Sandy Hook Elementary Was Open, Part Two: The Obstinate Pen

7 Thoughts on “Sandy Hook Elementary Was Open, Part Two: The Obstinate Pen”

1. John on May 1, 2016 at 10:25 am said:

   Claiming that because a book in the photo was from 2012 proves the school was still open? Again this is absurd.

   I don’t think you understand the Sandy Hook hoax believer’s theories. The books and classroom props to make them look like real classrooms were in my opinion moved into the likely abandoned Sandy Hook school in the months or perhaps weeks before December 2012. They did the setup to make the school look active. Similar to setting up a set for a movie and then shooting the scene once the setup is complete.

   The dates of any books in the classroom photos mean absolutely nothing, or please explain how they would.

   Reply↓
   • Schminkles on May 25, 2016 at 7:18 am said:

     No evidence would convince you sanity deficient people.

     Old books? Proof the school was abandoned! New books? Staging!

     Parents not sedated, sobbing wrecks? They’re fakes! Families visibly anguished? Playing up for the cameras!

     Parents appear on TV? Paid shills whose children didn’t die!
     Parents don’t appear on TV? That’s because their child didn’t really die!

     No death certificates? Nobody died! Death certs available? Fakes!

     It’s ridiculous. There could be camera footage from every classroom, bodycam footage from each child, and some POV video from Lanza and you’d be screaming “IT’S FAAAKE! JUST LIKE THE MOON LANDINGS!”. You’d be saying there was too much/not enough blood, that the kids seemed too upset/not upset enough, that the bullets were actually squibs or blanks, und so weiter.

     It’s like watching a dog alternate between chasing his tail, and eating his crap – horribly attention grabbing, but truly disturbing

     Reply↓
     • Shill Murray on May 27, 2016 at 6:46 pm said:

       “If I haven’t seen it, it doesn’t exist. But if I have, it’s a fake!”

       Reply↓
2. Josh on September 6, 2017 at 9:41 am said:

   Murray, I recently stumbled across your page and am currently enjoying it. But, Ive noticed you attack others viciously when they show signs they may be leaning more toward hoax or drill instead of real event. I have for many years thought it was a drill but i want to examine the evidence again and see if there is anything I missed or anything new. Your site has me seriously second guessing whether the school was closed or not. Im leaning more toward it was open now but, the reason I’m writing this is because i think its wrong to attack others just because they have a different view. I think there is some evidence that lends theory to both sides and we should set an example that we can discuss this topic without resorting to name calling and belittling. I think it takes away from the evidence you have presented here. Just my opinion, Im sure there are a lot of people like me that dont like thinking it was a drill and are looking for evidence to support the mainstream report without being belittled.

   Josh

   Reply↓
   • Shill Murray on October 14, 2017 at 1:41 am said:

     Hi Josh,

     I’m thrilled to hear that you’ve found the site useful, but I absolutely do not agree whatsoever with that idea that I immediately attack anyone that believes the shooting was a hoax or a drill. That’s just not true, at all. If you were to peruse the entirety of this site (as well as my Facebook page), I think you’d find plenty of examples of me engaging these folks in a very civil, respectful manner. Look at the recent back-and-forth I had with NotToday333, for example; I never once insulted them, not once that I can remember, even if I do occasionally belittle their ideas (and there’s a huge difference). But this is not a courtesy that I am willing to extend to everyone, and it all depends on how they approach me and/or the discussion. If someone comes here and calls me a government shill or a liar, then all bets are off, and I’m going to lay into them as best I can. I think that’s fair. Why treat them any differently than they treat me? These people aren’t here to ask legitimate questions or learn anything, so fuck ’em.

     In regards to the idea that the way I speak to some people “takes away” from the evidence I’ve presented here, I’m sorry but I think that’s rubbish. No insult that I can come up with – no matter how good – can alter the evidence. That’s impossible. Just because I call a Flat-Earther an “idiot” doesn’t mean that the planet has stopped being round. I go to great pains to back up my research (much more so than any denier), and a couple of goofy names aren’t going to change that. If someone is going to disregard the facts just because I call some knucklehead a “dummy”, then that’s on them, not me.

     Reply↓
3. Erin on April 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm said:

   My confusion has always been that I’ve never seen photos of video footage of an evacuation. There are the Hicks photos, but one child is in two of them at different positions in line and the shadows are from later in the day, when news helicopters would have captured them leaving the school. So, what gives? This is a genuine question. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I’m concerned about the media coverage. For instance, Gene Rosen is a clear liar. Why do reputable people like PBS use him? No bus driver would drop off six kids in a random person’s yard. Also, the police report says 7 kids were found in the class, we know five died, and then Rosen found six? But Licata and Maskel were reunited in the station? So that’s way too many kids. Even 6 (Rosen) + 7 (police) + 5(died)=18 which would be more than were in the other classes. Although it’s not indicative of a giant conspiracy, the news running people like Gene Rosen as a credible source gives rise to a lot of this confusion. Regular well-meaning people watch the coverage and suddenly things don’t add up because the sources aren’t vetted. I’d be interested in your comments on the lack of aerial footage of an evacuation (less than an hour drive from NYC) and in your thoughts on Gene Rosen. Thanks!

   Reply↓
   • Shill Murray on April 19, 2018 at 1:46 am said:

     Hi, Erin…

     My confusion has always been that I’ve never seen photos of video footage of an evacuation.

     I see this complaint all of the time. “Why doesn’t the footage from the two news copters show any evacuations?” But the last of the children were evacuated by around 10:30, or roughly an hour or so before the first copter even showed up. So, naturally, you’re not going to see any of the children being evacuated, because they had already been evacuated. So there’s nothing to see.

     On the other hand, there are a number of photos showing evacuations in process, beyond the two now infamous photos taken by Shannon Hicks (who says that she took more that morning, but was asked to keep them private). CW Wade from Sandy Hook Facts has already covered all of this, so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for me to repeat the great work he’s already done. So I’ll instead refer you to the following:

     http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/sandy-hook-evacuation-photos-hundreds.html

     There are the Hicks photos, but one child is in two of them at different positions in line

     Oh, come on. This claim is beyond silly, and it’s already been discussed and debunked here on this site:

     https://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/06/03/the-ten-biggest-lies-in-nobody-died-at-sandy-hook/

     Look for #4.

     and the shadows are from later in the day

     According to who? Let’s see this shadow analysis.

     I’m not a conspiracy theorist

     Are you sure about that?

     For instance, Gene Rosen is a clear liar.

     What has he lied about and what proof do you have that he is lying?

     Why do reputable people like PBS use him?

     Probably because he has an interesting story to tell; one that’s not as wholly horrifying as many of the other stories from that day. I don’t book interviews for PBS, so I don’t know for sure.

     No bus driver would drop off six kids in a random person’s yard.

     Right, well, this didn’t happen. First of all, the bus driver – who was in her personal vehicle and not a bus, just to be clear – was running errands with her two children when she came across the students who had escaped Ms. Soto’s classroom. There were nine students in total, four of which stopped running for her. The other five were picked up by another parent. So the six children at Gene Rosen’s house included those four students as well as the bus driver’s two children. There are a number of news articles that got this wrong, unfortunately, so I understand why some people are confused to just how many children were at Gene’s. I’m basing my information off of the final report rather than news articles.

     And the bus driver didn’t drop them off; she stayed at Gene Rosen’s with the children long enough for most of them to be picked up by their parents. They brought the remaining two over to the firehouse where they turned them over to waiting police officers.

     Also, the police report says 7 kids were found in the class, we know five died, and then Rosen found six?

     Again, two of the six that Rosen “found” belonged to the bus driver.

     But Licata and Maskel were reunited in the station? So that’s way too many kids. Even 6 (Rosen) + 7 (police) + 5(died)=18 which would be more than were in the other classes.

     Even if your math was correct (and it’s not since there were only four students at Rosen’s home), this would still be wrong. According to Sandy Hook’s enrollment reports from October of 2012 – the last one available from Newtown from before the shooting – the fifteen and sixteen student first grade classes were the school’s smallest. Four of the five 2nd grade classes had nineteen students, while just one of them had eighteen. Five of the six 3rd grade classes had nineteen students while the other had twenty. And three of the five 4th grade classes had nineteen students while the remaining two had twenty. Even the pre-K classes were larger, with between seventeen and nineteen students.

     Although it’s not indicative of a giant conspiracy, the news running people like Gene Rosen as a credible source gives rise to a lot of this confusion.

     Taking the above into consideration, what about him or his story is not credible? As far as I can tell, he tells a fairly consistent story (which can difficult when you’ve been through a traumatic event).

     Reply↓