Sandy Hook School Massacre Part II: Continued Ambiguity and Augmented Realities 240

Revised on January 4, 2013

As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends.

A considerable amount of evidence has been withheld by authorities, who in a telling move have successfully postponed public disclosure of items culled from Nancy and Adam Lanzas’ residence and vehicles for an additional ninety days. [1]

At the same time what has been revealed and captured in press reports suggests how from missing suspects and evidence to unrevealed corpses much is still unknown and mainstream news outlets have been at least complicit in what could conceivably be described as the Sandy Hook massacre’s constructed reality. In this way unseen and largely unaccountable authorities set the agenda of the reportage through a titillating storyline reliant on an unsettling symbolic landscape to further develop and cultivate audience credulity.

The spectacle came complete with its own features specially designed for those with a penchant for pointing to intrigue. Shortly after the shooting prominent Arizona political figure and former gubernatorial aspirant Michael Harris opined that the shooting was carried out by an Israeli paramilitary team. Veterans Today Editor Gordon Duff amplified this speculative assertion through a brief article carried by Iran’s PressTV that went viral, becoming the Iranian news outlet’s most read item ever.[2]

Despite compelling geopolitical and diplomatic conditions the claim cannot be verified because the identities of the two-to-four additional suspected gunmen apprehended by Newtown and Connecticut state police remain undisclosed while almost all identity-specific references to these suspects were scrambled on the audio recording of the emergency dispatch-responders exchange. Were these men possibly playing roles in an emergency drill?

Much can still be gleaned from the press coverage of Sandy Hook. Most importantly, as with the events of 9/11 that ushered in the interminable “war on terror” and police state, the techniques that have emblazoned Sandy Hook in public consciousness require continued scrutiny if only for the fact that they will almost certainly be deployed to create similar disaster scenarios, likely in the near-term.

Was Sandy Hook a Relocated Emergency Drill?

At 9:53AM, no more than ten minutes after the reported shooting ceased, the Associated Press published a story, “Official with Knowledge of Connecticut School Shooting Says 27 Dead, Including 18 Children.”  AP and the Washington Post have since removed the story from their websites in lieu of subsequent reports that took their cue from a press conference scheduled for later that day.

Indeed, aside from internal police accounts of what took place inside Sandy Hook Elementary there is little information available to piece together what may have actually transpired inside the school. No photographic or video footage of the crime scene have been made publicly available and major media have to a large degree based their conclusions on Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver’s verbal account of the postmortem which is at best ambiguous.[3]

Two weeks after the incident an attorney representing the family of one six-year-old Sandy Hook student came forth with a $100 million lawsuit because their child “sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury” when she, like several other children and staff, heard “‘cursing, screaming, and shooting’ over the school intercom.” The suit has since been withdrawn.[4]

Coverage of the event by the modest local weekly the Newtown Bee is most revealing in its combined discrepancies, vagueness, and brevity. In a December 14 article unidentified school personnel were floridly commended for their courage. Among them were school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who recounted to Bee Editor John Voket[5] how “a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than she could count – that went ‘on and on.’”

The problem with the account was that it conflicted with a subsequent storyline where Hochsprung was the first to be killed by the gunmen. Three days later the paper issued a retraction and revised the story further.[6]  No additional explanation was provided concerning what party Volkert spoke to and quoted at the crime scene, suggesting from the onset a partly botched attempt at establishing a well-worn storyline.

Along these lines the same article relates what under the circumstances seems like an odd exchange between law enforcement and the school’s staff. Shortly after the incident

an unidentified woman wearing a Connecticut State Police jacket addressed the group of teachers and staff who were consoling each other in the empty Sandy Hook apparatus bays. She complimented them on their individual and “exemplary” efforts following the procedures they were taught to ensure the protection of as many children and colleagues as possible.[7]

In the immediate aftermath of a bloody massacre where 27 lay dead or dying is this the appropriate time for a “post-game pep talk” and slaps on the back? What this closely resembles is the breakdown of a shooting drill, one that proceeded with violent sound effects broadcast through the school’s intercom system. In fact, on the same day the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in association with the Federal Emergency Management Agency were carrying out a “Planning for the Needs of Children in Disaster” drill in nearby Bridgeport.[8] Was the exercise location changed to Newtown at the last minute?

Close analysis of circumstances surrounding the event including unusual emergency procedures and news outlets’ interactions with alleged victim families following the shooting reveals important recurrent features and figures that further call the official account into question.

A Phantom Evacuation?

Additional facets of coverage and maneuvers suggesting the possibility of an at least partially staged event include the choice of the Sandy Hook Fire and Rescue Company’s headquarters as an evacuation point for the school’s students. This is accompanied by a lack of photographic or video evidence of such a widespread evacuation, bizarre interview footage of idle and wandering families alongside an emotional man who just happens across a half dozen Sandy Hook first graders in his front lawn who apparently witnessed their teacher’s murder.

Newtown Bee Associate Editor Shannon Hicks asserts that she was among the first on the scene at Sandy Hook, driving behind police and “taking photographs immediately through the windshield of her car, with one hand on the steering wheel and one holding her camera.”[9] Strangely, however, at best only two of Hicks’ photos actually emerge from the series—the famous shot of about fifteen students in conga line formation evidently moving across the parking lot en route to the fire station and a second of state police officers appearing in the December 14 Bee report that is later expunged.

Hicks’ ferocity and determination to capture the scene only yields a few published photos at a time when corporate media outlets were very eager for such documentation, while no other photo or video evidence have emerged indicating such a widespread exodus from the school.

Nor is there any rationale provided in reportage on exactly why the fire station is even designated as an evacuation point. The choice is unusual because the school has only one route in and out of the facility—Dickenson Drive—and in the event of an actual emergency children are forced to parade down a street as police cars, fire engines, and ambulances race the other way. Many schools use their adjoining parking lots as a rendezvous point, and Sandy Hook’s is particularly capacious.


“Safety First,” photo Tweeted on October 17, 2012 by Sandy Hook Elementary Principal Dawn Hochsprung.

Despite this dangerous and untenable set of conditions Sandy Hook students rehearsed this very scenario less than two months prior, as revealed in a photo Tweeted on October 17 by Principal Hochsprung. The image depicts a much larger assemblage of students in the lot behind the Sandy Hook fire station.

Itinerant “Crisis Actors”?

Following an evacuation of such magnitude the Sandy Hook fire depot would have been bursting at the seams with over six hundred children and staff, and at least as many family members, in addition to police, fire and medical personnel. Yet apart from a large array of emergency vehicles at the site no aerial footage indicates activity on this scale at any point following the shooting.

Instead, there are numerous strange encounters between broadcast journalists and small, sporadic group of wandering parents and children, some of whom are at best moderately curious and far from grief-stricken or hysterical at the prospect that their child may have been caught in the deadly assault. After such a harrowing event why are select would-be family members and students lingering in the area and repeatedly offering themselves for interviews? A possible reason is that they are trained actors working under the direction of state and federal authorities and in coordination with cable and broadcast network talent to provide tailor-made crisis acting that realistically drives home the event’s tragic features.

One organization providing such services is the Colorado-based Vision Box’s acting troupe Crisis Actors. The entourage’s personnel are “available nationwide for active shooter drills and mall shooting full-scale exercises.” Crisis Actors “develop and portray characters in emergency training scenarios,” Vision Box’s website reads.

The intensity at which they work recreates real life pressures that first responders going through the training must cope with … This special group has sessions with police officers, 911 operators, school administrators, mall security, radio experts, and school safety training professionals. There is an endless amount of scenarios this group can tackle, which range anywhere from weather issues, to a missing child, to an unknown intruder.

According to the Crisis Actors website group members work in association with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and “can play the part of the shooters, mall employees, shoppers in the mall, shoppers who continue to arrive at the mall, media reporters and others rushing to the mall, and persons in motor vehicles around the mall.” They are also trained to “play the role of citizens calling 911 or mall management, or posting comments on social media websites.”

Is it possible that such actors were utilized in Newtown to control the event’s depiction and magnify its effect on public opinion? With the exception of police and government officials, the shocked and grief-stricken students, family members and pedestrians captured in photos from the shooting’s aftermath are almost entirely anonymous. Further, the suggestion of collaborative efforts between journalists and families is evident in many of the interviews with family members, such as this surprisingly aborted exchange between a would-be parent and journalist.

Reporter: Sir, can I talk to you a second here? We’re Channel Two in New York. How did you find out about this, uhm, terrible tragedy?
[Reporter approaches family of three with third grade daughter and apparent Sandy Hook student accompanying them.-JT]
Unidentified Mother: OK. My daughter’s in third grade. We got, uhm, an automated call from, uhm, from the town—
Reporter: Yeah?
Mother: –that there had been a shooting.
Reporter: Sure.
Mother: Uh, nothing about where the shooting was, and that the schools were on lock down.
Reporter: So you were assuming it was probably the high school at first, right?
[Note that the mother has yet to say anything about having a son attending the local high school.]
Mother: Of course, and my son’s at the high school and I text him. He said, “Everything’s fine here.”
Reporter: Yeah.
Unidentified Mother: And then I got another text from, uh, CBS.

With virtually hundreds of students, faculty, staff and their families looking for each other and being reunited around the scene one would think journalists would have a broad range of interviewees from which to choose. Yet the same mother and daughter are again captured the morning of the shooting by an NBC affiliate.

Unidentified Mother: Another friend of mine said that, uhm, there was a man—masked man came in and just started shooting.
Unidentified Daughter:  When we were gone doing morning meeting [sic] like, we heard like, shots and everybody went on the ground and Ms. Martin just closed the door and we went to the corner.

In the same news clip another male child describes in unusual detail how he narrowly escaped the gunman’s hail of bullets.

Unidentified male student:  I heard something like a person was kicking on a door. Then I turned around and I saw smoke and I smelled smoke. Then (pause) Then bullets whizzed by. Then—then a teacher pulled me in to her room.

Here is the same student speaking to another journalist.

Unidentified male student: I saw some of the bullets going past the hall [sic] that I was right next to and then a teacher pulled me into her classroom.
Reporter: You heard sounds?
Male student: Yes.
Reporter: What did it sound like to you?
Male student: It sounded like someone was kicking a door.

The frequent hesitancy with specific words in this children’s deliveries, combined with a parent allowing their child to repeatedly recount such an event and the unemotional, almost identically-worded delivery, suggests how they may have been coached to present memorized lines.

Another child by the name of “Alexis Wasick” also makes at least two appearances and, following the unscripted lead of one journalist, recites similar lines in each interview.

CNN Reporter: Joining me is the Wasick family. We have Alexis who is in third grade. You told me you were sitting in class this morning and you saw a lot of police. Tell me-tell me how you found out what was going on.
“Alexis”: Well, we found that there was all these people and we found that [unintelligible] because we were right near the window in our classroom. And like, we saw like police officers and we heard them [directly addressing camera] on the roof and in our building.
[At this point “Alexis” receives some cues from CNN’s reporter.]
Reporter: Was everybody crying, scared, wanting their parents to get them?
“Alexis”: Yeah, they were.  And some people were even like, they kind of wish that they got a stomach ache [sic].

On the same day “Alexis” gives a somewhat different account with similar verbiage to an entirely different reporter.

Reporter: What happened?
“Alexis”:[Addressing reporter offscreen] Nothing really [unintelligible] We heard like an ambulance and a police officer come and everybody was a little scared crying and I felt actually a little sick, and I felt like I was going to throw up and [glances at camera] did my teacher too [sic]. [The garbled line, “My teacher did too,” suggests a canned delivery.]
Reporter: How did you get out of there?
“Alexis”: We had to [vocal cadence slowing] go—through—the—building (pause) and then we had to just go to the firehouse.

The performance of Sandy Hook resident Gene Rosen suggests how the community members might become intimately enveloped in the unfolding tragedy. Despite the overwhelming federal, state and local police presence blanketing the community on December 14 Rosen explains several days later how while feeding his cat he receives an unexpected visit from six mislaid and forlorn children whose classmates and first grade teacher Victoria Soto were killed in the shooting. “The six who turned up at Rosen’s home apparently ran out of the school past her body,” the New York Post amazingly asserts.[10] Instead of calling the authorities to properly reunite the children with their parents Rosen bizarrely invites them inside his home for 30 minutes to jostle with stuffed animals and describe their ordeal.

In an initial interview Rosen is standing in the driveway of his home and appears overcome with emotion, taking off his glasses while turning away from the camera and wiping eyes. He then proceeds down the driveway toward the front of his house, pointing to where he first spotted the children.

Rosen:  Six children, and they were sitting there. They were sitting there, and I had no idea why they were there. And I went down there.
[Cut to Rosen’s hands clutching reading glasses, then back to Rosen.]
Rosen: There’s a school bus driver and she says, “There’s been an incident. And I said, “Just come in the house.” And that’s how it started and  I—I brought them in the house.
[Cut to stuffed animals inside Rosen’s house, then back to Rosen.]
Rosen: And then over the next thirty minutes they just described what happened, little-by-little. These two boys kept saying, “We can’t go back to school. We can’t go back to school. Our teacher’s dead—Mrs. Soto. We don’t have a teacher.” And I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t take that in. I had no idea what had happened.  A woman came to my house at twelve o’clock
[Cut to dimly-lit interior of house where Rosen stands before stuffed animals on floor.]
Rosen: Her face—her face looked frozen in-in terror. I’ve never seen a face look like that. She said, “Is my boy here? I heard there were six kids here.” And she said the name of the child. I thought that if she’d been to the Sandy Hook school she thought maybe a miracle from god would have the child in my house.  And I looked at the casualty list at six o’clock.
[Hand to eyes and weeping, then shaking head]
Rosen: His name was on it!

Time and again in the wake of the incident Rosen is brought before network cameras to present his maudlin recounting of the surreal and implausible encounter.

Continued Postmortem Uncertainties

To properly identify each victim would have required weighing, measurement, de-robing, washing, with all identifying features such as scars or birthmarks noted. Such standard postmortem procedures, the public is asked to believe, were accomplished at the school as no more than three were treated at the well-prepared Danbury Hospital.[11] According to Carver’s December 15 press conference remarks the teachers and children were processed by the state coroner and his staff at an onsite mobile facility the night of the shooting.

Yet at least one family was  not even allowed to see the body of their loved one. “They told me, ‘You can’t see (the body),'” Gilles Rousseau remarked to Radio-Canada, the French-language arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “Because most people he shot, it was two or three shots in the face, point-blank.”[12] If this were the case it puts further pressure on the uncertain notion that Lanza was an expert shot who had the opportunity to uninterruptedly fire at almost inanimate subjects.

Further, without explanation Carver postponed examination of Adam Lanza’s body until two days after the shooting. Jean Henry, a processing technician in Carver’s office, was recently placed on leave when she allegedly brought her husband, an unauthorized party, in to the state morgue to view Lanza’s corpse.

They went to the gurney where Lanza lay, then Henry unzipped the bag so her husband could look at him for a moment, and she closed the bag and they left the room, sources familiar with situation told The Courant Wednesday.[13]

The refusal for at least one family to view the body of their loved one and Henry’s informal intervention both contribute to the uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding what appears as a severely compromised postmortem operation, the gross inconsistencies of which major media have presented to the world as established fact.


As transcribed and analyzed in Part I of this analysis, the unusual testimony of Connecticut’s chief coroner H. Wayne Carver II, ostensibly placed in charge of the Sandy Hook school postmortem. Carver’s December 15 behavior and remarks before the press suggests his clear discomfort and demonstration that he knows very little about the shootings or autopsies themselves. In light of the above the physician’s hesitant performance in Sandy Hook’s tragedy is perhaps not so difficult to explain. At one point Carver even indicates his  disapproval of the proceedings by expressing his wish that his staff and “the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” Is Carver referring to an embellished event that he has been an unwilling participant in?

As indicated on the Crisis Actors website, performance of this type is now a commonplace feature of widely prevalent “live shooter drills” and may be infused throughout such an event and its aftermath to augment and control a broader narrative intended for public consumption. “The power to make a reportable event,” historian Daniel Boorstin writes, is “the power to make experience.”[14]

Along these lines and despite countervailing facts and inconsistencies the official story of the Sandy Hook shooting is now part of the nation’s collective experience, consciousness and memory. To declare that the shooting “never took place” is cause for intense opprobrium in most polite circles where, in familiar Orwellian fashion, the media-induced trance and dehistoricized will to believe maintain their hold. Similarly, an individual who contends that Timothy McVeigh was an accessory in a much larger operation at Oklahoma City, Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the events of 9/11, or the World Trade Center Towers were brought down by controlled demolition is vigorously condemned for thought crimes against the state. Such are the immense dimensions of mass manipulation where fact and tragedy may be routinely revised and reinforced to fit the motives and designs toward a much larger apparatus of social and geopolitical control.


[1] Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, “Newtown Search Warrants for Adam Lanza’s Home, Vehicles Still Sealed,” New Haven Register, December 29, 2012.

[2] Gordon Duff, “Israeli Death Squads Involved in Sandy Hook Blood Bath,” PressTV, December 18, 2012.

[3] James F. Tracy, “The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information,” Global Research, December 25, 2012.

[4] Mary Ellen Godin, “Claim Seeks $100 Million for Child Survivor of Connecticut School Shooting,” Reuters/Yahoo News, December 28, 2012. The suit was tentatively withdrawn shortly thereafter.  Michael P. Mayko, “Lawyer Withdraws Sandy Hook Suit, May Refile,” Connecticut Post, December 31, 2012.

[5] John Voket, “Stories of Heroism Emerging From School Tragedy,” Newtown Bee, December 14, 2012.

[6] “Retraction and Apology,” Newtown Bee, December 17, 2012. See Niall Bradley, “Sandy Hook Massacre: Official Story Spins Out of Control,” Veterans Today, December 20, 2012.

[7] Voket, “Stories of Heroism.”

[9] Julie Moos, “How the Newtown Bee is Covering Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting,”, December 15, 2012.

[10] Reuven Fenton, “Children at Door: Teacher is Dead,” New York Post, December 18, 2012.

[11] Joe Van Brussel, “Danbury Hospital Prepared for School Shooting Massive Casualties, Got Few,” Huffington Post, December 14, 2012.

[12] Lise Millette, “Lauren Rousseau, Teacher killed in Newtown Shooting, Mourned by Canadian Family,” Canadian Press via Huffington Post, December 18, 2012.

[13] Jon Lender and David Altimari, “State Worker Placed on Leave After Showing Husband Adam Lanza’s Body,” Hartford Courant, January 2, 2012.

[14] Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, 25th Anniversary Edition. New York: Vintage Books, 1987 [1961], 10.


  1. As I am sure all will agree on THIS–this is some weird shit? So then why be in a limited hangout is what I say. Let us dive in and see where this leads. I have found a MASSIVE taboo. Even trying to open up debate in the psychedelic community about this is met with silence, ridicule, and accusations of ‘conspiracy theory’. What am I talking about. The OCCULT!!! Sharing information about the language these people–that do these JFKs, and 9/11s and Sandy Hooks etc etc etcuse–which is hidden yet in plain sight, but when looked at we can piece together a structure which connects these supposedly unrelated events. In her analysis of Sandy Hook, Sofia Smallstorm talks about the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and even 6th dimensions to do with understanding Sandy Hook . IE, the 2D is the screen mediarized presentation of THE EVENT, but the 3D is what shows up that’s inconsistencies, the 4th, 5th and 6th is when you look much closer at actions and also what you intend to do when you become aware. This is going deep into the investigation, but even she does not mention about the occult dimension, and that is what this post is about really. For example, she is seeing the Sandy Hook event as some form of experiment that the ones wanting a so-called New World Order are doing to manage perception. HOWEVER, when you look at the occult clues it is more a sacrificial ritual just like 9/11 was etc. If these may seem outlandish to readers reading that, ask yourself just how outlandish is staging such a profoundly traumatic tragedy of little children being massacred and making out it is reality to the world public. IF there is a possibility *that* could be so, then they are capable of *ANYTHING!* Sandy Hook & The Temple of the Feathered Serpent

    • Well, I think the point at which people will clash when choosing which theory best matches the evidence is where they are simply unaware of what the occult is and its various manifestations.

      However, it is obvious to me where Sofia might not think there’s much to support an occult motive in the case of Sandy Hook. I suspect she is convinced more than ever that there were no killings and I agree that from looking at the core evidence alone does point in that direction. So, an occult connection here begins to seem less likely.

      One thing that I did take into account as soon as I considered your ideas was the phenomenon known as child sacrifice. I’m talking specifically about parents who have in the past murdered their own children. Maybe there isn’t a coincidence that it was the Parker’s eldest daughter that is claimed to have been a victim. She was their “first born.” Just pointing that out, in case someone might find it worth running with.

      My main point though is that, if no actual murders took place is there still a reason to consider an occult motive of some kind? My knowledge is limited in that area.

  2. There has been a nagging question in my mind for some time about the worker in the medical examiner’s office, Jean Henry, who was let go from her position for allegedly letting her husband see Adam Lanza’s body. Some immediately called it disgusting, and asked how sick someone could be. However, my first reaction was, “That’s exactly what I would do if I saw something questionable. I would call in a trusted set of eyes to witness it with me.” I just followed up on my hunches and found some interesting pieces of information that weren’t ever mentioned in the media reports that I saw. Although the accounts label Mrs. Henry as a ‘processing technician’, making it sound as though she were a low-level worker, Mrs. Henry was described as “well-known worker in the halls of the state Capitol” before she was demoted to the medical examiner’s office. Jean Henry filed a lawsuit against Governor Dannel Malloy and two other legislative officials in the summer of 2011 for wrongfully being dismissed from her job and infringing on her Constitutional rights.
    I’ve not heard any follow-up on her status, but I find the whole instance very interesting indeed.

  3. This is an interesting site. It has the full spectrum from angry “believers” to quite advanced researchers. I’d just like to offer a few observations of my own.
    Just like the “9-11 Movie”, some people will not accept the obvious. Mostly it is borne of fear. When faced with incontrovertible evidence they willfully reject it in favor of “belief”.
    This is not the first operation like this. It may be the most “emotional” (on purpose I rather think). Whoever is running the psyop wants it that way.
    In order to analyze this you have to put your emotions on the back burner. The first question is; “did they do this, is it a hoax?” This is followed by “why do I think that?”. Sometime later we get to the “how” of it and the “who” of it.
    There are far to many anomalies to be real. There are too many to be accidental. They are sorting the aware from the unaware. They would like to cause conflict between the two.
    In my mind there is no doubt that this is another “drill gone live” scenario. Bits and pieces of the drill are interwoven into Act II of the drill. Likewise, common sense and physics do not allow the official story to be real. That, of course, leaves the question of what really happened.
    All of the clues above and elsewhere point to a highly organized operation. This is hardly the first and likely not the last operation of this kind. The people who do these things always have more than one motive, always.
    As someone above pointed out, where would you go with this information? It’s happened before and people get committed or “depressed”. They know this. They are not worried.
    The more light you shine on this the better. That’s what it needs, sunshine. Don’t be dissuaded by anger and ridicule. Expect false leads. There are traps set to destroy researcher’s credibility. Don’t worry about it. Use your head and if something starts to look suspicious, you can back up. It’s OK.
    Remember, for most of this, you are not imagining this. If it smells fishy, it probably is.
    After wading through this for weeks now I’m becoming more intrigued with the real estate angle. This is at a point where it needs some serious sleuth work. There have to be records. If these people existed they have records. It is more difficult to find acquaintances, etc., than you might think. This region “Sandy Hook” is but a small slice of the larger town “Newtown”. It is not so far-fetched to imagine a “Potemkin village” there.

  4. There is a difference between affirming a person is alive and has a known work history with established known photos and seeing a preliminary web site with words written on it saying they are building a web site and need time. Is Alex von Kleydorff a known documented human being in the photography world?

    • I think what really matters is that we can plainly see that Gen Rosen was rehearsing those lines for his interviews the next day. The photographer status does not change what the images and sounds in the video are telling us, do they?

  5. It seems to be a cohesive message – this even is SO LOW – You Must Act! (buy guns and bullets?) Gifford’s message… Nobody would have the balls to ask, “Could this really be bad acting too? How can her face have healed so fast? why does it seem unreal and faked? And now, a girl who performed at Obama’s inauguration is said to have been shot dead, too. Dare anybody even doubt that we are dropping like flies?”

  6. Have you checked out the two different Photographers mentioned in the first few and last few seconds of the video? “c2012 The Hour Newspapers” (does it exist and did they mis-spell it? & “Photography/ Alex von Kleydorff c2012 All Rights Reserved” I’m going to stop mentioning the anomalies that I mention because it seems they are monitoring this site and changing the anomalies and/or improving their narrative when they are mentioned. Gene’s right nostril seems improbably smaller than the right nostril. I wonder if a person could chart the differences in size and shape between his nose in the different interviews? He’s got quite the round ball on the end in the first part of this. He looks like he has a set of false upper teeth and they seem too wide for his mouth.

  7. Please see above Prof. Tracy’s comments about Newtown Bee’s associate editor Shannon Hicks and the photographs she took and how at best only 2 photos from the series were published. HOWEVER, the Newtown Bee has a special edition .pdf here: and you’ll see that a few more photos by Hicks were published. [Along with a rare photo of the interior of the firehouse–not by Hicks.]

    The photos are on Page 4. It’s clear from the famous photo on Page 1 that the kids have just had an awful experience. But the additional photos on Page 4 will bring up more questions. One photo is captioned:
    “Two adults and a student were among the first to exit the school building, along with a state trooper, following the shootings”. And another one is captioned “An armed state trooper runs toward Sandy Hook School on Friday, December 14, on a report of multiple shots fired within the elementary school building.”

    Clearly, Hicks WAS there early on. Which means she should have a complete documentary record of the police, the responders, the evacuation of the school and on and on. And it’s not like the police chased her away or the camera battery went dead. Another photo is captioned: “Parents waited anxiously in Sandy Hook School’s parking lot Friday morning, waiting for any word on their children inside.” She was still there long enough afterward to photograph waiting parents who arrived later.

    I guess I would have to correct Prof. Tracy’s statement “Hicks asserts that she was among the first on the scene…” to something like “Hicks assertion that she was among the first on the scene is confirmed by the few photos released.”

    • I know that my photography professor could take a photograph and look at the information behind it somehow, which would tell him if it had been photoshopped, what kind of camera took the pictures, or if the settings had been changed, like to correct for lighting, etc… I’m not sure if the info contains individual identification for each individual camera or not. I would feel more confident about your correcting the wording on Professor Tracy’s timeline IF Hick’s herself was testifying to exactly which pictures came from her camera, signing them in some verifiable way AND if they were DATED. It seems that a lot of the items that the media are submitting to the public as factual are being shown to have been produced on dates and times other than those that the public might ASSUME they were produced on – specifically at the exact time or within minutes or hours on the exact day of the shooting at that exact location (not at the Firehouse or in the Firehouse parking lot or elsewhere) It seems the squirley questions have to be asked, Hicks asserts she was exactly where and exactly when? Where is her exact location in the “first” helicopter flyover of the scene? (and when was that taken?) Point her out to us.

  8. You mention a Dec. 14 ‘Bee’ article quoting Hochsprung which was quickly recanted. Do you still have access to that original story? I can’t find it on the Bee site. Thanks in advance!

  9. Check out the ridges at the bottom of her teeth – then look at the picture of Victoria Soto from the Guardian link above – tell me if you think the bottom of her teeth look blurred like somebody deliberately blurred the bottom of those two front teeth? I’ve zoomed in with my “view” tool and it sure looks deliberately blurred to me – see! you can clearly see the bottom edge of the tooth to the right of the front teeth. Bingo! Also check out the sister Carlee Soto who ALSO looks a lot like Zooey. It seems they were working these actors and actresses too hard, spreading them too thin with too many role conflicts and ambiguities.

    • Cmon Angela. Do you really believe that they would get a working A list celeb to use for something like this? I have seen many pics of both of these women. There is a zero percent chance they are one and the same. Why don’t you attempt to add a real argument that would help us? Some people on here are using math and science to calculate time of day with shadows. This is something of substance that can be backed. Complete and utter speculation over an actress is only going to make others shy away from your theories. That is about as crazy as the person who suggested Michael McDonald was playing Peter Lanza. This isn’t a fucking game of “Who’s line is it anyway?”

      • Aha. You answered. I must have touched a nerve. Thanks. check out the earlier pictures of Zooey before the nose job. There’s only the one picture of her at the scene, the shadows are wrong and the camera person was right there at standard professional photography stance distance and angle to catch her swan song.

        • Ya you touched a nerve because you make everyone else who questions the official story look crazy too. These women look NOTHING alike. Your a fool to believe such a thing. You have no evidence at all, and your “proof” is nothing more than 2 pictures of brunette women. Reminds me of the other day when at the inaugural event TV journalist George Stephanopoulos mistook Bill Russell for Morgan Freeman. It was funny and a little racist, but stupid regardless. Just as your claim is here. One is not the other. Look somewhere else for your evidence rather than wasting your time with this nonsense. Try and contribute to the conversation or go away.


        The actresses suddenly got distorted and uglier. New Conspiracy: The Uglification of Sandy Hook. Carlee seems to be getting a lot browner, now looking hispanic. The eyes are changing from blue to brown in pictures of both girls AND the that telling hairline with that inverted peak is getting changed in the pictures. These pictures are literally Morphing since I looked at them last night. Look at the original picture of victoria’s left ear (when looking at her its on your right) the ear skin color has several different flesh tones on it and the earlobe seems to have been modified as well as the earring. Check out those pictures of carlee at the funeral – she looks like a white girl and now she’s hispanic. None of this morphing was happening until today…

        If you look at all the different noses Zooeys family has had over the decades, its a wonder they can smell. And now the links aren’t opening up to the pages on the ones with the bigger noses. The pictures of the younger Zooey are buried by a slew of recent ones.…1068.36606.1.37341.…0.0…1c.1.YK7x-AZ14LI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.cGE&fp=70fb6c90ad4a13a2&biw=1527&bih=941&

      • You don’t have any authority or right to tell me where to look for evidence of the conspiracy. I’ve never believed any of these conspiracies before – I couldn’t even fathom that my country would allow anything approaching a widespread public deception. (except I did know about witness protection) For now, I’m playing the “What IF…?” game and just opening my mind up to the possibility that my government has become corrupt enough to allow something like this… because IF they did then this is really mean. I was in a grocery store after all the news coverage and a little boy was telling his mother that he didn’t want the bullet to hit his right hand… If this was a public deception and not a true tragedy, then a whole generation of public school kids has been needlessly traumatized and terrorized. The REAL victims *MIGHT* be the millions of the little kids sitting in classrooms across the USA wondering if they are going to get shot. I never questioned the JFK or the moon landing or the Norway island massacre or 9-11 or the Oklahoma bombing because I’m not into TV or news and even though a lot of details of some of these bugged me, I never looked into it. So now, because the acting was sooo bad with preaching about gun control and superficial shallow details about one-dimensional fake victims and these details were so incredibly not believable, suddenly, I am disillusioned enough to start playing the “WHAT IF…? game. There is a lot riding on these actors and actresses (IF this is staged) being believable and anybody who had the finances and political power and authority to bungle something this BIG…

      • It wasn’t my original idea to start focusing on the Teacher, (graduate of Stratford High according to RIP FaceBook) . One of the posts above was observing that the children all seemed to be too perfect, remarking about Victoria Soto… “Could that teacher be any prettier?” But there’s one recent picture that makes her look like Fiona in Shrek when she was an ogre. I think its been tampered with. Many of the pictures have unnecessary blurs, especially around the eyes, nose, teeth and earlobes, and now anterior hairlines too, especially covering that downward protrusion of hair in the V shape on Victoria Soto’s forehead left of her center, on the right when looking at a picture, while other parts of the faces and photos are clear. My computer has a “zoom in” tool where I can zoom in on specific details of the faces in the original pictures presented right after the incident and I can see that physical details that are permanent characteristics of real people are irrationally and illogically changing in these pictures.

        Take this picture for instance. I think she has pencilled in some hairs on the left side of her head – as Carlee – that doesn’t look natural and doesn’t match this picture with the eyes scrunched up.

        in this picture it looks like the nose is slipping on the right nostril because if its the actress that I thought looks similar then she’s had a handful of nose jobs since the original picture when she was much younger and had the big nose. The web site below seems to be asserting that the Jews are the ones behind Sandy Hook. My stereotypical observation of that kind of hypothesis is that it is usually a self-serving arab making that kind of accusation. I don’t know that much about Jewish politics but that seems like something that would need to be researched more. If I were looking at Carlee Soto’s face for evidence, I would say she looks more like an Arab than like a Jew or a Philipino. Ooohh. In the picture at the top of The Criminality of Carlee Soto – her blue eyes are showing through. Victoria’s iris’s are supposed to be blue and Carlee’s are supposed to be brown but I think I can see the blue around the pupil in that picture, the colored contact isn’t covering right.

  10. Google actress Zooey Deschanel and compare her to the pictures of Sandy Hook “heroine” teacher Victoria Soto: They look the same to me. I got to wondering, if they were going to hire actresses and actors – wouldn’t they look for people at the Sundance festival? Bingo. She also does an interesting blond – looks totally different with a blond wig – – – I wonder if there are any dead blond teachers?

    • Check out the ridges at the bottom of her teeth – then look at the picture of Victoria Soto from the Guardian link above – tell me if you think the bottom of her teeth look blurred like somebody deliberately blurred the bottom of those two front teeth? I’ve zoomed in with my “view” tool and it sure looks deliberately blurred to me – see! you can clearly see the bottom edge of the tooth to the right of the front teeth. Bingo!

Comments are closed.