Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Man in The Woods

[JRBids]

"I don't see what's so unusual about men running in the woods under the circumstances." What circumstances?

Gunfire.

4 Men running past the school through the woods instead of to their car when a shooting just occured?

How do you know that's not where their car was. Maybe they were parked there or maybe they were just running from the shootins and helicopters overhead.

and one of em was supposedly from a different county? where was he going to run to? mecca?

Interestng place you choose to invent for him to run to. I think we're talking about Sandy Hook here, not Boston.

 

[Bruno D.]

"I don't see what's so unusual about men running in the woods under the circumstances." What circumstances? That 26 people just died? That's not unusual? 4 Men running past the school through the woods instead of to their car when a shooting just occured? and one of em was supposedly from a different county? where was he going to run to? mecca? lol it just doesn't make sense. I can see headlines: "Out of county officer runs from cops through the woods" Outside of Sandy Hook elementary a few minutes after officers arrived to the scene, an off-duty officer runs from cops instead of showing his badge. Raises questions when cops find out he was from a completely different county. Now we have to question what he was doing there and how he got there.
BUT HE WAS NEVER QUESTIONED
Why would he run from cops when HE WAS A COP. He had his gun on him but he didn't have his badge? alright maybe believable
and
In a shooting wouldn't any off duty officer react to it like any other on-duty cop? you hear gunshots in a school but instead of being the hero cop you should be, you run from the scene? and from other officers? weird
and lastly
When and how did he get there, but better yet, why was he there? why was he at a school where a shooting of children just occured and he was from a different county and running away from it? and not driving away since he is "out of county". How did he even get home?
HE WAS NEVER QUESTIONED AND THERE HAS BEEN NO FOLLOW UP

I'm really not understanding your theory about Sand Hook conspiracy.

Are you implying that more people shot 26 people dead other than Lanza or are you implying that there were no deaths and that everybody there are actors (you discussed that at other threads).

The two theories are mutually exclusive: if there were no deaths and the videos and photos were tampered with and everybody there are actors, than there's no reason for any actors to run to the woods and vice versa.

What's your theory?

 

[Melbury's Brick]

This is running? I may have to redefine my Sunday morning jog with customary hangover as "sprinting".

 

[Scottyboi]

men are running away from the school into the woods, and obviously this is shot from a helicopter... can you see this?

 

[Scottyboi]

i don't have a theory, i don't know what happened, idk if this video is showing chris running away, or the off duty officer, or just someone else, but it isn't in the official report, so don't send me another link to the official report please, i've seen it

 

[Mick West]

Why should it be in the official report if it was not important?

 

[Scottyboi]

The official report told of how the families were informed of deaths and how the families got back possessions that were on the child or family member. That isn't too important to the investigation. There is a complete investigative report from the view of another investigator within the extensive official report, and neither of them identify the men in the woods. Every investigative tactic used on that day should've been described in the official report. The idea of "other shooters" are immediately dismissed in all reports, and it is not described as to why they were dismissed. There is no reasoning in the report that these should have been dismissed. Do you believe that these men jogging into the woods away from the school have no importance to this case?

 

[Mick West]

The official report told of how the families were informed of deaths and how the families got back possessions that were on the child or family member. That isn't too important to the investigation. There is a complete investigative report from the view of another investigator within the extensive official report, and neither of them identify the men in the woods. Every investigative tactic used on that day should've been described in the official report. The idea of "other shooters" are immediately dismissed in all reports, and it is not described as to why they were dismissed. There is no reasoning in the report that these should have been dismissed. Do you believe that these men jogging into the woods away from the school have no importance to this case?

Yes. Why do you think they have importance? If they did not find anything, then why are their precise motions even interesting?

I'm sure there was a vast amount of running around that day. This bit of running around was caught on camera. That's all. It's no different from the other running around. They were looking for another shooter. They did not find one. That's it.

 

[Scottyboi]

If they didn't find anything, they had to be looking for something. If they were looking for something, they were investigating. If they were investigating, the investigation should be in the official report. So it's really hard to debunk the men in the woods when "they had no importance". There is nothing proving that they had no importance in the official report and it goes unrecognized. Without proof of unimportance, we then have to theorize why it was unimportant. Hence "conspiracy theory."

 

[Mick West]

Again, there were hundreds of people looking in all kinds of places. What is so special that the people looking in the woods demand an explanation?

 

[Scottyboi]

Officers investigating the building found nothing, and their reports were in the official report. These men actually found someone, and it isn't in the official report. Therefore this one event is astounding compared to all events that are described in the official report. Again, I have to theorize why it was unimportant. I have to theorize why it is unexplained because it is not in the official report. We don't know why it wasn't in the official report. What is your theory as to why this is unimportant? Do you have factual evidence to support your theory?

 

[deirdre]

If they didn't find anything, they had to be looking for something. If they were looking for something, they were investigating. If they were investigating, the investigation should be in the official report. So it's really hard to debunk the men in the woods when "they had no importance". There is nothing proving that they had no importance in the official report and it goes unrecognized. Without proof of unimportance, we then have to theorize why it was unimportant. Hence "conspiracy theory."

if helps you you provide links tow hat you are referring to..

for example: (see below) and then state what you don't like

 

[deirdre]

oh and we don't know if it was men or a man in the woods. IF it was men it was probably camo and his friend.

 

[Scottyboi]

none of these represent the occurrence in the woods that is shown in the video, the report of a dog is the closest report pertaining to the video i posted and a dog is not seen in the video untill the "close-up" frame is shown, so please show me the report that tells of officers chasing a man running from the school into the woods

 

[deirdre]

none of these represent the occurrence in the woods that is shown in the video, the report of a dog is the closest report pertaining to the video i posted and a dog is not seen in the video untill the "close-up" frame is shown, so please show me the report that tells of officers chasing a man running from the school into the woods

I cant because there was no man running from the school. period. I don't know what youre seeing on that video. there are only police officers.

edit ps even your video narrator calls them the police.

 

[curtispenner]

none of these represent the occurrence in the woods that is shown in the video, the report of a dog is the closest report pertaining to the video i posted and a dog is not seen in the video untill the "close-up" frame is shown, so please show me the report that tells of officers chasing a man running from the school into the woods

The police reports above seem to reference two different incidents involving men in the woods, one involving reporters, and one involving a passerby, with the police doing a thorough job in both cases. One was reported as being handcuffed, which is consistent with video testimony of a handcuffed man that said he didn't do it. I have read this whole thread and it seems that "debunked" was labelled on it long before it was. The title of the thread is "The Man in the Woods" and this was only answered on this fifth page. Well, I suppose it was answered whenever someone first posted the 7,000 page report... But I admit I didn't read that...so for me who waited more passively for the answer, it was only answered on page 5 by @deirdre.

To sum up, I think Mick erred in calling "debunked" an incident or in fact multiple incidents which did occur and which warranted investigative detainment and putting men in handcuffs. But then to Mick's credit the police reports were released and they explain the man in the woods perfectly, and as he had first suspected but didn't prove. In my opinion, Mick's suspicion or opinion is not sufficient proof to declare "debunked". But then, it's his site...and he was right.

As a last note, the police reports show there was more than one man in the woods, and thorough investigation on each. Kudos to the police on a job well done.

The man in the woods has been debunked here. Thanks @deirdre for the nails in the coffin

 

[deirdre]

The police reports above seem to reference two different incidents involving men in the woods, one involving reporters, and one involving a passerby, with the police doing a thorough job in both cases. One was reported as being handcuffed, which is consistent with video testimony of a handcuffed man that said he didn't do it. I have read this whole thread and it seems that "debunked" was labelled on it long before it was. The title of the thread is "The Man in the Woods" and this was only answered on this fifth page. Well, I suppose it was answered whenever someone first posted the 7,000 page report... But I admit I didn't read that...so for me who waited more passively for the answer, it was only answered on page 5 by @deirdre.

To sum up, I think Mick erred in calling "debunked" an incident or in fact multiple incidents which did occur and which warranted investigative detainment and putting men in handcuffs. But then to Mick's credit the police reports were released and they explain the man in the woods perfectly, and as he had first suspected but didn't prove. In my opinion, Mick's suspicion or opinion is not sufficient proof to declare "debunked". But then, it's his site...and he was right.

As a last note, the police reports show there was more than one man in the woods, and thorough investigation on each. Kudos to the police on a job well done.

The man in the woods has been debunked here. Thanks @deirdre for the nails in the coffin

thinking it wasn't debunked way in the beginning is only a lack of understanding on police procedures. it was ASSUMED by conspiracy people that the police did not investigate. why this was assumed I don't know.

 

[curtispenner]

thinking it wasn't debunked way in the beginning is only a lack of understanding on police procedures. it was ASSUMED by conspiracy people that the police did not investigate. why this was assumed I don't know.

When police place a man in cuffs, a report needs to be filed. It seems that Mick assumed one had been filed and scottyboi assumed one had not. Neither assumption was acceptable. You put it to bed. Thanks again.

 

[deirdre]

When police place a man in cuffs, a report needs to be filed. It seems that Mick assumed one had been filed and scottyboi assumed one had not. Neither assumption was acceptable. You put it to bed. Thanks again.

your welcome. but Micks assumption was very acceptable...because when a man is placed in cuffs a report IS filed.

 

[David Fraser]

Slightly off topic but in the UK the police have notebooks, which are admissible in court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_notebook

Do you not have similar in the US?
​

 

[deirdre]

Slightly off topic but in the UK the police have notebooks, which are admissible in court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_notebook

Do you not have similar in the US?
​

lol. stop talking or the debunk will be lost in the middle of the thread! yes they have notebooks if statements don't need to be taken. otherwise they make you sign a statement (car accidents, break ins etc). In the shooting situation all the police had to go to the Troop A state police barracks (about 3 miles away) once 'off duty' where they did their statements or whatever. I don't want to look for the files that show that though. so just trust me or look yourself

 

[curtispenner]

Slightly off topic but in the UK the police have notebooks, which are admissible in court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_notebook

Do you not have similar in the US?​

They do have notebooks in both the US and Canada. And yes these notes are admissible in court.

your welcome. but Micks assumption was very acceptable...because when a man is placed in cuffs a report IS filed.

I personally witnessed an event in which the police placed a man in cuffs but did not file a report. The incident was confirmed by the officer's notebook in a subsequent FOIP request but no report was filed on the detainment or placement of cuffs and subsequent interrogation.

I can attest from personal experience that this definitely happens in real life.

If there had been no report filed on the man in the woods it would be reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Likewise, carrying an ongoing assumption that "when a man is placed in cuffs a report IS filed" will lead to errant conclusions.

 

[deirdre]

Likewise, carrying an ongoing assumption that "when a man is placed in cuffs a report IS filed" will lead to errant conclusions.

ok. in a situation like the Sandy Hook shooting a report IS filed. This wasn't a couple of punk kids in the park after dark involving one or two cops. better?

 

[Pete Tar]

If there had been no report filed on the man in the woods it would be reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Reasonable grounds to suspect that the police detained a second killer but then said no more about it? There is nothing reasonable about that suspicion.

 

[curtispenner]

Reasonable grounds to suspect that the police detained a second killer but then said no more about it? There is nothing reasonable about that suspicion.

If there was no report filed, then there would be evidence of either a massive error or evidence of a conspiracy. That is why we can say now that there is evidence of a job well done and no evidence of conspiracy, where before we could only assume that a job was done well in declaring prematurely that there was no evidence of conspiracy

This debunk was made whole by @deirdre.

 

[fist-of-freedom]

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.

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

It seems like a very minor part of the story. Someone saw a man with gun, turns out he was a cop. That's all.

Yeah, VERY minor detail. An off duty tactical police officer just happened to be on the same property as the most notorious school shooting in history, nothing strange here at all. Move along sheeple..

Couple this with the fact of the 100's of other strange anomalies and coincidences (such as actors being used that is 100% proof)

Nothing is debunked in this story. Only more questions.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, VERY minor detail. An off duty tactical police officer just happened to be on the same property as the most notorious school shooting in history, nothing strange here at all. .

He was responding to the emergency, as you would expect him to do. He was not there are the time of the shooting.

 

[Bruno D.]

Yeah, VERY minor detail. An off duty tactical police officer just happened to be on the same property as the most notorious school shooting in history, nothing strange here at all. Move along sheeple..

Couple this with the fact of the 100's of other strange anomalies and coincidences (such as actors being used that is 100% proof)

Nothing is debunked in this story. Only more questions.

Please initiate a new thread with the evidence for "actors being used that is 100% proof", if that wasn't covered in some of the other threads about Sandy Hook.

If you feel the need you can start 100's of other threads for the 100's of other strange anomalies showing your claim and your evidence, also if it was not answered in some of the other threads.

 

[fist-of-freedom]

He was responding to the emergency, as you would expect him to do. He was not there are the time of the shooting.

Responding from where?

 

[deirdre]

Responding from where?

off duty personnel responded from all over. Waterbury, southbury, Ridgefield, new York etc etc etc

 

[curtispenner]

Yeah, VERY minor detail. An off duty tactical police officer just happened to be on the same property as the most notorious school shooting in history, nothing strange here at all. Move along sheeple..

Couple this with the fact of the 100's of other strange anomalies and coincidences (such as actors being used that is 100% proof)

Nothing is debunked in this story. Only more questions.

He was responding to the emergency, as you would expect him to do. He was not there are the time of the shooting.

@fist-of-freedom, the link you quoted is dead. No tactical police officer is mentioned in the police reports. Only a passerby and two reporters. Can you provide a link that works on this topic as proof and quote the specific references to a tactical police officer in your post?

I remember reading a Newtown Bee article that someone posted on this topic which wasn't dead earlier, but I didn't see anything about anyone in the woods. Maybe it has been edited or corrected? In this case perhaps a screenshot or waybackmachine link or something. We need to have high standards of proof. It is what separates this site from a sea of bunk.

Thanks,

Curtis

 

[deirdre]

@fist-of-freedom, the link you quoted is dead. No tactical police officer is mentioned in the police reports. Only a passerby and two reporters. Can you provide a link that works on this topic as proof and quote the specific references to a tactical police officer in your post?

Thanks,

Curtis

http://newtownbee.com/news/news/2012/12/27/police-union-seeks-funding-trauma-treatment/4576 is working for me.http://archive.is/ZkBhe

[EXA 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.][/EX]

the problem isn't this little town newspaper blurb the problem is which man are they talking about? heres a few from DOZENS of off duty cops you can find through google images. kinda hard to say exactly who the Bee was talking about.

 

[Mick West]

If a call goes out that there's someone shooting up an elementary school, killing kids, then does it not seem exactly what you would expect - that every cop, off duty or not, would go there. It's an "all units respond" type of situation.

 

[Pete Tar]

The puzzling question is why they feel the need to walk around toting machine guns at the ready when the situation is obviously no longer 'live'.
Psychological comfort?

 

[curtispenner]

Thanks @deirdre.

http://newtownbee.com/news/news/2012/12/27/police-union-seeks-funding-trauma-treatment/4576 is working for me.http://archive.is/ZkBhe

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.

The problem isn't this little town newspaper blurb the problem is which man are they talking about? heres a few from DOZENS of off duty cops you can find through google images. kinda hard to say exactly who the Bee was talking about.

I missed this last sentence before. I was wondering what people were talking about and why it was quoted. What an odd throw-in at the end.

After the APB went out the woods were obviously crawling with Police, as evidenced by the above pictures and by the police catching those fellows in the woods and detaining them.

Any more specific into on this guy @fist-of-freedom? This article doesn't establish when this tactical officer was seen or by who and in what context. What he was wearing would be a big help too. Lacking much more info, there's nothing here.

 

[deirdre]

The puzzling question is why they feel the need to walk around toting machine guns at the ready when the situation is obviously no longer 'live'.
Psychological comfort?

what makes you think it was no longer live? maybe it wasn't but just saying.

 

[fist-of-freedom]

If a call goes out that there's someone shooting up an elementary school, killing kids, then does it not seem exactly what you would expect - that every cop, off duty or not, would go there. It's an "all units respond" type of situation.

Good call. Makes sense.. but

I would believe it if the gun shots weren't mere minutes from this footage.



So this tacicool officer arrived before on duty officers? Just chillin in the woods?

Why would you ARREST an officer? Why would he be running away? Just show your credentials and all is good.

Why wouldn't he be busting through the door of that school neutralizing the situation?

 

[Pete Tar]

what makes you think it was no longer live? maybe it wasn't but just saying.

Well he was dead when the majority LE arrived, there were only a few police officers present when it was live.

Just curious at what point in the day they put down their guns, maybe those photos were around the time of the sweeps.

 

[fist-of-freedom]

Thanks @deirdre.



I missed this last sentence before. I was wondering what people were talking about and why it was quoted. What an odd throw-in at the end.

After the APB went out the woods were obviously crawling with Police, as evidenced by the above pictures and by the police catching those fellows in the woods and detaining them.

Any more specific into on this guy @fist-of-freedom? This article doesn't establish when this tactical officer was seen or by who and in what context. What he was wearing would be a big help too. Lacking much more info, there's nothing here.

I've been digging but this is the only picture I could find. Maybe your eyes can see something mine cant.


Then again, if he was a real threat, would he not be in the back-seat of the car?



Notice in the video I posted above (be sure to 1080p full screen), the first police officer running pauses, holds then suddenly disappears behind the building. VERY Odd. Almost like a video editing gone bad.

Then the second officer seems to be "gliding".

the 4th officer looks like a K9 unit. suddenly disappears

 

[curtispenner]

Good call. Makes sense.. but
I would believe it if the gun shots weren't mere minutes from this footage.
So this tacicool officer arrived before on duty officers? Just chillin in the woods?
Why would you ARREST an officer? Why would he be running away? Just show your credentials and all is good.
Why wouldn't he be busting through the door of that school neutralizing the situation?

We've seen this footage. This shows police running (or alternately walking as some have said) into the woods. That's it. We know that the police scoured the woods before ruling out multiple shooters, and that at least three suspects were detained in the woods; a passerby and two reporters.

We also know that at off duty tactical squad officer with a gun was seen in the woods that day. As I said before, we don't know when he was seen and in what context or even what he was wearing. Why don't you call the reporter and do some digging @fist-of-freedom? It doesn't make sense to believe in malfeasance here given the current weight of evidence to the contrary.