Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Man in The Woods

Status
Not open for further replies.

RustyShackleford

New Member
Did he not just answer that?
No, he said they are investigating "potential suspects" but not multiple gunmen. I'd like to know why he thinks "potential suspects" excludes multiple gunmen. Especially when we have eyewitness accounts and police scanner audio suggesting multiple gunmen. This could easily be due to confusion, but we have to consider all of the possibilities.
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
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.
So, a question is presented "Why was an off duty tactical officer detained in the woods?" and you consider it debunked because there is a newspaper article confirming that he was in the woods? Your "debunking" has less to do with facts, and more to do with your opinion. If you, personally, don't feel it's suspicious then it's debunked.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
He was NOT arrested, he was briefly detained. That is why it is debunked. NOT our opinion, but the findings of the police on site found he was not involved
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
No, he said they are investigating "potential suspects" but not multiple gunmen. I'd like to know why he thinks "potential suspects" excludes multiple gunmen. Especially when we have eyewitness accounts and police scanner audio suggesting multiple gunmen. This could easily be due to confusion, but we have to consider all of the possibilities.


Help me to understand why you and the other truthers think that all the possibilities have only occurred to you, and not to the police.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So, a question is presented "Why was an off duty tactical officer detained in the woods?" and you consider it debunked because there is a newspaper article confirming that he was in the woods? Your "debunking" has less to do with facts, and more to do with your opinion. If you, personally, don't feel it's suspicious then it's debunked.

But you could say that about anything. You could pick any random person in any photo and ask who they are, and then when you don't get an answer, then you feel it's all suspicious and "not debunked".

I'm saying that there is nothing to debunk here.

Let me ask you directly: do you think it's likely in a situation like this, that some people would be briefly detained and then released after they were identified?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, he said they are investigating "potential suspects" but not multiple gunmen. I'd like to know why he thinks "potential suspects" excludes multiple gunmen. Especially when we have eyewitness accounts and police scanner audio suggesting multiple gunmen. This could easily be due to confusion, but we have to consider all of the possibilities.

No we don't, we have to consider all REASONABLE possibilities - possibilites that can fit the evidence.
 

JonJson

Active Member
No, he said they are investigating "potential suspects" but not multiple gunmen. I'd like to know why he thinks "potential suspects" excludes multiple gunmen. Especially when we have eyewitness accounts and police scanner audio suggesting multiple gunmen. This could easily be due to confusion, but we have to consider all of the possibilities.

What eyewitness account of multiple gunmen are you referring to in this post? I am unaware of any eyewitness accounts from anyone inside the school that identifies multiple gunmen. The audio from the police scanner of shadows running past windows occurred as the police were surrounding the school to obtain entrance from multiple access points. The shadows that were seen were the officers moving past the gym to the entrances on the west side of the school.
 

SeanDWalker

New Member
Only red flags for me are this, only cctv footage released is of Adam entering the building the day or so before? but not during the incident to positively show he was there, from memory i read there was none? now if that was true that would be a incredible coincidence considering how much cctv US schools use, the other is how many kids he killed in a short amount of time with only 2 hand guns - compare that against other shootings and you'll find that he must of been a incredibly good shooter, better than a trained soldier even.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Only red flags for me are this, only cctv footage released is of Adam entering the building the day or so before? but not during the incident to positively show he was there, from memory i read there was none? now if that was true that would be a incredible coincidence considering how much cctv US schools use

Footage from Columbine security cameras weren't available publicly until about six months after the massacre, in a move that was criticised by both law enforcement officials and the families of the slain. And they weren't OFFICIALLY released until about 14 months later.

the other is how many kids he killed in a short amount of time with only 2 hand guns - compare that against other shootings and you'll find that he must of been a incredibly good shooter, better than a trained soldier even.

Yeah, he must have been a crack shot to hit slow or possibly unmoving masses at near point-blank range... It's almost as if he had been trained from a young age to use a gun.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And he did not use hand guns to kill the kids, he used the assault rifle.

It's really not hard at all to hit a child sized target at close range. Even with no training.
 

SeanDWalker

New Member
And he did not use hand guns to kill the kids, he used the assault rifle.

It's really not hard at all to hit a child sized target at close range. Even with no training.

Guest and Mick, thanks =)

Feel rather red faced at your point mick, i thought the rifle was in the car? (red of embarrassment, not anger :p)

I take the point with an assault rifle, rather easy, but if hand guns like i thought would still be very difficult in my opinion. as that wasn't case. DOH
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Guest and Mick, thanks =)

Feel rather red faced at your point mick, i thought the rifle was in the car? (red of embarrassment, not anger :p)

I take the point with an assault rifle, rather easy, but if hand guns like i thought would still be very difficult in my opinion. as that wasn't case. DOH

No, there was a shotgun in the car, see details here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/10...-Guns-Assault-Rifle-Gun-in-the-Trunk-Handguns

Even handguns (which he did not use) are not that difficult. Point and shoot. Try picturing it, where you are right now, imagine a target on the other side of the room, point the gun, pull the trigger.
 
Last edited:

SeanDWalker

New Member
No, there was a shotgun in the car, see details here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/10...-Guns-Assault-Rifle-Gun-in-the-Trunk-Handguns

Even handguns (which he did not use) are not that difficult. Point and shoot. Try picturing it, where you are right now, imagine a target on the other side of the room, point the gun, pull the trigger.


I saw a table highlighting varying shootings like columbine and comparing injuries to fatalities against how many shooters + time, Sandy hook was the most deadly; now it makes a bit more sense that the guy trained from a young age, but i am sure that would of been the case in any other shootings.

HOWEVER, i don't believe I've seen any evidence which suggests other shooters - to me it's either just a very sad story with a fucked up kid, or a very sad story with a kid who's been deliberately fucked up. If the latter, then there's very little chance of us ever finding out about it.

If i find the comparison i'll post it in, I guess the kids being small it was easier for head shots etc which very well could explain away the increased fatalities compared to other shootings involving teenagers/adults.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Not only that, but older kids are better at finding hiding places---thinking and acting quickly---and with older ones the shooter does have to worry about them attacking him
 

RustyShackleford

New Member
But you could say that about anything. You could pick any random person in any photo and ask who they are, and then when you don't get an answer, then you feel it's all suspicious and "not debunked".

I'm saying that there is nothing to debunk here.

Let me ask you directly: do you think it's likely in a situation like this, that some people would be briefly detained and then released after they were identified?

Yes, if they are biased because the man identified is a friend of theirs (which is very possible if he's an off duty SWAT officer) The police aren't perfect. How many times have we seen overwhelming circumstantial evidence, to the point where any child could tell you the defendant is guilty, but the court can't get a conviction because there's no DNA evidence or murder weapon.

The police get it wrong sometimes. Rather than trusting them to always get it right, use your own head.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Yes, if they are biased because the man identified is a friend of theirs (which is very possible if he's an off duty SWAT officer) The police aren't perfect. How many times have we seen overwhelming circumstantial evidence, to the point where any child could tell you the defendant is guilty, but the court can't get a conviction because there's no DNA evidence or murder weapon.

The police get it wrong sometimes. Rather than trusting them to always get it right, use your own head.

Do you think it is possible that in a situation like this that someone whom the officers were NOT acquainted with would be briefly detained then released after identification? Or would they ONLY release them if they knew that person personally (and were friends with them, as you say)?

Also, while possible, I don't think it at all LIKELY that the Newtown police were "friends" with the man in question given that he was apparently from another town. Being in a certain line of work doesn't automatically mean you know everyone else in that profession regardless of location. Do you have any evidence that suggests they did know him?
 

JonJson

Active Member
The police get it wrong sometimes. Rather than trusting them to always get it right, use your own head.

This is a good example of that very thing. The police stopped somebody who appeared suspicious and they thought might have something to do with the shootings. They got it wrong he had nothing to do with the shooting, he provided some credible explanation of who he was and why he was in the woods, they checked it out found out that he was telling the truth and released him. Wouldn't it seem to be that you are the one holding onto the idea that the police are always right? I am satisfied with this answer that they made a mistake on the side of caution when they took him into custody and released him when they ascertained who he was.
.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
so many things need debunked man in woods, no ambulances caring out wounded ,but blocked way back from school, social security saying adam l died day before and later changed to the 14th, parents of dead children laughing and joking and then going into grieving mode for the cameras and the town getting complete make over in 2010 (where did the money come from) how many people from small town can actually belong to actors quild if the news was on it where is footage of dead and wounded being carried out of school and the list goes on and on and on
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
so many things need debunked man in woods, no ambulances caring out wounded ,but blocked way back from school, social security saying adam l died day before and later changed to the 14th, parents of dead children laughing and joking and then going into grieving mode for the cameras and the town getting complete make over in 2010 (where did the money come from) how many people from small town can actually belong to actors quild if the news was on it where is footage of dead and wounded being carried out of school and the list goes on and on and on

Why don't you have a go at debunking one of those things? Pick any, and try to debunk it.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
so many things need debunked man in woods, no ambulances caring out wounded ,but blocked way back from school, social security saying adam l died day before and later changed to the 14th, parents of dead children laughing and joking and then going into grieving mode for the cameras and the town getting complete make over in 2010 (where did the money come from) how many people from small town can actually belong to actors quild if the news was on it where is footage of dead and wounded being carried out of school and the list goes on and on and on

Really. All of those items have been logically explained. Some of them, the "lack of grief" for instance, have become quite tiresome. You can easily research the subject and find out that laughter, tears, smiles, indifference are all commonplace AND what we see is a few fleeting moments from the lives of the bereaved in a (for them) surreal situation, where they are deliberately trying to stay composed.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Okay. This is a bit ridiculous 3 pages and no clear debunking. Herpa derp just a cop in the woods nothing important is the best so far which would be acceptable in most circumstances e.g. cop having a day off, goes for an early morning stroll through a public park to get a paper. However were not dealing with "most circumstances". This one is completely different.

Lets review: This is the arrest site (http://www.insanemedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/shooting-map-sandy-hook.jpg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pDrhhb0B5f8#!). This is not a section of woods you would stroll through. It is about 50-75 square metres of trees and you have to walk past/through gardens to get to said woods to access it from the East. There is no way an off duty SWAT FROM ANOTHER TOWN would be walking here for casual reasons with a gun.

Two scenarios; he heard gunfire from far away and ran into the school to kill Adam Lanza with his pistol or another unknown scenario which would put him in an enquiry where he would be questioned for assisting murder or actual murder.

It was first reported that the shooting was carried out by Adam Lanza who was wearing camouflage pants (http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/F...d-dead-in-Connecticut-school-shooting-1202510)

This could be an innocent reporting mistake and they could have gotten Adams clothing description mixed up with another shooter but that doesn't matter. What this proves is that there was at least one shooter who was wearing camouflage pants.

So to remove confusion and give a clear objective which refuted the title of this thread.

WHY WAS THERE AN OFF DUTY SWAT MEMBER IN A NON PUBLIC WOODS, CARRYING A WEAPON, ARRESTED SHORTLY AFTER THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING WEARING EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS AS THE SHOOTER/SHOOTERS?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He was not arrested, just briefly detained, and nobody has ever said the guy in the video is the guy referred to as an off-duty policeman. It's not entirely clear if the off-duty policeman was ever on film.

And who said he had a gun?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
He was not arrested, just briefly detained, and nobody has ever said the guy in the video is the guy referred to as an off-duty policeman. It's not entirely clear if the off-duty policeman was ever on film.

And who said he had a gun?

arrested: past participle, past tense of ar·rest (Verb)
Verb
Seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.

Detaining someone for a certain amount of time is not the the definition for arrest. Police putting you in handcuffs and then into a police car with no choice is.

There were only ever two people in this scenario Adam Lanza and the guy in the woods so the guy in the video has to be the off duty SWAT member according to the information available. Unless there is a third character which is even more suspicious.

More evidence "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/news/2012/12/27/police-union-seeks-funding-trauma-treatment/4576

The off duty tactical officer was was on film and had a gun and was arrested, the proof is above.

Again : WHY WAS THERE AN OFF DUTY SWAT MEMBER IN A NON PUBLIC WOODS, CARRYING A WEAPON, ARRESTED SHORTLY AFTER THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING WEARING EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS AS THE SHOOTER/SHOOTERS?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
arrested: past participle, past tense of ar·rest (Verb)
Verb
Seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.

Detaining someone for a certain amount of time is not the the definition for arrest. Police putting you in handcuffs and then into a police car with no choice is.

There were only ever two people in this scenario Adam Lanza and the guy in the woods so the guy in the video has to be the off duty SWAT member according to the information available. Unless there is a third character which is even more suspicious.

More evidence "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/news/2012/12/27/police-union-seeks-funding-trauma-treatment/4576

The off duty tactical officer was was on film and had a gun and was arrested, the proof is above.

Again : WHY WAS THERE AN OFF DUTY SWAT MEMBER IN A NON PUBLIC WOODS, CARRYING A WEAPON, ARRESTED SHORTLY AFTER THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING WEARING EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS AS THE SHOOTER/SHOOTERS?

I think you are confusing a number of different reports.

The off-duty guy was obviously just showing up the the school to help. The other guy was Chris Manfredonia.

And it's not exactly a non-public woods. It's the direct route to the school, assuming you parked to the south of it because the main approach was blocked.

But then you don't actually know where this off-duty guy was detained, or even if he's the guy who was "spotted in the woods".
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
But then you don't actually know where this off-duty guy was detained, or even if he's the guy who was "spotted in the woods".

Or if he was "CARRYING A WEAPON, ARRESTED SHORTLY AFTER THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING WEARING EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS AS THE SHOOTER/SHOOTERS" for that matter. No sources this person has provided support that assertion.
 

Defacto

New Member
I'm a little confused about what this video he provided is telling us.



I'm not seeing anyone getting arrested.
You see 3 men start to run into the woods, sort of spread out like they're after someone, but then slow down and start walking in the same direction. The clip ends there.


And as one of the comments on this video states:
the "reports that the teacher saw two shadows running past the building, past the gym" was at 9:38:57 on 911 tape, Aprox 4 min. after the initial 911 call.
Wouldn't it be unlikely for any news helicopters to have arrived so soon ?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I'm a little confused about what this video he provided is telling us.



I'm not seeing anyone getting arrested.
You see 3 men start to run into the woods, sort of spread out like they're after someone, but then slow down and start walking in the same direction. The clip ends there.


And as one of the comments on this video states:
the "reports that the teacher saw two shadows running past the building, past the gym" was at 9:38:57 on 911 tape, Aprox 4 min. after the initial 911 call.
Wouldn't it be unlikely for any news helicopters to have arrived so soon ?


The shadows were seen just after the shooting, there is a possibility that these shadows were the kids that were found at Gene's house, remember they ran out from school while the shooting occured.
 

JonJson

Active Member
The shadows were seen just after the shooting, there is a possibility that these shadows were the kids that were found at Gene's house, remember they ran out from school while the shooting occured.

It is actually most likely that the shadows seen moving past the gym were police officers who were moving into position to enter the school from the rear entrances.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It does not say there was no off-duty policeman. There are a vast amount of things that are not included in the report, and probably never will be.
 

dlk1728

New Member
So while talking about the others found at the scene, they purposely left out some who were found? Doesn't make sense. Seems they may have included something like others were also found and screened if that were the case. Or better yet using some sort of statement like that in lieu of going over the ones they mentioned.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The said there was no other gunman. That nobody detained was a suspect. Why is more needed? What's the pressing mystery?
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
So while talking about the others found at the scene, they purposely left out some who were found? Doesn't make sense. Seems they may have included something like others were also found and screened if that were the case. Or better yet using some sort of statement like that in lieu of going over the ones they mentioned.
IIRC the only time the off duty police officer was ever mentioned was in an article by the Newtown Bee.
They said they got that information from a 'reliable local law enforcement source' so I would rule out bad reporting.
In the summary of the final report that was just released, they mentioned two reporters being stopped in the woods, both held at gunpoint. This may be where some confusion came into play.
It's really hard to say at this point, that might clear up when the full report is released. Or it could just be error that slips under the rug and is left in the back of conspiracy theorists' minds, for them to forever be doubtful.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's possible that story just conflated multiple people - there was a guy who arrive in plain clothes with an AR-15: Detective Frank:
From 084_115Timeline
There are a million details, you'll always be able to ask questions that the report does not answer. The real issue is if they are important questions.
 

PlainDarkSedan

New Member

PlainDarkSedan

New Member
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.
I see someone being chased. I also see, in this thread, a lack of knowledge, apparently, of camouflage technology-beta and otherwise. If you're to tyr and "debunk", then you really need to be educated.
 
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