Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Man in The Woods

Status
Not open for further replies.

skids

New Member
Moderator Note - deirdre
This thread has been locked due to multiple instances of men 'in the woods' and new information being released in the investigation report a year after this thread was started. If you would like to discuss a specific 'man in the woods' event, please start a new thread following posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/
https://www.metabunk.org/metabunks-no-click-policy.t5158/



Manfredonia, the parent detained briefly, was never "in the woods" or seen coming out of the woods handcuffed. https://www.metabunk.org/posts/193381/

The man with a gun seen in the woods by towns folk was a plain clothes police officer.
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/91229/
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/77637/


Aerial footage of police entering (running into) the woods and detaining [someone] was 2 reporters, later in the day, coming through the woods to get photographs of the school after the police had blocked the school off to civilians.



The man Ron Lowe (blonde guy in interview footage) saw coming out of the woods handcuffed then placed in a police car, was a man from NY who had come to the school after reports of a shooting were aired.
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/85749/




Some "Truthers" (which I hate calling them) are mentioning a second man in the woods being detained was a off duty swat team member from another department.
Any info on this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There were two reported "men in the woods"

Chris Manfredonia, the father of a girl at the school was on his way there where he heard gunfire, so he ran towards the school.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/nation/la-na-1215-newtown-school-shooting-20121215
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...hool-shooting-20121214,0,1650719.story?page=2
The other person reportedly seen in the woods was an off-duty tactical squad police officer, out of uniform. With the amount of police there, and the initial chaos, it's not at all unexpected the the police would detain anyone who was not obviously a police officer. The fact that people will be detained in such a situation is ENTIRELY EXPECTED. It seems like this second person was not actually detained, just spotted and it led to obvious concerns of another shooter.

http://newtownbee.com/News/News/201...lice+Union+Seeks+Funding+For+Trauma+Treatment
It's also expected, and this is something that needs repeating, that initial media reports of such a situation are going to be fragmentary, constantly changing, and often wrong. It's chaos, there's a lot of people doing a lot of different things, and yet the media is there 24 hours, sucking up any tiny fragment of information and repeating it without verifying it, or even really understanding the context.

When people talk about "in the woods", it sounds a little suspicious, however the school is "in the woods", it's totally surrounded with just one road in. Approaching the school through the woods is to expected.

 
Last edited:
U

Unregistered

Guest
why was he running from police if he was a police officer?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
What was an armed off duty tactical squad police officer doing by himself on foot in the woods next to an elementary school? And why would he run from the scene rather than find the nearest officer to notify them of his credentials?
 

skids

New Member
Mick, is there a news link to verify the report of the second man and who he was and why he happened to be in the area?
Thanks
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Not buying it. Off duty cop in the woods in camo pants and a dark.jacket running from the scene and detained? Likely story. The news footage clearly shows the cops chasing a man who is running from the scene. Maybe he was an ON-DUTY agent running from the work he had just done.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not buying it. Off duty cop in the woods in camo pants and a dark.jacket running from the scene and detained? Likely story. The news footage clearly shows the cops chasing a man who is running from the scene. Maybe he was an ON-DUTY agent running from the work he had just done.
The detained man in camo pants and a dark jacket was Chris Manfredonia, a parent who was on his way to the school and ran around it when he heard gunshots.

The second reported man turned out to be a cop out of uniform. What exactly is unlikely about that?
 

skids

New Member
To debunk this, answers are needed
Why was he, off duty leo,there? Does he live right there in the area? What time was it?
The tinfoil brigade keeps bring this up. When they do, I'm looking for an answer.
Thanks
 

lotek

Active Member
"heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders"

RTFA...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
To debunk this, answers are needed
Why was he, off duty leo,there? Does he live right there in the area? What time was it?
The tinfoil brigade keeps bring this up. When they do, I'm looking for an answer.
Thanks
I think the problem here is in this video (you might want to turn off the audio, distracting music)



I see some men run into the woods, then stand around for a bit. I don't see anyone being chased. They run in, spread out a bit, then you can't really see what is going on. If they detained a guy, it seemed like they simply ran up to where he was, splitting up to surround him.

The simplest explanation was that he's a cop who was nearby, heard what was going on - probably for early media reports, after all the WABC chopper was overhead by that point.

UNfortunately it's not really clear exactly what happened. I'm presuming though that the video is not showing Manfredonia, as he was there much earlier.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders"

RTFA...
That was Manfredonia, the first guy, the off duty cop seems not to be a parent, and arrived later. But there's basically no details about him. Nothing suspicious either, as far as I can tell.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you guys haven't "debunked" anything. The off-duty swat guy in the woods is a big story. It doesn't make sense. The Newtown Bee said it was the off duty cop in the woods, not the parent going to make gingerbread cookies. If you're trying to "debunk" this story, you're going to have to do better than you have so far.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you guys haven't "debunked" anything. The off-duty swat guy in the woods is a big story. It doesn't make sense. The Newtown Bee said it was the off duty cop in the woods, not the parent going to make gingerbread cookies. If you're trying to "debunk" this story, you're going to have to do better than you have so far.
Pray tell, who made you the judge on if something is successfully debunked or not?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's not a lot to debunk with the second guy. Some blurry video, a report that it was a cop. It's stretch to find anything suspicious about it.

Of course people WILL find it suspicious, but there's nothing that can be done if people actually WANT things to be suspicious.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Nothing Debunked at all... Pay attention to the video only two of those three men were police officer running through the school yard... So dont say you didnt see them chasing anybody... and you should all get things straight before posting anything... If you didnt know only two of them were police officer obviously your investigation skills fall way too short to be even attempting to debunk anything... Before debunking your have to be intelligent and also know how to investigate a situation...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nothing Debunked at all... Pay attention to the video only two of those three men were police officer running through the school yard... So dont say you didnt see them chasing anybody... and you should all get things straight before posting anything... If you didnt know only two of them were police officer obviously your investigation skills fall way too short to be even attempting to debunk anything... Before debunking your have to be intelligent and also know how to investigate a situation...
How can you tell the third man is not a police officer?
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Nothing Debunked at all... Pay attention to the video only two of those three men were police officer running through the school yard... So dont say you didnt see them chasing anybody... and you should all get things straight before posting anything... If you didnt know only two of them were police officer obviously your investigation skills fall way too short to be even attempting to debunk anything... Before debunking your have to be intelligent and also know how to investigate a situation...
It doesn't look to me like they're chasing anyone. Those three individuals are all moving as a unit like part of a tactical squad hustling to join a larger team in the woods not unlike some of the tactical drills we practiced in the Army.

Here's a video that describes some basic tactical movements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zImWwM0w0Mk

And I sure hope English is not your primary language there unregistered, otherwise that snarky comment about intelligence just makes you sound quite silly in the wake of numerous grammatical and spelling errors. Just sayin'.
 

angryjock

New Member
Nothing Debunked at all... Pay attention to the video only two of those three men were police officer running through the school yard... So dont say you didnt see them chasing anybody... and you should all get things straight before posting anything... If you didnt know only two of them were police officer obviously your investigation skills fall way too short to be even attempting to debunk anything... Before debunking your have to be intelligent and also know how to investigate a situation...
This is where conspiracy people have it fundamentally wrong. In the rational world you don't have to prove someone DIDN'T DO something. If you believe that a man in the woods killed people at the school it is up to YOU to prove THAT, not the other way around.

You say 'nothing debunked at all'. So what are we debunking then? You have no argument. What did the man in the woods do? Put your money where your mouth is.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
This is where conspiracy people have it fundamentally wrong. In the rational world you don't have to prove someone DIDN'T DO something. If you believe that a man in the woods killed people at the school it is up to YOU to prove THAT, not the other way around.

You say 'nothing debunked at all'. So what are we debunking then? You have no argument. What did the man in the woods do? Put your money where your mouth is.
No. The burder of proof lies with the accuser, the only person accused of any crime is Adam Lanza, theres been no evidence to support the charge except that he was dead at the scene, thats it.

And Mick u havent debunked this, only raised more questions. thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No. The burder of proof lies with the accuser, the only person accused of any crime is Adam Lanza, theres been no evidence to support the charge except that he was dead at the scene, thats it.
And the eyewitnesses who saw him shoot the children.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
There is the audio of the Police Radio of that morning. they said they spotted 2 men by the back of the building. it is real audio from the cops. they said they were running to the back by the gym. who were these two men? YouTube the 911 radio call
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
according to pat jacks video on youtube, the men running into the woods footage was taken at 12:59!!
this raises a lot more questions.


so these are NOT the 2 shadows running behind the gym as 911 call says around 940? (i forget right now) if this analysis is correct. it is definitely AFTER they opened the shed. obv.


so who are these 6!!! people. what are they doing? I'm still trying to find the time of the first PC with vance. it was preliminarily set at 1pm, but haven't found anything yet. So was Vance is saying the woods and everything was clear by then. I can't say for sure these guys are chasing anyone or part of a 'team' it does look like they are surrounding someone in the woods, but this footage has a major cut in it, and who's to say what time it was then? there are def 6 people though...

 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
well what time do you say it is. ? There is a 11min video showing you how he does it. I think this is an interesting 'science' and will be experimenting with it myself. I'm pretty confidant this guy is getting the times correct. None of his times has been conflicting yet. It does show the shed being opened though, so it obv cannot be from the 911 tapes and" 2 shadows running behind the gym"
would you actually like to comment about what this might mean. ?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
If this video was later in the day, then wouldn't the footage just be of general sweeps of the area, when there was no 'live' threat? They probably tried to portray it as significant action because they were hungry for anything that could be made to look sensational. Unfortunately for media logic, all the 'sensation' had already happened.
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
hey mick, i have a few problems with your posts itt, and i will try and explain why, i think, you haven't debunked anything.

Chris Manfredonia, the father of a girl at the school was on his way there where he heard gunfire, so he ran towards the school.

first of all you are quoting ONE newspaper article 2x. notice at the bottom of the chicago article it clearly says, "latimes". unintentional?

2ndly you have a hard time with the rush for media to get out a story(any story) and go with it. "It's also expected, and this is something that needs repeating, that initial media reports of such a situation are going to be fragmentary, constantly changing, and often wrong. It's chaos, there's a lot of people doing a lot of different things, and yet the media is there 24 hours, sucking up any tiny fragment of information and repeating it without verifying it, or even really understanding the context. "

but you are "debunking" this whole CM story with ONE article you've quoted 2x and was published ON 12/14.

it also says "he smelled sulfur" I am not a "gun guy" I haven't been around when these things get shot. He hears "popping" noises,then ran towards the school, but is so close he can smell sulfur. Wouldn't he be pretty close to the shooter if he can smell sulfur, so why wouldn't he be able to know that these are LOUD gunshots?and why would he have to then run to the school. can you smell sulfur from the parking lot? like i said, i don't know and would like to ask. He wouldve had to come in through the front door, since all doors are locked and this is how everyone get in after 930. This guys story seems VERY important. So he gets to the school, sometime after the shooting starts,didn't see anyone dressed in camo and black with guns go up to the school, but before cops get there. So we have to assume he drives? there, gets out of the car and starts walking to the front of the school. as he's walking he hears popping and smells sulfur, starts running towards the school. then he is caught 'running around the school" what is your interperatation of that ? he was inside the school running around?. or he went to another door besides the front door? why would he not go to the front door first? if he did, get in, and was running around the school , didnt he see lanza? This is an awfully small amount of detail, to disprove all of these questions it seems like nobody else thinks about but me? come on?

The first responders there(chief of police) say they went to the back of the building and broke a window to get in. this again, is confusing me. Could CM have seen them, followed them, and then get caught by the 2nd responders? I don't know?

"The detained man in camo pants and a dark jacket was Chris Manfredonia, a parent who was on his way to the school and ran around it when he heard gunshots.....But there's basically no details about him"


Mick how do you know that? Is this YOUR theory? Where did you read this? you read a 2 paragraph report and decided that HE was the guy in the camo pants. What about roy low? he said in the interview he saw them take a guy out of the woods and put him in the cop car where he is still sitting, he has camo pants. Your article says he was 'briefly' held by police. So why would he still be in the car when roy low is interviewed( i haven't found out the actual time of his interview , but i am searching)? was roy low there that early to see him. I believe CM was detained at 944? again something i am looking for.
"The second reported man turned out to be a cop out of uniform. What exactly is unlikely about that? "
well absolutely nothing i guess. So in one of the biggest tragedy's ever, to see an off duty tactical squad police officer in the woods with a gun, is unimportant. NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ALONG KID! Soooo... who was he? Why was he there exactly. ? why was he hiding in the woods? Isn't this the same newspaper who interviewed the principal? Now we are going to not question the story or the " a reliable local law enforcement source"
The local law enforcement(who cannot find 2 ladies in the school 4 hours later) anonymously tells the newton bee(see above) an anonymous ODTSPO was found in the woods and we shouldn't think anything of it. ?

In your eyes that is good enough ? do you not want to actually put some thought into this. or you believe what you are told.You quote 2(! see above) sources when they are convenient(although not entirely reliable, you said so,) and then as far as i can tell completely made up "the fact" that CM was in the camo pants. link me prove me wrong. debunk me!

"And the eyewitnesses who saw him shoot the children. "
can you link me to the eyewitness who can eyeball adam lanza shooting? I can't find one.


"Of course people WILL find it suspicious, but there's nothing that can be done if people actually WANT things to be suspicious. "
this street goes both ways, if you don't look you won't find anything to be suspicious about. if you blindly believe anonymous sources , or just make up your own theories, why should you actually THINK about it.

IMO you haven't looked into this story very closely , but still are making definitive comments about it, and debunking this thread with your own theories.

I haven't really looked into some of the other dubunked threads , is this honestly the best you can do?

Also IMO opinion, according to yourl ' metabunk about' section. you are not really looking for the truth. you are looking to debunk "conspiracy theorists" It seems like you go into each independent situation with a preconceived notion that the CT are wrong and the "official story" is right. IN your defense I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the rest of the forums, yet, but that is the course you seem to be taking with this story. I would encourage you to put some THOUGHT into this subject , if you continue to comment about sandy hook.

what does it mean to you , if gene rosen is lying? or if the cops didn't check the closet.? I did have more questions, but I doubt you would actually answer them, since you've been so quiet in the other thread.

As I've said, in my first post, i would love to find some serious discussion about these questions i have, but it looks more and more like it isn't going to be on this website.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As I've said, in my first post, i would love to find some serious discussion about these questions i have, but it looks more and more like it isn't going to be on this website.
Probably not, at least not with me. I think the questions you ask are bad questions. They are questions about trivial inconsistencies and unclear aspects of a complex situation where inconsistencies and unclear aspects are inevitable. You could take just about any situation, and come up with a string of similar banal questions. You seem to just be asking these weak questions to promote conspiracy theories.

I'm not playing that game. If someone makes a statement that seem to be wrong, if they are spreading bunk, then I'll debunk that. But these questions you ask, they are not even bunk. They don't deserve a response.
 

hopstoopid

Banned
Banned
You certainly are good at avoiding real questions. You tell me that mine are bad and not even worthy of discussion. You host a discussion forum, but answer by making up your own facts and name calling. should this be called the agree with me or be ignored forum. ?

I CALLED YOU OUT FOR PULLING "FACTS" OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! NO RESPONSE!! very convenient to avoid that , what would your 'thankers' think.? GASP

You would have a hard time arguing your points if you stopped using the word conspiracy theory. It's as if you think you are above any rational discussion by lumping everything together into a big pile and saying "its so illogical, its impossible., name call,( snicker),your questions are stupid, you think its a obama hoax, you truthers are all the same" that is very grown up of you.

The fact that Gene Rosen's story is full of shit is not insignificant. The fact that the police probably screwed up badly is not insignificant.

The fact that you say shit you cannot backup and refuse to discuss means you are a PHONY! you can call me anything you want , you can call the sandy hook thing whatever you want. you are a SHAM!! Why do you make up facts when you are debunking a story?

I'm sorry if my banal questions don't fall into your ez to bunk CT. So you take the easiest way out.
You haven't done any critical thinking or had anything real to say in this whole sandy hook forum.

Again. You don't have any proof, CM wore camo. You don't have any proof a witness saw the shooter! YOU MADE THAT UP!!!!!You answered ONE of my questions like you were THE authority without any other thoughts about it.(the site must've gone to your head) You've sited the same article twice, as if it were 2 different sources. That is the extent of your 'arguments/discussion" You take a new poster who wants a discussion about things that haven't been debunked and you just sleep walk thru you answers. You should be able to do better. You sure act like you do.

IS EVERYONE HERE JUST BLINDLY FOLLOWING MICK? he cannot answer my questions so he calls beyond bunk.yeah ok. HE MAKES UP FACTS to fit his story. as far as I know mick hasn't found one problem or asked one question about the official story. THAT is not skeptical. THAT is being a sucker! hook, line, and sinker. IT seems like you believe what the media and govt will tell you. FOOL ME ONCE shame on you . FOOL ME TWICE shame on me. If you think the they haven't lied to you, i have a whole library of books for you to read.

Can most of the story be real, but other parts are not? Not even a consideration on your part. Just because gene is a big liar doesn't mean that kids didn't get shot up. IT means we have to find out who else knows about it. Just becuause the cops messed up and missed the ladies, doesn't mean they are involved in a massive cover up. YOU cannot see this point. so in your opinion No, we shouldn't even ask any questions. we shouldn't discuss things you disagree with. THIS is a supposed to be a critical thinking site? It seems like you don't do any.You let others make up your mind for you. They told us already. GO see snopes.com PERIOD THE END

CALL me out for making up my own facts!? CALL me out for one thing i said that is a CT?.CALL me out for being wrong about a something i presented here? CALL me out for making up a full story for what happened? CALL me out for using repetitive useless links. nah, its funner just to say i believe in everything on here and use the Conspiracy theorist term, well because it always works. (in your eyes)
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
the official story
I see this mentioned a lot, but where do I go to find this official story?

To me, that's one major part of the problem. There is no official story. It seems to me that lots of accounts from lots of different sources have been put together and these then get called "the official story" when it is anything but.

It would be a good start to realise that there is nothing official about that story. It's the conspiracists story.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
hopstoopid, I understand you are frustrated. But I really think you need to take a step back. Inconsistencies in a media narrative of a huge event with a large number of people are inevitable. You can find such inconsistencies in ANY media narrative - especially one that is mostly based on related the eyewitness testimony of highly traumatized people trust into a totally alien situation.

Please don't take it personally. You seem like an intelligent person.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Folks 'see' a lot of things wrong, even when it is not a traumatic situation. Recently, in Maryland the police got several reports of a LION walking around in a neighborhood---it was a standard Poodle with a lion cut. About 2 years ago, the Dallas police went looking for a pair of 'tigers' that several folks had reported seeing near a transit station. They found a surveillance camera that had caught them---it was a pair of bobcats.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
You certainly are good at avoiding real questions. You tell me that mine are bad and not even worthy of discussion. You host a discussion forum, but answer by making up your own facts and name calling. should this be called the agree with me or be ignored forum. ?

I CALLED YOU OUT FOR PULLING "FACTS" OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! NO RESPONSE!! very convenient to avoid that , what would your 'thankers' think.? GASP

You would have a hard time arguing your points if you stopped using the word conspiracy theory. It's as if you think you are above any rational discussion by lumping everything together into a big pile and saying "its so illogical, its impossible., name call,( snicker),your questions are stupid, you think its a obama hoax, you truthers are all the same" that is very grown up of you.

The fact that Gene Rosen's story is full of shit is not insignificant. The fact that the police probably screwed up badly is not insignificant.

The fact that you say shit you cannot backup and refuse to discuss means you are a PHONY! you can call me anything you want , you can call the sandy hook thing whatever you want. you are a SHAM!! Why do you make up facts when you are debunking a story?

I'm sorry if my banal questions don't fall into your ez to bunk CT. So you take the easiest way out.
You haven't done any critical thinking or had anything real to say in this whole sandy hook forum.

Again. You don't have any proof, CM wore camo. You don't have any proof a witness saw the shooter! YOU MADE THAT UP!!!!!You answered ONE of my questions like you were THE authority without any other thoughts about it.(the site must've gone to your head) You've sited the same article twice, as if it were 2 different sources. That is the extent of your 'arguments/discussion" You take a new poster who wants a discussion about things that haven't been debunked and you just sleep walk thru you answers. You should be able to do better. You sure act like you do.

IS EVERYONE HERE JUST BLINDLY FOLLOWING MICK? he cannot answer my questions so he calls beyond bunk.yeah ok. HE MAKES UP FACTS to fit his story. as far as I know mick hasn't found one problem or asked one question about the official story. THAT is not skeptical. THAT is being a sucker! hook, line, and sinker. IT seems like you believe what the media and govt will tell you. FOOL ME ONCE shame on you . FOOL ME TWICE shame on me. If you think the they haven't lied to you, i have a whole library of books for you to read.

Can most of the story be real, but other parts are not? Not even a consideration on your part. Just because gene is a big liar doesn't mean that kids didn't get shot up. IT means we have to find out who else knows about it. Just becuause the cops messed up and missed the ladies, doesn't mean they are involved in a massive cover up. YOU cannot see this point. so in your opinion No, we shouldn't even ask any questions. we shouldn't discuss things you disagree with. THIS is a supposed to be a critical thinking site? It seems like you don't do any.You let others make up your mind for you. They told us already. GO see snopes.com PERIOD THE END

CALL me out for making up my own facts!? CALL me out for one thing i said that is a CT?.CALL me out for being wrong about a something i presented here? CALL me out for making up a full story for what happened? CALL me out for using repetitive useless links. nah, its funner just to say i believe in everything on here and use the Conspiracy theorist term, well because it always works. (in your eyes)

The only person I see namecalling is you.

Now, what do you think happened? You say "call me out for being wrong". You don't "say" anything, you just ask questions. Because something looks suspicious to you. Answer one of your own questions, and tell US what you are deducing from what you say are inconsistencies.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Not buying it. Off duty cop in the woods in camo pants and a dark.jacket running from the scene and detained? Likely story. The news footage clearly shows the cops chasing a man who is running from the scene. Maybe he was an ON-DUTY agent running from the work he had just done.

Who said he was running? I live in the woods. Sometimes I walk through the woods. Nothing suspicious about that. Now you just made that up about him running AWAY from the "work" he had just done. No facts here, just a lot of feelings.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
This is where conspiracy people have it fundamentally wrong. In the rational world you don't have to prove someone DIDN'T DO something. If you believe that a man in the woods killed people at the school it is up to YOU to prove THAT, not the other way around.

You say 'nothing debunked at all'. So what are we debunking then? You have no argument. What did the man in the woods do? Put your money where your mouth is.
You sure have that right In todays world nothing has to be proven just go along with it and question nothing. If the man in the car was in handcuffs and sitting in front seat and there to do gingerbread or what ever I am sure someone would have known him but wht was he kept off camera also the man in the woods was running and taken to the ground and the helicopeter reporter said they were putting him into handcuffs. Why was a off duty cop at the school anyway. Just another question but will go unanswered as we never saw the two guys faces at the time of apprehension so wr will never know who they really were. it was convient to put out their names after the fact.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
You sure have that right In todays world nothing has to be proven just go along with it and question nothing. If the man in the car was in handcuffs and sitting in front seat and there to do gingerbread or what ever I am sure someone would have known him but wht was he kept off camera also the man in the woods was running and taken to the ground and the helicopeter reporter said they were putting him into handcuffs. Why was a off duty cop at the school anyway. Just another question but will go unanswered as we never saw the two guys faces at the time of apprehension so wr will never know who they really were. it was convient to put out their names after the fact.
Would you have recognized him if you saw his face? Do you believe they arrested someone then let him go? Why bother putting him in handcuffs if they had no intention of arresting him?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I think the imagined scenario is - local cops secure the scene and all people within it, secret agent caught up up in net fresh from finishing the gruesome job of mass-murdering children flashes his credentials, is let go with a 'pardon me sir'. Exciting stuff.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
The detained man in camo pants and a dark jacket was Chris Manfredonia, a parent who was on his way to the school and ran around it when he heard gunshots.

The second reported man turned out to be a cop out of uniform. What exactly is unlikely about that?
Nothing... it is absolutely perfectly likely... if it was a black ops mission and he was a tactical team member who planned to escape by simply transforming into one of the first responders, but got caught anyway.

But to the issue: Chris Manfredonia was NOT -- repeat NOT -- the "detained man in camo pants and dark jacket". Chris was asked that very question -- were you that guy, and he was very clear in stating that he was NOT wearing "camo pants", did NOT run around the gym side of the school building, and was NEVER IN THE WOODS, was NEVER placed in a police car, and never shouted to parents, "I didn't do it!"

So whoever those guys were being chased into the woods, with one wearing camo pants and black jacket handcuffed and placed into the front seat of a police car, neither was Chris Manfredonia.

And he was not the other suspect arrested at St Rose of Lima Catholic Church that same day just a few miles down the road, either. Three suspects, two seen on video, plus patsy Lanza, makes four, four doors of the black Honda open, four doors open, as described by eyewitness Barbara Sibley, equals four occupants. One lone gunman does not run around the car and open all four doors before storming the target zone.

The title of this thread: Debunked: not in the slightest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
deirdre Debunked: Newtown Bee removing article links related to Sandy Hook citizen investigations Sandy Hook 3
J Debunked: Sandy Hook Dad Dave Wheeler CAUGHT in SWAT uniform on day of shooting Sandy Hook 102
deirdre Debunked: Medical Examiner 'caught' setting up fake crime scene Sandy Hook 4
deirdre Debunked: Kaitlin Roig could not fit her 15 students in bathroom Sandy Hook 27
deirdre Debunked: Police took photos before attending to wounded Sandy Hook 1
deirdre Debunked: Hochsprung Email Suggests Sandy Hook Vacated Months Before Massacre Event Sandy Hook 11
MikeG Debunked: Crime Scene Photos "Prove" Sandy Hook was a Hoax Sandy Hook 107
Mike Fl Debunked: Sandy Hook FEMA Drill PDF Sandy Hook 8
Mike Fl Debunked: The Claim That the Envelope Was Found in the Lanza Home Sandy Hook 10
Mick West Debunked: FBI Says No one killed at Sandy Hook [Included in CT State total] Sandy Hook 48
deirdre Debunked: The band on Lanza's hat wasnt used by Flexfit until 2013 Sandy Hook 27
deirdre Debunked: United Way (Sandy Hook Donations) refuses FOIA requests Sandy Hook 2
J Debunked: Full proof sandy hook was closed 5 yrs ago Sandy Hook 25
deirdre Debunked: Sandy Hook Residents got their houses for free Sandy Hook 10
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook Victims not in Social Security Death Index (SSDI Official Death Records) Sandy Hook 9
Keith Johnson Debunked: "Drill" Protocols Followed at Sandy Hook Sandy Hook 3
Mick West Debunked: Why were Life Star helicopters not deployed to Sandy Hook School? Sandy Hook 208
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook: Nick and Laura Phelps actors, Jennifer Greenberg Sandy Hook 18
hopstoopid Debunked: Sandy Hook. Media staging photos. Sandy Hook 167
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook: Anderson Cooper Green Screen Disappearing Nose with Pozner Sandy Hook 20
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook: Nuns wearing comfortable shoes Sandy Hook 9
jvnk08 Debunked: Sandy Hook: "End the life of Adam" Sandy Hook 13
Mick West Debunked: Jesse Lewis in Obama Photo after Sandy Hook Sandy Hook 35
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Guns, Assault Rifle, Gun in the Trunk, Handguns Sandy Hook 15
A Debunked: Sandy Hook: Not Enough Tears Sandy Hook 215
Met Watch Debunked: Vimeo Video Proves Sandy Hook Was Preplanned Sandy Hook 16
Joe Debunked: Emilie Parker Still Alive after Sandy Hook Sandy Hook 278
Mick West Debunked: Sandy Hook Hoax (OP includes quick links ) Sandy Hook 308
scombrid Debunked: HAARP Builds Noreaster in wake of Sandy HAARP 4
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Sandy, Chemtrails, HAARP and Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 138
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top