dogsmilk wrote: In the case of Mr Parker, it does seem rather coincidental that he appears to have "accepted it" literally the second he thought the TV camera was turned on him no?
There is at least one video of another chap being chased into the woods and caught, it's been posted in this thread. With regard to the bit I've bolded, I don't buy that I'm afraid.
Very fair and wise point although I'm not sure that people here are suggesting that say the medical examiner, undertakers, local police etc were involved in doing awful things to children

I'd actually be incredibly surprised if this doesn't lead to summat happening with regards to gun laws. My money being on a return to the 2004 situation where semi-automatic weapons are banned.

phemohilia wrote:
Definite contamination

I don't refute that they might have selected interviewees who were more together. I actually don't think it was a case of being 'together', so much as a case of them all looking like they were doing their damnedest to cry for the cameras and failing because they're not good enough actors (the 2 clips not with Parker in them - he's clearly able to force the tears out on cue). However, that's down to perception, and I do concede that you might be right, and I might be wrong (even though I don't believe so ).

Apart from the 'fakeness' that a lot of people have been picked up on, there are a lot of people elsewhere who are certain that the grieving Mrs Phelps who I put a clip of in post # 401...

The last 10 seconds or so of this...



...is believed to actually be Jennifer Greenberg Sexton, who is a known actress actress, and reputed to have been involved in other psyops (haven't got round to researching as yet)...



...and is also alleged to have connections with this...

crisisactors.org/

I have to say, they do look very similar indeed (particularly if you Google other images) but I'm not actually 100% convinced they're the same person - just not quite sure. I'd be interested to know what others think.

I'm not being awkward, but it would take me just as long as anyone else to find links to the police radio scan - just Googling it will be the quickest way.

I'm definitely familiar with the 'everything's a conspiracy' mindset on DIF - I don't think there's anyone here who bears those traits tbh.

I know that for me personally, I don't generally get overly involved with stuff on the news page, but this was such a nasty thing, with so many unexplained anomolies, that it's got right under my skin.

I've yet to see anyone who thinks there isn't a rabbit off, tackle the issues like the other suspects (one of whom was in custody), the weapon placements and also the deliberate contamination of this evidence, the identifications being done by photograph or the contradictions given in explanation for that.

If someone can offer plausible reasons for those things, I'll feel very grateful and relieved.

The guy in the woods could be anybody. He might not have been involved. They might have been checking the area in case this was not over. I imagine that is routine. There were shots on the news of Ryan Lanza in custody. I imagine this was routine also as he was related and linked to the shooter.

I don't have all the answers but I offer you my thoughts.

I would suggest the use of photos to identify bodies was perhaps due to the state of the bodies. It was for the benefit of the parents.

dubmeup wrote:
Well watching the whole clip, his expression looks almost like he's smiling towards the end, but yes I can see exactly what people are talking about. But personally don't feel I can say his emotions aren't jumping around all over the place. I can't say he hasn't been given benzos for the shock and is having moments of clarity and moments of realisation. I can't say it doesn't hit him when he realises he's now in front of the cameras. All I can say is he looks a bit out of it to me and suddenly found himself in extraordinary circumstances. I don't feel I can say his behaviour seems a bit odd therefore something must be deeply amiss.

I haven't seen that one, but I have seen videos talking about a second man arrested. Which is potentially exactly seeing gunmen everywhere. So
1/There was a second shooter and this has been covered up
2/Some other got arrested because the police swept the area and thought he looked suspicious. This may even be forgotten about if/when he's released as the media have lots of other angles to focus on.
3/Something else.

Which is true? I don't know. I think all you can say is it appears some other guy was in the woods. Whether he was in any way connected you just do not know. It could be something - it could just as well be nothing.

It was just in response to the 'how do we know they weren't whisked to a pedo ring'. And if it's genuinely suspicious that the parents did not see the bodies, then it follows that those that did see the bodies must have been part of some cover up beyond not showing the parents horribly mutilated bodies.

You may be right. I really hope it doesn't swing to arming teachers. I just kinda suspect it might grind into a stalemate after the story has died down down a bit. I personally can't see how anybody actually wanted this to happen - Obama has the headache of having to be seen to do something about it which means a fight with the gun lobby and the NRA know it gives the anti-gun lobby incredibly powerful propaganda with their only response being to arm everybody!. And whether Americans have guns or not means jack shit in the the government are out to screw us over stakes - it's not like Americans having guns has helped with the general shafting of ordinary people there.

I get that the guy that ran into the woods may not have been involved. I missed the bit about the car that Lanza is said to have arrived in actually belonging to that guy Can anyone point me to a post or link?

But what prompted the guy to leg it into the woods if he wasn't involved? Him running off as he did kind of implies he didn't want to be caught doesn't it? Perhaps he thought the plod chasing him weren't plod but in fact the shooter It doesn't seem likely though.

dubmeup wrote:
I dunno. I reckon I'd run if was me. Would you trust the dibble not to fit you up???
We don't even know what happened - did he hear shots? Did he know what had happened? Did he just see armed police waving guns and shit his pants? Fuck knows.

On this gloves thing, I just watched this and it looks to me like the copper is wearing white gloves., but the footage is not very clear.



Is there more clear footage showing him not wearring gloves? Because on that footage he looks like he is. I certainly don't think you could say with any confidence he isn't.

I absolutely don't trust the dibble to not fit me up
Who was that guy though? Why was he there in the first place? What gave him (potentially) reason to think he'd be fitted up?

I agree that it's not possible to tell from that video if the dibble is or isn't wearing gloves.

Regarding the parents identifying their children by photos...before the childrens bodies were moved from were they were kept after the massacre..sky news reported that the parents had been allowed to identify their bodies in person ( I think in the late evening). It was said that the parents had gone in one family at a time. It was reported that they 'had seen' the bodies, not that they were going to at a later date, so found it strange that a couple of days later I read that they had identified them by photos.

I can understand that reporters want to be the first with a story...which explains why details are sometimes not entirely right, but this was reported as fact......so it's no wonder people are asking questions.

I decided to see if any of the parents were on face book. Found two. Rich rekos has one mostly private and it looks like Robbie parker has a lot of public photos. These do not prove anything but perhaps help to convince that these are real parents who I think are going through real grief. This is my belief anyway.


I didn't see anybody running into the woods apart from those who I assumed to be cops. It was hard to see through trees but I saw very little running. If they ran it was not far.

The man in the woods was widely reported I-b. There are video interviews of people who witnessed him, the helicopter footage, news reports....he existed....but now he is a thing of the past

Interestingly, that story about some loon going into another school with a bit of wood has had a large effect on the Google results when you type "sandy hook man woods"...

I don't doubt his existence. I saw a video but didn't see detail. So I saw no running. It might be reported as running and not be. Not sure what was reported or if there are better angles out there. The theory is that he is a second gun man or the real one I guess but why not shoot him or say he is in custody? Holmes is in custody so if both are linked why the new script?

pheony wrote: 1

It's in the video clip of the chief medical officer, Pheony. He was asked by a reporter if they'd all been identified, and he made a point of saying yes - but not by getting the parents together with the children, it was all done by photographs, and what great photographers he has.

@ i-baster - there was talk of other suspects sighted on the radio scan, and a lot of reporting. One was caught, cuffed & taken into custody. One was a parent who supposedly had come to make gingerbread men with his kid's class, and legged it at the sound of gunfire (like you would when your child's in amidst the gunfire!). One of them was identified on the scan by the number plate of his car as being Chris Rodia - that's the car that according to the media all the way through is Mrs Lanza's car which Adam supposedly drove himself there in, and had the rifle in the boot. I'd look for clips for you, but my laptop keeps freezing up.

I also saw a report early on stating that a body found in a flat was Ryan Lanza. I can't find it now and have seen nothing further about it.

But Ryan Lanza was supposed to have been taken into custody & helping police with their investigation. I've not come across anything further about him since.

In terms of the press reporting conflicting information, I would like to be optimistic and believe that this is due to their desire to get the story first, but I think a far more likely explanation is that they simply report whatever emanates from official sources. I've been in a room with 'journalists' from the Daily Mail, The Times, Daily Telegraph, BBC, Sky, Manchester Evening News, and probably some others, who were reporting on a particular issue. I told them exactly what was going on with this particular issue. All they wanted to know was if they could get a press release. Some time later a government minister turned up, made some pre-rehearsed PR statements that fitted the government's agenda on the issue, and all I saw in the press were verbatim quotes of what he'd had to say, and that was the extent of their reporting.

It's not surprising in such a climate that it was possible for completely false stories to be planted in the press regarding the Hillsborough disaster. It's only due to the concerted efforts of many people over decades that eventually some of the truth regarding that issue came out. And we know now from that inquiry that hundreds of rank and file police officer's statements were deliberately covered-up. There was systematic collusion between the government and certain high-ranking police officers, with the co-operation of the gutter press, to cover-up what occurred. And this is an issue with tens of thousands of eyewitnesses. It's an issue where many people knew 100% that what was being suggested by the establishment was incorrect. Yet the press were only prepared to explicitly dismiss the version of events in which the Liverpool fans were culpable for what happened when the government conceded it officially. Until then, they all either sat on the fence, or in some cases implied that the government may have been correct.

This is just one example. It's an important example, though, because a handful of people, less than half a dozen, covered up something that was directly witnessed by thousands for over two decades. If you went back five years in time, any mainstream politician would have dismissed as ridiculous the idea that the government and police could have colluded, or that rank and file police officers' statements could have been suppressed because they were inconvenient to the establishment. But, of course, this is exactly what occurred. So if that was covered-up, I don't find it at all difficult to believe that we haven't heard the full story regarding Sandy Hook, particularly when the political establishment in the United States is making such a big deal out of it. Where there is a vested interest, there should always be suspicion when that vested interest is telling you what occurred

There are many other examples of abysmal reporting in both the British and American press, and of them completely failing to hold to account the actions of the political establishment. These are far too numerous to mention in their totality, but if you want to look at one that is somewhat similar to this situation, I would suggest the murder of Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993. However, one current event immediately comes to mind.

We're seeing a cover-up right now related to Syria, where the Western press have gone along completely acquiescently with the information that they've received from the US and British governments on the subject. I haven't seen one report in the Western media regarding the Anglo-American establishment arming Islamic militants in Syria. This is despite the fact that the situation is an almost exact mirror image of the conflict that occurred in Kosovo, during which the media completely failed to hold to account the government's version of events at that time. The so-called 'liberal press' completely supported this war, despite the fact that its supposed humanitarian concerns have been authoritatively decimated by Mark Curtis' "Web of Deceit" using the government's own documents. There is no doubt whatsoever that the government knew that their bombing of Kosovo was going to make the situation far worse, this is just part of the public record now and cannot possibly be denied. Have The Guardian or Independent apologised for the reportage, or given any indication of this? Not to my knowledge. Most people, thus, still think that Kosovo was a humanitarian war related to 'ethnic cleansing' that was largely successful. This is somewhat of a divergence from reality! Are The Independent and Guardian still queuing up to cheerlead for the Syrian conflcit? Naturally. These are far more important issues than Sandy Hook, in which the information can be absolutely, completely verified, and yet seemingly no-one in the mainstream press can be bothered to do so. The American press is, of course, far worse than the British press, with a much smaller likelihood of one finding useful articles within it.

But I don't find it at all unlikely that there could have been a cover-up at Sandy Hook. I don't know if there was or not. It's impossible for me to say, and I'm not going to invest any time in looking at it, as there are better ways for me to spend my time. I am glad that Gilly posted the video which contains the inexplicable behaviour because I wouldn't have bothered looking at the issue at all otherwise. But much bigger things than this have been covered-up, and the fact is that they don't come to light, even when the facts are 100% known.

However, the primary reason we should be concerned about this is the FBI's pretty unprecedented step of stating that they will prosecute people who question on Facebook their version of events. This is absolutely unacceptable whatever happened, but it should naturally raise suspicion over what did occur. Obviously some people are perfectly happy to accept the FBI's version of events, and accept everything that they're told by the FBI at face value, and that's fine, that's their right. They're probably even happy to accept the pretty unprecedented step of the police threatening to arrest people on Facebook that don't 100% agree with and go along their view. I don't believe we should be happy about these things, and I don't think they should be accepted lightly. This would be the case even if we could trust the establishment to tell the truth, and the media to get to the bottom of things and engage in critical thinking. Which we know that we cannot. But if people are determined to believe the FBI's version and buttress their faith in it at all costs, that's up to them.

People on the DIF forum think everything is fake including the victims...smh

They also think all 3000 9/11 victims were all fake....

I know 2 people who died on 9/11 one in the towers and the other in the Pentagon was my friend.

Makes me just wan't to give up on conspiracy theories like this.

usahitman.com/alcrcr/

car connections.

Rather interesting...

.......... wrote: With respect, you asked me what I would like to see Obama do differently. I then listed 43 things. You then claimed that Obama was trying to do these things, even though this view made absolutely no sense whatsoever and can be completely discounted for the vast majority of the list. You previously told me that you'd voted for Obama.

So you've either lost leave of your senses, are completely stupid, or don't have any intention of making a constructive contribution. Which one is it?

.......... wrote:
You could always give up posting and reading at the dif RA...

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I was being honest that i think Obama want's to cut Military spending and use the money for education.

Same with him taxing the top 1% to pay down the debt...

Yes i voted for him because Romney said he would shock and awe to Iran...

What more can I say?

.......... wrote: If you were being honest then you are completely stupid because Obama could implement 41 of those 43 suggestions immediately, despite the fact that you claimed that he was currently trying to do so.