We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook (Independent Media Solidarity)

Video Transcript:

Okay, right now. Are you sure? How excited we see Dad. He's a shot. I got the ball. I can't move forward. I can't move forward. I'm kind of governor. I have been spoken to in an attempt that we might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our subject. I hope they and I hope people of Newtown don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. I hope they don't have a pressure. Prior to the Sandy Hook event, Newtown Connecticut was most famously known for a 300 acre property called Fairfield Hills. Operating from 1931 to 1995, the Fairfield Hills Hospital housed the area's mentally ill and criminally insane. Uniformly connected by underground tunnels, the 16 Red brick buildings, was where cruel psychiatric experiments took place involving electric shock therapy, hydrotherapy, and frontal lobotomies. Mysterious deaths and suicides were also connected to this macabre facility. Because of its haunting history, the MTV series Fear used Fairfield Hills as its setting in one of its episodes. The movie Sleepers, starring Robert De Niro and Kevin Bacon, was also staged in Newtown. Passing through the fearsome tunnels underneath the hospital, proved haunting for aspiring adventurers and thrill seekers. For well over 80 years, Fairfield Hills was Newtown's sole cryptic mystery. However, with the passing of the year 2012, the town of Sandy Hook, located within Newtown, infamously and perhaps forever, replaced Fairfield Hills inigmatic nature. Everyone loves a mystery, especially the unsolved variety, but some mysteries are so far reaching as to impact thousands, even millions of people. It was on December 14th when the impossible happened, and looking back now, perhaps it was impossible indeed. We were told that a 20-year-old, so-called autistic kid, with no clear motive, opened up on a classroom of elementary school children, allegedly killing 21st graders, 6 adults, and himself. The two women were reported to have survived their injuries, including Natalie Hammond, and another woman whose identity was initially redacted. Prior to his shooting spree, Adam Lanza is said to have murdered his own mother, Nancy Lanza, in her bed, so the story goes. In the immediate aftermath, Skeptics felt there was something terribly wrong with the official story and the way the media reported it, with the way the parents acted. With the way the coroner acted. With the way the neighbors acted. Nobody knows of which is odd to this neighborhood. It's very odd to see the neighbors acting. Nobody knows of which is odd to this neighborhood. It's very odd because a lot of people in this neighborhood know each other. With the way public officials act. A lack of physical and video evidence also enhanced the curiosity of the Skeptics. A strong public reaction quickly followed the peculiar press conferences and interviews, resulting in a few YouTube videos receiving over 10 million views. As time went on, public reaction died down, and the anomalous behavior was swept under the rug and forgotten. However, a few independent journalists and concerned citizens never forgot and stayed the course by deciding to investigate the event for themselves to see truly once and for all if the event was in fact real or staged. Did the conspicuous acting of Robbie Parker, the stumbling and fumbling coroner and the apparent walking around at the firehouse point to a sinister staged event for specific government and corporate agendas? Or were these perceivable red flags just a figment of the imagination? The following segments dealing with a variety of anomalous aspects of the Sandy Hook events, the investigation, the official report, and the people involved were contributed by independent journalists in the Sandy Hook research community. Each participants segment is narrated in their own voice. However, they're identified only by their YouTube handle and appear in shadow. This is for two reasons. First, we stand firmly that the information we've provided is accurate and the few conclusions presented are reasonable. There are unknown thousands of people of like-mind that could have presented the same information. Secondly, throughout the course of our investigation, there have been numerous attempts to derail our efforts. Most of these have been in the form of attacks on our person and have included direct threats. There is good reason to protect our identities. Ultimately, the viewers focus should be on the information and not the presenter. Today, all of these просuccessous talks deal with속 took place at the chemical conservation showed thatếnays have been gathered along the same levels as ________ tho____. promote gun control, mental health checks, far out-school security measures, and changes to school curriculums. All the while collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars through government grants and donations. Some actors on this stage are literally just that, actors, summer entertainers, and summer connected to groups who would benefit from this agenda. Let's take a look at a few examples. Francine Lobis Wheeler, mother of alleged victim Ben Wheeler, is a former personal assistant to the finance chairwoman of the Democratic Committee, Marine White. Both Marine White and her husband, Steven Ratner, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Ratner is known to have, quote, ruffled feathers with gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, unquote, according to the New York Times. Francine is an actor and a singer who has performed such amazing hits as jumping to conclusions, Nikki-Nikki-Knock-Knock, and I can't time I shoes. Jumping to conclusions, jumping to conclusions. Hopping up and down and calling paper cuts conclusions. Hey, wait your hands in the air. Shake them like you didn't care. I tell you all in earnest. I don't have to. Time. I. I. My. Yeah, come on. She also starred in the animated porn Mutant Aliens in 2001 as the voice of Josie. Her husband, David, is also an actor. He ironically starred in the dark gun film Faithful in 2001. Both can be seen lobbying for gun control and various mainstream media interviews. In fact, Francine became the first person other than Obama or Vice President Biden to deliver the White House's weekly address. As you've probably noticed, I'm not the president. I'm just a citizen. And as a citizen, I'm here at the White House. Mark Barton, parent of alleged victim Daniel Barton, is a lifelong entertainer, composer, and musician. It's shown on the White House.gov website. Barton leads policy and outreach efforts for Sandy Hook Promise, an organization that is committed to affecting policy in the areas of mental health, gun access, and hand school security, and the reduction of firearm magazines. Nicole Hockley, mother of Dylan, graduated from Trinity College where she majored in English and theater. She has publicly admitted regret of not continuing her acting and directing career. Perhaps with Sandy Hook, she got her shot. Jimmy Green, father of Anna Marquez Green, is an entertainer and musician. Both he and his wife, Nelba Marquez Green, are strong advocates for gun control. Scarlett Lewis, mother of Jesse Lewis, is pushing school curriculums with a new age type of cognitive training. In pursuit of this, she is joined by a former CIA agent, Christopher Cook, as well as Barack Obama's sister, Maya Soutoro. She is seen practicing this technique in front of an oversized Newtown Choose love banner. Her communications degree is no doubt handy at speaking events. She appears to revel in the reaction to her preposterous and, frankly, unbelievable stories of Jesse mystically signaling her from beyond the grave. A medicine show to forward her school curriculum agenda. So I feel him all around me all the time. I knew in my heart that Jesse had done something brave by running into the line of fire, trying to save his friends, which he was successful. I don't know when Jesse had written it, but it was shortly before he died. And it says, nurturing, healing love. And two days before he had died, he had drawn a picture of an angel standing in front of what is obviously a bad man. I feel like Jesse was born brave. Jesse was 11 pounds when he was born. And I remember going to the nursery, and all the nurses were gathered around the window, taking pictures. And I walked up and they said, what are you taking pictures of? And they said, there's this enormous baby that's crawled almost out of his bassinet. And that was Jesse. Michelle and Bob Gay, Alyssa and Robbie Parker, Cindy and Mark Madioli, Krista and Rich Rico's, all parents of the alleged victims have teamed up with safe and sound security. Claiming to keep kids safe, safe and sound security has partnered with Navigate Prepared, a big brother-like security system that surveils entire schools with 360 degree video feeds of classrooms, utility closets and hallways. In addition to schools, Navigate also monitors government buildings, such as the Town Hall and Library, and Michelle Gay's hometown in Massachusetts. As founder of Safe and Sound Security, Michelle Gay has promoted this or Wellean School Security system throughout the U.S. Navigate has even donated a system in honor of Michelle Gay's alleged daughter. Lenny Posner and Verenay Collar Posner are the parents of Noah. Lenny is concerned himself with people who believe Sandy Hook was a hoax. He has participated in group discussions, chats, blogs, and has talked to many researchers. In his article published by the Hartford Karan, he bashes people whom he terms conspiracy theorists and hoaxers. Lenny is the chairman and CEO of Tracksware, a company that specializes in removal of Internet slander, Internet defamation, mug shots, defamation of character, and online public records. This guy's company would come in handy to any Sandy Hook hoax perpetrators with prior convictions. He could ultimately remove any negative associations from the Internet. Could he be hanging around online bloggers and researchers for the purpose of protecting the Sandy Hook parents? His wife Verenay Collar's angle is best described by Tyranny News Network. You may remember Verenay Posner or Verenay Collar Posner. Her detailed memorial for Noah Posner, the son she claims to have lost, was featured by CNN's Anderson Cooper. Take some time to learn more about Verenay Collar and you'll find she's a legal counselor for the government of Switzerland. You can reach her directly at Switzerland's embassy in Washington. How can we be certain this is the same Verenay Collar Posner? It was widely reported that she was a nurse by profession. Get yourself a copy of the seventh annual conference of the state's parties to amended protocol to the convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. She's listed as a diplomatic collaborator for the federal department of foreign affairs representing Switzerland. Her real-life mission to prohibit weapons mirrors her actions while engaged in the grieving mother's scam. While pretending to have lost a six-year-old child to a gun-wielding madman, she said, quote, I think he had a mother who, at worst, aided and abetted him. She added, quote, I think there was gross irresponsibility. Words more fitting of an attorney than an oncology nurse. It gets much worse though, as I said, she is only pretending to have lost a child. Following the trail of Vera Niks friends and family, you arrive at Patricia Ordenes-Huller, right at the top of her Facebook photos page is the familiar face of Noah Posner and what looks like his sister and two drawings obviously made by a child of about six. But the strange heading above the four photos reads, 10 years ago, happy birthday, Kevin, we love you. One of the two drawings reads, quote, Pappy Durk, have a great birthday at the island from Kevin. Examining the photo we've all been told as of Noah, we see its exif date is Saturday, December 15th, 2012. Only one day after the San Ihoek event, isn't it more likely the photo said to be of Noah is really that of Kevin, take 10 years ago? And it is confirmed, despite many claiming otherwise, that Vera Niks is in fact from Switzerland. An article from Ha Ha Ritz, focusing on Noah Posner, dated December 28th, 2012 states, quote, Vera Niks was born in Switzerland to French parents who raised her in Scar's Dale, New York, unquote. Now can it be considered a mere coincidence that two Vera Niks scholars, both from Switzerland, are calling for unconstitutional gun control measures in the US. Such weapons have no place in our society. Vera Niks' anti-assault weapon stance is echoed with most of the visible San Ihoek characters and has been shown to go to even extreme lengths as in the case of Mark Barden and his children. My daughter Natalie was interested in asking him if he could pass some kind of legislation so that nearly people that had guns were military personnel and law enforcement. Whether you are anti-gun or pro-gun is not the issue. The issue at hand is that legislation has been passed as a result of the lobbying of these parents. After an event that, as we will see, may be entirely fabricated. As a result of the passing of Senate Bill 1160, Connecticut citizens have publicly voiced their frustrations. With the stroke of pen from the ivory tower with the bolt hop, you decided to create the need to meet a fellow. A class deep thundering. We're doing excellent enough for the war. OK? The San Ihoek characters are larger than life. They're not afraid to lobby, speak publicly, or pursue their agenda, all the while looking comfortable doing it. San Ihoek funds reaching upwards of as much as $27 million have been issued out to victims' family members. Yet, parents such as the Kowalskis are still comfortable requesting annual goals for as much as $500,000 while soliciting for these goals at public events. The information presented regarding the San Ihoek parents is public, can be found by anyone and is a culmination of research done by many people throughout the past two years. The aforementioned background information was included in this segment to arm you, the viewer, with essential information to get you closer to the event. Watching the mainstream media will only give you one side of the coin, as many media pundits have claimed that the San Ihoek characters were not actors or entertainers. Yet, throughout the past two years, independent researchers have proved otherwise. And despite their claim that the San Ihoek event would not define them, the San Ihoek characters have virtually given up their day job and attained a full-time lobbying position. From Delaware to Illinois to Arizona, the San Ihoek parents have traveled the country promoting their agendas. This documentary is not meant to focus on speculation, but rather focus on lesser-known facts, inconsistencies, and lies that the general public is unaware of. Remember when Robbie Parker walked out on stage to speak to the media the day after his daughter died? Although common sense will tell you he was acting, this documentary will not focus on pure speculation. Instead, the intention is to give you a broader background and a new perspective on the reality that is San Ihoek. Hey, this is Sherry. I just have to mention this. Here's the official police report as things happened. And a trooper video of over four hours doesn't show any children evacuating the school. Well, I found the timeline of when they did evacuate the school of all the kids. All right, 957. This McGeever runs with whoever across the parking lot towards the Sandy Hook Firehouse, 958. Keen arrives on the scene and assists with the evacuation of the students and teachers from Sandy Hook Elementary School to the Firehouse. They started evacuating the school from the official time at 958. All right, so let's see them evacuating the school. Here is that trooper, that four-hour trooper, vehicle. You can see it is parked on one side of the parking lot and it has the view all the way over. It has the time at 957 and even the seconds. The first thing that we should be seeing is at 957.40 runs with blank across the parking lot. OK, let's see it. What are we supposed to see at 957.40? We're supposed to see a running across the parking lot. Oh, content redacted. So maybe that's when they ran across the parking lot. Now within a few seconds, this was to start evacuating the school. Now remember, this trooper is parked all the way on one side of the parking lot and views the parking lot the whole time. Any moment now, you should see either many, many, many minutes of content redacted or we should see huge group of children coming out. Of course, we need to give them time to start doing it, you know. OK, so maybe this is when they're coming out. 10 o'clock, teachers, blank, and student run across parking lot with a detective. OK, so at 10 o'clock and 45 seconds, OK, let's sit down here. We haven't seen the masses of children yet coming out. Oh, somebody else at 10 o'clock, starts helping with the evacuation of the students and the teachers. Content redacted. Now, this should last quite a few minutes if they're getting the kids across. I mean, there's a lot of kids to get across. Remember that one picture of a PI agent and so on, running with a few kids? And they were pictured right there. And the children were taken to the Sandy Hook Firehouse at 10 o'clock 3. Leading a group of young kids out the front at 10 o'clock 3. Let's go back to 10 o'clock 3, shall we? There's 10 o'clock 3. Let's see. There's 10 o'clock 3.06. Let's watch this. Video does not match the story. Children are escorted from the front of Sandy Hook, another large group coming out. All right, and then at 10 o'clock 6, so we're going to have some children being escorted. And then 10 o'clock 6, the people that were in the conference room should be escorted across. And at 10 o'clock 7, escorts blank across. 10 o'clock 7, children are escorted out of the building. 10 o'clock 7, children are escorted from the northeast corner. 10 o'clock 8, children are escorted out of the building. At 10 12 is when they bring another group of children out to the firehouse out from the gym area. And we're not seeing it. Not seeing the content. We've acted either. In other words, you know what this shows? This shows the official report. Does not match the video. This shows there are not masses of children that were evacuated at 10 14, 59, escorts children to the firehouse. This vehicle, this police car showed all the way across. The vehicle is right there looking all the way across during the four hours. As you've seen, it does not match the timeline. All right, there you go. This is a story. Doesn't match the video. My nickname is Swanson, and I am the editor of InsaneMedia.net, and this is the Don Hoxbrung file. An online article from the Newtown B was posted December 14, 2012. In part, the article claimed to have received a quote from the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary, who stated that, a masked man entered the building with a gun and fired more shots than she could count. The only problem was the principal, Don Hoxbrung, had allegedly died in the initial hail of gunfire. A few days later, an embarrassed and ashamed Newtown B published a retraction and apology of the anomalous article. So, should we just chalk this one up to the chaos of the day and write it off as a mere mistake? Well, not so fast. While studying the anomalous article of Bing Cache Date was noted, a Cache date of December 13, 2012, the day before the event, a shocking discovery to say the least. But before we get our underwear in a bunch, let's see if this seemingly apparent evidence of board knowledge is but a simple glitch in the system. Puzzled by who the author of the article actually was, as there was no name attributed, I at first assumed it could only be associate editor Shannon Hicks, since she was the first reporter from the Beyond the Scene. To confirm I contacted Miss Hicks, who suggested I speak to Curtis Clark, chief editor of the Newtown B. Mr. Clark in turn stated that the writer of the article was John Vokett, a well-known radio personality from Newtown and an associate editor for the B. Vokett attributed the mistake to the commotion of the day. How could such a crucial misidentification be attributed to the commotion of the day when Hicksbrung was a known personality in the community and even appeared in videos from the Newtown B in years past? Vokett's response was that the woman with whom he spoke, face to face, shared some of the same physical attributes as Hicksbrung. How this unknown and unidentified woman who shared the same attributes as the Sandy Hook principal, who shared first-hand knowledge of the alleged shooting and who herself claimed to be the school principal, came into contact with the Newtown B in the first place, is also a great mystery. But the greatest mystery of all and perhaps the only bit of information that could make sense of this mess is the big cash date of December 13th. If the cash date was found to be correct, it would be monumental as it would prove foreknowledge of the event and disprove anything Vokett and the Newtown B stated. And as Dr. Wayne Carver so famously said, everything would come crashing down. In an attempt to confirm the validity of the being cash date of December 13th, I contacted Bing. Unfortunately, they have no number to call, so all correspondence was done by email. After seven months of correspondence, I finally got my answer. Leonard, a Microsoft customer support member, stated the following. I understand that you wanted to know the accuracy of the last crawl date that you were able to see from the cash page from Bing. To directly answer your question, the date setting which the web crawler shows on the cash page is accurate. Not satisfied with one response I went for a second opinion. This time I got Mark. Thank you for getting back to us. The server cash time is accurate since it is being updated once our crawler visits a certain page. For example, our crawler visits a page today, June 3rd, 2013. The date reflected on its cash page will be June 3rd, 2013. The date will change after our web crawler visits the page again. The final icing on the cake came when I found an article entitled Super Intended Reports on State of Schools. This article from the new town be focused on an event that occurred on December 10th, and it was also cashed on December 13th, clearly making this cash date accurate. If that cash date is accurate, then as they say, that's where the rubber hits the road. Considering these cash dates are correct, which they most certainly are, this is Microsoft we're talking about after all. This brings up many questions. Was Don Hoxbrung not supposed to die? But somehow did? In perhaps a drill gone wrong? Or was this an entirely fabricated event, a drill in which nobody died, and Don Hoxbrung is somewhere alive and well? Her daughter, Erica Lafferty, after all, is comfortable making light of her mother's death as she poses with a CIA sweatshirt. I forwarded my original article to Lafferty, she never replied. Nevertheless, there are many questions, and it's about time somebody started answering. Hello, my name's Peter. I'm an independent journalist, and because of that you've probably never heard of me. But if you have come across any of my work, it's likely you found it on my YouTube channel, Tyranny News Network. Before I created that channel, I had a blog at TyrannyNews.com where I began to publish articles on various social, socio-economic and political issues. It speaks to the success of YouTube that my blog fell far short of receiving the attention that my YouTube channel has, and attention in the form of subscribers to my channel or through whatever means has always been my goal. Attention to what, you might ask. Which I don't find offensive in the least, it demonstrates that you're thinking critically about what I'm presenting and what my motivations are. Regardless of how corny it sounds, my purpose has been to help others discover history and learn about our present society with enough raw data to form their own perspectives. The major media outlets don't provide us with unvarnished, meaningful news, and the result is a nation of people with very limited understanding of events taking place in their world. What little they do know is a combination of fallacies and trivial points that aren't sufficient to form a useful world view. I've been fortunate to have stumbled onto researching deep politics, so as I see it, Sandy Hook is an issue important enough that every American should have a detailed account of the event available to them, and I mean full disclosure. That's why I'm participating in this project. I'm going to begin my segment of what some will surely call a minor issue, but I tend to measure the significance of certain evidence using an entirely different scale. I view evidence that its synchronous or seemingly coincidental is highly interesting. On the day of the Sandy Hook event, while the activities we've all seen were taking place at the primary crime scene, there was another crime scene being discovered. The investigation was said to have spread into areas near to the school where it appears from the limited footage available that a search for suspects was taking place. Later in the day, events were taking place in New Jersey, of the arrest of Ryan Lanza, for instance. But the only other officially reported crime scene besides the school itself was the Lanza Residence on Yogananda Street. At the time of this production, the Lanza home was left mostly intact. There's very little that would indicate it was the scene of a horrible murder, some minor damage to the garage door, a notice posted on the door. It appears much of the furnishings are still in the home. The neighborhood is back to its pre-school shooting pace, but back in December 2012, the neighborhood was a hub of activity. Residents were stopped and questioned, Yogananda Street on which the Lanza's are said to have lived, have been blocked by squad cars and police tape. With the release of the final report, a number of aerial photos of the street and the Lanza home was provided. But it appears from what can be seen that the photos were taken within the span of only a few minutes, and no indication of the time of the photo series is given. But there is something vaguely interesting about one photo. This white and blue house is said to be the Lanza's. This home next door is said to be the home of the Trentocosta family. Upon examining the driveway at the Lanza home, there doesn't appear to be any obvious signs of activity having taken place. However, when we examine the Trentocosta's driveway, there appears to be tire tracks from cars that drove indiscriminately over their lawn. To help visualize the tracks, I've highlighted them. Based on what the aerial photos depict, one could draw the conclusion that they were taken later in the day or afternoon. But were there any aerial photos taken from that morning? It turns out that there's at least one. There's a photo depicting the same general area with the Lanza home on the left and the Trentocosta home on the right. But oddly, the Lanza home doesn't appear to be the focus of attention. The home next door, on the other hand, can be seen to have at least two vehicles in the driveway and a couple of figures, which I have summed our investigators. It does appear that the home is being used as a staging area for convenience. The barricade created by the squad car and police tape is at the next-door driveway. If I didn't know better, this early photo of the scene would give me the impression that the secondary crime scene was this greenhouse. What were they doing at the home next door? This is an evidence of anything conclusive at this point, but it's an anomaly that has puzzled me since first seeing this photo. Hi, I'm Known on YouTube as Odin Rock. On December 14, 2012, I was driving my daughter home from daycare when a news bulletin about a school shooting in Connecticut came on the radio. As soon as we got home, I made sure my daughter was occupied and then turned on the TV news. I was expecting to see a scene of chaos, of weeping and raged parents, gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair, but I saw instead was first responders lounging around smiling. Parents nonchalantly walking calm children to their cars. Over the next few days, the scene only became more bizarre, with conflicting accounts and victims' families seemingly ecstatic and hungry for attention. There were many troubling and suspiciously anomalous characteristics to the event, but what really solidified my gut feeling that something was obscenely wrong with the situation was the blatant cover-up and official concealment of evidence to the point we are left to ask if there's any evidence this event took place whatsoever. We could postulate this cover-up began more than a year before the event. When raised bill 1054, an act concerning the disclosure of pediatric autopsy reports was introduced in the Connecticut legislature. Initially opposed by chief medical examiner Wayne Carver is redundant, he later inexplicably did in about face and supported the bill, which would end up being passed in October 2011. Effectively concealing all pediatric autopsy reports from public examination. Why do this? Was this ever a problem? Fast forward to the weekend of the event. New York City, Newtown Town Clerk effectively breaks the law by refusing requests from the Associated Press, the New York Post, the Hartford Courant and other media for copies of the death certificates of the victims. Miss Aurelia, the subject of two ethics hearings in 2010, and the future wife of Sandy Hook Fire Chief Bill Hallstead, soon went so far as to craft legislation with state representatives Balinsky, Hovey and McKinney to restrict all death records and marriage records for perpetuity across the state of Connecticut. What else are you talking about? We still talking about death certificates, which have been available for hundreds of years. I believe the bill covers four key elements, pricing photos, our top priority for us without a doubt, and that is for the adults as well as the children. The 9-1-1 tape, because hearing can be just as bad as seeing. There is also questions over the death certificates, which have some private information on them, and also statements, which we would like to be redacted. FOIA reps and professional genealogists were vehemently opposed, along with the press, and editorials were run against it in papers as nationally prominent as the New York Times. As public suspicion intensified, the cover up went into full swing as the original bill was amended to include public release of 9-11 calls, any photographs, and even witness statements. The alleged victims' families were even brought to the Capitol to lobby for the bill, going so far as to stand on the floor of the legislature on the last night of deliberation. They continually stressed the non-release of photos of dead children, even though no request had been made, and the release of such photos had been unheard of. Supporters went so far as to bring race into the debate by enlisting the black and Puerto Rican caucus to push for the bill to cover all homicides in Connecticut, thereby making all homicide records inaccessible to FOIA requests. Parents also continually brought up in press conferences that they feared the use of such material by conspiracy theorists and internet bloggers. The bill which had been drafted in secret behind closed doors and without the usual opportunity for public comment passed at 2am on the last night of legislature before adjournment. It left the release of 9-11 calls up for debate, but the release of all other records for all homicides in Connecticut would be left up to the discretion of the families. The bill passed unanimously with only two no votes and was signed by Governor Maloy on June 5, 2013. Outrage over the bill from the Freedom of Information Advocates led to the formation of the Victims Privacy and Public's Right to No Task Force. The 17 member task force was weighed heavily in favor of privacy, with only two representatives on the side of the Freedom of Information, and they were repeatedly berated in almost every meeting for their perceived insensitivity to the victim's families. For six months the panel heard from members of the press, law enforcement, and the victim's families who repeatedly claimed their rights were being violated by those seeking evidence of a crime there was still no substantial proof of even having occurred. The law also created a 17 member task force to study and make recommendations to the assemblies on what should and should not be released about crimes. Among those selected to serve on the task force is Officer Jillian Knox of the New Haven Police Department's Victims Services Unit. In my city, the victims that I interact with on a daily basis, they feel as though everything needs to be private. The legislature and the governor were prompted to act because of Sandy Hook, but it became clear that some believed that was unfair to all of the state's other crime victims. Families have a very real interest in not being publicized on the radio and television. I think there's a balance out that the public has the right to know certain things and I think that's something that this committee needs to focus on. There are other lawyers, victim advocates, media representatives, and state lawmakers on this panel that must make recommendations on where the lines should be drawn, including Representative Deborah Hovey, who represents Sandy Hook and who has expressed strong opinions about the media. Initially, especially those first four or so months, I just felt that the media was over the top. At the meeting to review the final report of the panel, the two freedom of information representatives were surprised to learn that a five-year prison term class D felony provision for the public release of information pertaining to any homicide had been inserted as a recommendation in the report. The report was approved with 15 members support. The two freedom of information members abstaining with strong objections. The report resulted in the drafting of Senate Bill 388, which proposed the non-release of any information that would constitute, quote, an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, applicable to any person, not just the families of crime victims. All victims and witnesses' names would also remain private. Access to basic information, including the names of witnesses, is essential to reversing wrongful convictions. This bill would make those efforts impossible in the state of Connecticut. The language in this section undermines transparency and accountability in our criminal justice system on a massive scale. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, or well, in. It's what I think it is. Well, my, my, my, my solution is just keep things the way they are. You want to be 1331? I, I, I want to keep public records public, because it's not just murder. It's not just homicides that it's insured. It's all public records. At the meeting to review the final report, and this is important, and everybody should go watch the video I made of this incident. At the meeting to review the final report of the panel, the two FOIA representatives were surprised to learn that a five year prison term, class D felony provision, for the public release of information pertaining to any homicide had been inserted as a recommendation in the report. The report was approved with 15 members support. The two FOIA members were abstaining with strong objections completely absurd. It's completely, another, another makes any sense if Sandy Hook was a real event, but it makes a whole lot of sense if there's a tremendous amount to cover up because it was only a drill and the whole state is embarrassed because it was all complicit in the event. So they're doing everything they can. Conceal access to the kind of evidence that would refute the story and demonstrate it was a hoax. These two FOIA representatives, one of them is almost in tears that they had been sitting through the six months of meetings with these people. If you've ever been in that kind of commission or something, you develop relationships with the people in the commission and they're all being friendly with you, and then they pull the rug out from under you at the last meeting for the recommendations. And basically just bald face lie to you that they had discussed this five year penalty for releasing any information pertaining to any homicide. Not just Sandy Hook, any homicide. It's just a travesty. Law enforcement and the state can get away with whatever they want to do in Connecticut now. Okay? The regulations of Connecticut have no recourse now. In effect, the bill left it to law enforcement to decide what information it would release. The implications are horrendous. Those considered wrongly convicted would have no access to information for appeal. And the decision to release information pertaining to corruption and a wide array of abuse by law enforcement would be left up to that same law enforcement agency. The legislature ended up in deadlock on the amended privacy bill, which means the original draconian limits on release of information still stand. At this point in time, the citizens of Connecticut have no access to records on any homicide. Effectively leaving it up to law enforcement, what information will be released. In addition to this, Peter Lanza has refused to provide any information on Adam Lanza's mental health. This did not stop him from giving an interview to the New Yorker. When child rights organization Abel Child petitioned to have the information released on what medications Lanza was on, they were told by the deputy attorney general it would not be released because it may stop the mentally ill from taking their medication. Add to this the massively redacted official report. The reluctance to release information every step of the way can only be seen as a blatant cover-up. Why not release Lanza's medical records? For that matter, why not release any evidence at all of Lanza's presence in the school that day? It may surprise the general public that there has been no evidence presented of a causal nexus between Lanza and the alleged crime. Surely the release of this information would end most of the speculation by concerned members of the public who have been deemed hoaxers. By those who should have nothing to hide. Aren't the alleged parents of these children interested in this information? Would it not help us to prevent an event like this in the future? If we knew Lanza's mental state leading up to that day? Hello, my name is Jeff C. I'm an independent blogger and media analyst who runs an alternative YouTube channel called Free Radio Revolution. My specialty is to break down events that are reported by the corporate media and try to expose the truth behind these events and what they really are about. I started covering Sandy Hook right after the event occurred at first I reacted like many with grief and anger. But my focus quickly shifted to all the inconsistencies of the official story and the complete ineptitude of the corporate media in investigating the alleged shooting. One of the very first characters that caught my attention was none other than Jean Rosen, a retired pet sitter who had become the focal point of numerous corporate media stories on Sandy Hook. Jean Rosen was portrayed by the corporate media as the hero of Sandy Hook for having provided shelter to six Sandy Hook elementary school children in the wake of the alleged shooting. Important thing to keep in mind while watching this segment is that Jean Rosen has an extensive background in acting and is the CEO of the Newton Cable Advisory. He has also appeared in several stage productions including a recent production of the Fantastics. Jean Rosen's story about how he came across the six children on his front lawn after the Sandy Hook shooting changes with every interview. In one interview he's talking about how he came out of the loft where he fed the cats. In another one he's talking about he was on his way to breakfast. Then in another interview he said he saw the children through his window. Finally he said that he was walking home from breakfast and saw the children on his front lawn. Upon approaching the children Jean makes reference to a man speaking kind of harshly in some interviews as well as a school bus driver. While in other interviews Jean completely omits the man speaking kind of harshly to the children. And I saw a man talking to them in a very harsh way. They seemed agitated. He kept saying it's going to be alright. It's going to be alright. One would assume with Jean's background as being a psychologist who worked at the new town, Fairfield State Hospital that he would be able to count. Unfortunately according to the official report, the bus driver who Jean constantly refers to claims that only four children were brought to Jean Rosen's house. Jean Rosen's account of what the children told him about their traumatic experience seems very scripted and poorly acted out. Watch all the theatrics he puts into describing the kids who allegedly just witnessed their beloved teacher, Victoria Soto, Get Shot and take note of the multiple inconsistencies. I can't go back to the school. We can't go back to the school. We can't go back to the school. We don't have a teacher. We don't have a teacher. Mrs Soto. This is Soto. This is Soto. This is Soto who is dead. There's blood. She had blood in her mouth and she fell and there were two guns, a big gun and a small gun. I can't to go back to the school. I can't go back to the school. I don't have a teacher. I don't have a teacher. And then the other boy said, Mrs. Soto, my teacher's been shot. I could not solve this. I could not imagine what they were talking about. I did not. And I could not fathom in my mind what had happened. Equally puzzling is what Jean did with children that came to his house. Either the parents came and picked them up, or some of them went to the firehouse, or all of them went to the firehouse. Either way, Jean goes out of his way to illustrate the joy that the parents had when they came to the house. Explain to me what that moment was like. Oh. When their parents came I was so happy. Other parents is what they needed. And their parents came to the house. My arms were not long enough. Once again, Jean Rosen's testimony completely conflicts with that of the school bus driver in the official report, whereas Jean Rosen said that all the parents came to his home to pick up the kids, or all the kids went to the firehouse. The school bus driver says in the official report that three of the four kids were picked up by their parents at Jean Rosen's house, while the fourth child was taken. By both of them to the firehouse. Jean Rosen repeatedly mentions a woman who came to his house with a face frozen in fear after the children had been collected by their parents, or after Jean had taken them down to the firehouse. This woman whose name was only mentioned once is none other than Scarlett Lewis, the mother of Jesse, who was another hero on that particular day. Jesse was a hero that day. He was not just a victim. I thought I'd go to the nitrogen, situate, and then the nitrogen, situate, having the presence of mine. To take that kind of action, I would think he would be like all of them, just terrifying. The purpose of the storyline is to bridge the children of Victoria Soto's class to Jesse Lewis, who saved their lives by telling them to run while Adam Lanza was reloading his magazine. This was the worst thing that happened. This beautiful woman came to my door. She was so pretty, but her face was frozen. It was frozen in fear. It looked... And so, trusty Jean Rosen, the former psychologist and feeder actor, has his entire story debunked neatly by the helicopter footage that was filmed on the morning of the shooting at 10 30 AM. One can clearly see Mr. Rosen bumbling around, perhaps even reciting his lines. There's even a brief interview, which he gives, which proves that he was there, which, of course, means that he couldn't have been at his home with the children, nor could he have been there to receive Scarlet Lewis. I want to hold them. I want to be with them. I want to tell them that there is light after the darkness. We have already established that Jean Rosen has an acting background. So would it surprise you if we have confirmed evidence that Rosen was indeed acting throughout all of his interviews? Let's take a look at one video in particular. It's a Jean Rosen video that is not from a news outlet, but was uploaded to the internet nonetheless. In this video, Jean has caught rehearsing his lines. Let's check it out. The school bus driver picked up up. I think she had just let off some kids or was in the area. They came inside the house and they started talking about blood coming out of her mouth. They said, what are we going to do for a teacher? Our teacher is dead. Not that. I mean, they were so distraught. As you've seen from the video, it was the cameraman who corrected Jean. How could a cameraman correct the person talking unless the entire thing was scripted? In case you didn't catch it, the reason why the cameraman corrected Jean was because in this version of the story, Jean states that the children immediately started talking about their teacher dying as they entered the house. It was at this point when the cameraman whispers, no. The Jean waves his arms up in the air and states, Matt, I mean, in his mainstream media interviews, Jean changes the script by stating that the kids didn't tell them about the teacher dying until 15 to 20 minutes after their stay in his house. How did you first learn? And it was four little girls and two little boys that they had just run literally from Victoria Soto's classroom, a teacher who was killed in front of them. I didn't learn about it till around 15 minutes or 20 minutes into their stay at my house. The obvious reason why the cameraman and Jean are flustered is because Jean would be negligent if he didn't immediately call 911 after hearing the news of a shooting in which a teacher was shot dead. Even though his story is ridiculous as it is, it would hold zero ground if he had done nothing but have the kids play with toys while knowing their teacher was murdered. Who is this Matt guy anyway? Was it him who uploaded the video to the internet? And why did he do it? Jean was literally caught in the act lying. He provided statements to the police. If he is caught deliberately providing false statements, he could be charged with criminal acts for filing false reports and obstruction of justice just to name a few. Not only that, but donation sites were put up in his name. He collected money based on the scripted statement. He was also spotted walking around at the firehouse. Could it be that he was rehearsing his lines there as well? Is there anyone out there that believes the school bus driver picked up a random assortment of kids after school was in session and then bypasses the firehouse and proceeds to drop them off on a stranger's lawn? Then go inside to drink juice and play with toys instead of calling the police? Are we supposed to believe this man who is a known actor and who is caught rehearsing his lines? Was Jean included in this event because of his close proximity to the school? Was he given donation money to keep him quiet? In a fair and just society, we could present these questions and the obvious discrepancies of Jean's testimonies to the justice system. As problematic and concerning as it may be, there is evidence of foreknowledge of the purported shooting that took place in Sandy Hook. In simple, web pages with details of the event were put online before the event took place. And the websites where these pages appeared were the official websites of well-known organizations. This evidence of foreknowledge has been met with some of the most belligerent arguments that claim this is untrue. The most common argument being that we simply lack the knowledge required to analyze the data. Data in these cases refers to the cache of a web page kept by search engines like Bing and Google. So, before I get to the evidence of foreknowledge itself, let's identify a few terms and definitions that will help you gain a better understanding of a topic you may or may not be that familiar with. Google is a company that provides many services, but for our purposes, we're going to focus just on their web search service. When you search the web for a word or phrase using Google, Google presents you with a series of pages that best match your search criteria. The results are ordered by how close they match, so results on page 1 should be better or more relevant than those on page 20. What is Google providing links to? What are these results? Most results linked to by Google are simply web pages, although some of the results will be PDF, Microsoft Word, or other documents. Google's proprietary technology determines when and where those results show up. Since the vast majority of results and the evidence in this case are web pages, we'll limit our discussion to those. Google uses a very complicated and private method of choosing which results to display and the order in which to display them. The system is ever changing and increasingly more sophisticated to evade abuse of the system. Google has detected and prevented the most clever of tricks over the years. Why would anyone want to manipulate Google's system? Imagine if you were a company that sold widgets online and had 20 web pages that advertised your widget. Imagine if through some gaming of the Google system, every search at Google always produced links to your 20 pages before any other pages. Whether the search was Angelina Jolie or Quantum Mechanics, your pages came up. Although this is an extreme example, you can see how this might be desirable. How do web pages get into the results shown by Google? Before a web page can be presented as a search result, Google must first become aware of the page and index it. Then all the various features of the page and its content can be analyzed so it can be included in search results when appropriate. This function is performed by Googlebot. Beginning with the pages it already has in its index and adding new page maps of links provided by site owners, Googlebot scours these pages for any changes and links to any new pages. Once complete, Google's index is updated accordingly. This process is ongoing involving many bots and many billions of pages. With that background under our belt, let's examine how to determine the date that a page was last indexed by Google and what that page contained at that time. When Google visits a web page for the first time, determined by a proprietary criteria, Google may capture and store a copy of that page. You can access the cached version of a web page by clicking the link labeled cached, shown with most search listings. Each cached page is assigned an ID and the date it was last cached. Pages that are more popular will be cached more often. Each time a page is cached, the date is updated and if the page is changed, the new content will overwrite the old. Google constitutes a page is ultimately determined by the URL address of the page. So if a page exists that is identical in every way to another except the URL is slightly different, Google will index it as a separate and unique page. If the URL of a page is changed in any way, then Google will consider it a new page. Even if the content of a page remains the same, a change to the URL will cause Google to index it as a new page. At around the same time it will remove its former reference to a page. Some pages may be indexed and usually cached as well by Google once, but never qualified to be indexed or cached again based on a number of factors. In these cases, the cached version of the page and the date cached may be as old as nine years. Google is not concerned with certain things that may be contained within the URL, like dates, for instance. Rather than keywords and phrases, it will use to determine the general content of the page. So, if you were to create a page with the URL containing the date 7151999, Google will still use the current date when indexing it. Google always records the date their bot visits the page without exception. Hopefully now you understand the basics in a theoretical sense. Now let's look at some real life examples to see if we can definitively determine if there was four knowledge. It will begin with a smoking gun example that would stand up in court. While we're at it, we'll take note of just how far one person went to confuse people and hide the simple truth. It all began when the website for the Arlington Red Devils posted a webpage on their site with a link to a document entitled, A Guide on How to Talk to Children About Sandy Hook. The guide was originally published by Crisis Management Institute. The date of the article shown on the page itself is 1210 2012. The URL of the page also includes that date. As we just outlined, the only date that we can truly rely on to tell us when the page was last accessed by Googlebot and indexed is the date it was cash or the cash date. To see that, we simply find the cashed link for the page, and when Google's cashed version of the page loads, that date will always appear in Google's disclaimer box right at the top of the page. Remember though, the cashed date is updated each time Googlebot returns to visit the page. So going through this process after almost two years would likely show a much more recent date. But thankfully, many people were curious enough in the days immediately after the event to grab a screenshot of what the page looked like back then. And those screenshots show Google's cashed date for the page as 1013 2012, one day prior to the actual event. So let's add it up and see what we have here. This regarding the content of the webpage itself, which we've learned can be changed over time, we start with the URL of the page. As you can see, the URL contains the phrase, talking with your children about the Sandy Hook tragedy. It can only be a specific reference to the Sandy Hook shooting event. Next we see that Google reports a cashed date of 1213 2012 for that URL. Remember, URLs can't change or Google considers it a new page. And I might add that just because we see clear evidence that Google had last indexed the page on the 13th, it's very possible the page had been indexed earlier, say the 10th. At which time, Google's cashed date would have shown the 10th. Case closed. Here we have an irrefutable example of four knowledge of the event by at minimum one day. Now let's see how this simple bit of deduction was extrapolated into a book length investigation that despite its length never came to this conclusion. A fairly popular alternative news site, Fellowship of the Minds, ran an article back on January 13th of 2013, reporting that this same webpage appeared to have been online four days before the Sandy Hook event. The article caused a stir and racked up many comments. But a few days later, an update to the article was added, explaining that many comments had been received, but one in particular, from a person named Peter Offerman, seemed to provide more insight. So Peter's comment was featured, which began an odyssey of endless technical jargon. This first article garnered 167 comments before comments were closed. Many of those comments were chapter length diatripes by Mr. Offerman that danced around the technical details of everything from blogging systems to web servers. Each promising to provide the conclusive evidence in the next issue. This went on for a further three articles and nearly 200 further comments. It was clear to me when I posted a comment to the first article that Mr. Offerman was clearly attempting to confuse the issue and doing a very good job of it. The owner of the site, who happens to have penned the four articles, was likely dazzled by the display and unfortunately taken for a ride. But the evidence was clear. The evidence was familiar with the United Way and it's not surprising that they established a fund to solicit donations for those impacted by the San Diego event. But it appears they too jumped the gun on the event and published their webpage advertising the fund well in advance of the event. In the case of the United Way, a page was noted in the Google search results entitled Sandy Hook School Support Fund and was published to their website for the Western Connecticut region. Unfortunately, I couldn't locate a screenshot taken early enough showing Google's cash date for the page. However, we do see Google's document date of the page shown as December 11, 2012. This isn't definitive since Google may derive that date from the page content which is subject to change. In some instances, the date is grabbed from the page where the date is actually connected to another article simply linked to on the page. When I examined a copy of the page, I found no dates whatsoever. In those cases, Google claims to revert to the cash date. But since the document date of 12, 11, 2012 isn't definitive proof of foreign knowledge, we need to dig deeper. The website insamemedia.net has done extensive research into this topic and provides us with some important clues. First, they report that the United Way has responded to allegations of foreign knowledge and flatly rejected them. But this is where it gets interesting. Subsequent to that, a public relations firm contracted by the United Way forwarded an email to the Daily Color from an engineer at Google reading as follows. This is a technical glitch on our end. The date Google's search engine first saw the page was 12, 14, 2012 at 6.58 pm. We're looking into a fix, but it may take some weeks. Seeing somewhat of an expert in these matters, I can say that this explanation is utterly ridiculous. In fact, I find it very difficult to believe that a Google engineer would make such a claim. But given that this is presented as the official explanation from the United Way's perspective, let's see if there's any other evidence that would support that. As shown right on the paging question, the United Way fund was actually established by the new town savings bank. Not surprisingly, the president and CEO of the new town savings bank is John Trentocosta. The very same Trentocosta that owned the home next door to the lenses and where all the activity was taking place on the morning of the event. Mr. Trentocosta is a bigger fish than some might think as he's a member of an important council at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Mr. Trentocosta is quoted as saying, the fund came together as a response to countless requests. Presumably to counter any criticism that the fund was simply a fraudulent scheme, but that's just speculation. However, the statement does present a problem. We know from the Google engineer's statement that the webpage soliciting donations for the fund was indexed by Google on 1214-2012 at 6.58 pm, the very evening of the event. How much earlier than that time was the page first put online is unknown. In any case, one has to wonder how it was possible in such a short time to first receive those countless requests. Come up with the concept for the fund, meet to plan the whole thing, establish the bank account to collect those donations, coordinate with the United Way, determine the slogans and taglines with the campaign, create the artwork and the webpages themselves, and finally, to get all of that up and running online. If it were possible at all, it would be a world record. I don't know how many people have donated, but the total taken in is in the millions. I find the explanations given to account for how quickly this fund was put together to be dubious. In the end, it may be this potentially fraudulent fund and the legal pursuit to reclaim those donations made by innocent people who were simply duked that becomes the first domino to fall in the greater fall of the Sandy Hook hoax. The official report, a 6700 page data dump deprived of any useful or pertinent information because of its plethora of redactions. Well that's how most people have described the official report as released by the Connecticut State Police. This report couldn't put the rest all of the skepticism from people who believed Sandy Hook was indeed a manufactured event. Instead, because of its many inconsistencies and contradictions found in size, even more questions have been raised. The excuse of a rust report cannot be used in this case because it took almost a whole year to release it. Due to their lack of urgency, Lieutenant Paul Vance and State's Attorney Steven Siddanski came under heavy fire for their lengthy delay. When asked about when he planned on releasing the report to the public, Lieutenant Paul Vance merely replied, quote, nobody ever said that we had to have it done by a certain time. The Egotism of Vance and the withholding of information seems to be a recurring theme. After all, he did in fact call himself the Master. I think it's tough for you to talk with your legislators and talk with your neighbors. Well the legislators don't listen. They don't listen. They don't even do a lot of math. Yes, there is because you can refuse to follow unlawful orders. If you can't do that, then need your own enemy of America. Okay, ma'am, I'm not discussing this with I think our conversation is over. I suggest you contact your attorney, ma'am. So really, so, all right, just remember, okay, you're the servant, we're the Masters, okay? You come to my home. I'm the Master. You're the master. You're the servant. You're the servant. You're the servant. We're the Masters. Yes, thank you very much. You come to my home. I'm a conversation man. Okay. And in mid-2014, he found himself in a similar bind when he did not release another crime report within a respectful manner of time. Was there anything unusual about the state police handling of this because of who was involved? Not at all. It was really complete investigation. The rest was made. It was turned over for this period of prosecution. Nevertheless, this report, which can be downloaded at the government website, cspsantihookreport.ct.gov, is their final word, their official statement. And when we find inconsistencies and contradictions within this report, they should be obligated to defend it. Now one humongous inconsistency can be found in the supplemental DNA reports from the forensic laboratory. The report numbers are shown here. This DNA report consisted of swabbing various areas of the murder weapon found at the Landsahol, which was a 22 caliber savage rifle. Other items swabbed included a Christmas card, an envelope labeled for the young students of santihook elementary school, the adhesive side of the stamp, and the exterior and interior door handles of the car located at the crime scene. These items were then compared to the, quote, known blood of Nancy Landsah, unquote, an Oliver swab from a person allegedly said to be Adam Landsah. The results from this report are shocking, to say the least. Based on the conclusions given by the forensic science examiner and analyst, Eric Carita, both Nancy and Adam Landsah are eliminated as contributors to the DNA found on the following items. In fact, the only item swabbed that could be connected to an Adam Landsah are mixtures. Now a DNA mixture is a given sample that contains the DNA of more than one individual. If you were thinking that Nancy Landsah's DNA would be one of the individuals included in the mixture, you would be wrong. Nancy Landsah was eliminated as a contributor to all of the aforementioned items. Now given these facts, many questions now are raised. How could there be more than one person's DNA found at the crime scene when according to the official report, Adam Landsah acted alone? Was the DNA contaminated? If so, how could there be any conclusive results? Estonishingly still, on January 7, 2013, a hit was obtained with the convicted offender DNA profile from the New York State Police Investigation Center for the letter entitled for the young children of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Who is this New York convict and what are his connections to the school and to Adam and Nancy Landsah for that matter? Was there ever a follow-up? This seems as if it should be treated with the utmost importance. So why was it swept under the rug, hidden in a 6700-page pile and never addressed publicly? How can we believe this official report when the forensic analyst himself concludes that both Nancy and Adam Landsah are eliminated as contributors to the DNA found at the crime scene? You have to ask yourself, what exactly is going on here? We attempted to find an answer when an email was sent t