Debunked: Sandy Hook. Media staging photos.

[jvnk08]

Which is more likely to be the case?

This entire event involving 20 dead children was staged, and the perpetrators didn't cover their tracks properly when they would have had the means to thoroughly inspect every frame of footage before releasing it to the public, or

You're attempting to find correlations between videos and photos of unknown time periods and are predictably finding inconsistencies between them.

 

[Cairenn]

The people are TALLER than the parking lot and the planter box. DUH !!! I have gotten a sunburn in my show booth while my jewelry was in the shade. There was one show were anyone standing was in the sun almost all day and the table weren't

 

[RolandD]

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.

No, the burden of proof is your responsibility. You've presented a great deal of speculation claiming that it is evidence. Your opinion is just that.

 

[hopstoopid]

This entire event involving 20 dead children was staged, and the perpetrators didn't cover their tracks properly when they would have had the means to thoroughly inspect every frame of footage before releasing it to the public
I am presenting evidence that this was staged. Why do i always need to explain to you the WHOLE event. One thing at a time. Just one photo is all it would take to debunk me. Shouldn't be too hard if i'm wrong , right ?

The people are TALLER than the parking lot and the planter box. DUH !!! I have gotten a sunburn in my show booth while my jewelry was in the shade. There was one show were anyone standing was in the sun almost all day and the table weren't .

great your attempt at explaining this is wrong. why don't you go look at all the pictures and show me where the planter box is in shadow and the people in front of it are in bright light. shouldn't be too hard if i'm wrong. how many times are you going to bring up your show booth, wth does that have to do with anything.

"No, the burden of proof is your responsibility. You've presented a great deal of speculation claiming that it is evidence. Your opinion is just that"

what opinion is it that you are referring to. speculation is all on your end. again. i showed you the differences already. that is evidence. not sure why you guys don't understand this.

how about this. " I think it's a little odd that there are completely different backgrounds in the photos in the video" I haven't heard even one person admit that! I can't even get you guys to admit the fact that it is hard for ME to believe the entire parking lot was swapped out , in what probably is no more than 2 hours. I am not allowed to question that, and if I do, I need to tell you all the reasons for it, and what it means for the entire story. that isn't possible, or the point of this thread.

i came to the debunking forum to be debunked. or shown i am wrong. Not for you to give me your opinions what happened. not for you to tell me why would. again, if i'm so wrong it shouldn't be hard. and for the last time, "cars move" is not debunking.
View attachment sandy hook fire station later time notes on man walking and mcdonnels and shadows.jpg

 

[hopstoopid]

I've made an honest attempt at timestamping this pic with the help of patjack on youtube, and the sun shadow applet. it was my first time, I would invite you all to help figure out the timeline here. My best guestimate is between 2-3pm, closer to about 215-230, but i think thats close enough. sunset is at 425.
which gives them less than 2 hours to remove the ambulances and line up the cars, and get all the photos of the parents.

 

[Cairenn]

I bring up my show booth, because I HAVE to deal with the sun and shadows in it. You don't seem to have a good grasp of how sun and shadows work. If folks are NOT sitting in one area for a long time, one does not learn as much about sun and the shadows it throws.

Every point you have been made has been debunked over and over. It seems that you refuse to accept the FACTS.

I agree with Roland on why you are here. The fact that YOU came here and then accused us of being trolls is all the proof I need

 

[hopstoopid]

also proving i can debunk myself. i am better at this than you guys. the shadow on the planter box, is likely caused by the car in front of it. as in the foreground car in mcdonells picture, also i can notice in the after photo, it seems as if a car is casting a shadow. there. minor point. just a secondary point to support the FACT that the cars in back have changed. and it seems as if this would be done in approx 2 hours.

 

[hopstoopid]

Every point you have been made has been debunked over and over. It seems that you refuse to accept the FACTS.

FACT i showed you 2 different backgrounds. FACT it is in the same place, FACT it purported by everyone and the pope, that these pictures were from the same day.

Opinion. cars moved there. proof. show me anything that proves that the cars all moved there in a 3 hour window. just to be safe. although i think its a lot closer to less than 2.

[ ] debunked
[x] still open to debate.

 

[jvnk08]

This entire event involving 20 dead children was staged, and the perpetrators didn't cover their tracks properly when they would have had the means to thoroughly inspect every frame of footage before releasing it to the public
I am presenting evidence that this was staged. Why do i always need to explain to you the WHOLE event. One thing at a time. Just one photo is all it would take to debunk me. Shouldn't be too hard if i'm wrong , right

Noone even needs to address this supposed evidence. We can simply examine the logic if this were indeed a staged "false flag" attack. That is all any rational person needs to grasp to see that this was not a staged event.

The people are TALLER than the parking lot and the planter box. DUH !!! I have gotten a sunburn in my show booth while my jewelry was in the shade. There was one show were anyone standing was in the sun almost all day and the table weren't .

great your attempt at explaining this is wrong. why don't you go look at all the pictures and show me where the planter box is in shadow and the people in front of it are in bright light. shouldn't be too hard if i'm wrong. how many times are you going to bring up your show booth, wth does that have to do with anything.

"No, the burden of proof is your responsibility. You've presented a great deal of speculation claiming that it is evidence. Your opinion is just that"

what opinion is it that you are referring to. speculation is all on your end. again. i showed you the differences already. that is evidence. not sure why you guys don't understand this.

Well, realistically all you've presented is pure speculation based on photos and videos of uncertain timeframe.

how about this. " I think it's a little odd that there are completely different backgrounds in the photos in the video" I haven't heard even one person admit that! I can't even get you guys to admit the fact that it is hard for ME to believe the entire parking lot was swapped out , in what probably is no more than 2 hours.

Except it wasn't the entire parking lot, as best we can tell it was 4 cars that had moved.

I am not allowed to question that,

Go ahead, question away. So far you're only asking loaded questions formed around media with a timeframe that is completely unknown to any of us spectators.

and if I do, I need to tell you all the reasons for it, and what it means for the entire story. that isn't possible, or the point of this thread.

But it is precisely the point of why you're posting in this forum at all.

i came to the debunking forum to be debunked. or shown i am wrong. Not for you to give me your opinions what happened. not for you to tell me why would. again, if i'm so wrong it shouldn't be hard. and for the last time, "cars move" is not debunking.

"Cars move" is more than adequate explanation for something as trivial as what you're claiming is evidence of a vast conspiracy involving 20 dead children.

Of course you can find discrepancies given the sheer uncertainty of what we're working with - limited photographs and video and furthermore speculation as to the timeframe of said media. Good job.

However, if you want to be shown you're wrong, simply look at the logic. You keep dodging this.

Address the fact that there was apparently zero research done by the perpetrators. Address the fact that they apparently hired amateurs to do everything. All the while keep in mind this is an event involving 20 dead children in the public spotlight. Please explain how the super-secret-black-ops-staged-event-film-crew has fooled the world and the oh-so-unbiased and methodical truther community has it all figured out just by looking at the same exact media as the rest of us. This is where Occam's razor comes in to play.

 

[RolandD]

Every point you have been made has been debunked over and over. It seems that you refuse to accept the FACTS.

FACT i showed you 2 different backgrounds. FACT it is in the same place, FACT it purported by everyone and the pope, that these pictures were from the same day.

Opinion. cars moved there. proof. show me anything that proves that the cars all moved there in a 3 hour window. just to be safe. although i think its a lot closer to less than 2.

[ ] debunked
[x] still open to debate.

The probable reason the backgrounds appear different is that the photos were most likely take with two different camera or one camera was moved as the light changed. You, yourself, mentioned how photos taken with a telephoto lense distorts and flattens the image. At the distances we're looking at, photos of the same people taken with cameras positioned ten feet apart would show different backgrounds.

 

[hopstoopid]

"The probable reason the backgrounds appear different is that the photos were most likely take with two different camera or one camera was moved as the light changed. You, yourself, mentioned how photos taken with a telephoto lense distorts and flattens the image. At the distances we're looking at, photos of the same people taken with cameras positioned ten feet apart would show different backgrounds. "

let me get this straight, the reason the ambulances turned into cop cars was because there was more than one camera.

 

[RolandD]

In the interest of trying to adhere to Mick's polite policy, I'm out of this discussion.

Oh, what the hell? You need to remove your head from your arse.

 

[David Fraser]

Off topic but it would appear that with videos such as this there are people asking alot of questions yet doing very little to find actual answers. One would think that a good starting point would be to directly challenge the relevant media source, and from there publicly challenge the cameraman that shot the film. If there is something dodgy going on what would you have to fear by naming names?

 

[Mick West]

Every point you have been made has been debunked over and over. It seems that you refuse to accept the FACTS.

FACT i showed you 2 different backgrounds. FACT it is in the same place, FACT it purported by everyone and the pope, that these pictures were from the same day.

Opinion. cars moved there. proof. show me anything that proves that the cars all moved there in a 3 hour window. just to be safe. although i think its a lot closer to less than 2.

[ ] debunked
[x] still open to debate.

I think you misunderstand what debunking is.

The images themselves show that the cars have moved. There's multiple images, the cars in different position. Some cars arrive, some cars leave.

Unless you can demonstrate that there are two shots at the exact same time of day, then there's really nothing worth talking about here.

You seem far more interested in escalating this discussion than ending it. I'm banning you for two weeks. Look over all the photos again. Think about where the sun goes, and how the shadows move.

 

[nobody important]

Funny thing is, the creator of this video points out one of the police cars leaving the scene. But then he implies that it might have been blue screened like the weatherman. What I haven't noticed anyone point out (sorry if you have, I have ADD and don't follow long threads well) is the police tape that is in some of the footage/photos this video shows, and not in others. Wouldn't that be clear enough proof that the pictures he focuses on in the video are taken at different times?

Sure do appreciate all the hard work you guys do here.

 

[nobody important]

Oops. I was wrong. I watched again, and the police tape is there, it's just down lower in some photos. Sorry about that. BUT, maybe that's a clue as to why some photos look different. Different angle or something. Or maybe those pictures are much later because the police tape is so low to the ground (having dropped much lower than before???). No idea. Sorry for adding nothing of interest to this discussion. :/

 

[Mick West]

Oops. I was wrong. I watched again, and the police tape is there, it's just down lower in some photos. Sorry about that. BUT, maybe that's a clue as to why some photos look different. Different angle or something. Or maybe those pictures are much later because the police tape is so low to the ground (having dropped much lower than before???). No idea. Sorry for adding nothing of interest to this discussion. :/

The tape probably moved around as vehicles needed to go in and out. You can see them put up some tape at around 5:30 in this footage:
​

 

[Trailspotter]

I was mistaken about the time difference between the two aerial shots in #14 being about two hours. It is the most likely that the time difference was about four hours. The earlier shot was at about 11 AM and the later shot at about 3 PM. The alleged "staged" ground shots probably were taken between 3 PM and sunset (at 4:24 PM) when the sun was pretty low.

For timestamping of the aerial shots I've used the shadows from the same lamppost at the T-junction. In Google Earth, I've drawn a sundial at the base of this lamppost, using the sun azimuth at hour points from 10 AM to 4 PM. After that I have fitted both photos, using the ground features around the main road and the positions of two modelled lampposts on its sides:

View attachment Timestamping Sandy Hook Photos.kmz

 

[Clock]

Hop, do you actually think they shot these pictures over a course of 2 days? If so, why are there no eyedroppers? Who are the photographers of this shoot? Who are the actors? Are those their real identities? How much were these actors payed? Can you show me a reference source (a legit one, not from a conspiracy website) of this. If you can find this, then you got a case here. But until then, it's all up in the air. Do you honesltly believe that they asked the sun to move a little bit on this side because it looks better?

Come on now.

 

[Cairenn]

Not only that, but since Newtown was full of media from around the world, after it happened, wouldn't someone have NOTICED all the cars and ambulances at the fire station?

That is one of the problems with a lot of the conspiracies, they require thousands to be in on it and to not tell

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Not only that, but since Newtown was full of media from around the world, after it happened, wouldn't someone have NOTICED all the cars and ambulances at the fire station?

That is one of the problems with a lot of the conspiracies, they require thousands to be in on it and to not tell

Good point. How could something like that be staged in a public place and no one notice it? Doesn't even sound plausible to me.

 

[PCWilliams]

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.

Mick, you've got the patience of a saint.

 

[JRBids]

All I see from the truthers is a lot of questions. I'd like to see THEM give some answers to their questions, other than "it's a conspiracy!"

 

[PCWilliams]

All I see from the truthers is a lot of questions. I'd like to see THEM give some answers to their questions, other than "it's a conspiracy!"

To them, unanswered questions = a conspiracy. If their questions do get answered they just create more questions. It's a never ending rinse and repeat.

 

[Unregistered]

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

Nope, cars are incapable of moving, Mick. You talk as if transportation is what they were DESIGNED to do! And everyone knows that the sun doesn't move across the sky during the day; it goes up, stays in the same place for a few hours, then goes down to make way for the moon.

 

[Unregistered]

hopstoopid, the reason people are treating this as being trivial and unworthy of serious discussion is for several reasons which, when combined, make arguing on this to the point of semantics to be a waste of time:
#1. The point you are bringing up is incredibly minor. Cars are there in one picture. A while later, they aren't there. So what? It's a small inaccuracy, so who cares? (Note: The fact that it is a small inaccuracy in and of itself is not the reason people are discounting this, it is because of this in conjunction with reason 3)
#2. You claim that this inaccuracy is the result of it being staged. Although you are keen on calling out Mick for failing to provide "proof" to back up his claim, you have yet to provide even a shred to back up yours. It is merely unsupported speculation at this point. What makes yours any more valid than his?
#3. There is a simple, reasonable (and fairly obvious, if I may say so) explanation for the supposed inaccuracy: Somebody moved the cars in between shots. Of course, there is, as of right now, zero "proof" to back this up (And may I remind you, that is the same amount you have to support your claim). However, the reason people here are more likely to believe this rather than yours in not because they are shills or plants, but more likely because applying Occam's Razor makes this explanation the more likely of the two.

So, in summary, we have a small detail that has no definitive proof explaining what it is one way or the other but can be easily and rationally explained away by simply applying a modicum of logic while you continue to claim it was a convoluted conspiracy with nothing to support said claim. Do you understand now why people aren't taking this very seriously?

 

[Unregistered]

Another piece for your puzzle .. the gray (DHS) cars

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonian/photo/2012/12/-ba7b539ab8dcc9cd.JPG

http://i47.tinypic.com/ac52l1.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2wd33vr.png

 

[Mick West]

The grey cars are Conneticut State Police cruisers. Not DHS. Just police cars.

Example:

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/09/12/one-arrest-in-mansfield-home-invasion/

They were moved by the police at some time, probably to make room for ambulances and a triage area. The photo is from the AP, is is originally captioned:

[h=1]Police vehicles are lined up near a triage near Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where authorities say a gunman opened fire inside an elementary school in a shooting that left 27 people dead, including 18 children, Friday, Dec. 14, 2012.[/h][h=2]Photograph by: Julio Cortez, AP[/h]

It really seems to be grasping at straws now. Cars moved? So what? Those cars could have been moved literally in 30 seconds.

 

[Unregistered]

After viewing all the footage and listening to the reports it's evident that this was a pre planned drill.
To further the agenda of gun control.

:Captain Eric H May a former U.S Army military intelligence officer stated;
"The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out".

: Attorney General Eric Holder proposed that the public needs to be brainwashed against guns.

: Former head of the cia went before a house committee to state that his agency has been quite active in manipulating american media.

: The story from 2002 about how the pentagon plans to release fake media stories to help promote their agenda.

:HR 5736 - Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. Authorizes use of propaganda intended for foreign audiences on our domestic populace. Passed in May 2012.

 

[jvnk08]

After viewing all the footage and listening to the reports it's evident that this was a pre planned drill.
To further the agenda of gun control.


:Captain Eric H May a former U.S Army military intelligence officer stated;
"The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out".


: Attorney General Eric Holder proposed that the public needs to be brainwashed against guns.


: Former head of the cia went before a house committee to state that his agency has been quite active in manipulating american media.


: The story from 2002 about how the pentagon plans to release fake media stories to help promote their agenda.


:HR 5736 - Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. Authorizes use of propaganda intended for foreign audiences on our domestic populace. Passed in May 2012.

Is that so? Well, it doesn't seem like the most effective strategy: http://www.propublica.org/article/mass-shootings-do-little-to-change-state-gun-laws


So, the perpetrators of this mass shooting involving 20 children did no research into whether or not this would further their gun-grabbing agenda. Real solid logic there.

 

[Cairenn]

And you don't have the purpose or ability of that act correct either

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/23/much_ado_about_state_department_propaganda

And more info

"Critics on the left and right alike have charged that modernizing the Smith-Mundt Act will lift the floodgates for U.S. government propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens. Not so. Rather, the amended act will force greater government transparency and accountability and it will allow Americans insights into what Washington is communicating to audiences around the world."

http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/05/smith-mundt



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5736:

 

[Unregistered]

And you don't have the purpose or ability of that act correct either

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/23/much_ado_about_state_department_propaganda

And more info

"Critics on the left and right alike have charged that modernizing the Smith-Mundt Act will lift the floodgates for U.S. government propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens. Not so. Rather, the amended act will force greater government transparency and accountability and it will allow Americans insights into what Washington is communicating to audiences around the world."

http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/05/smith-mundt



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5736:

2013 NDAA included an amendment that;
Legalised domestic propaganda on the American public.
Allows them to legally carry out misinformation compaigns.

 

[Mick West]

2013 NDAA included an amendment that;
Legalised domestic propaganda on the American public.
Allows them to legally carry out misinformation compaigns.

No it did not, in fact the amendment specifically forbids that. See:

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/9820

 

[Unregistered]

No it did not, in fact the amendment specifically forbids that. See:

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/9820

You might want to carefully re read that.
There are clauses that allow it.
Not that they follow the rules anyway!

 

[Mick West]

You might want to carefully re read that.
There are clauses that allow it.
Not that they follow the rules anyway!

I did carefully read it. Didn't you see the breakdown in the link? Did you read the other posts in that thread? Even the ACLU thinks it's fine.

What clauses are you referring to?

 

[hopstoopid]

Ok, well, I still don't see any conclusive evidence to debunk my theory. this thread sure has been derailed, however. Isn't there a place to talk about propaganda in media? I would love to get involved in that , but this thread is supposed to be about the sandy hook media's fake photos.

I won't even get into the ridiculous reasons I got put on time out, even though I've pointed to some things mick has presented that has been outright conjecture, and suggests there hasn't been any real thought put into this.

Fine. I will concede to the overwhelming majority, cars move. I still haven't been convinced in this instance. I'm still waiting for definitive proof. I've seen that picture of the grey cars as well, but it just doesn't have anything there to reference to. Did anyone else have anything to show the class. ? I've seen other pictures of the parking lot at dusk and past 3 oclock. I still haven't found anything that shows a scene like in the grieving lady collapsing. I'm still trying to come up with a timeline for the 4 'families' of video with the "staged" background. Anyone have any thoughts about that?

A lot on here seem to jump to conclusions about me, thats fine. I am researching this subject, and I haven't found a lot to disprove many of my questions, I put forth in my first post. A lot of those questions have been quickly brushed off, at best, and just thrown into a category of inane questions. I have tried to present a side of this that not many have actually talked about. Most here don't even seem to read the whole thread, but like to chime in.I would suggest. If you have something to add, I would love to hear it, if anyone has found any proof to debunk my questions. I would love to see it. If you are just coming in with opinion based on reading 2 posts, do us a favor, read the entire thread first. Answer a question, or present a theory with some thought. If you aren't, you are just derailing this thread even further.

Come back into the other thread and discuss some of those other questions , that have been brushed off. like what was the other thing in the trunk of "lanza's" car. ?

This thread still hasn't really answered the sun questions at all, you've tried with the 'cars move theory" and there are some good specks of argument to that, but I had thought about the 'cars move theory' before posting and think that I need help believing it. Why? Well because I am curious and like to question. Thought you guys like to do that as well.

Ok, I have a few more pics that I have found very curious. I will show them on here, hopefully we can spark up some further talk. If anyone has a better picture of this I would love to see it. I have a very strong opinion as to what it looks like to me. I will let you all comment first. Thanks.

 

[Cairenn]

Why should the cars not have moved? While the shooting and it's aftermath, did take up a lot of time for the police, that doesn't mean that the rest of the town is in stasis. There will always be domestic disputes, drunks, some driving, traffic accidents and such.

Why don't you pick a SINGLE point that you feel hasn't been explained to your satisfaction? That will allow a better focus on just it.

 

[Pete Tar]

The top of a wall?
What's that thing on the other side of the car? Not that I can imagine how it matters.
Is it a still from a video, or a photo? Please post a link to the video if it's from one.

 

[hopstoopid]

Why should the cars not have moved? While the shooting and it's aftermath, did take up a lot of time for the police, that doesn't mean that the rest of the town is in stasis. There will always be domestic disputes, drunks, some driving, traffic accidents and such.

Why don't you pick a SINGLE point that you feel hasn't been explained to your satisfaction? That will allow a better focus on just it.

"
i will refer you to my last post, please read. ' ' Fine. I will concede to the overwhelming majority, cars move.... If you are just coming in with opinion based on reading 2 posts, do us a favor, read the entire thread first. Answer a question, or present a theory with some thought. If you aren't, you are just derailing this thread even further....Ok, I have a few more pics that I have found very curious. I will show them on here, hopefully we can spark up some further talk. If anyone has a better picture of this I would love to see it. I have a very strong opinion as to what it looks like to me. I will let you all comment first. Thanks.
( This is why this site is pretty much a joke)

Dear Cairenn,
Hi, I thought i should spell this out for you, what do you think the thing in the red box is?

Love, Hopstoopid.

Ps thank you to pete tarr for giving me the slightest bit of hope.

pps. i will give you a link soon.

 

[Trailspotter]

i should spell this out for you, what do you think the thing in the red box is?

The rear end of the truck (in this cropped image from the second photo in #12):