Debunked: Emilie Parker Still Alive after Sandy Hook

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Unregistered

Guest
I know this family personally and have for years, they are real people, Emilie was killed in this horrible tragedy. I'm absolutely shocked that people could even believe these crazy conspiracy stories. All the photos after the shooting are of her two younger sisters, all beautiful girls.
This poor family had just lost their dad in September in a freak accident during the LOTOJA bike race. They have been through so much, I think they ran out of tears and coped with this horrible event in any way they could.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Please extend my thoughts and prayers for them and the other families and friends effected by this horror. I am shocked that some folks will ignore the facts so they can twist the story to fit their own agendas or their own desire for 'fame'.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
oh god, reading the insane conspiracy theorists' posts in this thread and elsewhere.

my only response to you sick, sick [people]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ebanS7YL6V4

the world is becoming a scarier and scarier place every single day it seems. why should anybody even be able to trust anybody else anymore with the sort of "logic" you [people] possess? i can only hope that some of you aren't serious and are just parodying real nutjobs or "trolling" or something. christ.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
LOL the govenrment is ordering drone strikes that kill millions overseas, killing them on a DAILY BASIS - makes sandi hook look like small peas.

TO think they would kill children!!!!!! (they do) .... oh wait i mean to think they would kill children IN AMERICA is disgusting and unamerican!! LOL classic [...]

Much as I am sickened by the US use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and wherever else, it's plain bonkers to suggest that 'millions' have been killed. It's somewhere over 4,000 at the moment. You can read the list of all the children who died in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen at http://droneswatch.org/page/5/ (scroll down to the January 20, 2013 mark).
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
Mick, I've always considered your politeness policy to be sensible enough, but I've only read as far as half way down the 2nd page before having to stop before I get banned for some serious verbal abuse.

Some of the comments, by anonymous unregistered guests (of course), are genuinely sickening. I think I'm feeling some actual despair. What sad, sad, pathetic people. I don't know how you manage to stay calm, to be honest. I'm off to read something else before I punch the screen ...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, I've always considered your politeness policy to be sensible enough, but I've only read as far as half way down the 2nd page before having to stop before I get banned for some serious verbal abuse.

Some of the comments, by anonymous unregistered guests (of course), are genuinely sickening. I think I'm feeling some actual despair. What sad, sad, pathetic people. I don't know how you manage to stay calm, to be honest. I'm off to read something else before I punch the screen ...

I agree. This has been the one topic that has been hardest for me to remain polite about. Many of the suggestions make me genuinely angry. However some of the people making them actually believe in them. There are some people who believe that we live in a "matrix" of entirely fake newscasts. They are a tiny tiny minority, and so fringe that they generally can be ignored. Indeed it's probably best to ignore this type of story, because it's so crazy that it's unlikely to convince anyone, and the people who DO believe it are not the type of people who listen to reason.

The only reason I give them any time is that the "Sandy Hook was fake" story got a lot of mainstream attention, and was exposed to a broader audience who only see beguiling fragments of the picture, and have questions. Hopefully the debunkings here will help settle the minds of people who were briefly frightened.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Yay, you're not a robot!
At least the ones who maintain 'second gunman' or hit squad themes acknowledge that there was very real suffering caused; even though it is positing a vile situation without much evidence other than pathological suspicion of governments.

Edit.
The same tendency to cry 'fake' over extreme suffering is evident in the recent random shooting of a baby in front of its mother. People immediately questioned her truthfulness and on-camera composure in interviews.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread934995/pg1
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Great debunking site! Those conspiracy theories are crazy. Please debunk this one as well cause it makes me sweat thinking what may happen to my kids while they're at school:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8


also this one, why is the father smiling and then struggling to look sad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMINqFGNr-w

If you want people to debunk things for you, please

A) Pick one claim of evidence that you think is most compelling or important
B) Look for existing explanations on the internet
C) Explain what you feel is missing from the existing explanations.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
This is the one: why is the father smiling and then struggling to look sad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_laughter


"Nervous laughter is a physical reaction to stress, tension, confusion, or anxiety. Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran states "We have nervous laughter because we want to make ourselves think what horrible thing we encountered isn't really as horrible as it appears, something we want to believe." Those are the most embarrassing times, too, naturally.[1] Psychologist and neuroscientist Robert Provine, from the University of Maryland, studied over 1,200 "laughter episodes" and determined that 80% of laughter isn't a response to an intentional joke.[2]Unhealthy or "nervous" laughter comes from the throat. This nervous laughter is not true laughter, but an expression of tension and anxiety. Instead of relaxing a person, nervous laughter tightens them up even further. Much of this nervous laughter is produced in times of high emotional stress, especially during times where an individual is afraid they might harm another person in various ways, such as a person's feelings or even physically"
 

Chemx

Banned
Banned
Would be nice to know why he was all smiles before he started speaking to the camera. And also would be great if they posted Death Certificates for all the deceased. If they got nothing to hide, they will.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Would be nice to know why he was all smiles before he started speaking to the camera. And also would be great if they posted Death Certificates for all the deceased. If they got nothing to hide, they will.

Maybe someone had told him a really funny joke?? As to the Death Certificates are they not on Public Record? If so you could order copies rather than just speculate.

Edit to add apparently not, but I presume there is a death register of sorts.
 

Chemx

Banned
Banned
Maybe someone had told him a really funny joke?? As to the Death Certificates are they not on Public Record? If so you could order copies rather than just speculate.

Edit to add apparently not, but I presume there is a death register of sorts.

Maybe baby? Maybe rock? The joke must have been about how he as an actor wouldn't have to pay child support for the third (deceased) child if he laughed all the way through his speech (and his wife divorced him after that). I've never seen anyone sane saying jokes at such events or smiling nor telling jokes to others. The guy was swallowing his laugh and trying to come up with some tears. He must have been a bad father. If my daughter was killed I would have avoided the media and especially the smiles.

I'm taking my kids out of this country, A S A P.

Regarding Death Certificates, they won't allow the public seeing the DC of SH victims for some reason:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_23302362/connecticut-bill-would-limit-public-access-records-sandy
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe baby? Maybe rock? The joke must have been about how he as an actor wouldn't have to pay child support for the third (deceased) child if he laughed all the way through his speech (and his wife divorced him after that). I've never seen anyone sane saying jokes at such events or smiling nor telling jokes to others. The guy was swallowing his laugh and trying to come up with some tears. He must have been a bad father. If my daughter was killed I would have avoided the media and especially the smiles.

Then you clearly have not read the thread I linked to that provided several examples of this.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Maybe baby? Maybe rock? The joke must have been about how he as an actor wouldn't have to pay child support for the third (deceased) child if he laughed all the way through his speech (and his wife divorced him after that). I've never seen anyone sane saying jokes at such events or smiling nor telling jokes to others. The guy was swallowing his laugh and trying to come up with some tears. He must have been a bad father. If my daughter was killed I would have avoided the media and especially the smiles.

Regarding Death Certificates, they won't allow the public seeing the DC of SH victims for some reason:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationwor...-bill-would-limit-public-access-records-sandy

How are you able to predict how you will behave in the future? May I suggest that you read the thread that Mick has linked you to. From a personal perspective I have seen all sorts of reactions to death and the only conclusion I can come to is "there is nowt so queer as folk" (that's a Yorkshire saying)
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I have done a little search and I have found the piece of legislation you are talking about HB 5733.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/ASP/CGABILLSTATUS/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5733

I have been reading around the detail but I came across some details about the issue of death certificates. It would seem that short certificates can be issued which do state the cause of death.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013HB-05733-R000585-BA.htm

SHORT FORMS AND CERTIFICATES

Current law allows anyone age 18 or older to request and receive a certified copy of a death certificate less than 100 years old. Instead, the bill requires town clerks and the Department of Public Health to issue a short form to requestors unless the person is (1) listed on the certificate (e. g. , the funeral director, embalmer, conservator, physician, or town clerk); (2) the surviving spouse or next of kin; (3) a researcher; (4) an authorized state or federal agency; or (5) in need of the certificate to determine or protect a personal or property right.

For the people ineligible to receive a short form, the bill does not explicitly authorize but appears to allow them to receive a certified copy.

Under the bill, the short form must include only the decedent's name and gender as well as the cause, date, and place of death. A person issued a short form is prohibited from accessing any other information in the death certificate.
Content from External Source
So once this is sorted fill your boots and order some copies,
 

BrianNeal

New Member
I would like to thank you for posting higher quality photos, It makes it easier to tell the difference between EMILIE and MADELINE.In the Obama picture MADELINE doesn't have freckles but the one with EMILIE in the red sweater she does have freckles across the bridge of her nose. plus weather its the same dress or not the bottom is two different shades of red it could be two different dresses, or the dress faded but the top still looks dark and not faded
 

RickA

New Member
Interesting article on the conspiracy theories on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/the_worst_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory_yet/

I've added some more photos to the debunk post above, that should pretty much close the case, except for the people who think we live in a computer simulation.
So the story is debunked? All one has to accept is that in the Obama photos, Madeline was 6 and Samantha was 3. In the family photo (taken 3 years before) that would make Madeline 3 and Samantha??? How old? I believe that number would have to be ZERO years old. Funny she doesn't appear to be a NEWBORN in the family photo you dated 2010. And, of course that would also place Emilie Parker (6 years old in the 3 year old photo) as the only 9 YEAR OLD in her Kindergarten class.
Glad you straightened this all out!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So the story is debunked? All one has to accept is that in the Obama photos, Madeline was 6 and Samantha was 3. In the family photo (taken 3 years before) that would make Madeline 3 and Samantha??? How old? I believe that number would have to be ZERO years old. Funny she doesn't appear to be a NEWBORN in the family photo you dated 2010. And, of course that would also place Emilie Parker (6 years old in the 3 year old photo) as the only 9 YEAR OLD in her Kindergarten class.
Glad you straightened this all out!

Check the first post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-emilie-parker-still-alive-after-sandy-hook.1054/
 

RickA

New Member
So in the "2010" family picture Madeline is 1 and Samantha is a newborn? REALLY? You really have not addressed the impossible math of your debunking explanation. If your goal is to debunk an observation and you have to avoid or dismiss any relevant FACTS to do so, you are not debunking, you are simply a propagandist. Your de-bunking has been debunked. The President of the United States has been photographed with a girl who is "officially" dead. He appears laughing and joking with the "grieving" family. The same President who shamelessly told the American people for 2 WEEKS that 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi, Libya over a YOUTUBE video has been caught in ANOTHER scam of the public. The same President who passed over 2000 guns to Mexican drug cartels to push his phony gun control agenda, and then had to resort to a baseless "Executive privilege" claim to cover-up his involvement is facing his imminent downfall. Democrats in congress are abandoning the administration and the media is finding it impossible to shill for Obama any longer. Are you going to be the last one left supporting his lies? Do you really want to be "that guy"?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
So in the "2010" family picture Madeline is 1 and Samantha is a newborn? REALLY? You really have not addressed the impossible math of your debunking explanation. If your goal is to debunk an observation and you have to avoid or dismiss any relevant FACTS to do so, you are not debunking, you are simply a propagandist. Your de-bunking has been debunked. The President of the United States has been photographed with a girl who is "officially" dead. He appears laughing and joking with the "grieving" family. The same President who shamelessly told the American people for 2 WEEKS that 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi, Libya over a YOUTUBE video has been caught in ANOTHER scam of the public. The same President who passed over 2000 guns to Mexican drug cartels to push his phony gun control agenda, and then had to resort to a baseless "Executive privilege" claim to cover-up his involvement is facing his imminent downfall. Democrats in congress are abandoning the administration and the media is finding it impossible to shill for Obama any longer. Are you going to be the last one left supporting his lies? Do you really want to be "that guy"?
The topic at hand is about Sandy Hook. Do you have evidence that the photograph is not from 2010 and as described?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So in the "2010" family picture Madeline is 1 and Samantha is a newborn? REALLY? You really have not addressed the impossible math of your debunking explanation. If your goal is to debunk an observation and you have to avoid or dismiss any relevant FACTS to do so, you are not debunking, you are simply a propagandist. Your de-bunking has been debunked. The President of the United States has been photographed with a girl who is "officially" dead. He appears laughing and joking with the "grieving" family. The same President who shamelessly told the American people for 2 WEEKS that 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi, Libya over a YOUTUBE video has been caught in ANOTHER scam of the public. The same President who passed over 2000 guns to Mexican drug cartels to push his phony gun control agenda, and then had to resort to a baseless "Executive privilege" claim to cover-up his involvement is facing his imminent downfall. Democrats in congress are abandoning the administration and the media is finding it impossible to shill for Obama any longer. Are you going to be the last one left supporting his lies? Do you really want to be "that guy"?

You need to be a lot more specific about your claims of ages, with sources, if you want to proceed. And the other things you bring up are off topic here.
 

Anonymous012

Closed Account
The President of the United States has been photographed with a girl who is "officially" dead. He appears laughing and joking with the "grieving" family.

You need get your facts straight about the Obama photo with Madeline and her cousins. It's not Emily Parker.
Madeline wore Emily's dress the red and black poka dot one. Sister share clothes; it's nothing new. My sister and I shared clothes too or hand me downs.
Madeline and Emily's faces features are different. The problem is people focus on the dress, and it's not one bit hard to tell them apart either, but they rather focus on Sandy Hook being a conspiracy.
Emily's old Facebook was set up by her friends in Utah; they took it down due to harassment thinking that Parker knew ahead of time that Sandy Hook was going to occur as a false flag. They didn't. His friends and family from Utah have different time zone minus 2 hours from the east coast, and the east coast time zone is 2 hours ahead. But there were a lot of idigits on there that couldn't figure that out, and think the whole Parker facebook was staged. The point is there were tons of Emily and Madeline photo in there which was easy enough to see the difference between them. Emily wore the dress in a different single photo the same day their Parker Holiday or Christmas family photo was taking with all three sisters and the father and mother, but she was NOT in the Obama with kids photo at all.[/quote][/quote]
 

RickA

New Member
The topic at hand is about Sandy Hook. Do you have evidence that the photograph is not from 2010 and as described?
In the contemporary pictures of Obama and Emilie Parker, the writer speculates the girls are Madeline 4 and Samantha 3. If that assumption is correct then the same two children would HAVE to be age 1 and newborn in the family picture supposedly from three years earlier. Even Obama can't change math (though he believes his election caused the planet to heal) and those 2 girls are NOT newborn and 1 in the family picture. Of course if the family picture were from 2010 then the 6 year old Emilie Parker (in a 2010 photo) would have become a 9 year old Kindergarten student 3 years later. All the pictures are the same vintage and that is not Madeline Parker with Obama, it is Emilie Parker. Your fanatic dedication to your fuhrer has blinded you to the obvious. This "debunking" claim does not stand up to basic scrutiny.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2010 is two
In the contemporary pictures of Obama and Emilie Parker, the writer speculates the girls are Madeline 4 and Samantha 3. If that assumption is correct then the same two children would HAVE to be age 1 and newborn in the family picture supposedly from three years earlier. Even Obama can't change math (though he believes his election caused the planet to heal) and those 2 girls are NOT newborn and 1 in the family picture. Of course if the family picture were from 2010 then the 6 year old Emilie Parker (in a 2010 photo) would have become a 9 year old Kindergarten student 3 years later. All the pictures are the same vintage and that is not Madeline Parker with Obama, it is Emilie Parker. Your fanatic dedication to your fuhrer has blinded you to the obvious. This "debunking" claim does not stand up to basic scrutiny.

The Obama photo is from December 2012. 2010 is two years before 2012, not three. Ages are approximate.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So was it only Emilie Parker who wasn't killed, or were no children killed?

What about your fanatic dedication to believing this because you hate Obama? Can you hate Obama and believe this picture is legitimate, or does not thinking they are the same girl automatically equal 'fanatic dedication to your fuhrer'?
 

katsung47

Banned
Banned
In January, I read a post about Emilie’s fund raising page. I went there and copied the page content then wrote the following: “Tell me who was so efficient to open a donation account in Credit Union for poor Emily and then set up a page in facebook the same day of her death?
Original funding page in facebook (the content I copied):
Joined Facebook 12/14/2012
Native of Utah, Emilie Parker was killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elem. We are seeking to assist the Parkers by setting up the Emilie Parker Memorial Fund at America First Credit Union in Utah.
Description
Instructions on the Emilie Parker Memorial Account at America First Credit Union (account #5001359). For AFCU members making a transfer, select the Savings as the type of account, and the last name on the account is Parker. For non AFCU members, the AFCU routing number is 324377516. This account has been shared by several Utah media outlets and can be trusted. Thank you.
A PAYPAL account is also available if you use the email brookeprothero@yahoo.com
https://www.facebook.com/EmilieParkerFund/info
 

Anonymous012

Closed Account
In January, I read a post about Emilie’s fund raising page. I went there and copied the page content then wrote the following: “Tell me who was so efficient to open a donation account in Credit Union for poor Emily and then set up a page in facebook the same day of her death?
Original funding page in facebook (the content I copied):

https://www.facebook.com/EmilieParkerFund/info

Parker's friends are the one who made the Emilie Parker's fund page. They are from Utah. They live in a different time zone which is minus two hours from Sandy Hook's time zone which is two hours ahead. The funding was for all Sandy Hook victims not just Emilie.
The link you provided is not the one of the original Emilie's facebook fund link. It was taking down by due to harassment by the conspiracy lunatics at the time.
 
Last edited:

Aaron

New Member
Thank you so much for this site. You are doing an excellent job. Forgive me if this is an inappropriate thread for this observation but I think much of the accusations made about the parents have to do with a cultural disconnect.


Many from most American cultures, regional or ethic, would not have behaved as the 6 or so of these families behaved immediately after a tragic event and loss like this. I think it is rare and perhaps considered by some offensive behavior for parents to instantly start setting up funds and a political messaging movement with their child as the symbol. It does happen but usually not within the short time period witnessed in this case.

(Suzannah Hupp for example became a concealed carry activist after her parents were killed in the Luby’s event and eventually became a state representative. However, this probably did not disturb folks because of the process of her activism’s more apparently organic nature and perhaps they might have found her message less threatening.)

What people are attributing to “staging,” “acting”, and a “government script” may very well be explained by a shared culture of these particular parents.


They have come together both with a political message about guns but also about shared community mindset of raising children together etc. They’ve each been to several rallies, park dedications, memorials and so on with what appears like an extremely similar message. The rollout of all this does not appear to many as a normal grieving process. What these critics fail to realize is that for people in Connecticut or within a subculture there this may be completely appropriate.


These families describe the various forms of “comfort” they have about their children’s death in nearly identical terms. (They take comfort in that they died in a school they loved, surrounded by friends, for a cause etc) They have all engaged in behavior very similar to each other but quite different than what we would expect to see culturally in most other parts of the US.


For example, many if not most parents and young siblings would not break out Sharpies and write all over their recently deceased 6 year old’s casket with butterflies and peace signs and little notes until there is “no inch of white” left because in the American meta-culture this type of activity would be limited to casts on broken arms. However such an approach may be completely appropriate according to these families’ worldview and belief systems.


Their similar behavior, as well as the view by many that it is bizarre behavior, may be easily explained if they all happened to belong to the same social or religious group.


** Mick, do you know of any evidence that these particular parents belong to the same faith or social group that may explain their unique approach to this event? **


They could be part of the TM movement, Bahai Faith members, Scientologists or some similar group that simply has a different approach to their understanding of death and the appropriateness of using their loved ones for political purposes.


( PS: I am not suggesting the religious groups I named have these characteristics to their belief systems and norms just using them as examples of subcultures that may exist in a community like Sandy Hook and these parents may share).
 

RickA

New Member
2010 is two


The Obama photo is from December 2012. 2010 is two years before 2012, not three. Ages are approximate.
So a photo from December 31, 2012 is 2 years after a photo from 2010 but a photo from Jan. 1, 2013 is 3 years later. That doesn't change the fact that Samantha Parker cannot be 3 years old in a photo from 2010 and still be 3 years old in a photo taken 2 years and eleven months later. Likewise Madeline Parker cannot be 4 years old in a photo taken in 2010 and still be 4 years old two years and eleven months later. And finally, since Emilie Parker was enrolled in Kindergarten for the 2012-2013 school year, if she was 6 years in a family photo taken in 2010 (your claim here) she still would be the only 9 year old in Kindergarten. Your theory is DEBUNKED. The children cannot be the same age in photo's taken two years and eleven months apart.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
So then who is the young Parker girl in the photo with the president, RickA?

Seems like it would be a pretty big "oops", don't you think?
 

RickA

New Member
I have not seen any
So was it only Emilie Parker who wasn't killed, or were no children killed?

What about your fanatic dedication to believing this because you hate Obama? Can you hate Obama and believe this picture is legitimate, or does not thinking they are the same girl automatically equal 'fanatic dedication to your fuhrer'?
Where is the evidence to support your baseless statement that I "hate Obama". I do not approve of his lying to the American people that we can keep our health insurance policy or our doctor. I do not approve of his LIE that the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was over a Youtube video. I do not approve that he ran for re-election on the ongoing promise that he would not push new gun control laws if re-elected. I did not approve of the phony "skeet shooting" picture his campaign released to sell the voters the absurd LIE that Obama was pro-gun. (Skeet shooters fire their shotgun aimed at the clay disk UP IN THE AIR, not on the horizon as Obama's gun is firing) Obviously you have no problem making up claims which you have no evidence to support. That would explain why you have no problem with Obama's serial lying. Another thing that bothers me is that Samantha Parker CANNOT be 3 years old in a photo taken in December 2012 and also be 3 years old in a photo taken 2 years and 11 months earlier. Nobody on this forum seems to be able to address that and it is pretty obvious why.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
Where is the evidence to support your baseless statement that I "hate Obama". ....

Your own words equating him with Hitler, and the fact that you think, thinking this photo is what it says it is equates to 'fanatic dedication' to him.
That's not a mild reasoned opinion, it's an opinion of extremes.
Also because you seem to think everything Obama has done that you don't like is *proof* that this must be faked.

Hence 'hate'. The emotion of irrationality.

(ETA, not that hate can't be rational. My hate for people like you is. Your 'Obama bad therefore fake and he is your fuhrer' is not.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top