Sandy Hook mom "Debunks" Hoaxers <3

[deirdre]

Claim: Emilie Parker was photoshopped into family portrait=disinformation
[bunk] In this picture, which was first shown during a news broadcast about Emilie's funeral, there is indisputable evidence that Emilie has been Photoshopped into it.
.......
This is not evidence that the entire event is a grand hoax. But when anomalies like this are discovered, there should be an effort to get to the bottom of what is really happening. This image was broadcast on mainstream tv news. Why would they allow a photoshopped image to be used? When the mainstream media has admitted to allowing planted Pentagon Psy-Ops officers to work undercover in their news agency and essentially direct government propaganda at the American people, and when CNN has been caught using fake war coverage, we need another level of vigilance to counter disinformation. [/bunk]

Alissa Parker, Emilie's mom responds:

James, the family member that was looking at the picture with me at the time, scoffed at the headline and laughed about the idea that I had photoshopped her into the picture.
I turned to him and said, "Well of course I did!! Do you have any idea how hard it is to take your own family photos and get ALL your small kiddos to look at the camera? I hacked that picture to pieces and put it back together like a puzzle! I am proud I got anything at all!"

http://theparkerfive.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/did-a-conspiracy-theorist-just-made-me-laugh/

 

[NoParty]

God, that's great.
Nothing like a half dozen different pics to definitively put the lie to a stupid theory.

 

[Don von Hostas]

I love it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Definitely deserving of a "winner" icon.

As the father of a little girl who just started nursery school this week, I wish I could say that my response to losing a child that way and then being told I'm a liar and that she never existed would be so measured.

On the pecking order of conspiracy theorists, Sandy Hook hoaxers truly are the lowest of the low. Ugh.

 

[ColtCabana]

I'm a lurker from time to time at the LetsRollForums, purely for entertainment. I'd never engage them in actual conversation because some people just cannot be talked to. This topic was actually brought up by someone on the boards, and people there (whether they are actually parents or not, I don't know) consider photoshopping children in pictures, so that they all look presentable, "weird" and "creepy." Kind of fuels my theory that if conspiracy theorists believe in a certain practice, they cannot fathom why other people would deviate from what they do.

 

[Thom]

deirdre
Senior Member
Claim: Emilie Parker was photoshopped into family portrait= disinformation

Actually, that specific claim was verified. Emilie was photoshopped inthe top photo which is the one in question. She was taken from the bottom photo and replaced into the second to bottom photo where she is originally facing the wrong direction and not even looking into the camera. She was the only one that was photoshopped. I wouldn't necessarily consider that hacking that picture to pieces.

I'm trying to figure out where the background, specifically the sky, came from in the final photoshopped photo. It doesn't fit any of the other photos .

Trailblazer, I do understand that some people in CT community claimed that she never existed because she was photoshopped, but just for arguments sake, neither the claim nor the quote representing the claim displayed that conclusion on this thread. The only reason I bring this up is because the mainstream backlash against this conspiracy plot was that it was ridiculous to think it was even photoshopped to begin with, let alone that she never existed. Well, they were wrong about the first, but that doesn't prove the second.

Edit: Will this thread now have an indication as VERIFIED like others have DEBUNKED in front of them?

 

[Mick West]

Edit: Will this thread now have an indication as VERIFIED like others have DEBUNKED in front of them?

No. I don't think you understand.

 

[deirdre]

deirdre
Senior Member
Claim: Emilie Parker was photoshopped into family portrait= disinformation

Actually, that specific claim was verified. Emilie was photoshopped inthe top photo which is the one in question. She was taken from the bottom photo and replaced into the second to bottom photo where she is originally facing the wrong direction and not even looking into the camera. She was the only one that was photoshopped. I wouldn't necessarily consider that hacking that picture to pieces.

I'm trying to figure out where the background, specifically the sky, came from in the final photoshopped photo. It doesn't fit any of the other photos .

Trailblazer, I do understand that some people in CT community claimed that she never existed because she was photoshopped, but just for arguments sake, neither the claim nor the quote representing the claim displayed that conclusion on this thread. The only reason I bring this up is because the mainstream backlash against this conspiracy plot was that it was ridiculous to think it was even photoshopped to begin with, let alone that she never existed. Well, they were wrong about the first, but that doesn't prove the second.

Edit: Will this thread now have an indication as VERIFIED like others have DEBUNKED in front of them?

i think you are misinterpreting the claim.

the photo was photoshopped INCLUDING using software to enhance the colors. The sky matches the main photo exactly before colorization filters.

The fact that the picture was photoshopped does not indicate "disinformation" as the claim quoted suggested. Mrs. Parker gave a very real world, legitimate reason she photoshopped the pciture. She never said she didnt photoshop it. And if you are going to claim the mainstream said she did, or that the mainstream said it wasn't photoshopped..then i'm going to need some sources to prove that.

There is no mainstream backlash against a "plot". The mainstream does not even think to question why a family would pick a beautiful picture of their family to put online.

 

[Thom]

Ok. I saw that equal sign and I thought it was referring to the claim, that it was disinformation. that's a little confusing the way you wrote it, not to mention the title. Hoaxers could mea people trying to claim that the picture was photoshopped.

To be honest, I didn't know she had admitted it was photoshopped until now. I had seen the videos on it previously and blogs on it way before she admittedit and had seen the backlash.

 

[deirdre]

that's a little confusing the way you wrote it, not to mention the title

i know but it was worse when i used the word 'equals', so i went with the sign. couldnt think of another way to phrase it. if you have a better way, i can change it.

thats why "Debunks" is in quotes in the title. She debunked their accusations of nefarious action - that "THEY" were trying to dupe the public - , by proving the hoaxers were right in that she DID photoshop it. So noone is trying to dupe anyone.

I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist, so i can see how my outlook and choice of words to express my outlook may be 'foreign' to a CT ear. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[ColtCabana]

The only reason I bring this up is because the mainstream backlash against this conspiracy plot was that it was ridiculous to think it was even photoshopped to begin with, let alone that she never existed.

Do you have evidence to support this "mainstream backlash?"

 

[MickeyS]

I love it!! What great response, she's definitely a trooper. I don't know how anybody can visit their blog and read about their experiences and still feel good about vilifying this poor family, eeesh

 

[TheRevWells]

Good for her! I cannot imagine her pain that she has to relive each and every time a new CT pops up in regards to the loss of her daughter. This woman has a ton of strength and if I were in her shoes, I would not be able to do what she has done, coming out and stating on her blog what she did in regards to the photo and to see backlash she has received from some in the CT community, is quite sad and I just do not understand nor do I get it anymore - the mindset of some in the CT community and the things they can say to victims who are grieving.

 

[deirdre]

I would not be able to do what she has done, coming out and stating on her blog what she did in regards to the photo

why? you mean in regards to the backlash she knew she'd get? I personally doubt, after what these miscreants have (and continue to say) about her daughter, she could care less what they say about her. Mocking a parent who can't, late in the day, get 3 very young children to all look at the camera simultaneously, is pretty much rock solid proof of how out of touch with reality most hoaxers are.

 

[TheRevWells]

why? you mean in regards to the backlash she knew she'd get? I personally doubt, after what these miscreants have (and continue to say) about her daughter, she could care less what they say about her. Mocking a parent who can't, late in the day, get 3 very young children to all look at the camera simultaneously, is pretty much rock solid proof of how out of touch with reality most hoaxers are.

Oh I agree 100 percent, but yes, a backlash she may or may not get. While she may not care and probably doesnt, I can imagine that it still is a sore spot and when brought up, it still may sting. What truly made me sick was when I was hearing about people stealing parts of the memorial they have built for them, I think its a playset or something like that, and hearing people were stealing/vandalizing it all - makes me sick

 

[deirdre]

I think its a playset or something like that, and hearing people were stealing/vandalizing it all - makes me sick

her gravesite actually.

 

[Mick West]

I was recently reminded of this thread when I saw a post on Facebook in a photography group I'm in talking about "head swaps". It seems like combining two photos is pretty common in family portraits with young kids.

 

[MickeyS]

why? you mean in regards to the backlash she knew she'd get? I personally doubt, after what these miscreants have (and continue to say) about her daughter, she could care less what they say about her. Mocking a parent who can't, late in the day, get 3 very young children to all look at the camera simultaneously, is pretty much rock solid proof of how out of touch with reality most hoaxers are.

I am quite impressed with her candor and her ability to put things in perspective about how unimportant what these people have to say is in her family's life. As it should be. And yes, she pointed it out quite nicely how ridiculous these claims are. I think it sends a great message

 

[James Smith]

So, because she shows several other photos, it's case closed?

Would you not question whether the new images are photoshopped?

Would you not think this could potentially be an explanation to cover it up?

 

[Svartbjørn]

So, because she shows several other photos, it's case closed?

In this case, yes.. Why? Because if you look at the evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole... all the witnesses, the parents, the graves of the victims, the entire community knowing it happened, and not through the lens of someone screaming false flag there's no reason to doubt the mother.

Would you not question whether the new images are photoshopped?

In this case, no.. Why? Because if you look at the evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole... all the witnesses, the parents, the graves of the victims, the entire community knowing it happened, and not through the lens of someone screaming false flag there's no reason to doubt the mother.

Would you not think this could potentially be an explanation to cover it up?

In this case, no.. Why? Because if you look at the evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole... all the witnesses, the parents, the graves of the victims, the entire community knowing it happened, the evidence is there.. it has ALWAYS been there, but there are people in this world more interested in screaming False Flag, Crisis Actor, and who live in an absolute paranoid state of mind than are interested in evidence or reality. Photoshopping an image, in and of itself, isnt evidence of tampering... its the WAY in which it was photoshopped that makes the huge difference.. changing colors and tones etc isnt "tampering" with the photo (in this particular case).. its adjusting the colors and tones.

 

[James Smith]

In this case, yes.. Why? Because if you look at the evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole... all the witnesses, the parents, the graves of the victims, the entire community knowing it happened, and not through the lens of someone screaming false flag there's no reason to doubt the mother.



In this case, no.. Why? Because if you look at the evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole... all the witnesses, the parents, the graves of the victims, the entire community knowing it happened, and not through the lens of someone screaming false flag there's no reason to doubt the mother.



In this case, no.. Why? Because if you look at the evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole... all the witnesses, the parents, the graves of the victims, the entire community knowing it happened, the evidence is there.. it has ALWAYS been there, but there are people in this world more interested in screaming False Flag, Crisis Actor, and who live in an absolute paranoid state of mind than are interested in evidence or reality. Photoshopping an image, in and of itself, isnt evidence of tampering... its the WAY in which it was photoshopped that makes the huge difference.. changing colors and tones etc isnt "tampering" with the photo (in this particular case).. its adjusting the colors and tones.

So, as I said, take her word for it....

 

[Trailblazer]

So, as I said, take her word for it....

No. I suggest you read that post again. There is ample supporting evidence. Do you scrutinise each of your friends' holiday photos for signs of Photoshopping to ascertain whether they really went to Hawaii, or do you accept that that isn't necessary, owing to the fact they had an airline ticket and a hotel reservation, they were away for the two weeks in question, came back with a tan, and many other people independently reported seeing them in Hawaii at the time?

 

[James Smith]

No. I suggest you read that post again. There is ample supporting evidence. Do you scrutinise each of your friends' holiday photos for signs of Photoshopping to ascertain whether they really went to Hawaii, or do you accept that that isn't necessary, owing to the fact they had an airline ticket and a hotel reservation, they were away for the two weeks in question, came back with a tan, and many other people independently reported seeing them in Hawaii at the time?

If my friends were part of a conspiracy theory, I would investigate everything thoroughly. Your example was a poor comparison.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're taking someone's word for it. For instance, you could state "Person X is very credible, therefore further investigation was unwarranted", however you must also say "Since I didn't investigate further, although unlikely, it's possible looking into things further could reveal new evidence".

 

[MikeG]

If my friends were part of a conspiracy theory, I would investigate everything thoroughly. Your example was a poor comparison.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're taking someone's word for it. For instance, you could state "Person X is very credible, therefore further investigation was unwarranted", however you must also say "Since I didn't investigate further, although unlikely, it's possible looking into things further could reveal new evidence".

I think you might be missing the point. If I am reading the other posts correctly, they are not advising you to take one person's word as credible or not.

When people talk about "ample supporting evidence" or "evidence of the ENTIRE shooting as a whole," they are talking about corroboration.

It makes sense (to me at least) to look a something in its totality.

My two cents.

 

[JRBids]

If my friends were part of a conspiracy theory, I would investigate everything thoroughly. Your example was a poor comparison.

How do you know your friends didn't want to make it look like they had more interesting lives than they do? How do you know they weren't just hiding in their house instead of flying to Hawaii? Did you see them in Hawaii?

By the way, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're taking someone's word for it. For instance, you could state "Person X is very credible, therefore further investigation was unwarranted", however you must also say "Since I didn't investigate further, although unlikely, it's possible looking into things further could reveal new evidence".

What would prove to YOU that what the woman said is true? It sounds like 99% of what people believe is just "taking someone's word for it". If someone has a reasonable explanation, why not take their word for it? This is why the Sandy Hook hoax stuff doesn't fly: It's totally unreasonable to take people like Halbig's word.

 

[Svartbjørn]

So, as I said, take her word for it....

No.. Its not just taking her word for it. If you scroll up youll see where the pictures were looked at here on the website (I think @deirdre did some digging as well as a few others) and the overwhelming consensus on the data, both with Sandy Hook as a whole on TOP of the mother's "testimony" and evidence is enough to show that there's no reason to doubt what she's saying. No one is "just taking her at her word." Her word, the evidence and our own digging into the photos is enough to conclude that what she's saying is accurate and not fabricated.

The thing no one can answer without going into some wild conspiracy spin off, is what would the mother have to gain by lying? Money? Fame? Power? Is the ENTIRE freaking town in on the conspiracy, and if so why hasnt a SINGLE person come forward yet to say its a hoax? A hoax of this magnitude is the stuff TV movies are made of, the royalties ALONE from the book sales etc would set someone up for life. What's stopping them? Fear of the gov't MIB murdering them in their sleep? Wouldnt that be just a little TOO convenient? That then leads you down a completely NEW rabbit hole of conspiracy. See where Im going?

Now, you tell me James... given the totality of evidence supporting the conclusion that Sandy Hook was real, that it was not a "false flag" that it's not some huge governmental conspiracy and cover up, what conclusions do you draw? Look at this without the filter of someone looking for a false flag, and look solely at the evidence of the situation, what do you see?

 

[deirdre]

If my friends were part of a conspiracy theory

except SH is not a conspiracy. and there are dozens and dozens of photos of all 3 daughters online. From the extended family and friends also.

You seem to be trying awfully hard to prove SH was a hoax even though, to date, there is zero evidence for that. If you have evidence of something present it. following posting guidelines in a new thread.

 

[MickeyS]

The thing no one can answer without going into some wild conspiracy spin off, is what would the mother have to gain by lying? Money? Fame? Power? Is the ENTIRE freaking town in on the conspiracy, and if so why hasnt a SINGLE person come forward yet to say its a hoax? A hoax of this magnitude is the stuff TV movies are made of, the royalties ALONE from the book sales etc would set someone up for life. What's stopping them? Fear of the gov't MIB murdering them in their sleep? Wouldnt that be just a little TOO convenient? That then leads you down a completely NEW rabbit hole of conspiracy. See where Im going?

Let's take it a step further when discussing the Parker family in particular and include another community as the Parkers were born, raised, met & married in Ogden, UT. Their parents still live there and Emilie's body was taken to a mortuary in Ogden and a funeral was held, as well as a widely publicized funeral procession and memorial held for the public at Robbie & Alissa's high school that they, and their parents, graduated from. And as my mother knows both of Emilie's grandmothers from school and has actually ran into one of them recently,who spoke of the grief this has caused ON TOP of the already devestating grief of losing a young child, that raises another issue. Entire families...for EACH child would need to have agreed to carry out this "hoax". Members of both Robbie & Alissa's family, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws and THEIR families. ALL would have had to agree to this "non-existent" family member and maintain that story... For EACH child. Not to mention the "actual" families of the children who "pose" as the children killed...again, their families...like above etc etc...to agree to not say anything about their child, daughter, granddaughter, niece, cousin... being used to perpetrate this "hoax" This would involve a total of hundreds of members from two totally different ENTIRE families to all agree to uphold and maintain this "hoax", PER CHILD. How do they even begin to find "crisis actors" who's entire families would agree to this? For 20 children. And not any as of yet have come forward....any of them, after three years. Now, I can tell you personally in MY family, we can't all agree on any one single topic (except we're all Cowboys fans....don't ask) and that's just on a sibling level...let alone extended family. So yes....I'm beginning to think there is no bottom to this particular rabbit hole....I would say it comes out somewhere in the Indian Ocean, unless you're a FlatEarther and then I guess it wouldn't technically be very deep at all . I'm sure this has been addressed already....so forgive the rant, it just boggles the mind that I don't think members of the "truther" community are sincerely following the magnitude of what they're claiming.

 

[MickeyS]

If my friends were part of a conspiracy theory, I would investigate everything thoroughly.

No offense, but how do you know your friends AREN'T part of a conspiracy theory? And how do you truly KNOW Alissa is? Really? Should we live in a world that at any given time we will be required to explain every aspect of our lives down to family photos simply because a group of people believe we are part of a diabolical conspiracy? In the end, not one of these families owe anybody anything. Period. I have noticed the CT community are really big on this whole "Big Brother" thing and how the government keeps tabs on every aspect of our lives. We have no privacy. And they feel violated....then in turn attempt to do the exact same thing to others. Does anybody else see a bizarre double standard here???

Ok I'm done, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to wander here....I promise