The Sandy Hook-Psychopharma Connection

By Tony Mead*

There is a possibility that Peter and Adam Lanza never existed. There is, for example, limited evidence of their lives before 2009. Do you want to know who does exist ? The author of a 7,600 word article that is supposedly based on several interviews with Peter Lanza.

Andrew Solomon is the son of Howard Solomon, the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Forest Laboratories which had research and development expenditures  of about $1,000,000,000 last year. Forest Laboratories produces Lexapro and Namenda in Ireland while their Headquarters is located in Bermuda. This way they pay $0 in Corporate Tax.

In February 2014, Actavis announced it would acquire Forest Laboratories for around $25 billion. Howard retired in Dec 2013 and stands to make a killing thanks to the announced buyout that will increase his share values incredibly.

Namenda will no longer be available to Alzheimer Patients beginning Aug 15, 2014. It is being taken off the Market and the patients will need to switch to NamendaXR. They are not doing this because of any discovered dangers, not because it has been over-prescribed to mild cases even though it is only recommended for moderate to severe, not because it has been shown that there is little to no effect proven in case studies— but because the Patent expires which means other brands will be able to compete with generics. Forest Laboratories doesn’t want that, so they are forcing their patients to switch to the ‘time-release’ version, of which there is no known generic replacement. This is the type of company created by Howard Solomon.

Educated at Yale and Cambridge, Andrew Solomon became the poster child for the pharmaceutical industry when, at 31, he was able to overcome depression with the help of Celexa, which put Forest Laboratories on the map. Celexa became one of the fastest selling anti-depressants on the market, despite the danger it posed if prescribed to younger patients. In fact, FDA approval was based to a significant degree on the results experienced by Andrew Solomon.

In 2011, Howard Solomon was publicly reprimanded for aggressive marketing of Anti-depressants to children. Forest Labs was fined $313 Million and faced being excluded by the Office of Inspector General. This would mean no more dealings with Medicaid, Medicare and the Veteran’s Administration.

Although touted as the poster child for anti-depressants, Andrew Solomon is really one of the greatest examples of how these drugs lead to a life-long addiction. After some time on a combination of anti-depressant drugs, Andrew decided to quit ‘cold turkey’. The subsequent withdrawal symptoms were more than he could take so he was prescribed more medication to deal with his withdrawal produced anxiety. He began medically treating his depression in 1994 and as of March 2013 was still taking 5 different prescription medications daily!

(Note that it has been reported that Adam Lanza was prescribed Lexapro to deal with his issues, but stopped taking it after several days. The implication is that if only he had taken his medication, perhaps the mass murder could have been prevented.)

So, this is the author of the ‘alleged’ interview with Peter Lanza. I say ‘alleged’, because there is no way to verify that this actually took place. In the article, he states that he met with Lanza on 6 different occasions with one session lasting up to 7 hours !! Yet, the article itself seems to be full of 3rd party observations with very little inside information that only Peter would know. It is also full of contradiction.

Why do you suppose Peter Lanza would have sought out this guy to be the only one to do his exclusive interview with? For instance, Peter is quoted as saying “nothing annoyed him more in our conversations than speculation—by me, the media, or anyone else”. This is coming from the man who is also quoted, in the same article as saying “his son would have killed him, too, given the chance” ?!

The piece is also riddled with contradictory and conflicting information. In one part it says that Adam had sensory issues and did not want to touch anything, including metal door handles. It also says at one point he was unable to tie his own shoes. Yet, it is also claimed that Nancy decided it would be a good idea to take him to the local gun ranges so that he could fire a weapon. This not only defies logic, it has been repeatedly proven to be untrue as every gun range within a 50 mile radius has denied any knowledge of either Nancy or Adam having been there.

The article implies that Adam’s Asperger’s syndrome somehow ‘masked his schizophrenia’. None of his medical records have been made public and there is no evidence to validate that he was either autistic or schizophrenic.

It is reported here that he was home-schooled for 4 years and yet there were other reports that he attended Newtown High School! This entire article is a fabricated propaganda piece being used to further the agenda and to try to justify some of the preposterous evidence presented in the 7,000 page Police Report that is so difficult to decipher that a separate panel is being considered to analyze the report.

I could pick apart the story piece by piece to show you that it makes no sense. I could also show you how, in the 7,000 page Police Report, they fail to provide us with anything but inconsistencies and contradictions. Even the ‘photographic evidence’ is nonsensical. Who would furnish a $1.2 Million house with 20 year old crappy furniture? The staging of the pictures is blatantly obvious. Of course, that is not what I wish to do.

What I want to do is to awaken you to the prospect that this whole Sandy Hook story is a fabricated lie! There is so much evidence to prove that there has been manipulation and distortion of the truth throughout. It is right there for one to examine, if only they would take the time to look.

Andrew Solomon is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. The CFR is considered to be the nation’s “most influential foreign-policy think tank”. Its membership has included senior politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures. It is essentially run by the Rockefeller Family and is probably the most influential body in the broad engineering our Society.

We are all so busy living our day to day lives, working at our jobs and taking care of our kids. But, this is something that requires our attention! It is through events like these that our history is altered. Mainstream media continues to propagate this story as if it is fact. Over the past few days the story of how Peter Lanza finally came forward to speak about the ‘killings’ has been covered by NBC, CNN, MSNBC and on countless internet sites. Yet no one anywhere got to see him or even a recent picture of him.

He told the story (through pill-popping elitist Andrew Solomon) of how, with proper mental health care and perhaps intervention by the State, this horrible event could have been avoided. As of 2012, more than 25% of children are on prescription medication. Imagine how much more profit can be made if we could get that number to 50% !!

With the advent of Obamacare, everyone will be subjected to certain ‘requirements’. We already have to have specific vaccinations to allow our children to attend Public Schools. It is a very small leap to think that they will require psychological profiling to determine a propensity to violence. These tests must be performed to prevent violence in our schools. Once diagnosed, it will be a requirement for the child to follow the recommended treatment, including proper medication.

This is not somewhere out in the distant future. This is in our hands right here, right now. I don’t want my children or my grandchildren subjected to this form of controlled personality management. Do you?

So there- now you have it. You have been informed of why there should be concern over what is happening in our society as a result of the Sandy Hook Hoax. Gun Control is just a small part of it. Now comes the push for mental health reform and the pharmaceutical industry is in it up to their elbows. How can you just sit by idly and let them take away the Freedoms that we have fought for ? If you call yourself a Patriot, a lover of this country, now is the time to stand up and be heard. We will not allow this to happen to our children!! The lies must end!!

I have always said that I would be the first to point out that “The Emperor has no clothes!” Now it is your turn.

*Tony Mead is co-administrator of the popular Sandy Hook Hoax Facebook page.

148 thoughts on “The Sandy Hook-Psychopharma Connection”

    1. I think he is saying that the only pictures were before 2009. Anyway, quite a bit spot on about the article, don’t you think? Not seeing the kookiness.

      1. This is not the central thesis. Nevertheless, one must also ask why phantom-like figures such as Lanza never appear in public and must speak through third parties, particularly those with such intimate ties to big pharma.

        1. Nothing which is done makes conspiracy people happy

          First , he doesn’t exist. Next, it’s that he’s speaking through a third party. I guess granting an interview for a major national magazine isn’t good enough. I think that’s as almost as public as you can get.

          The point remains that you have a bias against him. If you call yourself a journalist, which I hope you don’t, bias is a four letter word in the industry

          Truthfully, I’m not certain what you do

          PS. You write about Sandy Hook when there is nothing else to write about. It’s your go to piece. You know it too

        2. Should be easy enough for “Peter” to prove he exists, shouldn’t it? Just because an “interview” is given through a third party to a magazine doesn’t prove anything- Mainstream media has been in on every single facet of this hoax from day one after all.

          In fact the “third party interview” it’s more suspicious,why wouldn’t he just speak in person?

          Do an image search for “Peter Lanza” notice anything weird? the space between his septum and his upper lip for example?

          Peter Lanza is a ghost- apparently a fake identity- The entire Lanza family is fake- Ryan changed his name from Adam, there was only 1 boy playing both boys- Peter appears to be a non-person contrived from multiple images of some other guy- and Nancy Lanza is Anne Haddad.

        3. And today, on NPR, it is the “go to” place for Terry Gross who is I think interviewing the author, but I was having an attack of biliousness, so I turned off the radio.

          Do you have any idea how much time the media in Boston, the charities of Boston, the signage of Boston, makes reference to the fake bombing? It’s a sick curse. I got away for some of January and it was like getting away from second hand smoke in a bar full of chain-smokers. I could breathe, experience life normally. But then I was back in town, shut in by freezing weather, and the media tormented me and mine with stories of plucky amputees and evil Chechens who hate us for our freedoms.

          The media in these environments is Love Canal toxic, poisoning mostly the young fry, who “know” now who their enemies are (not!).

          So spare me your “go to” remarks. Just go to … Boston.

        4. Wilson, your snide remark accusing Dr. Tracy is not valid. You may find it curious but there are many of us aware of the many inconsistencies regarding the Sandy Hook event. There is no shortage of events to examine but Sandy Hook will never be irrelevant. Many inconsistencies cause us to question the actual existence of Peter Lanza. Dr. Tracy presents his questions with clarity and each of his articles meet a high scholarly standard. Your dismissive attitude is an insult but nothing more.

        5. Wilson,

          If you follow the sequence of press coverage since 12/14/12, you will be shocked at the amount of fiction, including the number of headlines that make it appear as though Peter Lanza has met with,and personally spoken to the press, the Sandy Hook families, funeral directors, and members of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission.

          However, in every single case thus far, after several paragraphs, it becomes clear that all the information is coming, not from Peter Lanza, but instead, from a PR professional. This Edelman spokesman, Errol Cockfield, may well be crafting dialogues and releasing them periodically to his press contacts who jump on the opportunity. Certainly, this appears to be the case – the third party protection for a private citizen by a world class Corporate PR agency is without precedent.

          Also very unusual, in an era when Princess Kate can be photographed topless, is the total absence of recent press photos.

          If Lanza wants to set the record straight, he needs to appear in person, as requested, in front of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission and answer their questions. After all, the legislation they draft will be based on those answers.

        6. Not only that but this phantom stated through these interviews (if they can be called interviews) that he will never go on camera. Never! He doesn’t exist! That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

        7. The images on search for Peter are perhaps even weaker than for Adam with no normal family photos of celebrations or even backyard bbq’s. It’s totally insulting that the Peter connections think so little of the public that any wacko story and non-images are enough for them to get their story in print in the media. The New Yorker might as well be called The New Schnook. Did any of these concoctions go hiking, or play a sport? Apparently not.

      2. There is so much per Sandy Hook that does not meet they ‘eye’. . .and elsewhere, per these horrific ‘unfoldings’. My only concern is making more of the fiction; than the horror of the real ‘fiction’ itself. Stretching what is reasonable (by whatever MO’s considered) into the ‘fictional’, discredits the best of efforts to get to the truth.

        To only ‘one point’. . .have been in many ‘old’ homes; and environments; often by just checking out ‘real estate’; and while it never fails to ‘amaze’ me; there are plenty of charming old homes; that upon entering; you find yourself inside someone elses long-running, ‘locked-in-time’ nightmare. So whatever is the truth of this Lanza ‘home’; ‘old furniture’, should not be considered ‘evidence’. It can ‘color’, of course; other actual and determined evidence.

        (Also; do recall witnesses, speaking of Adam’s presence at the gun range; where he practiced with his Mother. And yes, thought it insane that ‘Mother’ would invite such. . .but then, she was a Liberal. Which; in part may explain a great deal of her denial, re her son; and by turn, her not securing her CIA issue guns – so reported – in her home.)

        More interesting is this family’s connections to CIA and DARPA which are not unlike, those of James Holmes’ Father; who as well; was DARPA connected. And the ‘Libor’ connections – so reported – and denied, for that matter.

        No doubt; there are ‘layers’ of relevance. . .of this particular ‘darkness’. And all to say. . .take care here. Taking that which is either ‘extraneous’ and unverified or both; and adding it to mix; does not help in the discovery of the truth of the matter. (Or just. . .you lose the vitality of the ‘wheat’; where there is too much chafe, included in the mix.) Something, we know; the CIA does, per it’s own ‘disinformation’ MO’s.

    2. This is the first time I’ve heard the claim that Peter doesn’t exist. I’ve seen some compelling info that suggests Adam never existed, but not sure about Peter. There are a lot of questions surrounding Peter. One of my big ones is why he was reported being killed the day of the shooting. And why don’t we see any new and/or public pics of him? The only pic with the article is another old, grainy, low res photo as usual.

      Maybe something went wrong that day and their story got all jacked up. They got so many things wrong or they changed their stories. Here’s a recap – Dawn Hocschprung interview with Newtown Bee when she was allegedly dead, dead body found in brother’s place in NJ, Pete was killed, ID’d the shooter as the wrong guy, Nancy was a teacher at the school, number of deceased children, stories about guns, many contradictory interviews by witnesses, etc., etc., etc.

      1. I find the idea compelling that these individuals may exist or have once existed, but that today their personas are being used as characters in a work of fiction. This is purely speculative, but perhaps they have been blackmailed into this position.

        Of course the possibility that this is all a concoction has merit as well.

        Undeniable is the fact that the current lives of “Peter” and “Ryan,” not to mention the past of “Adam” and “Nancy” have taken on a phantom like quality. None of us really know, so all we can do is study the presentation, right?

        1. That’s how you write historical fiction, which is having a bit of a revival. You take characters known already, with a historic trace, and you put words in their mouths, associate them with people they never knew, real or fictional, and put them through a constructed reality where they say things plausibly attached to their personas.

          It’s also like a series which uses different writers, but always put characteristic remarks into the mouth of say, Sheldon on “Big BangTheory.” He’s always going to be Sheldonesque.

        2. More discrepancies. I forced myself to watch a few Solomon interviews. In one it was said that upon hearing of the shooting, Peter called his wife and told her “it’s Adam, it’s Adam”. Really?

          The very early reports said that the first Peter heard of the shooting was upon returning home from work and a local journalist waited in his driveway with the news.

          Can’t have it both ways. Solomon apparently is not as much aware of details as the real Sandy Hoax researchers, the ones called conspiracy kooks by a corrupt and complicit msm. Solomon and Cockfield both should be nominated for the National Book Foundation fiction of the year award.

      2. How much do you think a recent picture would be worth of P Lanza? Ans.: Enough for an army of paparazzo to hang out wherever he is! No one would get rich, but its a picture they know they could sell.

        What possible reason could there be for him to be this mysteriously shy? He hasn’t done anything wrong (allegedly). He is easy to spot since he is rich and lives a privileged lifestyle. He is obviously fond of money, so why not make some more with this new fame of his. Go on Oprah and cry a little; ka-ching!

        Nope he is a fictional character in a BS story, it’s that simple. At best he is a stolen identity.

        1. @ColBatGuano- Good point on getting a current photo of Peter Lanza. Of course, there should be an army of photographers trying to track him down–a photo like that would definitely sell.

          And on the whole issue of whether Peter Lanza actually existed, I tend to go back and forth on this. Early on, I was aware of the divorce documents, which led me to believe Peter and Nancy were real. But with all the aliases and everything else we’ve learned, plus the phantom-like quality Peter has maintained since the event, I’m leaning more in the direction of fictional identities. Though I’m not sure how the intelligence agencies do it, I’m sure they are quite capable of creating a paper trail to make it seem as though certain identities exist–that’s what they do for the witness protection program, right?

          Also, fyi, I’ve reposted this over here (fyi- page 120 has videos of the parents at a press conference trying to keep documents from the public)

          For those interested, Deanna Spingola, former alternative radio host turned aggressive advocate of the MSM version of Sandy Hook, has continued to accuse those of us who believe SH was a hoax of being Cass Sunstein operatives or dupes. A thorough dismantling of her arguments and attacks on Wolfgang Halbig can be found here:

      3. If your child looked like ‘Adam’. . .and he was ‘considered’ impaired; would you take a lot of pics? There are too, ‘healthy’ children, who do not want their pics taken; perhaps he had an ‘aversion’. (There was also the argument; why give him ‘celeb’ status. We can question that ‘perp wisdom’ and its sources too, of course.) Does ‘seem’ reasonable, however; that some ‘real’ players were needed per this scripting. So why not ‘Adam’? Real, albeit, not; in the sense of his being groomed/prepped for this practice event. Just saying; and speculating; but, for this observer; it is easier to fathom all this; believing in his physicality – rather than not.

        That said; having watched ‘The Truman Show’ – and more than a few times – and being amazed by the familiarity of it’s ‘reality’; am not one to be surprised, given the ease per creating ‘false realities’. . .Nor how many of ours; are such.

    3. AjMac,

      No ‘kookieness’ other than you indicating an pre2009 article that is NOT pre 2009 ….

      That current article actually does state that Nancy Lanza’s father was a TWA pilot , which incidently is a very common occupation for CIA recruits and likely shows that the entire Champion family are CIA.

      Because Nancy Lanza is still alive … Living under one of her various CIA identities such as Annie Haddad.

      1. PC, to be honest, your explanation makes the most sense to me. Look at Obongo. Same thing. They do this sort of “character development” all the time. Sheep Dipping.

        They start with a “real” person and move histories around a little. They all have a certain “other-worldliness” about them because they won’t stand careful scrutiny.

        Just like the kids in the pictures. Why not just use existing kids from another time or place? It’s easy. Then you bring in actors to play the parts of their parents.

        It isn’t “Peter” they’re keeping “alive”. It’s the “character”.

        1. Just a P.S. to my comment: I think that’s why the one little girl got all the publicity when her mother complained. They just grabbed some photos and got unlucky enough for a living mom to recognize her daughter.

      2. The Nancy Haddad ‘is’ interesting. It is also true; that many people have ‘doubles’ – and more. True; perhaps; that we all do. It also true; that the orchestrators of ‘false flags’ are hardly adverse to killing their own. That said; am taking a ‘closer look’. And maybe the ‘house on the hill’ was, no more than a ‘set’. But will have to find more; than I have ‘thus far’ found. . .to get me there.

    4. Thanks for posting that much-needed photo of Peter, however the article was written in 2012, so there is still no proof anyone died. I for one think this was a layered event or FEMA Integrated Capstone Event. (Making a drill appear real.)

      1. As do I. I don’t think anybody died either. I’m making a distinction between “Peter” (the character), and “Peter” (who probably lived and lives).

        There is a distinction between “actors” and “operatives”. Operatives may indeed “act” a role in an operation. When their usefulness has passed they fade away or sometimes reappear in other operations. An operative is more than an actor.

        This is a bit like “the witness protection program”, they “assume” an identity. Or, conversely, they HAVE an identity but assume a role. They are “helpers” like sayanim.

        Some work primarily for the black art agencies. Others are “recruited”, usually due to some scrape that they need help with. As many have pointed out here, it would be extremely hard to avoid the paparazzi, etc., without help. Said another way, it would be hard to “disappear” unless they wanted you to.

  1. I don’t understand the author’s belief that Peter Lanza or Adam Lanza never existed. Peter and Nancy divorced (see: ) so he had to have existed. The divorce degree is public information, go read it.

    My theory is that Peter had Nancy and Adam killed. He had motive (alimony, child support and a new wife) and opportunity (he still had access to Nancy Lanza’s house). He hired two professional hit men to do the job. These two had connections with the government through GE (Peter is employed as an upper echelon executive) and used Sandy Hook as a cover up. I also believe no children were murdered at the school.

    It is a two for one conspiracy. Peter Lanza gets out of the divorce settlement, and the government fools the public in order to launch a campaign to end America’s right to gun ownership.

    1. A murder for hire plot to avoid alimony would be extremely small potatoes compared to what has actually unfolded here. In my humble opinion, of course.

    2. Poke, for me it isn’t as easy as everyone seems to think. For example, the CIA has, and continues to use, people’s identities in manufacturing characters for operations. While the simplest answer (and the one most preferred) is that, if there’s a birth certificate, divorce papers, etc., they must be “real”, you can’t always assume that to be true.

      Papers are easily forged and placed. Alternately, the person to whom the papers apply may not be the person they show you as the character. Put another way, that’s the whole point.

      I show you a picture of a little girl and I say “this is Amy”. You have no reason to disbelieve me. After all, I have a picture. Maybe there really was an “Amy” and I have a birth certificate. Now, does that PROVE that this is the “Amy” I’m talking about?

      It is possible to verify identities. It usually takes some sleuth work. If the perpetrators are in a position to make that difficult the odds of anyone being able to reveal the hoax are smaller.

      So, either there was a real Adam and/or Peter, and there was a divorce, and these are the people who were allegedly involved here are not “proven” simply because records exist for them. Now, if you had records from an unimpeachable source, say a district that was uninvolved in another location, and fingerprints, etc.., then you would be closer to “proof”.

      So, unless someone gets DNA from “Adam’s” articles or autopsy specimens and compares those to “Nancy” and/or “Peter”, we have to rely on what is said. So far what is said has been largely a lie.

      Right now we have “there is a Peter….see, he’s right over there in the one and only picture. So, if there’s a Peter, it must have happened just as we described”. That’s not very “conclusive”.

  2. Great article. I’m continually amazed at what can be uncovered when we take the time to look into the participants’ roles, no matter how minor their involvement appears to be on the surface. Almost always, we find interesting things about their backgrounds that make it plausible that they would not be above being involved in a hoax such as Sandy Hook.

  3. There is written evidence in NH that the Lanza family did in fact exist. I would not question that. However, there is no proof that the named 4 Lanzas would match their actual pictures. In the absence of a HD television interview, there is no telling what any of them actually look like.

    1. John,

      I’ve seen you mention this several times. I don’t dispute your claims, but I would love to see photo evidence of what you say you’ve seen. For that matter, I would like to see this evidence submitted to scrutiny to determine the likelihood that it may have been doctored. There are lots of good detectives around here with keen analytical skills.

      1. I believe it was FvPatterson who posted about the existence of the Lanza family in NH several threads and months ago on MHB. I do not dispute that they are/were a real family. However, my contention has always been that they could have shown us random, blurred photographs of anyone and attributed those photos to the Lanzas.

        I have also posted a few times that I actually went through Newtown, CT on 2-28-14 on my way back from a MA business trip and spent a good 30 minutes in town. Newtown is reported to have a population of 28,000. My advice to all posters is to check that place out for yourselves, it will not take long.

        1. I can share what I didn’t find…a town with 28,000. I estimate the actual population of Newtown, CT as 200-700 tops..

        2. Anne, prove to me and all of us that there are 28,000 people living in Newtown, CT’s 56 sq. miles and I will let you sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. It may have housed 28,000 people back in 1975, not today! There is virtually nothing of substance there. I showed you the realtor’s selling film from last summer and nothing in any of those videos shows a small city….a small town yes….a small city, no way!

        3. If given the choice between relying on someone’s assessment who drove through somewhere against someone who actually LIVED there, I’ll go with the latter.

          As I’ve said, I guarantee that if you just drove through where I live you’d come away with the impression that not many people live here. You’d be wrong.

  4. Andrew is also the Who of Who’s Who. He sits on boards from the UN (World Monument Fund) to The Metropolitan Museum of Art. He also has a man/wife and is outspoken on gay issues. He was married on the grounds of Althorp the childhood home of Princess Diana. He wore Russian speeches for Clinton. He is politically connected and uses the quote “Diversity is Perversity” oops, “I meant to write Diversity is Our Uniter”

    1. Im mobile now but if u look up Avielle Richman’s parents you will see they both moved to Sandy Hook to work as researchers for a Pharma Co looking to cure mental illness.

  5. What bothers me is the lack of any updated pictures of Peter- if you Google his name- you get the same 2 or 3- Try Googling other people in business and you find all type of pics. If he is an executive for a large company- you should find pictures from different times in career.
    The article said he wenr back to work (which is located on Long Hill Rd in Stamford)- So he interacts with people? is he guarded? No one takes a picture of this man?? Everyone has a camera phone- I find it hard to believe alls we get is the same picture of him from every article- How do you explain that? Why wasn’t another photo taken of this supposed interview??

  6. Regardless of the various opinions being voiced regarding Lanza, Soloman and Lanza’s mouthpiece, it remains a mystery why Peter Lanza needs a million dollar spin doctor to speak on his behalf.

    1. What bothers me the most is lack of photos of Peter- He is an executive with a large company- If you Google image his name- You get 2 or 3 pics. I Googled names of VP’s I used to work with and I find pictures galore (from speaking event, career changes etc)– According the article- Peter went back to work at his office on Long Hill Rd in Stamford (I used to work near there)- Is he guarded? You mean to tell me no one has snapped a picture of him? Are people in his office given instructions on how to treat him? Why was no recent photo taken over this long and drawn out interview???

      1. Dr Tracy uses the word phantom to aptly describe this phenomenon. It’s kind of scary how incompetent our Intelligence services are.

        1. yeah, if that isn’t trolling, what is? makes me question the article and then I think maybe that’s what they were trying to accomplish by running that twice.

    2. So, which is it?

      In a series of six interviews between September and December, Lanza told writer Andrew Solomon about his son’s struggles with a condition……

      Writer Andrew Solomon wrote Lanza contacted him last December around the one year anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre. Solomon writes he met Lanza a total of six times and some of the interviews lasted as long as seven hours.
      Read more:

  7. I pretty sure these people did not exist as advertised only because there would be somebody somewhere who would say, I knew Peter Lanza in high school, college, work colleagues, somebody somewhere would dish the dirt of them and/or come to their defense. In this case, we have neither.

  8. I find it really implausible that this pharma guy would interview Lanza and then write an article so chock full of gobbledy gook and the author of this article has hit the nail on the head. Pray tell, what is the tether between the 2 that Peter Lanza would reach out to a big pharma connection and let himself be interviewed? Does that make sense to anyone?

    There is so much swirling around in a linked sinister way… big.pharma and its drugs and their use in children, mental heath targeting, gun control in all its forms, children used as propaganda for an agenda, vast amounts of $$ being exchanged, controlled, filtered, the control and suppression of information and the enacting of new state laws to prevent inquiries or release of evidence….it’s all there…smart people just have to keep pressing the issue that is the SH hoax. The event was created for a reason.

  9. Shelley Rae Cudiner, Peter’s second wife, never took the Lanza name. She took full ownership of the home in 2001, which was formerly owned by Van Cudiner as of 3/29/1996 (probably first husband,) at 100 Bartina Lane in Stamford, CT. Although she had lived there for many years, her neighbors were unsure if she had been previously married, but thought Peter had lived there for about three years. She and Peter abandoned the home immediately after the ‘event.’

    The 1956 home with 2,375 sq ft was sold on Oct. 7, 2013 to a Mr. John T, Wolfendon lll et al (sic) of Meredeth, New Hampshire. He is a project and Implementation manager for Concur – a 400+million dollar company that manages travel and expense accounts for the Federal Govt. The home had a recent valuation of 502K, and was purchased by Wolfenden for 685K.

    Nowhere is Wolfenden yet listed as living or working in CT.

    1. More evidence of the “Witness Protection Program.” Is that what you’re saying, Sandy?

      1. Yes, it looks that way to me. I think he was supposed to have been a “victim,” as was widely reported. However, the patient little reporter, who staked out Ms. Cudiner’s home and was waiting for him in his driveway, blew the plan. To support that, is the video of him leaving the Hoboken Police Station. They waited till dark, hours after Ryan’s release. It’s not Ryan, who had earlier been handcuffed and arrested, or Shelley who is shielded from the press by a huge plainclothesman. It’s Peter.

    1. Wow, very interesting find there-

      Just like Anne Haddad has so many aliases- and her husband also has multiple aliases – Peter and Norman

      Hard to explain why one man would have 3 different last names, great find!

    2. Intelius isn’t all that accurate. I looked myself up and it says I have lived in AZ, IN, MD and TX. IN and MD I have never visited let alone lived in. TX I have been to twice for vacation. AZ is the only accuracy yet it fails to list the only other state I have lived in.

      For aliases it keeps my first name but gives me 3 additional last names and changes my middle intital twice. I don’t even know people with the last names they claim are mine. And of the handful of relatives they list only one is accurate.

      1. I have researched many of my friends and family through intellius and found it to be very accurate. It takes from public records of a person. I have not found any records that are inaccurate for over 100 people. You can make many connections and find out lots of information about people just using this and then facebook. What are the chances of having a Peter Lanza/Nancy Lanza/Ryan Lanza/Sandy Hook, CT connection. and are the other names relevant to the “real” people. Why isn’t Peter’s second wife listed on the information as usually it is? We need pictures of Peter Lanza–many pictures of him and his second wife. Where are they?

  10. So, you have 6 months to word smith your exclusive interviews with the phantom father and this is the result? Crates of stuff in the attic from well wishers in the attic and candy never tasted?

    No doubt the author and the editors are on drugs to think this sounds remotely real. Have noticed on other blog sites, folks read the headline and with their busy lives, believe it to be true. They never bother to actually read the article, or question the sources.

    Here’s an officer suspended, probably with pay, for looking forward to busting down doors, and taking guns, and more than likely, lives of Americans, previously law abiding citizens.

  11. Thought it was also strange that the only picture shown in that interview was a teeny tiny picture of a picture.

  12. Andrew Solomon’s articles have received accolades in mostly Jewish circles and award after award has been bestowed upon him, yet this article is just…well for lack of a better word, “gross”. I’m sure it will receive the Jewish Gold Award for Most intriguing Story of 2014, and Best Magazine Article Written In The 21st Century Award.

  13. Speaking of those contradictions you mentioned-

    Here’s another huge contradiction- They say there is no record of Adam Lanza for the last 3 years- nothing at all digital.

    Yet, they also said Adam wouldn’t even speak to his mom in person, instead communicating with her only via e-mail even from his own house.

    How is it possible in the age of PRISM and mass-surveillance that there was no digital record if that is in fact true? What about Nancy’s computer, where the other end of the conversation would also be traceable?

    How does a kid this screwed up (allegedly) that he won’t even talk to his own mom, except via e-mail ever go to college 2 years early- after his sophomore year in high-school. Give me a break.

    “No digital record for the last 3 years”.. and he only communicates with his mom via e-mail, won’t even speak to her?

    Can’t have it both ways.

    1. One of my favorite contradictions: According to Peter, Adam had a metal phobia. He couldn’t stand to tough anything metal… except a metal Sig Sauer, a metal Bushmaster, and a metal Glock?

      Here’s another: He’s six feet tall, weighs 112 lbs, and wears a size 8.5 shoe! Really?

      1. And he crawled on his belly like a reptile! That’s the interesting thing about imaginary people. You can say anything you like about them.

        I wonder how he kept from toppling over on the “Dance, Dance, Revolution” platform?

  14. You only hide things when there are things to hide. Besides Peter Lanza, where’s Ryan Lanza, or the Janitor, or the teacher/s that were wounded? It’s fake, and the worst thing is the mainstream media has proven they’re owned and corrupt by not showing us anything while blindly obeying the unproven story-line.

  15. I can’t bring myself to read the whole New Yorker Lanza article, but how old was this guy supposed to be? And speaks like this?:

    “What surprised me is that I was scared as shit,” he recounted…


    But, God, there’s no question. There can only be one conclusion, when you finally get there. That’s fairly recent, too, but that’s totally where I am.”

    Sounds pretty pubescent to me…

    But gotta love this “sealin’ the deal” melodramatic line (you know they wanna make a film about this):

    I asked what they had done about a funeral for Adam. “No one knows that,” Peter said. “And no one ever will.”

    1. “If some glorious angel suddenly descended through my living room ceiling and offered to take away the children I have and give me other, better children — more polite, funnier, nicer, smarter — I would cling to the children I have and pray away that atrocious spectacle.”
      ~Andrew Solomon~

    2. For sure! Totally the 80’s. The drive to get everyone on meds…it’s all about the money. Connecticut again, has many Pharmaceutical corporations right in their back door…let’s get EVERYONE on meds!

  16. The Magic Box~

    One can quite readily see, how a site such as MHB can drive the insane (true believers, inside the box specialists, authoritarianists and believers in statist magnificence) absolutely crrrrrrrrrrazy.


    How is that possible?

    They are already insane.

    Ned Lud

  17. I really hate to be off topic (this article is extremely interesting James, thank you) but I love this blog, and want to add to what’s going on here with a topic that is unrelated, but still important.

    I have noticed the same terminology being used from false-flag to false-flag event: “The Light and the Darkness” – It happens way too often to be a coincidence.

    The “light” and the “dark” came into play big time at the staged Aurora event.

    Many are unaware that Aurora means “The Dawn” and this happened to coincide with “The Dark Knight” Shooting.

    1. The light out of darkness metaphor blatantly marks these staged events. Mass hypnosis? If so, perhaps that is why so few people recognize the truth.

      1. It was funny- I originally noticed the term being used way too often by Gene Rosen when I was looking into his choreographed comments, and I put his several “Light and the Darkness” quotes in the video: “Sandy Hook Shooting Hoax “Eyewitness” (Actor?) Gene Rosen ”

        At that point, I knew that during the Aurora staged event the same phrase had been used over and over again by the guy with the fake arm injury.

        It wasn’t until last week, when I was watching the David Wheeler interview for the first time, getting bored at around 40 minutes and crunching spreadsheets doing work with the video running in the background and suddenly my ears perked up noticing he (David) also alluded to the “light and the darkness”- I immediately got the hair on the back of my neck stand up, so then I looked for headlines containing the phrase and I was blown away at how many headlines contained the same phrase or a derivative thereof.. and then, I heard about the artist the “Illuminator” (hilarious) projecting the phrase on the side of the building as a “tribute” it’s just all over the place.

        Then, finally, I thought back to Aurora, and I remembered a conversation I had with my now passed grandfather when I was in Norther Minnesota who told me about how the Aurora Borealis was called that because it was a light in the night, so I did a search and the definition was 1. Aurora Borealis and 2. The Dawn. then immediately it clicked: The Sun Rises aka Dawn (Aurora) and the Dark Knight Rises is just a sick play on words.

    2. No coincidence. The many references to the light and the dark were scripted through CIA’s successful Operation Mockingbird. It sent a message and it is mind control.

      Light out of darkness is a new dawn. The Bahá’í reference library is called Dawn of a New Day.

      1. I am going to do a search for “the light and dark” in mockingbird, unless you have a better source to reference, I’m curious about this topic.

        I always just thought it was a Freemasonic reference.


          The above link is a somewhat lengthy article about Operation Mockingbird, but it educates on why the majority of people live in perpetual ‘darkness’. Having researched the subject extensively before, I know that anytime a phrase is repeated again and again in the so called msm, it is not by some strange circumstance, but scripted by the ones who dictate what can be said on the air. Using the same phrase by actors, teleprompter readers and others suggest they are following a new dictate, it unifies the ones complicit and it’s a form of mind control – repetition, repetition.

          The light out of darkness topic may be Masonic in origin, but has been adopted by several other organizations that find it useful. Jordan Maxwell explains this very well in his lectures.

          Typing in ‘CIA, Mockingbird and light out of darkness’ produced many results, even people who are presented as former CIA MKUltra victims frequently use the ‘light out of darkness’ phrase. Did they hear that phrase repeated as trigger words or is this yet another way to mind control the masses, having former victims ‘exposing’ CIA while saying they have found the light through darkness?

          “Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips share their true life story … of torture at an event called “CIA Mind Control: Out Of Darkness, Into the Light” which will be … pages of documents obtained from the CIA through the Freedom of Information Act, that …”

        2. That’s weird about Cathy O’Brien. I wondered why they allowed her to speak out. The names she named were all the biggies; Cheney, GHW Bush, both Clintons. Mark Phillips seemed like a handler. The story is wrenching and outrageous. Why do they get away with it?

        3. Susan – Mark Phillips reminds me of another handler, the one by Gabrielle Giffords’ side, her husband Mark Kelly.

          There is a book on the same subject tilted “Thanks for the Memories”. The saga involves names we all know and least expect – well, some of them I least expected. They let some of this information go public just to be able to say we’re all kooks, the ones claiming to be victims and the gullible ones lapping it up. Making mockery of truth is a time honored tradition and then they go on doing what they’ve always done behind the green curtain.

    3. Wow!! That is amazing about the darkness and light. If you didn’t see that video above you need to.

    4. For those with night vision…. Worshipers of Lucifer believe him to be “the light bringer” or “the light bearer.”

      Thanks, Paulstal, for another great job of connecting the dots through illustration.

    5. TPS, you are stone cold dead on. Sandy Hook is the quintessential masquerade…”and no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
      2 Cor. 11:14,15

  18. We are so screwed! Everyone thinks Obama set up Sandy Hook but he didn’t GE and the corporations did. Sandy Hook was a corporate mafia False Flag! GE and NBC and the family of Maurice Greenberg are heavily involved.

      1. Wolfgang Halbig was on Alex Jones today. Good interview. Alex said he was sending reporters to Newtown with Wolfgang, and better yet – go there himself.

        One assumption is that the many implicated in this scam have been assured they’re untouchable, protected by the highest powers in the land from any backlashes.

        1. That’s a big development, Anne. I missed that (although I visit his site daily–but I only read, not listen to interviews.) As you know, Jones maintained for a long time that people were killed at Sandy Hook.

          What this should show us, as independent researchers, is that it sure helps to have some named, disinterested person with credentials ask questions to establish discrete facts, such as who declared the victims dead; where’s the billing for the food service at the school (love that one!); why were no trauma helicopters summoned, etc. It also shows that government officials who deny records requests–and threaten citizens who make such requests–are perceived by the public as obstructing justice. It’s effectively an admission of wrongdoing, and a cover-up.

          I want all government officials to sit up and take notice. You who deny lawful records requests are going to be exposed–and, damn it, fired!
          If we don’t get you for your more serious crimes, we’ll at least get you for that.

          Remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.

        2. I wish Halbig could get the utility and internet usage history for the Lanza house. The police film was done at night, and you can hear a roaring electrical generator in the garage during the entire video. The toilets are all either dry, or have a small amount of water in the very bottom of the bowl. The decor is two decades old.

          I also wish that he would pull birth certificates, shot records, and school records along with the death certificates – to match them up. Hopefully one of those offices is staffed with people who refuse to create false documents. Not that I don’t trust the Medical Examiner, but…

        3. It is good to hear that Jones will go with him. My guess is that they’ll all be arrested. If he went without Jones they would probably have him sent to the funny farm for “evaluation”.

          They will stonewall this as long as possible. If that fails they will go on the attack. They can’t allow this to get out of their control. I wish him the best and hope against hope that something comes of it.

  19. Ok, this is why I believe Peter Lanza does not exist. You can’t convince me that there is not a reporter on this planet that would not want to capture an image or video of Peter Lanza. There can only be one reason…they can’t find a Peter Lanza, not in the lunch room, parking garage, gym, seminar, dinner out or at a sporting venue. His photo would bring a hefty sum if only to the National Enquirer. I can’t believe a janitor, parking lot attendant, co -worker, friend, relative, enemy, old classmate from any school,housekeeper, doctor, waitress, absolutely NO ONE has not secretly or openly taken a picture of him and posted it somewhere, anywhere! How can this be? How can someone write a lengthy article like this NYer piece and not feature a collage of photos with Peter and his son once upon a time? What writer worth his salt would not run photos of his featured subject showing bygone days with his son, perhaps around the Christmas tree, a first day of school, a photo with Adam posing with his baseball teammates, Adam losing his first tooth or the first time riding with no training wheels, camping photos. Why are we not seeing massive amounts of photos from this family. Virtually no pictures of Nancy, Adam, Peter, Ryan, Shelly exist and there can only be one reason for this…these people do not exist in this dimension. In 2014 with camera phones, digital phones and computers, it is not possible if these people existed, being infamous surviving relatives, they would not have their photos in the public domain, there is absolutely NO WAY! Some paparazzi somewhere in all of NY would have gotten their pictures by now, it’s been 15 months.

    1. But he reported that he saw a box a pictures. Isn’t that close enough? (Sarcasm obvious, I hope).

    2. Yes, yes, yes, Kelley. Where are the pictures? Where are the videos? The past ten years has been the ubiquitous age of videos/pictures for virtually every living American and yet there are only a handful regarding these players Lanza? Heck, where is the video of Lanza entering the school?

      This whole thing stinks more and more by the day.

    3. You are absolutely on the mark, Kelley. It’s the same question I asked people from day one of this event…. Where are all the iPhone pictures and videos of the 450+ children/teachers evacuating the school? There aren’t any for the same reason The New Yorker didn’t include any current pictures of Peter and Shelly. The SHES event was staged and this Solomon “interview” was concocted from the details he was provided by the stagers.
      We never see anything for ourselves. The Vances, Wheelers, Hockleys, Sotos Solomons, et al. tell us the story.

  20. Terry Gross interviewed this Solomon critter yesterday on Fresh Air. I could not listen to the entire piece, but in the parts I heard Gross seemed happy to accept him an an expert on all things Lanza.

    Near the end, Solomon mentions that a few people responding to his article doubt the entire Sandy Hook narrative. Gross is astounded.

    One of these links should hook you up to the interview.

    1. Are you suggesting that Gross should wish to incur the wrath of such paragons of truth-telling as, say, Anderson Cooper?

      1. James,

        In your recent interview with Kevin Barrett, you are as courageous in critiquing the left as ever, and I applaud you for it. (I particularly like your full-on reality check concerning the mind-numbed refusal to acknowledge that “global warming” is not remotely proven.)

        I won’t go over old ground, but this comment of yours is pretty interesting.

        I have long been fascinated by the Terry Gross phenomenon. I’ve listened regularly since it was a half-hour show, back in the 80s. Since the Obama era, not so much. It’s a podcast in my iPhone, and I am very quick to click to the next one these days. She, like NPR in general, is somewhat different.

        Not that she was ever interested in truth. I remember, a few years ago, she set up the show with the exciting news that she was fascinated by the rise of “the bloggers” as an important new facet of political consciousness in America in our era. Having still a residual faith in her (selective) good will, I assumed that Andrew Breitbart would be a very prominent piece of the conversation–if I’m remembering times wrong, the idea is the same. After all, Drudge is who brought Clinton to impeachment, even if he’s not a “blogger.” Well, guess what the entire show was? The morons who run (ran?) The Daily Kos! Not a mention of anyone not from the lunatic left! A giant pep-rally for the lefty cheerleaders to dance themselves silly, until the players were ready to ravish them under the stands. It was disgusting. By now, I rarely expect honesty from her. She has thrown away her credibility. Why? Is it organizational?

        So, somehow, I’m saying, NPR maintains an image, even a decade past its sell-by date, of journalistic importance, and Gross is a flagship product in that rotting line. I’m asking your opinion. NPR had a special role to play, for a long while. Always left, but mostly fair. Always searching for the deeper story, and often goring leftist ox. An impression of fearlessness.

        So here, in this comment, you imply that she would not dream of falling out of step with even the most obviously CIA-controlled agents of the MSM machine.

        Is the thinking public, who still, to a large extent, thinks of NPR as worthy of their attention, so stupid?

        Well, that’s not really the question. It’s this: what do you think is going on over there, and particularly with T.G.? I agree that she would not allow herself to “go there,” i.e. make Cooper snipe at her, today, but I think she would have done 15 years ago. Am I wrong? Do I look at NPR’s halcyon days with unwarranted respect?

        1. Patrick, appreciate your observations and insights, as always. The special on celebrating “the bloggers” and leaving out politically incorrect ones closely resembles the phenomenon described at Project Censored. Granted, ostensibly progressive-left outlets produce some good investigative work, yet so too do those that are recognized as conservative. The latter are ignored. There’s a clear double standard at work, and in my view such criteria are only permissible in journalistic and/or scholarly terms if they’re explicitly referenced and explained. When they’re not we have something other than journalism and scholarship.

          A few years ago Barrett had Jim Douglas on, author JFK and the Unspeakable. Douglas remarked that liberals and the left are much more heavily propagandized than others because they simply read a great deal and are thus heavily exposed to various forms of misinformation. I think it was Greg Palast who referred to NPR as “repeater radio.” In other words, much of what it chooses to focus on has been set in the pages of the prestige (or boutique) news media–the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Atlantic, and now the liberal-left blogs falling within the acceptable parameters of discourse. As reportage and commentary on the SH and BMB events suggest, as well as the revelations of journalists such as Daniel Simpson, these are now heavily compromised outlets. Still, they are most capable of establishing “truth” for the inner party–the educated professionals constituting the nation’s relevant opinion leaders.

        2. An excellent response, and thank you for it.

          Still, and you are under no obligation to reply further, obviously, I wonder what happened to NPR–if you know anything about it. You yourself, as your recent interview indicates–as well as so much else you have said in the past–feel the same great disappointment about the great organs of the media that did lean left in the past, but since they were on the whole honest, it did not matter.

          Something has changed. I can feel it in my bones. I’d like to know what it is.

          As I have argued here repeatedly, the only place left, so far as I can tell, is libertarianism–but I have also acknowledged its dreamy idealism to be, well, dreamy and idealistic. I don’t know where to turn, really, for PRACTICAL prescriptions as to political action in this era. But REPORTING is something entirely different.

          NPR built a new building, tears before Ray Kroc’s widow piled a mountain of money on them. I suspect all their fears somehow had already ended by then. I suspect that they had been selected to be a true organ of the state. Then the outside money made it official. Just speculation. But all the research we have been doing about Sandy Hook tells a similar story: money filtered in in unobtrusive channels, creating some new structures we are yet to see blossom.

          We could, in the old days, listen to All Things Considered each night, and know that good reporters had been spending days putting together the best radio possible, and 20 minutes would be no problem for that intrepid journalist if that’s what it took to tell the story. We felt privileged to know about that media option, and looked forward to listening. It made us smarter.

          Isn’t it horrifying that, you, James Tracy, can make a crack about Terry Gross being afraid of the execrable Anderson Cooper, and all can laugh, because the joke is true? It saddens me, terribly, to say that. Was she always that corrupt? If not, what corrupted her?

          Good people should be courageous, and media people of the caliber that NPR used to represent moreso. Just think. Daniel Schorr went there, and stayed until he died. I’d like to know what he thinks today, in the afterlife, about my concerns. He was a lifetime lefty, but he was a pro, just like Bob Edwards, who was so despicably ousted, and so many others we spent so much time with, for so many years–all great newsmen we could never glean their personal opinions by listening to their reporting because they were, well, good newsmen. The best.

          Oh, well, forgive me. There are not too many places these sadnesses can be expressed and understood.

          Thanks for making this such a place.

          If James does not wish to speculate about what happened to NPR, I’d appreciate others’ opinions, or, dare I hope, inside insight.

        3. Patrick, my “two-cents” on NPR, and any other “name” venue for that matter, is that I quit listening/watching/reading them a long time ago. Just as the question “who is a journalist?” seems important when, to me, its not.

          It’s a bit like following celebrities. Unless people who do that are saying “the great one’s” ideas are certainly better than mine, what’s the point? Neither “who” tells the tale, or “where” you hear it makes any difference to the truth of it whatsoever. If you know you are likely being lied to, why listen?

          NPR has always been a very controlled environment. It may be a little “liberal” (although I make no such distinctions), but it certainly performs its function in controlling the range and type of dialog.

          Now, I suppose if one’s definition of “journalism” is doing just that, fine. If that is the case I suppose I’ll have to look elsewhere for truthful information. So it comes down to whether someone is looking for information or ideas or simply more interested in what someone else says.

          All of these “outlets” censor. They say they are worried about their “credibility”. It is more important than truth. The hook with NPR is to try to convince the listeners that they are part of the “kool kidz”. Then they define what “kool kidz” are supposed to think.

          For people who seek information and/or “truth”, it doesn’t pay to be a joiner. If one is content to mouth other’s ideas as their own, they should listen to NPR.

      2. I can’t recall her ever incurring anyone’s wrath when I’ve listened to her interviews off and on over the years, James, but here’s something I wonder about: do you think these media people/”journalists” know what time it is with these things or are they as hypnotized as the majority of their audience?

        I think Spooky Cooper knows, sure, and maybe a guy like Rather is in it up to his ears, but what do you suspect (or know) about the rest of the gang?

      3. One in her mainstream position who questions the official narrative will likely be labeled a paranoid, kook. Few will go out on a limb like that when their livelihoods depend on not straying too far afield. The only way an MSMer will crawl out of the woodwork on this issue is with an unquestionable smoking gun. I doubt any MSMer is doing the requisite journalistic digging required to achieve that end either. It’s so much easier and rewarding financially to parrot received talking points than to take risks and move out of paradigm. Peer group pressure is a powerful disincentive, which muzzles heterodoxy in journalistic circles. That’s why I don’t hold my breath waiting for the truth to ever surface on SH.

    2. NPR is so saturated by agenda that I seriously doubt that puppets like Terry Gross are even aware that they are themselves subjects of manipulation. Gross’s Fresh Air does not allow dissenting views of any subject matter produced on her program. Can you see a show that features someone, perhaps a Jim Tracy, who can produce lucid arguments which would cast serious doubts on Sandy Hooks often repeated and rarely questioned official story? I don’t know about you, but I am not going to hold my breath for that one.

  21. Anyone with access to the photo in the New Yorker piece should look at “Adam’s” left hand, which can be seen above his dad’s head making (of course) a devils horns.If you need one use a magnifying glass. Count the fingers. Five right? So that would make six with the thumb. Busted.

    1. Indistinguishable and inconclusive. Maybe in the original photograph, if it exists, but not in the NY spin-doctor article by Solomon. Even though Solomon’s story may be fiction and meant as brainwashing of the public, there should not be placed too much credence to any of it.

    2. You’re right. The first photo I looked at was an image with Adam on the left and the hands are hard to see, but nothing unusual that I can make out:
      Then oddly enough, I found another photo linked to the article, but for some reason they have switched positions and Adam is now on the right. Definitely looks like 5 fingers without a thumb: This photo is fairly clear and you can see that there is an extra finger.

Comments are closed.