Debunked: Sandy Hook. Media staging photos.

Status
Not open for further replies.

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
I've been busy. I haven't been distracted by the arguments on here that divert our attention from discussing the questions I had put forth.

I would love someone to debunk this. This is scary. Complicit media. They gave up asking questions 2 days after shooting. They'd rather mock "conspiracy theories" instead of ask the questions themselves. They'd rather cover the funerals, and move the story on to gun control. They are faking shots of photos that made 99% of the world sympathetic for them. They faked them! Please explain to me what i missed. Have fun!

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Pick the one example from that video that you find most convincing, and I'll explain it for you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hmm, okay, it's the fire station, I though that was a different planter box and background building, but I was going off rather blurry images in Google Earth.

Okay, so what's wrong with this shot?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So which of the above would you like me to address? Where the grey cars are? Is that your most compelling evidence?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Because they moved. Videos were shot at different times and from different angles.

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's two aerial shots from different times. One from news footage, earlier in the day:




And one from later:



Notice the cars have moved a lot.
 
Last edited:

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
I noticed they moved alot, yes mick. but i still don't see the grey cars. are they in that pic somewhere i can't see? i will keep looking. do you actually have a picture that proves your point?

what time do you think it is here? It seems like they don't have much time let to rearrange all nice and neat the cop cars like the picture. The "staged" picture looks like it is taken by a police station.

.Remember the pictures of mccdonnels they had bright sun coming from the right side of the picture. doesn't that mean this picture is earlier? If it is. Why aren't the people in the background not in bright sun. both your pics show it to be sunny, even late in the day. why are there grey cars? I thnk you are actually helping make my point clearer.

hey who's that chic circled yellow. she looks like she's waiting offstage for her shoot. :)
sandyhookmovie2 soto in background.jpg

So to recap, Where are the grey cars in the live shots? If the pic of the Mccdonells was taken later in the day , why is there bright sun coming from the right of the photo, but no sun on the soto girl and co.

Come on mick,Surely you can do better. try again.

IN all seriousness, can you show me any other references or helicopter video of a later time.? i've looked unsuccessfully so far
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There are four grey cars in this shot in the lower left.


They would be off to the right in the "live shot" you reference.


As you can see in the top photo, a lot of the parking area is shaded by trees, hence the people in the background are not in bright sun.

The girl circled in yellow could be anyone dressed like that with that length hair. It could be Carlee Soto.



She is simply standing there looking at her phone in your image. It is in no way suspicious.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You know, it really just looks like you, and/or the makers of the videos are simply trolling for YouTube views, seeing has how that one video did so well.

Sorry if that's not the case, but that's how it comes across. You point me to a video with only 80 views, it seems likely you made the video, or are part of a tiny group of people making such videos. IC WhatsGoingOn, lab0312, etc

The questions raised in the videos are banal. Pointless misunderstandings a child could answer. Exposure flare, perspective foreshortening, shadows, different times. It's all just stupid trivial stuff. The only really mystery here is why people make such videos.
 

angryjock

New Member
I feel for you, Mick, even attempting to apply logic to these claims. The earth revolves around the sun. That is the best explanation for most of this. I have a couple of points from reading this thread.

1) Truthers are really getting desperate. We're two months out from this shooting and they're still dissecting the same few minutes of live video from the scene.

2) To the OP. This is 'live video' you're analyzing. Most of what you're describing wouldn't look believable when it is done by George Lucas let alone local tv news crews. And for what? Why would anyone fake footage of people standing around AFTER the shooting? Wouldn't the better thing be to fake some security camera footage of the actual shooting?

3) The most amazing shot in the clip you linked to (the whole video is hilarious as it betrays the actual 'style' of a truther video) is of Mrs. Pozner asking the cop about her son Noah. You analyzed the shingles on the building but you can't tell that she's clearly showing the trooper a picture of Noah on her phone so he can tell her if he's dead or alive. So focused on craziness and nonsense that you missed an actual fact right in the video!
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
Ok. sooooo. Can you please answer the banal childish question? Where are the grey cars like the ones in the "there" pic.? You seem to brush this question aside as if it is meaningless.

You can believe the moon is made of cheese, fine with me. But if you want to help explain the reasons you think this way, or to actually answer the main question in the thread,I am not convinced. Let alone the other banal questions you've failed to answer. I remember you gave me only your opinion that chris M. was wearing camo.No thought out reasoning. Yet stated it as FACT. I've already called you out on that, apparently you cannot answer for yourself there. Fine. I dropped that and started this thread , but to no surprise you are still acting like someone who is condescendingly listening to their friends small child. I am not a small child. You have FAILED at answering the question.

Then you play games while answering, "I'll help explain it to you" "whats wrong with it" or "you know thats not the fh" As for #2=3, how so unobservant of you esp AFTER watching the video. Luckily you quickly changed your opinion, explaining that you couldn't see the google page.(?) although the video clearly showed the similarities. Thats ok, though. I can take your 'tone' . Answer the question.

I've "proved' to you . In all the pictures of the grieving families. The backgrounds are compromised. I've showed you the differences in live and "staged' footage. You've explained to me without ANY proof, its a different time. As if the fact that cars move after a few hours is proof. You've showed me a picture very late in the afternoon that STILL shows sunlight AND NO GREY CARS in the area of the angle that You drew yourself. You show me other cars late in the day that are not in the frame of the "staged" shots as if that's proof. If you want to prove me wrong and debunk this, simply show me one photo(besides the current examples) of the cars in the parking lot on 12.14. SIMPLE.

Mick, you've also showed me a pic of where those in the "there' pic should be standing. PROVING MY POINT. If you look at the before and after pic, you can surely notice, that they would still be in the sunlight in the after pic right? Even if they happen to catch some shade there. It would have to be pretty late in the day. Couldn't possibly be more than an hour or 2 max of real sun left. You know the sunset is about 430 Iirc. Let's assume they were in a little cloud of shadow there. I see the state trooper come from the left side and walk all the way down the aisle of grey cars. Why didn't he go in and out of sunlight there.? YOUR picture shows the splashes of sunlight and shadow throughout the parking lot.Can you explain that to me? Please tell me what time you think it is in that after pic, and why.

In your after pic there is still sunlight on the side of the FH but it is coming almost directly toward the fh wall perpendicular. If the McDonells picture was done much later in the day wouldn't the sun hit them directly in the face, not from the right side as is clearly shown. If it was done earlier in the day. Why are there grey cop cars behind him? If the picture was taken earlier in the day as the shadows indicate,shouldn't there be the ambulance in the background. If it was done later in the day, the sun would be "in their face" Which time would you like to stick with there. ?

1. Where are the grey cars?
2. As your best guess, what time is the after pic? i will attempt to do some sun analysis to figure that out. Or you could. Or when I'm done, feel fee to check my work.
3. You said yourself at first you thought it was a different background building. In my opinion that building looks too close and too big. You claim camera distortion. I will and am looking for some more pictures of this building, we can leave that off for now. I will try and look at this more closely. Or feel free to show me they are the same.

What is your final parking lot theory? The ambulances all left and the cop cars all lines up perfectly as if they were in between parking lines, and did this in the last hour or so of sunlight, even though no" live" shots have shown this. ? I'm really trying hard to believe that. Is that your final answer?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Good grief. Cars move. Different times give different shadows. That's all there is to it. You are just trolling.
 

jvnk08

Active Member
Ok. sooooo. Can you please answer the banal childish question? Where are the grey cars like the ones in the "there" pic.? You seem to brush this question aside as if it is meaningless.

You can believe the moon is made of cheese, fine with me. But if you want to help explain the reasons you think this way, or to actually answer the main question in the thread,I am not convinced. Let alone the other banal questions you've failed to answer. I remember you gave me only your opinion that chris M. was wearing camo.No thought out reasoning. Yet stated it as FACT. I've already called you out on that, apparently you cannot answer for yourself there. Fine. I dropped that and started this thread , but to no surprise you are still acting like someone who is condescendingly listening to their friends small child. I am not a small child. You have FAILED at answering the question.
Unless I am mistaken, it appears Mick did answer the question in post #13. The aerial photos and photos on the ground are likely taken at different times. It is unreasonable to compare the aerial footage and still image from the ground without concrete timestamps.

hopstoopid said:
Then you play games while answering, "I'll help explain it to you" "whats wrong with it" or "you know thats not the fh" As for #2=3, how so unobservant of you esp AFTER watching the video. Luckily you quickly changed your opinion, explaining that you couldn't see the google page.(?) although the video clearly showed the similarities. Thats ok, though. I can take your 'tone' . Answer the question.

I've "proved' to you . In all the pictures of the grieving families. The backgrounds are compromised. I've showed you the differences in live and "staged' footage. You've explained to me without ANY proof, its a different time. As if the fact that cars move after a few hours is proof. You've showed me a picture very late in the afternoon that STILL shows sunlight AND NO GREY CARS in the area of the angle that You drew yourself. You show me other cars late in the day that are not in the frame of the "staged" shots as if that's proof. If you want to prove me wrong and debunk this, simply show me one photo(besides the current examples) of the cars in the parking lot on 12.14. SIMPLE.
All you've shown one picture of the greiving families and claim it is compromised. Is it unfathomable that the cars moved over the course of hours?

hopstoopid said:
Mick, you've also showed me a pic of where those in the "there' pic should be standing. PROVING MY POINT. If you look at the before and after pic, you can surely notice, that they would still be in the sunlight in the after pic right? Even if they happen to catch some shade there. It would have to be pretty late in the day. Couldn't possibly be more than an hour or 2 max of real sun left. You know the sunset is about 430 Iirc. Let's assume they were in a little cloud of shadow there. I see the state trooper come from the left side and walk all the way down the aisle of grey cars. Why didn't he go in and out of sunlight there.? YOUR picture shows the splashes of sunlight and shadow throughout the parking lot.Can you explain that to me? Please tell me what time you think it is in that after pic, and why.

In your after pic there is still sunlight on the side of the FH but it is coming almost directly toward the fh wall perpendicular. If the McDonells picture was done much later in the day wouldn't the sun hit them directly in the face, not from the right side as is clearly shown. If it was done earlier in the day. Why are there grey cop cars behind him? If the picture was taken earlier in the day as the shadows indicate,shouldn't there be the ambulance in the background. If it was done later in the day, the sun would be "in their face" Which time would you like to stick with there. ?
In ideal conditions, perhaps the sun would be "in their face". Once you have established the timeline, have you accounted for things like clouds and shade from the trees?

hopstoopid said:
1. Where are the grey cars?
2. As your best guess, what time is the after pic? i will attempt to do some sun analysis to figure that out. Or you could. Or when I'm done, feel fee to check my work.
3. You said yourself at first you thought it was a different background building. In my opinion that building looks too close and too big. You claim camera distortion. I will and am looking for some more pictures of this building, we can leave that off for now. I will try and look at this more closely. Or feel free to show me they are the same.

What is your final parking lot theory? The ambulances all left and the cop cars all lines up perfectly as if they were in between parking lines, and did this in the last hour or so of sunlight, even though no" live" shots have shown this. ? I'm really trying hard to believe that. Is that your final answer?
We can see other grey cars, mere feet away from the initial image. Why is it strange that they are in one place in one photograph, and in another place hours later?


As for the issue of the building seemingly too close and big, check out this gif which demonstrates how focal length can mess with your perception of distance quite easily(though in this example the camera is indeed moving between frames):

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0OFBVGsCDpc/Ts5vhIRNPuI/AAAAAAAAJMc/EriRwqu2pb8/w497-h373/HitchcockZoom_Micael_Reynaud.gif
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What time do you think the 2nd picture is taken?
What does it matter? All that has changed is some cars have moved.

And the couple you point to as "walking the whole length of the parking lot" take 12 steps to cross the frame. That's about six yards. The parking lot is 100 yards from the planter corner to the building in the background.

If you post any more grossly inaccurate statement like that, then it's obvious you are trolling, and I'll just ban you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What time do you think the 2nd picture is taken?
What does it matter? All that has changed is some cars have moved.

And the couple you point to as "walking the whole length of the parking lot" take 12 steps to cross the frame. That's about six yards. The parking lot is 100 yards from the planter corner to the building in the background.

View attachment 1715



If you post any more grossly inaccurate statement like that, then it's obvious you are trolling, and I'll just ban you.

If you were simply mistaken, then I'm sorry. But you don't seem very open to corrections.
 
Last edited:

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
"Unless I am mistaken, it appears Mick did answer the question in post #13. The times of aerial photos and photos on the ground are likely different. It is unreasonable to compare the aerial footage and still image from the ground without concrete timestamps."
He didn't answer he gave me a theory. Debunking is showing me proof. I've shown you how they are different. that is proof. show me something different.
"All you've shown one picture of the greiving families and claim it is compromised. Is it unfathomable that the cars moved over the course of hours?"
Please watch the video if you are going to comment in this thread. Again, i have to point out simple facts to you over and over. I didn't say it was unfathomable, I'm claiming its a weak theory with no proof to back it up.
"In ideal conditions, perhaps the sun would be "in their face". Once you have established the timeline, have you accounted for things like clouds and shade from the trees?"
yes i have mentioned that. perhaps your reading skills need to be above a elementary school level. as I've had to point out things you have overlooked more than a few times. You are a distraction from the question at hand.
THIS IS WHAT YOU QUOTED ALREADY."Even if they happen to catch some shade there. It would have to be pretty late in the day. Couldn't possibly be more than an hour or 2 max of real sun left. You know the sunset is about 430 Iirc. Let's assume they were in a little cloud of shadow there. I see the state trooper come from the left side and walk all the way down the aisle of grey cars. Why didn't he go in and out of sunlight there.? YOUR picture shows the splashes of sunlight and shadow throughout the parking lot.Can you explain that to me? Please tell me what time you think it is in that after pic, and why. "

Its pretty established that there were no clouds that day. do you see a could to show me? why don't you timestamp the photo before giving your opinion. I've already said i will in the future. Don't strain yourself.

also i said, i will leave the brown building for now. instead of bringing new pics or info. you show me something we have already discussed, and put aside to try and focus this conversation on the times and when the ambulances left and grey cars all lined up neatly to park.

why don't you try to explain to me why the policeman walking in the parking lot doesn't catch a frame of sunlight.
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
"If you post any more grossly inaccurate statement like that, then it's obvious you are trolling, and I'll just ban you.

If you were simply mistaken, then I'm sorry. But you don't seem very open to corrections.
"
setting me up for the ban. because i don't believe your "theories" , just call me a troll. ez. Maybe i just ask questions you cannot debunk.? you are not too open to anything that isn't spoon fed to the GenPop by cnn.
It isn't odd to you , that the" how could it have happenned" discussion went quickly to "gun control, funerals, and silly conspiracies"

"12 steps to cross the frame. That's about six yards"

Where did you get this number from? I'm 6ft and took 12 normal steps. I went almost 2x that far. he looks as if he walks past at least 4 cars. 6 yards.? do you need to ban yourself for such gross misinfo. ? too funny. Don't forget "Chris Manfredonia was in the camo" ! you are giving misinfo as fact. i used a wrong term.

mick, yes i made the youtube video. Isn't the idea of youtube to get people to watch? I don't understand your point. My point is I've pointed out something no one else has really covered. I show my work, and ask you to show me where its wrong. That doesn't include passing off the fact that cars move. Yes 2 year olds know that. Can you show me WHY you think in this instance they moved. I don't see any evidence to that. IT IS JUST YOUR THEORY! I've shown you the grey cars in the background. You can't show find them in a live shot. I've shown you the inconsistencies of the sunlight in these pictures. You say it doesn't matter what time it is in the picture. ? IT DOESN'T? IF the photos of the families were taking BEFORE your "after' picture, this doesn't prove to you that the photos were faked? Show me what time the photos were "taken" show me a picture of any sun on the families, besides mcdonnells. tell me why you assume the cars were all moved. Show me one main stream media report since JAN that asks any questions that don't include gun control or "crazy internetters"

I swear i think you guys are trolls.

It is not trivial to point out that the live pictures and the staged pictures are different!

sandy hook fire station. notes on people walking through parking lot. micks yellow line.jpg

It still seems to me we don't see ANY sunlight in the parking lot of the "staged" photos.
 

Attachments

jvnk08

Active Member
"If you post any more grossly inaccurate statement like that, then it's obvious you are trolling, and I'll just ban you.

If you were simply mistaken, then I'm sorry. But you don't seem very open to corrections.
"
setting me up for the ban. because i don't believe your "theories" , just call me a troll. ez. Maybe i just ask questions you cannot debunk.? you are not too open to anything that isn't spoon fed to the GenPop by cnn.
It isn't odd to you , that the" how could it have happenned" discussion went quickly to "gun control, funerals, and silly conspiracies"

"12 steps to cross the frame. That's about six yards"

Where did you get this number from? I'm 6ft and took 12 normal steps. I went almost 2x that far. he looks as if he walks past at least 4 cars. 6 yards.? do you need to ban yourself for such gross misinfo. ? too funny. Don't forget "Chris Manfredonia was in the camo" ! you are giving misinfo as fact. i used a wrong term.

mick, yes i made the youtube video. Isn't the idea of youtube to get people to watch? I don't understand your point. My point is I've pointed out something no one else has really covered. I show my work, and ask you to show me where its wrong. That doesn't include passing off the fact that cars move. Yes 2 year olds know that. Can you show me WHY you think in this instance they moved. I don't see any evidence to that. IT IS JUST YOUR THEORY! I've shown you the grey cars in the background. You can't show find them in a live shot. I've shown you the inconsistencies of the sunlight in these pictures. You say it doesn't matter what time it is in the picture. ? IT DOESN'T? IF the photos of the families were taking BEFORE your "after' picture, this doesn't prove to you that the photos were faked? Show me what time the photos were "taken" show me a picture of any sun on the families, besides mcdonnells. tell me why you assume the cars were all moved. Show me one main stream media report since JAN that asks any questions that don't include gun control or "crazy internetters"

I swear i think you guys are trolls.

It is not trivial to point out that the live pictures and the staged pictures are different!

View attachment 1718

It still seems to me we don't see ANY sunlight in the parking lot of the "staged" photos.
We can actually see the shadows in that aerial photo from google earth, which indicate to me it is quite likely there were shadows from the trees in the still images from the ground(which was likely taken hours after the helicopter footage), assuming there were in fact zero clouds that day.

So far you have pointed out nothing but one inconsistency. The video appears to point out a few more that are similarly grounded on the flawed basis of comparing aerial footage and ground photos of which no timeline has been established. Provided you are correct and the cop did walk the line you drew, that is still, what, 12-15 feet at most? How does that prove anything?

This is not critical inquiry. You're are grasping at straws.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think the cars moved because they are visible in one shot, but not in another.

Since you previously claimed "the length of the parking lot",which is 100 years, then it does not really make much difference, does it. And perhaps at that time the whole parking lot was in shadow.

You really have no evidence. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
1) Truthers are really getting desperate. We're two months out from this shooting and they're still dissecting the same few minutes of live video from the scene.

What other video is there?
This word"truthers" is thrown around like its a bad thing? You don't want to know the truth? You believe AC360?Fox?, msnbc? . Isn't debunking something trying to expose the truth? at least trying to expose the falseness of something. It seems you are desperately trying to explain away some serious questions, without actually thinking about it.

"2) To the OP. This is 'live video' you're analyzing. Most of what you're describing wouldn't look believable when it is done by George Lucas let alone local tv news crews. And for what? Why would anyone fake footage of people standing around AFTER the shooting? Wouldn't the better thing be to fake some security camera footage of the actual shooting? " HUH? you are asking questions that derail this thread. shall i give you my opinion of why i think they would fake it? I try to prove to you they have faked it, then we can move on to why. how about explaining why the pictures of all the grieving families look fake, and compared to the live video, doesn't seem anything alike?
cars move, sun can be shade, lens distortion. fine these are your theories, give me some proof. ..... what else you guys got?

"3) The most amazing shot in the clip you linked to (the whole video is hilarious as it betrays the actual 'style' of a truther video) is of Mrs. Pozner asking the cop about her son Noah. You analyzed the shingles on the building but you can't tell that she's clearly showing the trooper a picture of Noah on her phone so he can tell her if he's dead or alive. So focused on craziness and nonsense that you missed an actual fact right in the video!"
How would he know if he was dead or alive? Has he ID'd all the kids in the school. Can he ,by an iphone photo, ID a kid inside the FH that is one of 100s he might have seen today? Wouldn't she look in the firehouse, or stay there until she knew for sure. Ok so the only reasonable thing is. She's looked all over, she still hasn't found him. She is desperate to find any information. She asks a cop if she's seen her kid. She also is 'acts' like she is just finding something out, but if you notice, the cop,vance imo, doesn't actually say anything to her. He isn't relaying to her ANY info. Also in the desperate moment, her other kid is checking his phone, says bye, and walks away. His Mom obv needs consoling. He obv looks to me like he doesn't care. Also in vance's PC he says over and over, he wants to be 100% accurate and make sure all the kids are identified. Why would he offhandedly tell her he's dead there? It just takes a little while to think it through.

Again, where are the grey cars? when do you think they removed the ambulances.?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I don't see where this thread is going. It has been pointed out numerous times to the thread starter the problems in his theory. He just comes back with the same comments.

He claims we don't have any evidence, well he doesn't either. Also, sun will reflect off of a white surface, like the sides of those buildings. In taking photos you will often use white surface to 'bounce' light onto a subject (direct lighting will often give you 'hot' spots).

Shadows outside are odd things, I know, I do art/craft shows outside and I have to deal with them and reflected sun from other booths and such
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
"I think the cars moved because they are visible in one shot, but not in another.
but not into the area we agree that the field of view is in. I think the cars moved. Is not really proof, sorry you don't see that.


"You really have no evidence" I've showed you the evidence. The completely different backgrounds and the inconsistent shadows of the sun. That isn't evidence? But where is yours?



you've explained the whole thing by saying "cars move" not sure why i even waste my time. Then you say 6 yds is 12 steps. and its gets repeated by your followers , why because they don't actually think for themselves.
"Provided you are correct and the cop did walk the line you drew, that is still, what, 12-15 feet at most? How does that prove anything?"

sorry dude, i told you you add nothing to this conversation. not sure why you keep babbling, you just repeat what mick says.
"We can actually see the shadows in that aerial photo from google earth, which indicate to me it is quite likely there were shadows from the trees in the still images from the ground(which was likely taken hours after the helicopter footage)"
we can see the SUN and shadows in every pic, except for the background shots of the grey cars. they should be in shadow AND SUN. since the pic of the mcdonells shows sun. and micks pic showed sunlight in the parking lot, even late in the day. Esp if the ambulances aren't there casting a shadow.


Ok i'm grasping at straws, show me some proof i'm wrong. PROVE IT!
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
I don't see where this thread is going. It has been pointed out numerous times to the thread starter the problems in his theory. He just comes back with the same comments.

It has been pointed out ITT that "cars move", therefore the "evidence" i provided is thrown out all in once swoop.

I wonder why I keep asking the same questions. Its because i haven't been PROVEN wrong. THE EVIDENCE I SHOW ABOUT THE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
 

jvnk08

Active Member
"I think the cars moved because they are visible in one shot, but not in another.
but not into the area we agree that the field of view is in. I think the cars moved. Is not really proof, sorry you don't see that.


"You really have no evidence" I've showed you the evidence. The completely different backgrounds and the inconsistent shadows of the sun. That isn't evidence? But where is yours?
And yet, they really aren't that different. We've already established that none of us know the timestamp of any of the photos, so it's useless to base any conclusions on them.

hopstoopid said:
you've explained the whole thing by saying "cars move" not sure why i even waste my time. Then you say 6 yds is 12 steps. and its gets repeated by your followers , why because they don't actually think for themselves.
"Provided you are correct and the cop did walk the line you drew, that is still, what, 12-15 feet at most? How does that prove anything?"

sorry dude, i told you you add nothing to this conversation. not sure why you keep babbling, you just repeat what mick says.
Other than agreeing with him because he's offered just about the most plausible explanation anyone could give to your questions, I fail to see where I've repeated anything that Mick has said. Your favorite tactic seems to be taking to the defensive when you have no answer or when people are more direct about addressing your motivations.

hopstoopid said:
"We can actually see the shadows in that aerial photo from google earth, which indicate to me it is quite likely there were shadows from the trees in the still images from the ground(which was likely taken hours after the helicopter footage)"
we can see the SUN and shadows in every pic, except for the background shots of the grey cars. they should be in shadow AND SUN. since the pic of the mcdonells shows sun. and micks pic showed sunlight in the parking lot, even late in the day. Esp if the ambulances aren't there casting a shadow.


Ok i'm grasping at straws, show me some proof i'm wrong. PROVE IT!

Proof: You don't know the timestamps of the ground or aerial photos, and yet you're using them to draw conclusions about what you think the scene should look like. The evidence you've presented would not convince anyone in a court of law(but maybe you think it's all rigged, anyways).


You still haven't answered why such a thing would be staged, instead you're "just asking questions". Let's be clear: the only reason you're "asking questions" is because you think it was staged, most likely in order to elicit public symapthy for gun control(which falls flat on its face with just just a bit of logic). There is overwhelming evidence that the shooting occurred as described in the "mainstream" account(but maybe it's all propaganda).
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
There is a two-hour difference between the two aerial shots, judging by the shadows from the same objects on the (e.g. the lamposts and chimneys). In principle, it should be possible to timestamp them, but for now let us note that in the later short the shadows are roughly perpendicular to the ground camera direction. Also, in the latter aerial shot, there are plenty of shadows from the trees and cars on the ground in the car park. That is, at the time the legs of the people in the car park are likely to be in shadow, but their heads may still catch the sun. Here are two screenshots from the vimeo video with two different women facing the camera:
Screen shot 2013-02-15 at 00.13.35.png
Screen shot 2013-02-15 at 00.15.12.png

As one can see, their faces are half lit by the sun, meaning that this ground shot are closer in time to the later aerial shot than to the earlier one. At the earlier time, their heads would be lit from behind rather than from the right hand side (from the camera viewpoint).
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
"Proof: You don't know the timestamps of the ground or aerial photos, and yet you're using them to draw conclusions about what you think the scene should look like. The evidence you've presented would not convince anyone in a court of law(but maybe you think it's all rigged, anyways)."
Yes I have proposed in a 10 min video why i think there are 2 different backgrounds, or at least 2 different days. I also have asked anyone to please prove it wrong. My theory is backed up by a presentation, showing why i think its fake. I have come here to be 'debunked' A simple explanation without any real thought or proof is not addressing the burden of proving me wrong. As I said "cars move, time is different" is not really proof, its your theory. So in order to debunk me, you have to PROVE my theory is wrong. Debunking does not mean, coming up with your best guess.
Let me show you the way you should probably answer this if you want to be taken seriously and not like a mick fanboy.

Well hopstoopid, you raise an interesting question i haven't seen discussed anywhere else. IMO i think you are waaaay off base with this one sorry. It seems to me that you don't have full information on timestamps and in my opinion they probably just moved the cars around at sometime between the live and the 'staged' evidence you purport. THis is the most logical explaination in my mind. Also although the brown building looks closer it is probably explained by lens distortion, i have a video to show this. This also might explain why they look cut out.IT does appear to be bigger and ALOT closer then it really is. The sunlight questions you bring up is also probably caused by the late day shadows going behind trees. I will try and look through the videos and pictures to see if I can find anything to back up what I am thinking here. (examples would include, pictures of sunlight in the parking lot, pictures of the parking lot filled with grey cop cars, a statement from the family, photographers, or media telling us when these were taken)

see how adults have a discussion.

Thanks for taking time to watch. I am still looking for some proof to disprove my video. I would love to see someone disprove this( I actually ask for scrutiny and information on my video) If you do find any additional info regarding this I would love to see it , and discuss it here with you. IMO i think its a stretch to think that the parking lot was cleared of the EMS and replaced with those grey police cars in the time it takes between the after photo by mick and the 'staged' grief shots shown by the mass media.TO support this I Also don't see any evidence of sunlight, also the questionable shingles, the odd reaction of the kid, the cop doesn't talk to the mother, the couple looks as if they are walking into a building, the greeen screen look of this video. Also the fact that this video is NOT posted on YT. This secondary evidence is enough to make me question the parking lot scene. I will see what else I come up with an add it here when possible.
 

jvnk08

Active Member
Again, you're trying to make it seem like I'm just making personal attacks on your character, being rude or otherwise not addressing the fallacious logic in your claims.

The burden of proof is on you to show evidence that cannot be more easily explained as a product of disparate media representations. "Cars move" is a much more plausible explanation than "this was shot over the course of 2 days, and they forgot to examine what was in the background of the footage".

We have the same photographic evidence you do. Okay, it was filmed in 2 days like you suggest - we can't prove it wrong - now, let's follow through with the logic. What would be the purpose of staging such a thing? Your questions have to lead somewhere.
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
"As one can see, their faces are half lit by the sun, meaning that this ground shot are closer in time to the later aerial shot than to the earlier one. At the earlier time, their heads would be lit from behind rather than from the right hand side (from the camera viewpoint). "

I see the people in the foreground with bright sun on their faces, if this sun is on their faces WHy isn't it on the planter box.? notice micks both before and after photos. also without those ambulances there. there would be LESS shadows. Also the fact that it is almost winter the trees have no leaves. this means that the sunlight would be filtered through the trees and not nec blocked. Also something i just noticed, See the green trees there in micks 2nd pic, they are much closer down towards the brown building according to google pic from less than 6mos earlier. . so these trees are most likely( maybe 100%) not the trees causing the shadows on the parking lot area where we are focusing. Now there is more reason to be skeptical of the lack of sun in the later pictures.sandyhook fs, google still, with direction of sun..jpg
 

RolandD

Active Member
I think you did a fine job of disproving it yourself and in doing so, shows that you are just trolling.
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
The burden of proof is on you to show evidence that cannot be more easily explained as a product of disparate media representations. How do you think the people in the photo 2 above can have bright sun on their face. but the planter box does not! let alone the rest of the parking lot. .

in my opinion , i have shown evidence. Just because there is a "simple explanation" doesn't mean "cars move" is the correct one. IT means that is your best guess, according to you. My best guess is to state that it was staged. I've shown the reasons why, THAT IS EVIDENCE, again. this is a debunking site. debunk my evidence!
explaining or making a theory as to why"they' did it throws off the discussion. which you can attack. since that would ONLY be a best guess on my part. So i'm not going there. let's stick to explaining these questions i have showed evidence for

like this one. WHy can the people in the foreground have bright sunlight on their face, but there is none on the planter box. why don't you show me another example of this, besides the staged photos. that would be useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top