, as I have shown. What this event did is effectively terrorise a whole community - it terrorised everyone involved, especially the children, and this terror was reflected via the media onto the whole country.

A normal person can conclude that if actors were used, whoever hired them is happy to terrorise a whole population if need be. "Why" is a different question altogether - how can we possibly know or guess?

I don't think it would be solely the media, who are just simpletons, comedians, and pretty faces hungry for fame and celebrity status. They are too full of themselves to think of anything else. But until the actors are interviewed and can tell us why they did what they did, and who hired them, we won't know more than we do now. The police won't say anything, and the parents all seem to have disappeared. So you are left with questions which nobody can answer.

The people who should be investigating, are the media! They have the resources to dig deep and get answers. But they can't be bothered. Which, if actors were hired, makes them accomplices to whatever happened.
 

iain carstairs

New Member
The Phelps couple were very obvious Greenbergs, and Soto's brother seems to be a Greenberg son. It looks like the man with the weird hand signal behind Soto is a Greenberg relative too, as he appears in a different photo. Clearly the same guy. That's four people from one family all by their own admission or their own photos, tied to completely different families in Sandy Hook. As I say, they were probably hired by the media to present a good image of parents from Sandy Hook. Perhaps they were involved in the HSEEP exercise up the road. Fair enough, perhaps but it sheds doubt on the whole story. What more can I say? It's so obvious!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Phelps couple were very obvious Greenbergs

I'm sorry, but what is the evidence to support that the Phelps are actors called Greenbergs? If it's so obvious then surely everyone would know?

Can you post a high resolution photo of the Phelps and a photo of the Greenbergs where the similarity is obvious?
 

iain carstairs

New Member
I'm sorry, but what is the evidence to support that the Phelps are actors called Greenbergs? If it's so obvious then surely everyone would know?

Can you post a high resolution photo of the Phelps and a photo of the Greenbergs where the similarity is obvious?

Well, it would be a waste of time. Just look for yourself at the one I already posted which shows the incredible similarity. And can anyone find Nick Phelps to verify it's really him? No, because he doesn't exist. You know very well I can't get any of Nick Phelps because he's a fictitious character. If not, he would have stepped forward long ago and said, "look, this is ridiculous, I am the real Nick Phelps!"

So let's concentrate on finding the real Nick Phelps - which shouldn't be difficult - and if you can find him, it will clear up the whole mystery once and for all and the entire country can get this event behind it. That's all anyone needs to do - come up with the real Nick Phelps. Done!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, it would be a waste of time. Just look for yourself at the one I already posted which shows the incredible similarity. And can anyone find Nick Phelps to verify it's really him? No, because he doesn't exist. You know very well I can't get any of Nick Phelps because he's a fictitious character. If not, he would have stepped forward long ago and said, "look, this is ridiculous, I am the real Nick Phelps!"

So you think that Nick and Laura Phelps:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110702...ypepad.com/whatever/2010/07/i-love-laura.html



Are actually these people?



It seems perfectly obvious from the above images that they are not the same.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The media only have themselves to blame. They don't report anything which takes a little bit of investigation. The political journalist was very clear in his statement, which came out later that eveing - long after the sgtory was supposed to be settled - and which you can find on YouTube, that at least two federal sources confirmed to him that only pistols were used. And of course, you're right, people wonder how he could have done so much damage with pistols. But the TV station doesn't retract that statement. And then the police are actually shown taking a rifle out of the trunk of Christopher Rodia's car. So there's confusion there too.

No. There was a Saiga shotgun in the trunk of the car. This has been analysed over and over. The police themselves have said this. Nothing conflicts with the coroners story, excepty that news report. Are you sure the TV station hasn't retracted that statement? It is definitely irresponsible of them to repeat rumour (unnamed sources) as fact, especially when it is now being used as proof of fakery or something.


What is odd about Metabunk is that they already seem to know all the answers! They know what is right, and what is wrong. Which is hard to explain, since most people - even the police, the coroner and the witnesses and the media - seem very confused indeed. Certainly all who watch the media get very confused. But you seem to have better sources, and I'm sure everyone would like to know what they are;

No-one has ever claimed on this issue to have all the answers - we have tried to clarify repeated falsehoods. The sources are same as everyone else's, there is no special knowledge. What is 'wrong' is unprovable speculation or finding esoteric facts and connecting them to the incident for no reason.
Some claims can be proven false, e.g, the claim that there is no such person as Phelps is provable with a bit of digging, though it does seem incredibly callous to have to prove a mourning parent's existence.


I mention the Glenn Beck pic only to give an example of the media doing silly things - which then bounces back later the next time they cry wolf. The picture on the left was actually released by Arizona police. You can check this for yourself. It appeared in numerous publications afterwards, and is already accepted by many as a picture of the shooter. But it isn't. It's Glenn Beck!

No it's not, it's the photo of the shooter superimposed over Glenn Beck , either as someone's idea of a joke or a deliberate attempt to spread suspicion.
Here is Glenn Beck...

Glenn_Beck_hi.jpgglenn_beck_today_headshot.jpg





What would be terribly disrespectful to the victims is to never ask questions about how they died, how the whole thing happened, and why it was all such a mess. To never question the media's casual treatment of the whole thing as just another gimmick to get viewers and readers, and then watch the media abandon the whole thing when the questions get too deep - wow, that would be very disrespectful to their memory indeed.


Are you questioning the media though? It seems you are questioning the incident and the reality of the suffering, not the shameful mistakes made in the rush to be the first to 'inform' the public.
One thing I do agree with you on - the media have been responsible for creating this suspicion, and need to address all the mistakes made and set the record straight.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I don't say it was a conspiracy. What I say is that such a big mess must originate from a number of sources. You don't just ring actors up at 09:30, having heard of a shooting, and have them there by 10:00 am. You would need to organise them in advance. So, since actors were clearly used, and some of their names are even known, they must have been arranged in advance.

What you're describing that it must be is, by definition, a conspiracy. That you refuse to call it that doesn't change that fact.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
You know very well I can't get any of Nick Phelps because he's a fictitious character. If not, he would have stepped forward long ago and said, "look, this is ridiculous, I am the real Nick Phelps!"

I couldn't help but laugh at your sense of entitlement here. Suppose for a moment that if this was indeed a school shooting that went exactly as reported by the media, do you honestly think any of the families would give a rat's ass about the conspiracists inevitably formulating theories online about the events? There really is not a lot of attention around the SH conspiracy(certainly much less than 9/11). After it flared up in early January it has largely died down.

As others have pointed out, you are without a doubt suggesting a conspiracy, so I'm just curious as to just what you think was accomplished(or supposed to be accomplished) by the perpetrators of the conspiracy?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The families are still grieving and I doubt that they want to relive the worst day of their lives, just to satisfy a few folks. I know I wouldn't. They KNOW what happened and I imagine they are upset that folks are saying that they didn't lose their children.

If the SH truthers were REALLY interested they would be going to Newtown, and finding the neighbors of the folks and asking if they know them and such. Instead they get on the internet and speculate and such
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If the SH truthers were REALLY interested they would be going to Newtown, and finding the neighbors of the folks and asking if they know them and such. Instead they get on the internet and speculate and such

They have. Iain said:

For example, a Canadian couple (I'm also Canadian) drove to Sandy Hook to offer their condolences. But they couldn't find anyone who knew any of the victims or the families. They went to restaurants, asked around the area - nobody knew anything or would say anything. And Sandy Hook isn't really such a big place.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sa...uisitive-visit-to-newtown-connecticut/5320784

They did not go to "offer their condolences". They went for conspiracy tourism. Of course people did not want to talk to them.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I don't say it was a conspiracy. What I say is that such a big mess must originate from a number of sources. You don't just ring actors up at 09:30, having heard of a shooting, and have them there by 10:00 am. You would need to organise them in advance. So, since actors were clearly used, and some of their names are even known, they must have been arranged in advance.


So obviously you DO think it's a conspiracy.

The media didn't help themselves by posting pictures of Victoria Soto with a man giving a weird finger sign who later turned out to be a relative of Nick Phelps' wife, Jennifer Greenberg!

Oh come on.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The Phelps couple were very obvious Greenbergs, and Soto's brother seems to be a Greenberg son. It looks like the man with the weird hand signal behind Soto is a Greenberg relative too, as he appears in a different photo. Clearly the same guy. That's four people from one family all by their own admission or their own photos, tied to completely different families in Sandy Hook. As I say, they were probably hired by the media to present a good image of parents from Sandy Hook. Perhaps they were involved in the HSEEP exercise up the road. Fair enough, perhaps but it sheds doubt on the whole story. What more can I say? It's so obvious!

Who are Greenbergs? How do you know they are Greenbergs, and how did you find that out? You were watching TV and said "Oh look, it's the GREENBERGS AGAIN!?"?
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
No it's not, it's the photo of the shooter superimposed over Glenn Beck , either as someone's idea of a joke or a deliberate attempt to spread suspicion.

I believe this is the original photo of beck. You can see the Time logo on the bottom left is heavily chopped up, and in general it appears they rotated the image slightly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
So let's concentrate on finding the real Nick Phelps - which shouldn't be difficult - and if you can find him, it will clear up the whole mystery once and for all and the entire country can get this event behind it. That's all anyone needs to do - come up with the real Nick Phelps. Done!

Why haven't you found him?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
first id like to point out that im not now, nor have ever been, even remotely interested in this conspiracy crap. a link tor this thread popped up elsewhere. after reading the majority of this page i cant help but express my disgust at how a society conspiracy theories an event like this... first off, the media is driven by ratings, exposure, ect... to get these things you need drama, excitement, craziness, suffering ect... but most important to them is exclusivity, it doesnt matter what the story is, if someone can see it somewhere else then they may not be watching your show. when something like this happens there is no "exlusivity" so to speak, so the only upperhand you can get is being FIRST. so in an effort to be the first one with some news, often people come back with what ever they can get their hands on, which you can only imagine in an event like this, is he said she said or perhaps a 6yo kid who just got ran out of his school buy an adrenalin pumped teacher or someone else... OR, since there is 14 new stations there, the interviews with people get taken in turn in some instances. so if someone has a slightly different story (now that they've had 20 minutes to think about it or clarify it or embelish it so maybe they get a little more limelight) all of a sudden they are rehearsing or acting. not to mention being hysterical in one clip and not in the other, crying here and not there... or not crying at all the next day... your not in anyones head... you dont know the emotion... everyone is different... example, the clip on youtube with emilie's dad doing a press conference, where he is caught laughing and asking are we ready to go yet... it is my opinion that he was prepaired to give a speach, and may have already given part of it when there was a tech issue and he had to reset or he had been there for a period of time and they werent ready for him for what ever reason and he was trying to be comical... or perhaps his laugh and comment were sarcastic... perhaps the reporter(s) were micro directing him and he was getting pissed... or, whoa, his daughter was just murdered... at school... she was 6... it was the next day.... maybe, just maybe, he was still in a stupor from it... unless your child had just been murdered how could you relate to his state of mind? and if you have experienced this how can you compare? you are not him. god forbid this ever happen to me, because if i lost any of my children and anyone, from the anchor on the news channel to government to a dipshit on the internet starting a conspiracy theory, should EVER question my emotion or state of mind or anything i would explode into an uncontrolled, military trained, love, grief, and hate fueled rage that would likely result in another death and my incarceration. and at the very least, if a reporter told me to work up some tears so i could be a pawn in their ratings race, i would at the very least have a serious word with them if in fact i hadnt blacked out and cut their head off with the stupid seat he was sitting in. to the point of these photos being shopped... i have in many instances, put a picture into paint or a shop program, edited and posted. on occasion, when i clipped the part of the pic i wanted and saved to a finished file the remaining scrap was unintetionally left on my next picture because usually on my computer, the resolution full size picture is larger than my screen... hope you follow me here but this is what happened to the pic above with the odd shopped hand in the bottom left of the pic, guaranteed. as for the no legs on the little girl on dads lap... tricky, but i promise, just cuz you cant see them doesnt mean they dont exist.... in closing, i will be keeping all my guns and god be with you if you hurt my children or my family... someone disagree with me please...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
. on occasion, when i clipped the part of the pic i wanted and saved to a finished file the remaining scrap was unintetionally left on my next picture because usually on my computer, the resolution full size picture is larger than my screen... hope you follow me here but this is what happened to the pic above with the odd shopped hand in the bottom left of the pic

Which photo are you referring to?
 

angryjock

New Member
A few points: 1) The 'Breaking News' banner is not a legal term. CNN can run that all day. Every time they showed the towers collapse on 9/11 didn't mean it happened again.

2) There was no drill up the street. There was a class, one which is available weekly, in Bridgeport which is 25 miles away.

3) The cops were shown running into the other school to make sure they were safe there.

4) The principal was not interviewed. She was dead.

5) Most of the 'news' which caused all the controversy was gathered and reported with the 2-3 hours of the event. This is the basis for all of the erroneous claims people still seem to be making.

6) People with firsthand knowledge have told me about what happened that day and I tend to believe them over Iaian from Bedford.

7) Sadly Mick, it seems people will come here regularly now after watching some YouTube videos and talk about things as if they just discovered them.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
As far as the Wayne Carver long rifle report, it was always reported that the rifle was used from that point - maybe the news station was just repeating an un-updated story.
Because the news report said a rifle wasn't used, do you choose to believe that over the report of the coroner rather than assume they are mistaken? You think a pistol did all that damage?

not trying to argue a point here but just thought i would interject a bit of knowledge here... off hand i dont know the exact weapons used or unused in this event. i would just like to point out (with some stereotypical examples) that a handgun ex. 9mm has a much flatter faced bullet, with a 61%larger frontal area, and a slower muzzle velocity than an assault rifle ex. AR15... and i didnt even mention bullet weight... you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand that even a small calibered handgun fires a larger more destructive bullet than a rifle. (i.e a 'measly' 9mm fires a 9mm bullet that weighs around 145 gr. while an 'assault weapon' like the AR15 actually fires smaller rounds that are a much more aerodynamic profile at 5.56mm/62 gr.. not to mention that a 556 round is almost always a jacketed round and designed for minimum damage... (the idea being that a soldier shot by a 556 has the potential to live therefor an ally of his or two, may cease combat and help him to safety/treat him. thus one soldier shot=2 or 3 out of action) ect. ect... all im trying to say is that the statement "you think a pistol did all that damage?" is misleading is all...
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Which photo are you referring to?

you've caught me a bit off guard here but here goes... i tried to clip the photos here to my program just to put them in the same shot, highlighted to exactly the areas of my comment but cant seem to post them here... maybe because im an unregistered user??? anyway if you can follow, here is my explanation... 'EDIT' at the time of that reply i was not aware that this thread was five pages long and that someone reading it may think i was refering to a pic 'above' on page 5 so let me clarify... it was in response to a person who seemed to be argueing the validity of pictures of emilie as they were 'obviously photoshopped' on page one. (side note, to those of you who cant tell the difference between the two girls, or the other people in here that do look similar but not the same... you need to get glasses... and glen beck??? thats just hilarious...) the two photos which i assumed that party was talking about are (on page one) the family pic circa 2010 that seems to be taken from facebook was argued that madeline i believe it was, had no legs so it must be shopped.... see my post about this... and the one that has the odd clipped hand and weird empty space in the lefthand corners, which was obviously shopped, see my post about this too... they were obviously ALL shopped, how else does one get bold yellow captions on a picture?? my goal was merely to point out that just because a photo was shopped doesnt necesarily make it a lie... im on your side, 95% of these conspiracy theories are garbage (in general, not just this event) ps. that i cant really be identified because im an unregistered guest, id just like to point out that the post about the "damage" comparison between a 9mm and a 556 rifle is mine as well...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
you've caught me a bit off guard here but here goes... i tried to clip the photos here to my program just to put them in the same shot, highlighted to exactly the areas of my comment but cant seem to post them here... maybe because im an unregistered user??? anyway if you can follow, here is my explanation... 'EDIT' at the time of that reply i was not aware that this thread was five pages long and that someone reading it may think i was refering to a pic 'above' on page 5 so let me clarify... it was in response to a person who seemed to be argueing the validity of pictures of emilie as they were 'obviously photoshopped' on page one. (side note, to those of you who cant tell the difference between the two girls, or the other people in here that do look similar but not the same... you need to get glasses... and glen beck??? thats just hilarious...) the two photos which i assumed that party was talking about are (on page one) the family pic circa 2010 that seems to be taken from facebook was argued that madeline i believe it was, had no legs so it must be shopped.... see my post about this... and the one that has the odd clipped hand and weird empty space in the lefthand corners, which was obviously shopped, see my post about this too... they were obviously ALL shopped, how else does one get bold yellow captions on a picture?? my goal was merely to point out that just because a photo was shopped doesnt necesarily make it a lie... im on your side, 95% of these conspiracy theories are garbage (in general, not just this event) ps. that i cant really be identified because im an unregistered guest, id just like to point out that the post about the "damage" comparison between a 9mm and a 556 rifle is mine as well...

I added the yellow captions.

I still don't see what hand you are referring to? I'm not sure it's important, but I don't like there to be allegations of shopping without actually point out what you are referring to. Can you just copy the link to the image?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
all im trying to say is that the statement "you think a pistol did all that damage?" is misleading is all...

Good to know - the ability to fire a larger number of rounds in a shorter time was more my point, though possibly I did think a rifle would damage a target more over a pistol shot.
 

JonJson

Active Member
Okay I took the time to read through all of the posts in this thread before I responded because I didn't want to end up repeating something that someone else has said.

My comment is with regards to the supposed inappropriate response of Robbie Parker when he went to speak in front of the camera. My only credentials on the subject is that of a father who has lost a child. Now granted my son's death didn't occur at the age of six but it happened less than five years ago at this point and even now I find that much of the events following his sudden passing are seared into my memory. I can remember that for me the most difficult time was that of notifying my family of his accident. I felt the need to tell as many of them as I could in person and went to my sister and two brothers who lived in close proximity to me to let them know of his accident. Each time after speaking with my siblings I composed myself enough to allow me to drive to the next house, I was not sobbing and crying as I drove along or even as I knocked on the door of their house in the early morning hours. If you had met me along the way that day it might well appear to you that I was perfectly normal and that nothing was bothering me. However that was not the case.

Notifying my parents of what had happened could not be done in person but would require me to make a phone call to them. I knew that in this I could not break down before I was able to deliver the news to them, because it was extremely important to me that I be the one to tell them and that I not pass the responsibility to someone else. So just before I dialed the phone I found myself being overcome with the magnitude of what I was about to do and I began to feel myself being overcome with my own emotions. To fight this reaction off, so I could make the call, I began a series of short rapid breaths to calm myself down, bring my emotions into check and try to gather my thoughts. Yet even after all of that as my Mother answered the phone I found myself unable to tell the news to her directly and instead asked to speak to my father, she switched the phone to speaker phone and I gave the news along with the details of his accident to him, even as I could hear my mother sobbing in the background.

So yes I can say as a father, who has lived through the loss of his child, I can honestly say that Robbie Parker's response when stepping up to the microphones, with his previously calm demeanor and even slight laughter, that as the magnitude of what he was about to do began to overcome him where you see him hyperventilating before beginning to speak was in no way acting but instead entirely in keeping with a father who had just lost his child yet still wanted to convey something to the rest of us in that moment, something that was profoundly important to him.

I am sure there will be some in the conspiracy community who will read these words and still not believe that his response isn't genuine or that he is not acting and to those of you who find yourself of that mind I would say that it is my sincere hope that you never have to find yourself in a position where you have to experience this emotion for yourself, let alone have someone question your sincerity at that moment.

I apologize for the length of this comment but this is the only forum I have found that allows me to express myself fully without a set limit of characters that I can type.
 
C

congressmans_wife

Guest
Nice try. 2010? And what was he doing with them in 2010. Posing with the family in 2010 with a trooper standing in the room? Get real. Did you happen to give an explanation for why "Robbie Parker" was laughing before the press conference then composed himself and got into character for the cameras?
There are like 100 things to "debunk" for this to be even the slightest bit legit.

Can you tell me how Jennifer Greenberg Sexton and her Husband suddenly became Sandy Hook Parents? Why would Jennifer have a child at Sandy Hook when she lives in Aurora Colorado being James Holmes PD. Maybe because she isn't either and doesn't live in Co. or Conn? Give it up. You people are making asses out of yourself. Why would you cover for such sick lies being perpetrated on the public. Who sides with shit like that?

But you are on a roll, so explain to me why there was absolutely NO blood at the scene of the Giffords shooting? None on her, none on the paramedics, none on Ron Barber who held her head in his lap right after it happened. Simple question.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But you are on a roll, so explain to me why there was absolutely NO blood at the scene of the Giffords shooting? None on her, none on the paramedics, none on Ron Barber who held her head in his lap right after it happened. Simple question.

Can you provide evidence of this?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did you happen to give an explanation for why "Robbie Parker" was laughing before the press conference then composed himself and got into character for the cameras?

Yes.

Okay I took the time to read through all of the posts in this thread before I responded because I didn't want to end up repeating something that someone else has said.

My comment is with regards to the supposed inappropriate response of Robbie Parker when he went to speak in front of the camera. My only credentials on the subject is that of a father who has lost a child. Now granted my son's death didn't occur at the age of six but it happened less than five years ago at this point and even now I find that much of the events following his sudden passing are seared into my memory. I can remember that for me the most difficult time was that of notifying my family of his accident. I felt the need to tell as many of them as I could in person and went to my sister and two brothers who lived in close proximity to me to let them know of his accident. Each time after speaking with my siblings I composed myself enough to allow me to drive to the next house, I was not sobbing and crying as I drove along or even as I knocked on the door of their house in the early morning hours. If you had met me along the way that day it might well appear to you that I was perfectly normal and that nothing was bothering me. However that was not the case.

Notifying my parents of what had happened could not be done in person but would require me to make a phone call to them. I knew that in this I could not break down before I was able to deliver the news to them, because it was extremely important to me that I be the one to tell them and that I not pass the responsibility to someone else. So just before I dialed the phone I found myself being overcome with the magnitude of what I was about to do and I began to feel myself being overcome with my own emotions. To fight this reaction off, so I could make the call, I began a series of short rapid breaths to calm myself down, bring my emotions into check and try to gather my thoughts. Yet even after all of that as my Mother answered the phone I found myself unable to tell the news to her directly and instead asked to speak to my father, she switched the phone to speaker phone and I gave the news along with the details of his accident to him, even as I could hear my mother sobbing in the background.

So yes I can say as a father, who has lived through the loss of his child, I can honestly say that Robbie Parker's response when stepping up to the microphones, with his previously calm demeanor and even slight laughter, that as the magnitude of what he was about to do began to overcome him where you see him hyperventilating before beginning to speak was in no way acting but instead entirely in keeping with a father who had just lost his child yet still wanted to convey something to the rest of us in that moment, something that was profoundly important to him.

I am sure there will be some in the conspiracy community who will read these words and still not believe that his response isn't genuine or that he is not acting and to those of you who find yourself of that mind I would say that it is my sincere hope that you never have to find yourself in a position where you have to experience this emotion for yourself, let alone have someone question your sincerity at that moment.

I apologize for the length of this comment but this is the only forum I have found that allows me to express myself fully without a set limit of characters that I can type.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Nice try. 2010? And what was he doing with them in 2010. Posing with the family in 2010 with a trooper standing in the room? Get real. Did you happen to give an explanation for why "Robbie Parker" was laughing before the press conference then composed himself and got into character for the cameras?
There are like 100 things to "debunk" for this to be even the slightest bit legit.

Can you tell me how Jennifer Greenberg Sexton and her Husband suddenly became Sandy Hook Parents? Why would Jennifer have a child at Sandy Hook when she lives in Aurora Colorado being James Holmes PD. Maybe because she isn't either and doesn't live in Co. or Conn? Give it up. You people are making asses out of yourself. Why would you cover for such sick lies being perpetrated on the public. Who sides with shit like that?

But you are on a roll, so explain to me why there was absolutely NO blood at the scene of the Giffords shooting? None on her, none on the paramedics, none on Ron Barber who held her head in his lap right after it happened. Simple question.


I'm sorry, after I read "you people are making asses of your yourself" I laughed so hard I had to change my pants. If this weren't metabunk I would definitely say something rude about you and Ed Chiarini.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Nice try. 2010? And what was he doing with them in 2010. Posing with the family in 2010 with a trooper standing in the room? Get real. Did you happen to give an explanation for why "Robbie Parker" was laughing before the press conference then composed himself and got into character for the cameras?

Did you bother to actually read ANYTHING in this thread before posting?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 26
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 12
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 21
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 2
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 5
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 32
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 41
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top