Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Man in The Woods

Status
Not open for further replies.

RustyShackleford

New Member
Why is this labeled debunked? What got debunked? There WAS an off-duty tactical SWAT officer who was apprehended in the woods. None of you can explain what he was doing there...so how is this in any way debunked?
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Rusty, how do you know he was SWAT? From what I understand he was just an off-duty police officer.

What does that being SWAT mean in regards to a hoax, anyways?
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
Rusty, how do you know he was SWAT? From what I understand he was just an off-duty police officer.

What does that being SWAT mean in regards to a hoax, anyways?

If I remember correctly he was SWAT or a tactical officer, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. My point is that none of the questions were answered, and this should not be considered debunked. What was an off-duty police officer doing there at the time of the shooting? Why was he moving away from police? The idea that he would take it upon himself to enter a crime scene out of uniform seems very, very unlikely. Was he there already, by pure coincidence?

Surely you must understand that his presence there is suspicious until we understand what he was doing there. Given the fact that the Connecticut District Attorney is looking at other "potential suspects", you can't blame people for considering the idea of an accomplice. The authorities are certainly investigating this angle.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
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.

That's a lot of unverified claims. Care to cite some sources?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
"A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source."

http://newtownbee.com/News/2012-12-27__14-58-27/Police%20Union%20Seeks%20Funding%20For%20Trauma%20Treatment

So he was off-duty and from another town...what was he doing there?

Hunting? Walking? Getting some exercise?

I walk in the woods all the time, when the weather is good I take a walk every day to a pond. Your questioning of "what was he doing there?" is awfully close to "Vhere are your PAPAHS?!"
 
A

alan alda's sleeve

Guest
That's a lot of unverified claims. Care to cite some sources?

I spoke with Chris Manfredonia personally. He made those claims himself. If you wish to contact me, you may do so at yephiah@yahoo.com and I will give you my phone number and you may call me.

Chris Manfredonia is a semi-public figure in the local community. He is the athletic director at Fairfield Warde High School.

Again, he was not wearing camo. He was never in the woods. He was not put into a police car. He was never inside the school that day. He did run around the outside of the building on the playground equipment side, not the gym side, of the building trying to get to his daughter's classroom after he heard gunshots inside the school before he got to the front door. He couldn't get in. He was detained by police for about ten minutes until they positively ID'd him. He spent the next hour at the firehouse waiting for his daughter's class to come out.

Chris Manfredonia and the man in the woods are two different persons. We know who Chris is. We still do not know who the man in the woods is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I spoke with Chris Manfredonia personally. He made those claims himself. If you wish to contact me, you may do so at yephiah@yahoo.com and I will give you my phone number and you may call me.

Chris Manfredonia is a semi-public figure in the local community. He is the athletic director at Fairfield Warde High School.

Again, he was not wearing camo. He was never in the woods. He was not put into a police car. He was never inside the school that day. He did run around the outside of the building on the playground equipment side, not the gym side, of the building trying to get to his daughter's classroom after he heard gunshots inside the school before he got to the front door. He couldn't get in. He was detained by police for about ten minutes until they positively ID'd him. He spent the next hour at the firehouse waiting for his daughter's class to come out.

Chris Manfredonia and the man in the woods are two different persons. We know who Chris is. We still do not know who the man in the woods is.

You are probably not going to know either. As far as anyone knows it was just an off-duty policeman who had gone to help, he was detained until he was identified. Which seems perfectly reasonable.

Does Chris think that someone besides Lanza was involved?
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
You are probably not going to know either. As far as anyone knows it was just an off-duty policeman who had gone to help, he was detained until he was identified. Which seems perfectly reasonable.

Does Chris think that someone besides Lanza was involved?

The only road leading to the school was locked down fairly quickly. Any SWAT officer knows that entering into an active shooter situation like that would only make the job of the police harder and possibly put himself at risk...which it did. He would've had to have been there before first responders. Why was he there? If he was there to help, why did he go into the woods?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
You are probably not going to know either. As far as anyone knows it was just an off-duty policeman who had gone to help, he was detained until he was identified. Which seems perfectly reasonable.

From photos and videos, it is clear the entire campus was swarming with all kinds of policemen, all with guns, uniformed and tactical swat outfitted (camo pants and dark jackets with guns, just like the man in the woods) even some plain clothed ones, from all sorts of jurisdictions (local, state, FBI, ATF).

The question is: Why was this one off-duty SWAT cop chased, apprehended, handcuffed, led out of the woods and set into a police car? There was a reason. None of the dozens and dozens if not hundreds of other officers/troopers/agents milling around were. There was a reason this one was. What was that reason?

And no, it does not seem reasonable in the slightest that this one out of all of them would be handcuffed and detained -- without explanation.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The only road leading to the school was locked down fairly quickly. Any SWAT officer knows that entering into an active shooter situation like that would only make the job of the police harder and possibly put himself at risk...which it did. He would've had to have been there before first responders. Why was he there? If he was there to help, why did he go into the woods?

Does no one here live in a rural area? People are in the woods all the time.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
From photos and videos, it is clear the entire campus was swarming with all kinds of policemen, all with guns, uniformed and tactical swat outfitted (camo pants and dark jackets with guns, just like the man in the woods) even some plain clothed ones, from all sorts of jurisdictions (local, state, FBI, ATF).

The question is: Why was this one off-duty SWAT cop chased, apprehended, handcuffed, led out of the woods and set into a police car? There was a reason. None of the dozens and dozens if not hundreds of other officers/troopers/agents milling around were. There was a reason this one was. What was that reason?

And no, it does not seem reasonable in the slightest that this one out of all of them would be handcuffed and detained -- without explanation.

Because they didn't recognize him?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I refer the poster to the answer I gave earlier:


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
Does no one here live in a rural area? People are in the woods all the time.

I live in a rural area. When people are in my woods without my permission, it is called trespassing, and they will be detained, by me. Look at the aerial photo of the school Mick has posted here in this thread. Yes there are 'trees' we are all calling the 'woods', but beyond the treed area, especially immediately surrounding the gym side of the building, the school is actually surrounded by adjoining and contiguous lots made up of private homes and businesses -- private property. The 'woods' are not a National Forest, National Park, BLM, DNR or other public access area -- the 'woods' are school property, not public property. And to get to those 'woods' from the road, one would first have to 'trespass' through the wall of private property of those homes and businesses, many of which are fenced. So, no, the fastest way for LEO to get to the school is not trespassing through private property and then traipsing down a muddy bank filled with trees and underbrush, it is by way of a vehicle down Dickerson Dr, the way all the other LEOs got in.

Besides, the men on the video were being chased into the woods by the police from the school, not tramping down the hill through the woods to the school. We don't know from the video how these men got to the school in the first place. Perhaps they were passengers in the black Honda. All four doors were seen by eyewitnesses wide open during the shooting after all, indicating multiple occupants. Or was Lanza Obsessive-Compulsive, too, and just could not keep from running around and opening all the doors of his car before shooting his way into the school?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I live in a rural area. When people are in my woods without my permission, it is called trespassing, and they will be detained, by me. Look at the aerial photo of the school Mick has posted here in this thread. Yes there are 'trees' we are all calling the 'woods', but beyond the treed area, especially immediately surrounding the gym side of the building, the school is actually surrounded by adjoining and contiguous lots made up of private homes and businesses -- private property. The 'woods' are not a National Forest, National Park, BLM, DNR or other public access area -- the 'woods' are school property, not public property. And to get to those 'woods' from the road, one would first have to 'trespass' through the wall of private property of those homes and businesses, many of which are fenced. So, no, the fastest way for LEO to get to the school is not trespassing through private property and then traipsing down a muddy bank filled with trees and underbrush, it is by way of a vehicle down Dickerson Dr, the way all the other LEOs got in.

I think from the map that going up Crestwood drive would be a lot faster. No private property or muddy banks required.



It seems perfectly plausible that a very large number of LEOs were called to the scene (which they obviously were), and there was just a bit of minor confusion about who was where, leading to questioning of people.

Besides, the men on the video were being chased into the woods by the police from the school, not tramping down the hill through the woods to the school.

Nobody is running away in the videos. There are men running INTO the woods.

We don't know from the video how these men got to the school in the first place. Perhaps they were passengers in the black Honda. All four doors were seen by eyewitnesses wide open during the shooting after all, indicating multiple occupants. Or was Lanza Obsessive-Compulsive, too, and just could not keep from running around and opening all the doors of his car before shooting his way into the school?

I'd imagine the police opened the doors, to see what was inside.
 
Last edited:
U

Unregistered

Guest
I'd imagine the police opened the doors, to see what was inside.

Except that your wildly speculative imagining here (which is strange considering your thread purports to debunk wild speculation) would be incorrect, since parent Barbara Sibley already told Diane Sawyer on national tv that she walked up to the school doors past the black Honda, and saw all its doors wide open, thought that was strange, then saw the window next to the front doors blown out, thought that was strange, sensed a quiet in the building, thought that was strange, then heard gunshots inside, and by then realized there was a shooting going on and ran to the dumpsters in the parking lot and hid there until she saw police arrive.

Your attempt at rebuttal by simply offering your own speculation reminds me of the Huffington Post, Atlantic Wire and Salon pieces that purport to debunk the multiple shooter suspicions by hilariously claiming that the man in the woods was "probably" Chris Manfredonia. "I sneer at your speculations... here, try one of mine."

Chris was never in the woods. All the doors were already all open.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I live in a rural area. When people are in my woods without my permission, it is called trespassing, and they will be detained, by me. Look at the aerial photo of the school Mick has posted here in this thread. Yes there are 'trees' we are all calling the 'woods', but beyond the treed area, especially immediately surrounding the gym side of the building, the school is actually surrounded by adjoining and contiguous lots made up of private homes and businesses -- private property. The 'woods' are not a National Forest, National Park, BLM, DNR or other public access area -- the 'woods' are school property, not public property. And to get to those 'woods' from the road, one would first have to 'trespass' through the wall of private property of those homes and businesses, many of which are fenced. So, no, the fastest way for LEO to get to the school is not trespassing through private property and then traipsing down a muddy bank filled with trees and underbrush, it is by way of a vehicle down Dickerson Dr, the way all the other LEOs got in.

Besides, the men on the video were being chased into the woods by the police from the school, not tramping down the hill through the woods to the school. We don't know from the video how these men got to the school in the first place. Perhaps they were passengers in the black Honda. All four doors were seen by eyewitnesses wide open during the shooting after all, indicating multiple occupants. Or was Lanza Obsessive-Compulsive, too, and just could not keep from running around and opening all the doors of his car before shooting his way into the school?

Looks like there is an awful lot of WOODS around the baseball field.

Where I live there are a lot of farms and there is also a lot of preserved land, owned by the county, or the land preservation society. The farm near me I walk across all the time to go to the 100 acres of preserved land next to it and walk my dog, and no one has ever stopped me. The farmers don't mind you walking on the perimeter of their property and the preserved land has no one living on it. We do not have armed farmers chasing us off the land, many don't even live on that parcel.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Except that your wildly speculative imagining here (which is strange considering your thread purports to debunk wild speculation) would be incorrect, since parent Barbara Sibley already told Diane Sawyer on national tv that she walked up to the school doors past the black Honda, and saw all its doors wide open, thought that was strange, then saw the window next to the front doors blown out, thought that was strange, sensed a quiet in the building, thought that was strange, then heard gunshots inside, and by then realized there was a shooting going on and ran to the dumpsters in the parking lot and hid there until she saw police arrive.

Your attempt at rebuttal by simply offering your own speculation reminds me of the Huffington Post, Atlantic Wire and Salon pieces that purport to debunk the multiple shooter suspicions by hilariously claiming that the man in the woods was "probably" Chris Manfredonia. "I sneer at your speculations... here, try one of mine."

Chris was never in the woods. All the doors were already all open.

Yes, I was offering speculation. The point of that is that for a given situation there are often multiple possible reasons why that situation may have ended up that way. I was offering one that seemed vastly more probably than multiple gunmen.

If the doors were in fact already all opened before the police arrived, then we've got a couple of competing hypotheses: either Lanza opened the doors, or there were several people in the car with him, and they left the doors open, or someone else was there before Sibley, and they opened the doors.

Here's Sibley's interview (With Couric, not Sawyer).

http://www.katiecouric.com/features/one-familys-story-of-survival/

It's not clear who was at the school before she was.

Speculation is fine, because it explores the range of possible events that can fit known evidence. It's not fine if you say "this is what happened", but it's fine if you can say "this is what might have happened", and then see how well it fits, compared to other theories.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Except that your wildly speculative imagining here ....

Wildly speculative?! Coming up with a simple example of a reason for something that DOESN'T require multiple theoretical killers?
That's a ridiculous over-exaggeration.
Is any of that inconceivable, impossible, beyond all known possible physics of time and space?
(okay, now I'm over-exaggerating.)
 
Z

zoel

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.
I agree. You've debunked nothing.And now you're willing to to take payment for it. "We" are not debunking anything...you are..the truth is almost already not worth it. There's been no truth. Just constant contradictions. This was originally about tragedy and astrocity now "rational " people want to split eachother's heads.. Every single person with an attention span and glint of outrage or empathy or sorrow has already played a part this whole event.its doing what it "designed to do" and doing very well.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
I agree. You've debunked nothing.And now you're willing to to take payment for it. "We" are not debunking anything...you are..the truth is almost already not worth it. There's been no truth. Just constant contradictions. This was originally about tragedy and astrocity now "rational " people want to split eachother's heads.. Every single person with an attention span and glint of outrage or empathy or sorrow has already played a part this whole event.its doing what it "designed to do" and doing very well.

What hasn't been debunked here, specifically?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I agree. You've debunked nothing.And now you're willing to to take payment for it. "We" are not debunking anything...you are..the truth is almost already not worth it. There's been no truth. Just constant contradictions. This was originally about tragedy and astrocity now "rational " people want to split eachother's heads.. Every single person with an attention span and glint of outrage or empathy or sorrow has already played a part this whole event.its doing what it "designed to do" and doing very well.

Huh? There's been no truth about what? I don't see any "rational" people wanting to split each others' heads. I do see some people who keep claiming irrational nonsense such as "the girl in the photo has no legs" and "the 'dead' girl is in a photo with Obama", to mention two of the LEAST rational comments. If you do not believe there is a rational explanation for men in woods, length of tree shadows, or people who may be actors, why not go visit Sandy Hook. Frankly, if I believed all the things you folks are claiming, I would make it my duty to get to the bottom of it. That would not mean going to Newtown and harassing people, it would mean include moving to Newtown, infiltrating the community, gaining their trust, getting a job at the local paper, attending school board meetings and meeting people and exposing this huge coverup you suspect. Like the chemtrail community who don't seem to possess one member who has actually taken a job at an airport, the Sandy HOok truthers are all question and no action.
 

JonJson

Active Member
All four doors were seen by eyewitnesses wide open during the shooting after all, indicating multiple occupants. Or was Lanza Obsessive-Compulsive, too, and just could not keep from running around and opening all the doors of his car before shooting his way into the school?

I have wondered about the doors being open myself and I have seen photos of the Honda with the two doors open on the passengers side of the vehicle. You have made a small leap in your statement above where you said "All four doors" she doesn't say "All four doors were open" what she said was "had like, all the doors open" it is a small thing but we should be accurate about her statement.
Now I will engage in a little speculation myself we don't know where her vehicle was parked so we can't actually say where she was walking when she observed the vehicle. It is possible that she parked further down the parking lot and had been approaching the front door along the sidewalk. If so she may not have been able see the doors on the drivers side when she first observed the vehicle. If she was in a witness box and being cross examined by a lawyer we could get accurate answers to this question but as it is we are left to speculate on exactly how many of the doors were open because what she said in the interview is like, not exactly clear.
Being from the south I am familiar with the word "all" not necessarily meaning "all of something". Y'all know what I mean?
 

JonJson

Active Member
I have wondered about the doors being open myself and I have seen photos of the Honda with the two doors open on the passengers side of the vehicle. You have made a small leap in your statement above where you said "All four doors" she doesn't say "All four doors were open" what she said was "had like, all the doors open" it is a small thing but we should be accurate about her statement.
Now I will engage in a little speculation myself we don't know where her vehicle was parked so we can't actually say where she was walking when she observed the vehicle. It is possible that she parked further down the parking lot and had been approaching the front door along the sidewalk. If so she may not have been able see the doors on the drivers side when she first observed the vehicle. If she was in a witness box and being cross examined by a lawyer we could get accurate answers to this question but as it is we are left to speculate on exactly how many of the doors were open because what she said in the interview is like, not exactly clear.
Being from the south I am familiar with the word "all" not necessarily meaning "all of something". Y'all know what I mean?


There I go making a big point about her actual words and I transcribe them wrong myself. So here is the correction of what she said "like a black hatchback, had all the doors open, and like black sweatshirts strewn around it" my point is still valid she didn't say "all four".
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
There I go making a big point about her actual words and I transcribe them wrong myself. So here is the correction of what she said "like a black hatchback, had all the doors open, and like black sweatshirts strewn around it" my point is still valid she didn't say "all four".

Lanza was having quite an episode. I don't rule out his having the guns in the back seat, under clothing, perhaps hidden in case he was stopped, opening the front door, opening the back door, tossing the clothing out, grabbing the guns and going in without neatly shutting the doors. He couldn't have had been holding them all in his lap, he had to at least have the long guns in the back.
 

JonJson

Active Member
Lanza was having quite an episode. I don't rule out his having the guns in the back seat, under clothing, perhaps hidden in case he was stopped, opening the front door, opening the back door, tossing the clothing out, grabbing the guns and going in without neatly shutting the doors. He couldn't have had been holding them all in his lap, he had to at least have the long guns in the back.
You know that is my thought as well. It would seem like a reasonable conclusion that he had covered the AR-15 in the back seat. Most likely had at least one of the pistols on the front seat of the car covered up as well.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Lanza was having quite an episode. I don't rule out his having the guns in the back seat, under clothing, perhaps hidden in case he was stopped, opening the front door, opening the back door, tossing the clothing out, grabbing the guns and going in without neatly shutting the doors. He couldn't have had been holding them all in his lap, he had to at least have the long guns in the back.

Nah, surely the scenario of him being driven around by three or four G-men and they then pile out of the car like one of those clown car gags is more likely? :p
 

Corrosive

New 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 very much agree with this person's idea of the rhetoric used to argue in this forum specifically.

Even the moderation goes into these "discussions" with eyes closed, ears plugged, yelling what they think as loud as possible and not accepting any new information.

Use a word in all caps to emphasis, and someone accuses you of essentially getting "too worked up". That's not even the case. It just seems like a petty excuse to push unwanted attention away from their own argument, and in ways its an attempt to slander even a single post so that it somehow makes the entire point "invalid".

This might be how usual debates go in modern America, but it's certainly not the correct way to go about things, nor is it helpful in any sense.

Combat a person's information with factual information of your own, leave their personal character out of the matter, for it is irrelevant.

I thought I had found a cool place to find opposing viewpoints and open minds, but I only found the former.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I very much agree with this person's idea of the rhetoric used to argue in this forum specifically.

Even the moderation goes into these "discussions" with eyes closed, ears plugged, yelling what they think as loud as possible and not accepting any new information.

Use a word in all caps to emphasis, and someone accuses you of essentially getting "too worked up". That's not even the case. It just seems like a petty excuse to push unwanted attention away from their own argument, and in ways its an attempt to slander even a single post so that it somehow makes the entire point "invalid".

This might be how usual debates go in modern America, but it's certainly not the correct way to go about things, nor is it helpful in any sense.

Combat a person's information with factual information of your own, leave their personal character out of the matter, for it is irrelevant.

I thought I had found a cool place to find opposing viewpoints and open minds, but I only found the former.

You seem to just be attacking the tone, and I really disagree with your characterization - there is a LOT of factual responses above. But that aside, do you have any comment on the facts?
 

JonJson

Active Member
I agree. You've debunked nothing.And now you're willing to to take payment for it. "We" are not debunking anything...you are..the truth is almost already not worth it. There's been no truth. Just constant contradictions. This was originally about tragedy and astrocity now "rational " people want to split eachother's heads.. Every single person with an attention span and glint of outrage or empathy or sorrow has already played a part this whole event.its doing what it "designed to do" and doing very well.
You may not feel that this point has been debunked but your second sentence is an indication that you would not accept any evidence that could be offered because consider the debunking effort to be motivated by money. That is not true. There is no financial incentive behind the efforts to debunk the story, nobody is being paid to debunk these theories. Your statement about there having been no truth indicates that you don't believe that anybody was killed. Which means you are here with your mind closed to almost anything that could be offered as evidence. The man in the wood was identified as an off duty officer from a neighboring jurisdiction. The question is then asked why was he in the woods? I have seen it suggested that the man in the woods came in the black Honda with Lanza and was caught trying to flee the scene. There is no proof offered that he was in the car other than open car doors, it is just speculation. There are a few houses that back up to the school property. It is just as likely that the off duty tactical officer lives in one of these houses and came out to see if he could help with the situation and was taking the most direct route to the school and that is speculation on my part as well. Here where I live our sheriff deputies are not required to live within the county and many of them don't. In your last sentences you indicate that there is some ulterior motive behind this whole event but I have to say I have not seen offered any credible evidence to indicate that there is anything more than minor inconstancies and confusion in the early reporting. As a rational person I also see your statement about "rational" people wanting to split each other's heads to be paradoxical.
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
Yes, I was offering speculation. The point of that is that for a given situation there are often multiple possible reasons why that situation may have ended up that way. I was offering one that seemed vastly more probably than multiple gunmen.

If the doors were in fact already all opened before the police arrived, then we've got a couple of competing hypotheses: either Lanza opened the doors, or there were several people in the car with him, and they left the doors open, or someone else was there before Sibley, and they opened the doors.

Here's Sibley's interview (With Couric, not Sawyer).

http://www.katiecouric.com/features/one-familys-story-of-survival/

It's not clear who was at the school before she was.

Speculation is fine, because it explores the range of possible events that can fit known evidence. It's not fine if you say "this is what happened", but it's fine if you can say "this is what might have happened", and then see how well it fits, compared to other theories.
Why is the possibility of multiple gunmen so unlikely to you? Because conspiracy theorists are suggesting it? Are you aware that the District Attorney is investigating multiple suspects, and fears for the safety of witnesses who are cooperating with the investigation?

http://digitaljournal.com/article/342829
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
You seem to just be attacking the tone, and I really disagree with your characterization - there is a LOT of factual responses above. But that aside, do you have any comment on the facts?
I disagree, I haven't seen any new facts presented. We are still right where we were...wondering why an off-duty SWAT team member was apprehended in the woods. Why this is labeled "debunked" is beyond me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I disagree, I haven't seen any new facts presented. We are still right where we were...wondering why an off-duty SWAT team member was apprehended in the woods. Why this is labeled "debunked" is beyond me.

It's debunked because we have explanations for what happened.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why is the possibility of multiple gunmen so unlikely to you? Because conspiracy theorists are suggesting it? Are you aware that the District Attorney is investigating multiple suspects, and fears for the safety of witnesses who are cooperating with the investigation?

http://digitaljournal.com/article/342829

Because there was no evidence of multiple gunmen.

They are not investigating multiple gunmen, they are investigating "potential suspects", that means anyone would might have committed a crime in connection with what happened - such as someone illegally selling a gun to Lanza's mother, or someone not reporting something.
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
It's debunked because we have explanations for what happened.
That is a very loose definition of debunked. You can debunk anything if you only have to come up with a "possible explanation" that has no evidence to support it. How is that any better than a conspiracy theory with no evidence?
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
Because there was no evidence of multiple gunmen.

They are not investigating multiple gunmen, they are investigating "potential suspects", that means anyone would might have committed a crime in connection with what happened - such as someone illegally selling a gun to Lanza's mother, or someone not reporting something.
Potential suspects could also mean multiple gunmen. Why are you ruling out multiple gunmen?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is a very loose definition of debunked. You can debunk anything if you only have to come up with a "possible explanation" that has no evidence to support it. How is that any better than a conspiracy theory with no evidence?

The evidence is that it was reported in the paper.

It also sounds like an incredibly reasonable explanation. In fact given the confusion of the day, you would EXPECT some people to be briefly detained while their identity was confirmed. Why don't you find it suspicious that SO FEW people were detained.

The bunk here is the suggestion that the question is significant. THAT is what has been debunked.

And why would anyone go to the trouble of identifying people who were (quite understandably) briefly detained, just to to satisfy your curiosity about possibly satanism?

You could go though every photo and every person and ask "who is that person, why is he standing there", and you'd find questions that cannot be easily answered. That does not not mean there is something significant in that lack of an answer.

You are making something out of nothing. Asking banal questions does not help your argument.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I disagree, I haven't seen any new facts presented. We are still right where we were...wondering why an off-duty SWAT team member was apprehended in the woods. Why this is labeled "debunked" is beyond me.

They detained him and released him. If they suspected him of being a gunman he would still be in custody. You are inferring that because the information is ongoing and they are investigating potential suspects, that those suspects are gunmen.
 
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
J 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
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top