Rebuttal to the Sandy Hook Fully Exposed Conspiracy Video

A popular video claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting was an elaborate hoax in order to promote tighter gun control in the U.S.

Sponsored links

Note: This website’s primary goal over the past 5 years has been to protect people from fraud, hoaxes, ripoffs, scams, and deception. We have no gun control agenda and in fact we are pro-gun, and want zero new restrictions placed on gun ownership. 

Several websites have appeared over the past month, with a variety of accusations based on half-truths and conjecture. One such video is entitled “Sandy Hook Fully Exposed” with millions of views on YouTube. Some conspiracy theorists say it didn’t happen at all, having been staged by actors. Others claim it did happen, but was orchestrated by the government in order to gain support for tighter gun laws. Below we’ll take a look at some of the accusations from that video and others sources.

The “Sandy Hook Fully Exposed” video is full of half-truths and conjecture.

Evidence for 2nd and 3rd Shooters
The video points to interviews with people at the scene of the shooting who discussed various suspects being “walked out,” handcuffed, or pursued by the police immediately after the shooting – and that this is proof that there were multiple shooters.

During a mass shootings when all of the details are not known, the police talk to – and sometimes isolate or even handcuff – people that fit the description of the shooter. These people are usually released after questioning. A police officer talking to someone fitting the description of the shooter – or even pursuing someone who is unknown to them – is not proof of anything. Officers sent to the scene of such a crime will hold anyone they don’t recognize until their identity and reason for being there is known. In the case of the man pursued into the woods, he was interviewed and later released. He was identified by the L.A. Times:

Chris Manfredonia, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the school, was heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur.

He ran around the school trying to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher.

The Weapons Used
A common technique for conspiracy theorists is to take initial reports from a chaotic scene and set them in stone as fact. Then when more complete facts came out later, these are compared with the initial reports and any discrepancy is deemed proof of a conspiracy. Because initial reports of the guns used were different than later reports, this means there is something awry and indication of a conspiracy or hoax.

Reporters are known to flub early details of a breaking story, especially in their attempts at being first with any developments.

Lanza’s Mother
The video again holds initial reports as gospel in comparing later verified information. The fact that Lanza’s mother was reported to be a teacher, and then this information was later retracted, only means initial reports among the chaos were wrong. This is common in many developing news stories.

Much is made of reporter Andrea McCarren’s statements that Sally Cox told her that Lanza’s mother was a teacher. Video of Ms. Cox making such statements has yet to surface.

School Nurse Sally Cox
The video claims that the school nurse Sally Cox doesn’t show up on any searches that would show such a position. The implication is that this must mean she was an actress who was part of the hoax. She wasn’t found in searches because her name is actually Sarah Cox. “Sally” is her nickname, as reported in this New York Times article. A search of Sarah Cox does in fact show her to be a registered nurse in Newtown, Connecticut.

Robbie Parker is an actor
It is alleged that Robbie Parker’s demeanor prior to giving a press conference is “proof” that he is an actor. Or is it possible that when Mr. Parker entered the room, he smiled to greet the people before him, then began choking up as he started to speak of the events? The video asks, “Even if this is real, why would you change character in order to appear sad?” As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, it is often when speaking about such tragedies that intense emotions surface. Mr. Parker walked in, smiled at the crowd, and then began tearing up as he spoke of his loss. This is not unusual behavior.

Emilie Parker Posing with Obama after the shooting
It is claimed that Emilie Parker accidentally posed with President Obama in an appearance he made after the shooting. A family portrait is shown with Emilie in a black and red dress, then a photo of the President with some children – including who they claim is Emilie in the same dress as the family photo. In reality, the photo is of the two other Parker children, including Emilie’s sister wearing the same or similar dress as the family portrait – along with some other children. It is not uncommon for younger siblings to acquire hand-me-downs from older children, or to wear matching outfits. The video implies that the family photo was taken the same day as the appearance with Obama, and everyone changed their clothes but Emilie. This is a flimsy attempt at linking the dress in the family photo with the picture with Obama. In the family photo posed with Obama, they are holding two children, one of whom the video claims is Emilie. If that were the case, where is their third child?

The official website for the Emilie Parker Fun,, was created on December 17, 2012.

Gene Rosen
We are shown an interview with local resident Gene Rosen, who took some children into his home during the shooting. The video poses a series of questions over the heavily-edited footage. One such piece of “evidence” is that Rosen discusses the children being upset that teacher Vicky Soto was killed, yet the video points out that the kids who tried to run from Miss Soto’s class were killed. This “discrepancy” is supposedly further proof of a hoax. But what about other explanations? What was the timeline of the children arriving at Mr. Rosen’s home? Did these children say they ran from Miss Soto’s class or perhaps they were former students, or simply knew the teacher but weren’t in her class.

Conspiracy theorists are now harassing Mr. Rosen.

McDonald Family Interview
The parents of Grace McDonnell were interviewed by Anderson Cooper. It is claimed that the McDonnells showed a lack of sorrow in the interview, which is supposedly unusual for someone who just lost a child. Imposing a right or wrong way for a grieving parent to act during a national interview is absurd.

Further, notice how the conspiracy theorists create a no-win situation with grieving parents? When a parent cries, the conspiracy theorists claim it is an “Oscar Winning Performance” yet when they don’t cry, the lack of emotion “proves” a cover-up. If a parent can’t remain strong or cry during an interview, what action would be deemed “appropriate” in this situation?

Watch Anderson Cooper’s story on Sandy Hook hoax claims here.

FEMA Drill Nearby
Claims that a FEMA exercise was set up a few miles away have been cited as a red flag.

There was in fact a FEMA class held in Bridgeport, about 20 miles away from Newtown. This class was held at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, and there were multiple dates and locations of the same class throughout the state over about a month’s time. Some pro-hoax sites are claiming that FEMA was running a drill down the road from the shooting.

A class held at a hospital 20 miles away is not the same as a FEMA active shooter drill, exercise, or camp.

Facebook Page Stamps
A huge issue for many is that the hoax video shows a Facebook page with Emilie Parker’s (or teacher Victoria Soto’s) name is dated prior to the shooting.

The page in question no longer exists, which means it cannot be scrutinized by an objective party. For this reason, no one knows who created it or who removed it.

It IS possible to rename a Facebook page, which will retain the original creation date. So, for example, if you were to create a page on January 1 and there was a tragedy on January 2, you could rename your page after the tragedy, thus your page’s creation would pre-date the event. Page admins can go to, which will state that you can rename a page once.

With the help of a friend, we have posted an example of a Sandy Hook-named Facebook page, entitled “RIP 12142012″ with a creation date of October 26, 2011 (see it here). How did we do that? Did we know about the shooting over a year in advance? We simply had our friend re-name an older page.

Conspiracy theorists believe the page was taken down to cover up their mistake, but a more reasonable explanation is that the family complained to Facebook that a phony fund had been set up in her name and Facebook removed it.

Rifle/Gun Questions
Some have questioned statements made by Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver as to whether he presented conflicting information about the gunshot wounds of the victims.

Much of this appears to be a case of information presented by reporters unfamiliar with gun types along with official statements made by Carver. There also appears to be confusion regarding the video of an officer removing a gun from the trunk of the car. If we remove news reports from the discussion, most of the inconsistencies disappear.

We will, however, defer to this article and ensuing lively discussion, in which even gun enthusiasts aren’t in agreement as to what the video shows. It should also be debated whether or not the weapon in the trunk is even relevant.

Lack of Photos?
The video claims that a lack of photos or video of children, EMS workers, teachers, and parents proves the shooting is a hoax. Photos and video of survivors do exist. The “exposed” video itself shows footage from a helicopter of a large number of people at the school. Are we to believe that none of those people are teachers, parents, or children? A still photo of children being escorted off of the campus is dismissed without cause, but merely calling it a “hoax” and a “movie set.” No evidence to back up this statement is given. What evidence exists to prove this photo is a hoax? An interview with a child eye witness is also dismissed. We are told there are no descriptions of people yelling or screaming, yet the school nurse – who the video inaccurately claimed was not a real nurse – made those exact statements. An issue is made of a child’s description that it sounded like someone was kicking down a door – and it is stated that the child should have recognized the sound of 100 rounds of ammo being fired. Perhaps this is the best way a young child can describe such sounds, based on his limited experience in life?

Also consider: If the child had simply been an actor, wouldn’t he have been coached to say he heard gunshots?

The narrator claims that there are no children at the school in the helicopter video, and the scene is “nice and neat” – with the implication that this was simply a movie set. What he doesn’t state is when this shot was taken. Was it during the incident? Immediately after? Hours later? It also isn’t mentioned that the children were removed from the scene as fast as possible, and much of the area was cordoned off because it was a crime scene. And when the video snidely discusses how slow the police are walking, again it does not give any sense of when the video was taken. Does the narrator expect the police to be running around for hours after the shooting while they investigate the scene? Shouldn’t one hope an investigation would be slow and methodical?

Here the video contradicts itself again. First it is implied that we have a movie set full of people calmly walking around, but it is also claimed earlier that nobody is there. Which is it?

Also consider: Were the children actors, or were there no children at all? The video claims both.

Dates of Sandy Hook Memorials Pre-Date Shooting
It is claimed that memorials and websites popped up online days or hours before the shooting. One highly-cited example is the Sandy Hook School Support Fund dated December 11 in Google searches – three days before the shooting. This must be “proof” that the entire thing was staged.

Google dates are not always accurate. To prove this, we did a Google search of articles dated before 1962 with the phrase “President Obama” – and received three matches dated December 31, 1969 (7 years after our selected date range). This is a good example of the “glitch” in dates that a Google employee claimed is responsible for the incorrect date on such Sandy Hook websites.

Google’s dates can be glitchy.

Since the above example hasn’t apparently been sufficient to those convinced that the Google date is a smoking gun, we’ll add a better example. Searching Google for “Sandy Hook” prior to December 14 will also yield the Snopes page debunking rumors on the incident. Are we to believe that Snopes is somehow “in” on the conspiracy, despite attempts to debunk it? The Google date is a red herring.

Paid Actors
Fringe conspiracy theories claim that such people as Lance Armstrong, John Goodman, John Malkovich, and Matthew Broderick were paid actors at the scene, yet no reporters recognized these well-known celebrities (or perhaps no reporters mentioned it because the reporters were “in” on the hoax?). Others have claimed that crisis actors have taken part in the staged event.

Why would high-profile celebrities go on television posing as parents when their faces are known to millions and they would be easily recognized? Those promoting these theories appear to simply find the closest-looking celebrity to the people surrounding the incident as possible.

Lanza’s Car Belonged to Christopher Rodia
This is a completely false rumor based on purely assumption. Rodia was pulled over the morning of the shooting in Greenwhich and given a verbal warning. His name was heard over police scanners just after Lanza’s plates were being run, and the story was born that somehow Lanza’s car was registered to Rodia.

State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance told the Connecticut Post, “The car confiscated at the scene, the black Honda with that license plate, belongs to a relative of Lanza’s and not to Rodia.” 

The Gun Control Angle
The crux of the conspiracy theory regarding Sandy Hook is that it was staged (or orchestrated) by the government in order to justify tighter gun control laws. But not everyone in the government wants tighter gun control laws. Are we to believe that only the anti-gun lawmakers were in on this vast conspiracy which also included the national news media?

So somehow FoxNews was in on it – as they reported the incident as much as CNN or MSNBC – but their band of highly-conservative gun-advocate commentators were blind to it – or even in on it? Staunch gun advocates like Rep. Steve Stockman, who has threatened to file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he attempts gun control via executive order, would somehow be blind to a cover-up, or turn a blind eye to it?

The Real Hoax
The true conspiracy relating to the Sandy Hook shooting is conspiracy theory itself. This video and other conspiracy theories are snide, illogical, incorrect, and misleading. They draw conclusions from cherry-picked information and conjecture.

If you follow all the facts and a little logic, these theories quickly fall apart.

Other Voices
Most of the popular internet hoax debunking sites have expressed opposition to this video.

  • Hoax Slayer – Has not posted an official article but has stated flatly on their Facebook page: “It’s a load of crap.”
  • That’s Nonsense – “When you are left with the inconsistencies that do still need answering you are not left with a massive government cover-up and conspiracy, rather just an example of sloppy mainstream media reporting and natural human error.”
  • Snopes – “The information presented in that video was a mixture of misinformation, innuendo, and subjective interpretation..”

Bottom Line
The true hoax is this so-called conspiracy, based on flimsy “evidence,” conjecture, and outright misinformation. Consider the “evidence” presented: Incorrect website dates, the registration status of a school nurse, “wrong” demeanor of grieving parents, and news that changed as information came in. Does this body of evidence prove, or even point to anything, much less a hoax or government-sponsored tragedy?

Have gun control advocates used such tragedies as Aurora and Sandy Hook to promote their agendas? Absolutely. The fact that some lawmakers may cite such tragedies to promote their agendas does prove they were involved in them.

This isn’t the era of media turning a blind eye or keeping secrets. We are supposed to believe that such foes as MSNBC, Fox News, Democrats, and Republicans either all banded together to promote this massive lie on the American people – without a single defector, or that none of them were smart enough to raise the questions posed in the “Exposed” video. Why hasn’t the NRA – which has the most to lose if these conspiracies were true – endorsed the questions raised by this video?

Here at Wafflesatnoon, we don’t want gun control, but we also don’t want the memories of the unfortunate souls lost in Sandy Hook to be desecrated by conspiracy theorists who care more about their agenda than the true facts.


Here is another extensive article debunking the video.

Sponsored links

146 Comments on Rebuttal to the Sandy Hook Fully Exposed Conspiracy Video

  1. This will not become an endless session of fact checking because anyone can vaguely question anything. In fact, let’s talk about the “Fully Exposed” video for a moment…

    Because so much weight was given to “initial” and “early” reports, let’s hold the YouTube video to the same standard, shall we?

    Why don’t you talk about the “smoking gun” of the video – the Facebook memorial pre-dating the events? Because we proved it is easy to do. So much for the smoking gun, huh?

    Why don’t you continue to defend the suggestion that Sally Cox wasn’t a nurse? Because the video had it wrong and somehow missed her real name.

    Why don’t you continue harping on Gene Rosen the actor? Because he wasn’t the guy they found in searches.

    Why don’t you continue questioning Google’s dates which some said could not POSSIBLY be wrong? Because it was shown to be a very common anomaly.

    Are the police involved or not?
    Are the Parkers real or not? (Emilie yes, Dad no?)
    Why has no one in Newtown joined in, when they should know there are actors involved?

    Why is there a Part 2 to the video? Shouldn’t the first one have perfectly reported everything, just as reporters on the scene were expected to do?

    At President Obama’s recent inauguration, Anderson Cooper referred to him as the “second African-American President.” Conspiracy? Does he know something we don’t? Or did he simply mis-speak?

    Why are so many of the points being brought up now NOT in the “Fully Exposed” video? Is it because so much of that video has been debunked, so conspiracy theorists are now just looking for any other inconsistencies to throw out there?

    Any why do inconsistencies suddenly mean conspiracy?

    Watch your video again and see how much of it looks silly in the face of facts that prove much of it categorically WRONG. One commenter above said the Facebook date was the deal-breaker for him. After we proved how easy it was to duplicate, he never commented again.

    Why don’t conspiracy theorists call the police or paramedics or fire chief or school board or local news and ask these questions, rather that just toss out open-ended, vague questions?

    Why do some conspiracy theorists think the whole thing was a hoax with actors and some think it was a mind-control operation led by anti-gun government bad guys? Why can’t even conspiracy theorists agree on what they think?

    Why haven’t ANY reputable journalists come to the same conclusions as the conspiracy theories?

    Sandy Hook happened. Maybe every detail hasn’t been completely laid out to perfection, but such is the nature of a chaotic tragedy. But just because every shred of info “doesn’t make sense” still doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that some sinister plot is at hand.

    Occam’s razor is alive and well my friends…

    And that is the last word on the matter here.

  2. well put enchanted!! and if waffle or anyone else cant or wont say something isnt rigt about sandy hook by now with all that has came out you cant help but to think they Too have a reason to lie to us. LIE.

  3. Enchanted9 // January 28, 2013 at 3:33 pm //

    It has been stated that the guy in the woods was an off duty swat officer. First problem with this is that a trained swat officer would not be running from other police.. he would of stopped, identified himself and then not have been arrested. Second, before this if he was an off duty swat officer, he would of reported to the Sgt in charge and offered his help so there would of been no need to handcuff him and take him down to the police car. Are you guys serious that you believe a trained swat officer would run from the local police? How asleep are you?

    Next problem with this story is that 100’s of rounds of an AR-15 will render anyone using it disorientated and confused after just a few mags .. this is from experienced officers who train with this gun. If adam was wearing ear plugs, this would of been known on the day, yet the information wasnt released till 4 weeks later, when this issue was being brought up.

    The CT state police official statement says the 911 call came in at 9.30am.. if the school locks its doors at 9.30am, then it would follow that at least 5 mins prior was when the shooting started, people have been interviewed saying they heard commotion over the intercom, so its easy to put a timeline together and know that the second the shooter entered the school no one picked up the phone.. a good 5 mins (I say ten) would of passed before anyone had had time to hide, find a phone and then call 911).. this means the shooter did not have to shoot out the door, as it would of still been unlocked..

    The police on the scene via the police scanner, clearly chase two suspects on Crestwood drive behind the school.. this is not media speculation, this is directly from the mouths of the officers on the scene.. If you are trying to tell me that our trained officers in the face of an emergency are so inept as to confuse suspects and children then you most likely deserve what is coming.

    Gene Rosen.. why has no one asked this guy why he didnt take the children next door to the fire house?.. Why has no one called him on his 3 different stories?.. Why has no one asked the bus driver why she left these children with a stranger? and Why has no one addressed the math problem with the children in miss Soto’s class.. 6 at rosens.. 6 dead and 7 found in the closet..

    Why has no one questioned the childs father who says his child was one of the ones who ran from miss soto’s class and asked him why Gene is saying his child was at his house, when the father says he wasnt. Or are these another 6 children from miss soto’s class? How many children did she officially have in her class.. so far we are about 25.. And what of the parents who were interviewed saying they picked their kids up from the police station?.. who were these children.. apparently they were from miss sotos class too…

    Then we have the teacher Ms Burton who was interviewed by fox’s On the Record and said the shooting went on for at least 20 mins…. this also shows the shooting starting well before 9.30am since the police on the scene at 9.41 say the shooting has stopped..

    How did the fire chief at the fire station not hear 20 mins of shooting when he was only a few hundred feet down the road?. How did no neighbours hear 100’s of shots.. the school is surrounded by houses.. And that brings us back to Gene rosen.. he said all he heard was pop pop pop and thought it was a hunter!!… Really you believe this crap?

    • Let’s answer some of your questions with questions.

      Why would these “trained officers” (your description) question and release someone as suspicious as you claim this off-duty officer was? Where is it reported that he was running in the woods? The Newtown Bee says he was “spotted” not chased. Did you confuse him with the man the LA Times identified, who was also in the woods?

      Is releasing information 4 weeks later indicative of a conspiracy?

      Any unknown male could potentially be a suspect. Did police arrest anyone else or claim that a suspect got away? Are the police in on this hoax or not?

      What are conspiracy theorists trying to imply about Gene Rosen? Why don’t these “trained officers” who have access to all the sensitive data believe he was part of the crime? Do we know that all of the students at Rosen’s house were definitely students of Miss Soto?

      Where do you show the police were on the scene at 9:41? The Newtown Bee stated: “The shooting was reported at Sandy Hook Elementary School around 9:41 a.m., according to Connecticut State Police.”

      Are you sure that shots inside a building would be heard at that distance, or are you just assuming? Didn’t you see the interviews with people in the area who did hear shots, or are those to be dismissed as part of the hoax?

      Why do variations between early news reports and later ones equal a conspiracy?

  4. Simply amazing to me that many of the above comments totally ignore what was in the article that they are commenting on. Waffle debunked many of the points quite clearly, yet people still say that the car was owned by someone else, there were actors involved, the AR was in the car, etc etc. Obviously you are not going to convince people who are that paranoid that they can avoid the facts in that manner. So sad….

  5. Only 2 of the 7 the medical examiner did autopsy on were at close range.

  6. I was mistaken on the 5 rounds each hand gun held. The Glock holds 17 factory mag. and the SIG holds 17 rounds.. but still with 4 hand guns that 68 shots. If they were shot multiple times the numbers arent adding up. the medical examiner said in the 7 that he did they were shot 3 to 11 times. even if the 26 victims were each shot just 3 times that 78. Thats only if each was shot only 3 times 79 counting the shot to kill the shooter. Not to mention that at least one person was shot 11 times. I am curious to see the actual number..Thats is if the shooter cleaned all 4 guns out. I am would think that he didnt clean out the last gun or he wouldnt of had known if the had the last bullet to shoot himself. Unless of course he took the clip out to count how many to make sure he had at least one left. I am going to see if I can work the numbers and make it come out to 68 total.

  7. hurricane sandy, was refurred to as sandy hook due to how it hooked around. hurricane sandy(sandyhook),sandy hook shooting. newtown ct. newtown backwards is N-W-O twen(twin)wow!!! maybe its nothing just a coincidence. 44 days apart. a twin number. the man who found the little children in his driveway.. had two diffent storys in the 2 interviews i seen. one he said it was a bus out there dropping off the kids then on the next he said it was a man out there with them talking harshly to them and said nothing about the bus. then he said that the little kids where from miss sotos class but then we are being told that all the kids trying to run from her class was all shot dead. so you say maybe they where in her class in years before and jus decided to all say a old teacher that they nolonger have instead of the teacher who classroom they just left.. yea right.. then he said he looked at the list of the deceased and seen a ladies sons name on it that day but the list didnt come out till two days after that interview.. the corner was acting in such a way with laughs and using termes like the “long weapon” and saying “i dont haha sorry i dont haha” shaking his head and almost jumped up laughing so hard. who can have such a light mood after seeing 20 dead children with some up to 11 shots from a high power rifle. one thing after another in this case. some people are willing to do anything to get there agenda done.

  8. First I would like to state that this is a well written article. You cut quickly to each point and offer a separate opinion that what is offered in the conspiracy videos. That you did so without calling people crazy or insinuating that anyone who questions the official story is a morally reprehensible human being is well balanced adn something that most “debunking” authors do not share. Kudos. And thank you for the information you provided.

    I still have one question.. Why are the only casualties of this event all dead? Most mass shootings have dead and injured, Sandy Hook only has dead. – Unless you count the mass shootings where everyone present dies. I know technically it can happen because even a one in a gazillion chance is possible, but really, Aurora had 12 dead and 58 injured; Virginia Tech 32 dead, 17 injured; Columbine 13 dead, 21 injured. There isn’t an injured list here, just dead bodies.

    I don’t think its a mass conspiracy – though I do love entertaining conspiracy theories. I do believe targeting people in the town as some have done based on “evidence” of any sort is really a waste of time and human spirit. Especially given that the motives for this are still entirely unknown, yet there are 28 bodies finding their way into the ground in CT.

    • Thank you for your comment.

      All of the dead were shot with multiple bullets at close range. That would would certainly be one reason the “accuracy” was higher than the other shootings. Also, there were reports of a teacher (or guidance counselor?) shot in the leg or foot, but that name wasn’t released.

  9. Kris Madden // January 21, 2013 at 8:50 pm //

    JSOK what kind of handguns were used that only hold 5rounds?

  10. I am curious on the number of bullets. If it was 4 handguns that hold 5 bullets that is only 20 shots. Nothing is mentioned of any clips found.. If the ones shot were shot numerous times, there arent enough bullets per person if 27 people lost their lives. Even if there was a 30 round clip in an assault rifle and the 2 hand guns that is 40 bullets. If they were shot just twice that is 54 bullets needed.
    Next is the family pictures. Why on the 2 family pictures that I have seen is Emily standing on the side.
    If the medical examiner know more than most about guns and bullets why does he call it one gun “a long weapon” not a rifle or shotgun but the long weapon.
    One video show someone being pushed on a gourney at the firehouse. I am guessing they pushed this person down that road on the gourney to the firehouse because with no ambulance at the school and no way thru they would of had to push them up there.
    Does anyone know of any injured student/or faculty? I heard of 3 but they didnt make it.
    I cant say either way on this. I would pray that it is a hoax so no lives were lost.

    • Bullets: I don’t think a final report has been issued on this. There are certainly many people who would like more details here.
      Family pictures: Probably because in the two most popular pictures, each of the parents is holding one of the two younger siblings. Have you seen their old family blog?
      Medical examiner: He was clearly being careful during the press conference not to mis-speak in an evolving situation.
      Gurney: There were reports that a teacher was shot in the foot. The name wasn’t released.

  11. the parker family photo: Emily has on the red dress then we are to belive that her little sister has on her deceased sisters dress just days after her death. maybe, but it looks alot like the same little girl in both photos. the parker family has many fake proven by pros to be fake photos.. what is that about??? i dont know what whoever is up too but we need to find out because someone is up to something and the emotions of the whole nation and the world are being playied with. WHY!

    • If the dress had been worn in a photo taken two years ago, couldn’t that dress just have been a hand-me-down, as is so common with siblings close in age? Sisters two years apart can’t look similar? What images have proven to be fake?

  12. Alta brewer // January 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm //

    It was “live footage” that day. “Breaking news.” They are caught red handed, using stock drill footage of St. Rose of Lima school, which was either done live right then and there, or prior. Not from 2 days in the future! I was searching CNN’s live blog to see if there was any videos there, interesting I read CNN’s blog from the 14th, 6:51 pm est law enforcement told CNN the bushmaster was in the trunk. 9 hours after the shooting. That doesn’t qualify as an early initital reporting error on the gun issue, sorry.

    • CNN said “breaking news” for about 4 or 5 days afterward. And yes it could have been live on that Sunday with their continuing coverage of the shooting. Where does the video state that it is on the 14th?

      Why does the video leave the sound off so they could prove it was on the 14th and not the 16th? Maybe the real hoax is from those creating videos like this.

  13. Alta brewer // January 21, 2013 at 1:22 pm //

    Since you started this debunking article, there still has not been any actual footage of the shooter released. I want to see a picture of this shooter, with his fatigues, mask, bullet proof best and ear plugs that went into the school with no motive, and the intent to kill himself. While we’ve been waiting, a part 2 to this video has been made. Now people have put to light that CNN’s helicopter footage of police charging the school, is not even Sandy Hook Elementary, but it’s St. Rose of Lima school. Why would they air that shot? Why would they have stock footage of 7 police storming St. Rose of Lima private school? You can clearly tell the footage is not from Sandy Hook. Again more oddities.

    • Can you verify the date of that video? It is likely from 2 days later when there was a bomb threat at the St. Rose Lima Church, adjacent to St. Rose Lima school. It appears to be in a montage of images from the event, which certainly could include the bomb threat. It was reported:

      “Tons of officials swarm St. Rose of Lima Church in Newtown Sunday following an anonymous threat that prompted an evacuation in the middle of a Mass.”

  14. its just far to many questions. if it was one or two or three or four diffrent situations that are fishy then maybe it was just bad reporting like this page says. but its one after another after another thing wrong with this event.. from bush to obama nothing changed..

    • So developing stories have a limit to which they can be reported prematurely, and after that limit it becomes conspiracy?

  15. Ernest Short // January 21, 2013 at 12:35 pm //

    First of all, I have a college education, do not believe that there is a conspiracy to be found here, and I absolutely abhor the fact that this tragic event is being exploited by the video maker that has not the balls to publicly make his name available to explain the “ghost” Facebook pages. But you, Matt S. is a self-righteous prick. Your education has made you a legend in your mind. Common sense is not a book learned behavior. You are as, if not more, narrow minded than the people you protest. In my life, I have learned much from high school dropouts. The authors, or filmers, of the video have not come forward. They made the video to achieve an inner sense of importance, if the conspiracy is real, would it not follow that they would go public and bask in the limelight? Forget that the chaos that followed this tragedy lacks any semblance to any planning or that an entire community is in on it, the fact that they are akin to matt s. in their thought processes would dictate that be publicly acknowledged as the intellectuals that exposed the conspiracy of the century. They do not because the conspiracy was engineered by them, the Facebook pages a hoax perpetuated by them. Anon, what you describe as bs by a parent on the death of their child is, well, bs. Sometimes in a tragic situation, people want to appear strong, whether it be for other loved ones or their sense of self-concept. That facade fails them, when they talk about their grief. Remember that girl in South Carolina named Susan who drowned her own two children a few years back. In front of the cameras she was grief stricken. You would see no conspiracy there because she was “acting” right. That is what a conspiracy is- you act right. The fact that he did not handle his “grief” in a “normal” way is not a sign that there is a conspiracy, rather, it is evidence that there was not.

  16. Alta brewer // January 21, 2013 at 12:23 pm //

    Matt S, there is a professor in the u.s. putting his career on the line by trying to have an open discussion about it being a hoax. Your name calling and comments of labelling people discussing this gong show of a story is sad, just like CNN news anchors resorting to name calling when they lose an argument. I’m college educated, is that too much schooling to be discussing this? How about the numerous engineers that proved in no way could the towers involved in 9-11 come down as a result of those planes.

    • Ata brewer and ernest short. Let me be clear on a couple things. 1. Education reflects intelligence, albeit not a perfect correlation between the two, and it’s not a causal relationship. In other words, one does not become more “intelligent” through education, but highly educated people on a whole are more intelligent (on average of course) than someone with less education. Certainly, there are highly intelligent dropouts, and coversely highly educated people who lack common sense. Richard Branson, multi-BILLIONAIRE is a high school dropout. He’s a business magnate and genius is his own way. Unfortunately that’s not the rule, it’s the exception. And in no way is a higher-educated or highly intelligent person in any way any better than someone with less of either. Just as the professor who is openly discussing the possibility of a hoax. He may be very book smart indeed. He is more likely than not however lacking in other areas of intelligence.

      What does it all mean? Well I was simply stating that the quickest way for you to self-assess your intelligence and therefore ability to make a sensible conclusion, is how educated you are. If you are not educated, you still may very well be smarter than me. However, if you can be duped into believing something that all others accept is true, you should have PROOF before coming to the table. You should not make a video full of half truths, assumptions and opinions in order to take advantage of peoplel’s inability to come up with logical conclusions on their own. Taking it to a level of harassing victims families based on someone you THINK is not acceptable, even if you think they are actors. I was clearly very upset when I wrote my first post after having read that such things are happening to the families of the victims now because of this. I do not think I am a legend but I am a better person than one who was duped into thinking this was a hoax and who is causing further grief to victims of one of the worst tragedies inside our borders in recent history.

      Finally, to say Engineers “proved” that the planes could not have caused the towers to collapse is an OPINION. In other words, you believe this to be true. Let’s assume this actually happened. Using your logic….engineers “say” they proved it. Who are those Engineer? Have they admitted it publicly? They must in order for you to know. Where did they go to school? Was it a respected and accredited university? Watt was their GPA? Are they a certified Engineer? Was their “proof” reviewed by their peers in the Engineering society, and did they agree? Let’s assume they pass these tests. Have Engineers or Scientists ever been WRONG? Has someone ever lied before because they stood to benefit something by telling a lie? All of these questions and more would need to be addressed for something to be “proven” as you say. I can assure you, your proof does not pass these simple tests.

      Why is it that a Conspiricy theorist so easily dismisses commonly accepted FACTS as false, based on a small amount of evidence that they don’t understand (or choose not to understand) that seems to contradict the facts? Why do they also so easily accept an alternate explanation with little no no evidence to support, and where common sense and logic DO NOT fit with this alternate “theory” or as you would say “proof.” Your using of the word proof gives away your ability to be convinced of something without sufficient evidence.

      Occam’s razor, which stands the tests of time, states essentially that the simplest of explanations are almost always correct. If you disagree, fine. Just please don’t elevate or encourage others to elevate to the levels of harassing victims.

  17. First off your “explanations” have more holes then the videos.

    For one: if the “father” that we saw being chased through the woods for a good distance was just trying to get to the daughter, why would he run from the police into the woods? Makes no sense.

    #2 why did the boy have his brothers ID, it was initially reported that the suspects brother was found in the woods yet that story was dropped and changed.

    #3 a mere hour after the shooting then they were saying the mother was a teacher, the school “nurse”( and seriously Sally is in no way correlated to Sarah, get real) even confirms it. Yet now she’s not and how would they know who the shooter was if he had someone else’s ID, and no family to make a positive ID AND the people at the school who would know him were dead…… And so his mother was or wasn’t a teacher??? Which story are we going with now?

    #4 ANY parent knows that days after losing a child you wouldn’t be laughing and joking on tv about the situation surrounding the death of the child. That is bs!

    #5 the picture with Obama IS the same child. Period. You can call an apple a pear but it doesn’t change the taste.

    #6 yes Google date can and are usually wrong. BUT even if you change the name of a Facebook page you can’t change the data entered, it’s dated AND time stamped, so how do you explain that? And anyone with an IQ over 80 knows that nothing is ever deleted from the Internet. I’m sure Facebook would be glad to supply that information.

    I have much more to disprove your rebuttal but I’m tired.

    • 1. They questioned him and he was released.
      2. Perhaps he took it? 2a. “Initially reported” isn’t a fact.
      3. Who are “they” here? 3a. There is no evidence of any school nurse said she was a teacher. 3b. It has been pretty well established by multiple sources that Sally is her nickname.
      4. He walked in and smiled. Is that laughing and joking? Is it so hard to believe that he could smile at the press before giving his statement?
      5. This is fact, based on what? Where is their third child then? And if Emilie is real, how can her father be fake? Why has no one in Sandy Hook come forward to expose this actor? Would those involved be so inept as to “accidentally” send Emilie in to pose with Obama? Why would she even be there if she was supposed to be playing dead and hiding somewhere? It wouldn’t make sense to bring your child around all those cameras if she was supposed to be dead.
      6. We have already proven you can set up a Facebook page named after an event and time-stamped before it.

  18. just want answers // January 20, 2013 at 8:16 pm //

    I want to start by saying I believe lives were lost and that this is truly a tragedy. But, I have 3 major issues with the “story”. the man handcuffed and put in the officers car was the father of a student but the man running in the woods was a totally different person. i saw the news report as it happened and thought where does he think he is going. It was later said that the man running in the woods was an off duty officer from another town. my question is, why did he run from the officers and why was he wearing camo pants and a tactical vest.The same thing Lanza was wearing. I find that odd. Also what were the weapons used? first it was 2 handguns, then an AR-15 was added to the mix. Shortly thereafter a shotgun was found in the trunk. a week later CBS stated that in fact no AR was used and that there were 4 handguns at the scene. Oh, and Lanza had a tactical vest on but then later it was said that he didn’t. Again, I find that odd. And finally Allison Wyatt. the picture being used for this deceased student was actually a picture of Lilly Gaubert. Lilly’s mother found out the picture was being used and she was concerned for her daughter’s safety because her daughter is very much alive. Now, Why didn’t the parents/family/friends of the deceased girl come out and say, Hey, you have Allison’s name under someone else’s picture. These are the thing I found confusing as I saw the reports. How can so many things be wrong.

    • Things are often wrong with early, developing news stories, because reporters are trying to get their story out fast. In a chaotic setting, it shouldn’t be unusual for police to question unknown people in the area. People are known to run from the police when they would have been better off just talking to them. Conflicting early reports about the guns used, wrong pictures used, police questioning people in the area – none of that sounds far-fetched.

      • just want answers // January 21, 2013 at 8:10 am //

        I agree with you about early reports. they are usually packed with wrong information. I also agree that people get questioned. I am speaking about reports that came out weeks later. To this day, news stations still can’t get the weapons right. Some regularly report it was only handguns and some still say AR15. which is it. By now we should have an absolute answer on that. honestly, we should have had a clear answer that day after the building was swept. I would imagine officers know what handguns look like vs a rifle. As far as the man running into the woods. He was said to be an off duty officer. Seems very strange that an officer would run. A common man maybe, but a trained officer? seems reporters are more interested in making the story rather than reporting the news, leaving everyone else to wonder what really happened.

  19. Truth be told // January 20, 2013 at 2:46 pm //

    ALL i need to know is that they didnt allow ambulances & EMS workers in? r u kidding? WHO was it that said ‘everybody is dead, no one can try to save any one of the victims’..Why did EMS workers listen instead of INSISTING that there are probably some victims that can be saved? If you dont think that is completely unbelievable then you probably believe that jet engines “disintegrate”(see pentagon and Pennsylvania)and our gov is to be trusted…How about the fact that we didn’t see ANY blood? Not one drop? . NO bodies ..not even of the adults? No shattered windows or bullet holes in walls? No interviews with the man that was caught in the woods ( why was he running from police?)..This is staggerring that Reporters and Citizens dont have more questions… I know what our gov is capable of..Just ask an American Indian, The Vietnamese people in Afghanistan who are being terrorized by bomb dropping drones on a daily basis…
    The dictatorship is underway & your rights are all? but gone. Our government is a tool of the banksters that want to depopulate this planet.Death camps r coming.
    ANOTHER FALSE FLAG- A population in a constant state of fear does not ask questions
    Look what Hitler, Mao and Lenin and many other Dictators did before they killed 10’s of millions of people.Dis-arm the citizens. Sleeping Citizens r MUCH more dangerous than a gun.

    • Have you heard complaints from EMS workers on the scene? Why has no one in Sandy Hook come forward to state that these people are fake? Do you expect graphic images of these murdered children to be released? If so, wouldn’t it be just easy to dismiss those as fake, too?

      Does your pursuit of answers include questions about the video itself, such as clear falsehoods included in it?

      Why state that Gene Rosen is an actor, when he is not (different guy)? Why state that Sally Cox isn’t a nurse when she is? Why is Robbie Parker fake but Emilie Parker is real? Why pose questions about the man in the woods when his identity was clearly known shortly after? Why are early news reports suddenly gospel? Why say ambulances weren’t allowed in, when they were clearly on the scene? Why say FEMA had a “staging area” that was “down the road” when it was just a regularly-held class open to the public at a hospital 20 miles away? Why insinuate that police walking slowly on the scene proves it was a hoax, when they were clearly conducting an investigation?

      • Waffles, thank you for replying with some intelligent questions! It’s sad to think that citizens in our society can watch this video and believe in even a fraction of it, or what any of it implies. Unfortunately for them, they don’t realize that believing any of it is simply a reflection of their low intelligence. Let me propose something to the theorist: Why is the typical conspiracy theorist a low functioning member of society with little to no formal education? Ask yourself…”Do I have a Master’s or Doctorate degree from a respected university?” if you answer no to this…keep reading. Low IQ individuals suffer a dual disadvantage. Not only do they have a low IQ, but they don’t have the mental faculty to realize it. In a less civilized way of speaking, their too stupid to actually KNOW they’re stupid. Show me one highly intelligent person (lawyer, doctor, physicist, pharmacist, physchologist, etc) who would believe that Sandy Hook was staged (or is a hoax or anything of the sort) or that 9-11 was an “inside job” based on the best evidence out there. Well” unfortunately they don’t exist! Unfortunately for the low IQ theorists though, they can simply explain this away using the same flawed logic they’re accustomed to in order to continue to believe their theories. I.e. “well sure, I’m a 43 year old cashier with a 9th grade education, but I guarantee lawyers see the same thing, they’re just too embarrassed to admit it publicly…” or something similar to this. You just can’t argue with stupid. 

        For example; let’s imagine the following situation I made up is true. (Here’s a dumbed down example that hopefully, even the most simple-minded person can understand.)
        1. the US government decided they would be the only ones to sell ice cream in the US and they shut down all the ice cream stands in the US.
        2. Pool drownings occur in a local public pools as summer temperatures increase. A news outlet covers some drownings and shows kids eating iced cream, and state that several children who drowned were witnessed to be eating iced cream earlier in the day
        3. The news states that Initial reports suggest that local sales of ice cream is the highest of the summer, and that accidental drownings are at an all-time high as well.

        Explanation 1:  Conspiracy theorist sees these facts and makes claims linking the ice cream and drowning. They claim the government is doing this on purpose for a number of reasons, and gives “compelling” evidence. Such as….”we have PROOF, video evidence even that children were eating iced cream the same day they drowned!”  We also have proof from independent studies PROVING that in the US, whenever iced cream consumption is at it’s highest, drownings are also at their highest! Therefore the iced cream that the government is issuing is somehow causing this because…(fill in the blank). 

        Explanation 2: An intelligent person, or at least a person of average intelligence or higher would say “well yeah, ice cream consumption and drobecause are both really high because its really hot this summer. Hot temperatures mean iced cream sales go up, and the number of people going to the public pool is at an all-time high when it’s blistering hot, which increases the likelihood of a drowning. Too many kids, not enough supervision, etc. 

        Conclusion: Clearly the second is the more LOGICAL explanation because the alternative…the government serving ice cream that causes drownings or similar, is absolutely ridiculous and defies reason. It would involve Americans sitting in an office somewhere saying: “ok we need to kill some children. How we gonna make this happen?” government officials with children of their own, and children in their family (nieces, nephews, cousins, etc) plotting to kill innocent American children for the benefit of…..? Sound stupid yet? Ok let’s keep going, these discussions persist and they recruit “actors” and let them in on it. Dozens of actors, more American citizens, none of which raise their hand and say……”umm this is wrong people.” And they end up doing so and pulling it off managing to keep it a secret, and NONE of the involved come forward to any news outlets whatsoever and say how this was pre-planned, and what their role was. And for the rest of time, no one who was involved and “on the inside” comes forward and admits to being part of it….because people in general are SO good at keeping secrets in general (insert sarcasm).

        Give me a break people and for gods sake, seek help if you take an argument to my post, or think SH is a hoax. Unless you think I’m a member of the government who is posting this to try and convince you this isn’t a hoax when it really is!!! Uh-ohhhh the government is all powerful and they’re coming to get us, let’s go buy some guns in revolt for this sandy hook hoax they’re pulling over our eyes!!!!! Aahagahagahh!!!!

        • Matt,

          Let me clarify, do you believe that intelligence comes from education? If so what is your rank? Because you lost me there amigo.


        • i wish you was right but sorry. we all will, if we dont see already, see just how evil people in control are. soon you too will see the light or darkness i should say.. since july 4 1776 and before, this has been the american way. deception, but i have great news and that is JESUS is alive and he is just waiting on the trumpet to sound! Glory2JESUS the true and living GOD

  20. Ernest Short // January 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm //

    My sister, who I love and still dearly miss, died last year. I was strickened with grief. After tbe initial hour or so, I greeted arriving family members with a smile. Only when I started to esplain what happened did I then choke up and break down again. How can you conspiracy makers sleep at night knowing that you prey upon his grief by saying that he is not truly remorseful. Also, I work in an emergency room and have witnessed many different reactions to tragedy.

    • Thank you. I have seen people nervously laughing at a funeral. There is no right or wrong reaction to death. Why is it such a stretch to believe he walked in and smiled to greet the press before choking up when giving his statement?

  21. Still this is all just hear say, you didnt prove anything you gave possible suggestions in the same way the conspiracy video does, both arguments are invalid

    • Quite a few points of the video have been proven – Google dates can be wrong, Facebook dates can be faked, Sally Cox was an R.N., the identity of the man in the woods. Some questions can never be “proven” such as what is in a person’s mind, such as a father who smiles before a press conference, but there are certainly simpler explanations than the video presents.

1 2

Comments are closed.