“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Five

By: “Vivian Lee, PhD”

This one was a real chore to get through. At thirty-three pages (Illuminati alert!), it’s the longest chapter thus far and dense with. This is another chapter that originally started as an entry on the rancid “Veteran’s Today”. That entry was already two-years-old by the time it was reprinted in this book, but Lee claims that the content is “still as valid as ever”. Let’s see if there’s any truth to that.

“Gene Rosen Fox News live interview of December 18, 2012, now known to have been filmed in front of a green screen, with the ‘everyone must check in’ sign inserted in the background.” pg. 57

Known by who? How? Lee’s only source is a YouTube video. Believe it or not, they had the nerve to charge $20 for this book at one point, but couldn’t be bothered to explain the contents of a video to their readers. And if they can’t, then why should I bother?

But I will ask this: why is this something that would even need to be faked? Gene Rosen literally lives next door to the fire house, which is where the sign was located. If they wanted it in the shot, he would only need to take a single step outside. So why put forth the time and effort to have him perform in front of a green screen and then insert something that can be seen from his front window digitally? It doesn’t make any sense. Additionally, if the presence of this sign is evidence of a drill, then wouldn’t you take great pains to avoid all traces of it?

We can prove that the sign didn’t show up until the 15th, so what good would it have even been in an alleged drill that took place the day before? From my chapter four debunk, here is a photograph we know was taken the morning after the shooting (after Fetzer tried to pull a fast one on us). Note that there is no trace of the “check in” sign:

Conspiracy theorists claim that the Sandy Hook case is full of inconsistencies, but they insult everyone’s intelligence with tripe like this. And I don’t want to tell Fetzer and Lee how to fleece their readers write their book, but if these signs are compulsory at actual mass casualty drills, then why isn’t there a single photo demonstrating this anywhere in the book?

“The final report does not even include the names, ages, or sex of the alleged shooting victims. There was no actual identification of any of the dead.” pg. 58

This is only true of the minor victims, for what I would have assumed are very obvious reasons. But adult victims were identified. If you need proof, simply download CFS_1200704597.zip from the final report and open up file 00030920.pdf. Again, the pages featuring minors are redacted, but information about the adult victims can be found on pages 14, 16, 17, 39, 40, 42, 71, 72, 75, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, and 133. That’s eighteen pages worth of material that Lee says does not exist, and that’s only one document:

If you’re ever confused as to why something in the final report is redacted, simply look at the numbers on the redacted page and consult the report’s redaction index online. There are a number of wholly legitimate reasons given, including state and federal law (like US Constitution Amendment 14 or Connecticut Constitution Article 1 Section 8b).

Furthermore, Connecticut State Police released a full, unredacted list of all child as well as adult victims to the public, with their dates of birth and sex, the very next day:

“This pattern of deceit extended to the Newtown Clerk’s secret arrangements with the state legislature to avoid releasing death certificates to the public, attempts to withhold the 911 calls, and gag orders that were imposed on those responsible for tearing down the school building itself.” pg. 59

One man’s deceit is another man’s privacy, I guess. But this is still mostly bullshit. Death certificates are available to literally anyone with $20 and a stamp, including scumbags like “Vivian Lee” and James Fetzer. If you’re interested, you can obtain the necessary information from Newtown’s website.

The 911 calls are also public and available as exhibit 439 in the final report. They’re also all over YouTube, though I think it’s best to get them straight from the source so that you’re not privy to any Fetzer-esque trickery. Like victim names, this is even more material Lee falsely claims is not available.

As for the crew hired to demolish Sandy Hook, yes, they did indeed sign NDAs. This was done to prevent anyone from taking photographs or even pieces of the building. There’s an incredible market for macabre junk like this and an unscrupulous worker could certainly profit off of this tragedy, if so inclined. I think the repulsive actions of Sandy Hook deniers have shown this to be an incredibly wise move:

Sandy Hook ‘truther’ caught in Virginia with signs stolen from playgrounds built for Newtown victims

Florida professor taunts Sandy Hook parents and accuses them of faking kids’ massacre for money

Man accused of harassing Sandy Hook staff over shooting ‘fabrication’ faces judge

Brooklyn man yelled that Newtown massacre never happened to family of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher Victoria Soto

Besides, if they were able to pay off so many people – pretty much an entire town – to keep them quiet, which is what this book claims, then why not just extend that offer to these contractors? You could get them to say whatever you’d like. You could have them tell the press it was the saddest, bloodiest thing that they’ve ever seen.

“No photographic evidence or video footage was released to confirm the official story that these 28 persons actually died.” pg. 60

This material exists and rightfully remains in the sole possession of the authorities. According to Connecticut state law:

“Any record created by a law enforcement agency or other federal, state, or municipal governmental agency consisting of a photograph, film, video or digital or other visual image depicting the victim of a homicide, to the extent that such record could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim’s surviving family members.”

So what Lee is asking for here is against the law.

“No video surveillance footage shows anything—not even Adam shooting out the front plate-glass window or walking through the halls like Rambo, even though the school had supposedly updated its security system at the start of the 2012–2013 academic year.” pg. 60

The updated security system was not installed in 2012, as Lee claims; it was installed in 2006 (fiscal year 2007). So she’s only off by six years.

Lee’s source for this claim is a Hartford Courant article from the evening of the shooting, December 14th, 2012, and nowhere does it say when the system was actually installed. But with a little digging – something Lee is apparently unwilling to do – we can easily trace it to 2006, based on Newtown’s Building & Site Improvements of the Superintendent of Schools Annual Report for fiscal year 2007.

On page ten of the report, you’ll see line items for the installation of “front entry security” at Hawley, Sandy Hook, and Head O’Meadow schools. Newtown Schools Superintendent Dr. Evan Pitkoff talks about the new system (sadly prompted by similar school shootings) in this Newtown Bee article from October, 2006:

“As of today [October 3], all of our elementary schools have a buzzer system to gain entry into the building,” Dr Pitkoff added.

The security system itself worked as intended, which is why Adam Lanza was forced to shoot out one of the front windows to gain entry. The system never included video recording capability, which is why there’s no surveillance footage. Newtown clearly never saw a need for it in their elementary schools. But just as past school shootings prompted Newtown to install a front entry security system at Sandy Hook after fifty-six years without one, I’m sure that the tragedy at Sandy Hook has prompted a number of schools to install video monitoring and recording systems.

“The best the authorities could come up with was a heavily redacted ‘final report’ (December 2013) that includes numerous photos of the inside of the school, with a few dings identified as bullet holes, several bullets and casings on the floor” pg. 60

From my chapter one debunk, here are the pages from Walkley’s scene photos (available as part of the final report) that show the following:

Bullets and bullet casings: 103-110, 113-117, 119-125, 433-443, 447, 465-466, 469-471, 473, 481-482, 484-485, 488-489, 495, 499, 502-504, 644, 680, 713, 721, 735-737, 739-743
Bullet holes and bullet damage: 54-61, 404-431, 448-454, 513, 622-624, 626-630

That is certainly more than “a few dings” and “several bullets”. And that’s just one set of photos. Even more bullets, casings, and “dings” (aka holes) can be seen in Meehan’s parking lot photos (pages 51, 62, 81, 100, 118, etc.)

Besides, if this were a staged crime scene, it would have taken little-to-zero effort to toss a large number of bullets and empty casings around. Certainly the police have access to plenty of them, right?

“Compounding the situation, the parents were not allowed to view their children’s bodies to identify them. Instead, they were reportedly shown photographs of the deceased.” pg. 61

This one’s mostly true, so congratulations all around. This information comes directly from the medical examiner (who, after being insulted, doubted, and even called an “imposter” in previous chapters is finally trustworthy, I guess). Due to the extremely grisly nature of their injuries, parents did initially identify their children using crime scene photographs. This is in fact how most identifications are done. From an article titled “How Identifying A Body In Real Life Is Nothing Like TV Or Movies” on Everplans:

FACT: Most identification is done via photograph in a comfortable sitting room.

No dramatic reveals here. In fact, the photograph is often presented to the witnesses face down, and the chief medical examiner or morgue attendant calmly explains what they’re going to see to minimize shock.

Remember that many of the children were shot multiple times, most through the head, so this seems totally reasonable and understandable to a fairly normal adult like myself. They were, however, able to see the bodies afterwards.

I’m also not sure how this is evidence of a drill. If it were, and the parents were in on the charade (as Fetzer, et al claim), then why wouldn’t they simply lie and say that the parents identified the bodies in person?

“Remarkably, the state has done its best to avoid releasing the death certificates and even recordings of the 911 calls. Death certificates were eventually ‘released’ but not to the public or those who might want to investigate the case further” pg. 61

And we’re right back to the bullshit.

Again, this is absolutely, positively false. Any self-proclaimed “researcher” with $20 to their name can order any death certificate they wish from the town of Newtown, including those of Adam Lanza and his victims. Have “Vivian Lee” and James Fetzer ever done this? They never give any indication that they have. Some researchers.

“One Sandy Hook researcher decided to call Lt. Paul Vance to ask who cleaned up the blood, which would have been considered a bio-hazard, and got the reply, ‘What blood?'” pg. 63

Sure, sure. Oh, and let me guess: she didn’t record the call, did she? Okay. Great sourcing here.

The final report says exactly who cleaned up the blood: Clean Harbors, Inc. They’re listed in Book 2, 198991.pdf:

School Clean Up

On 12/28/2012 at approximately 0800 hours, I was contacted by dispatch and informed that the CSP were at the Sandy Hook School and that they needed the gate opened. I took the key from the Sgt. office and went there. I was met by Det. Ray Insalaco and members of the moving company which had been there during the week. Det. Insalaco indicated that the CSP were finished with the school and wanted to turn the school over to the Newtown Police. We walked through the school, which
had not yet been cleaned. I spoke with Gino and Dr. Roberts from the Board of Education. We discussed the effected area and decided that all items in the hallway were to be destroyed. Clean Harbors was the vendor that the FBI had assigned for the clean up of the scene. I contacted Thomas Wilson of Clean Harbors and scheduled them to begin the clean up of the scene on 12/31/212. I notified the Chief and Captain of this as well. At 1300 hours, Det. Insalaco gave me the keys to the school. By 1500 hours, everyone was out of the school and I checked the interior. I found several unsecured doors and a leak in the roof. I secured the doorways and notified Gino of the leak. I then secured the exterior and gate, and brought the keys to Chief Kehoe.

On 12/31/2012 I met Wilson of Clean Harbors at the school. All members of his team were instructed not to bring phones, camera, or other electronic devices into the school. They all stated that they understood and complied. The workers included Jake Lori, Bill Wass, Matt Jones, William Wendal, Tom Wilson, and James Pikul. The truck drivers were Christopher Drugoins and Kevin Tingley. I monitored the work, and they left the school at 1530 hours.

If you’re still not convinced, Sandy Hook Facts has a copy of the invoice, though they’ve only chosen to post a piece of it:

“Outside Sandy Hook Elementary, tarps were laid out, but not even the black tarps for the dead were used, much less the red ones for those who needed immediate treatment” pg. 64

But there’s a red tarp right there:

Even more stupefying, Lee’s exemplar photo doesn’t even meet her own requirements for what a real triage should look like:

So where are the black tarps?

While it goes uncredited (much like everything else in this book), this photo depicts the aftermath of the 2008 Chatsworth train disaster, in which a freight train collided with a commuter train, head-on. Twenty-five people died and a whopping 135 were injured, which goes a long way in explaining why the scene may look a bit different than the one at Sandy Hook, where there were only four initial survivors (that’s 131 less, since I’m already doing the math for Fetzer and his army of contributors). Of those four, three of them – two children and one adult – were seriously injured and rushed to Danbury hospital, where the two children were pronounced dead. The remaining victims were declared dead by EMS personnel inside of the school and later brought to the covered mortuary tent in the parking lot.

As for the use of red tarps, there were actually a handful of them, but Lee purposely only shows one of the two triage areas (which, despite her claim, actually does include a single red tarp).

While the primary triage area was located in the school’s parking lot, there was a larger, secondary triage area located at the fire house, as is standard procedure. But why didn’t Lee include a picture of it? Because the only victim not rushed to the hospital – kindergarten teacher Deborah Pisani – can very clearly be seen there, on one of these allegedly non-existent red tarps, with her injured left leg wrapped up and elevated on a white folding chair:

And here’s a closer view, taken from a video posted by the Wall Street Journal:

Notice that the same white folding chairs as well as green or grey SUV, parked in the very exact position, can be seen in both photos.

Ms. Pisani’s injury is explicitly confirmed at 10:17:07 of the radio call log:

10:17:07 “Gunshot wound to the left foot, need transport, but she’s conscious and alert.”

As well as her own statement to police (Book 5, 00258013.pdf):

My left foot was injured, and my shoe was removed. I think it was at the entrance to the parking lot. It is a Sketchers, size women’s 10, and from my left foot. My foot was the only part of me injured.

A Newtown police officer can even be seen assisting Deborah to the triage area on Officer Liam Seabrook’s dash cam footage:

This is corroborated by EMT and Newtown Ambulance volunteer Chelsea Fowler (Book 6, 00002134.pdf):

“The only person who was wounded was a teacher who was shot in the foot. I was talking her down to the treatment area when a group of students came running out of the school. One of the students yelled out to her to ask if she was ok, and she responded ‘I’m just fine, I only sprained my ankle!'”

“There were no first-hand accounts that proved anyone was killed or injured.” pg. 64

This is honestly just laughable. A large number of first-hand accounts are included in the final report. Paramedics, police officers, parents… this is just total insanity. Absolute twaddle.

“No emergency vehicles were present at the school or even lined up in the fire lane for a rescue attempt—the parking lot was filled with parked cars, police cars and possibly media vehicles.” pg. 65

Lee is basing this off of photographs and footage taken after the wounded had already been transported to Danbury hospital. That does not include Deborah Pisani, who was injured and remained at the firehouse triage area, which Lee chose to hide from her readers.

Many of the ambulances who responded but were not needed (as most were dead) remained in the firehouse parking lot. You can see at least eight of them in this photo, along with Deborah Pisani at the aforementioned secondary triage area:

Some can be seen driving by the firehouse, later in that same footage:

“This protocol appears to have been followed at Sandy Hook, where many participants wore ID/identification badges on lanyards…” pg. 66

Lee doesn’t provide any examples, but the most common one passed around conspiracy theorist circles is of two nuns (or are they?? They are) wearing badges on lanyards:

These are simply badges for nearby St. Rose of Lima School, where these two nuns work (and where Wolfgang Halbig was caught videotaping children). The nun on the right is Sr. Thaddeus Rajca, the school’s religious coordinator. She can be found on both the “Leadership” and as well as “Achievements & Accreditation” sections of the school’s website. Here she is posing with students, wearing a badge and a lanyard:

And here’s a closeup of her badge, taken from that photo:

Here’s another picture of Sr. Rajca, comforting the McDonnells. As corroborated by the image’s Exif data, this photo was taken on December 14th, 2012, at 2:22PM:

Due to the size and resolution of the above photograph, we can actually get a pretty good look at the badge. Here it is, up close, and compared to the St. Rose of Lima School crest:

And here is Sr. Rajca at Newtown’s “The Ice Cream Shop”, wearing the same yellow St. Rose of Lima School badge and lanyard (circled in red) seen above. Note the presence of the St. Rose crest:

“Water is available in quantity at the Firehouse” pg. 66

Oh shit, water? And in quantity? There were a lot of people there and they needed water so people brought water. It’s not like it’s very difficult to find. Here is someone (reportedly from the Ladies Auxiliary of Sandy Hook) dropping some off, captured on police dash cam footage as it arrived at around 12:21PM. Probably a little late for a drill that started hours earlier, no?

Bottled water was also delivered to the emergency responders at Columbine, which James Fetzer apparently believes was a real event and not a drill:

1:11 – 1:29 p.m. Command requests that the American Red Cross respond to the scene to assist both with victim’s families and with the food and rehydration needs of the emergency responders. Command receives bottled water from local retail stores for emergency responders.

Source: http://ispub.com/IJRDM/5/1/12573

Red Cross representatives are en route to scene. LFD acquires bottled water from local stores to hydrate on-scene personnel.

Source: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-128.pdf

Hey, maybe all of these things that are “standard” for a drill, according to Lee and Fetzer, are also standard for an actual emergency.

“An emergency preparedness drill took place on December 14, 2012 (9:00 am – 4:00 pm ET), in Bridgeport, CT, which is a 20 minute drive from Sandy Hook. The course, ‘Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters,’ was run by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection/Emergency Management and Homeland Security.” pg. 67

Google says it’s a 28 minute drive, but who’s counting? Certainly not anyone who contributed to this book. I hope Vivian Lee, PhD is not advocating speeding!

Anyway, the rest of the claim is partially true, which again is pretty good for this book. But FEMA course IS-366 (now IS-366.A) is just that: a course, not a drill. Courses like this run every 2-3 weeks and do not involve crisis actors. They actually look like this:

Pretty boring, right? And just in case it the name was somehow too ambiguous for you, this course has absolutely nothing to do with shootings, bombings, etc; it’s solely focused on natural disasters. You can read the course overview for yourself. You can even take the entire course online, if you’re into that sort of thing.

“And a FEMA Mass Casualty Drill, ‘Emergency Response for Mass Casualties Involving Children,’ was scheduled to take place on December 13 or 14, 2012 (location unspecified). The exercise was to target the following capabilities: Mass Prophylaxis, Mass Death of Children at a School by Firearms, Suicide or Apprehension of Unknown Shooter, Use of Media for Evaluation, and Use of Media for Information Distribution.31 This may have been the script for the Sandy Hook ‘shooting.” pg. 67

This part, on the other hand, is pure, uncut horseshit. There is no drill or course by that name offered by FEMA, which is probably why the book’s source for this is another conspiracy theorists blog and not the FEMA website itself, where all of their courses and a calendar of events can be found. Lee and Fetzer believe they’ve actually seen the “manual” for this non-existent drill, but they’re both idiots who have been swindled. Or regular ol’ liars. One or the other.

More on this fantastical “FEMA manual” can be found here and here.

“In addition, tweets about the shooting began before it occurred, a tribute was apparently uploaded one month before the event, and web pages honoring the victims, including a Facebook page R.I.P. Victoria Soto, were established before they had ‘officially’ died” pg. 67

It looks like James Fetzer isn’t the only one who doesn’t understand the Internet.

“Tweets” and a single Facebook page are about as specific as these claims get here, so those are the two that I’ll address:

When you create a Facebook page for an event or a person or whatever, you can change the name or subject as often as you’d like and the original “created” or “joined” date will stay the same. The Victoria Soto Facebook page was simply someone who had changed the name of their existing Facebook page as a tribute, leaving all other information – including the creation date – exactly the same. This is by design. I personally created a blank Facebook page back in 2013 (now the Crisis Actors Guild Facebook page) to illustrate this point. If you visit it, you’ll see that the timeline goes back three years, which is well before this site existed.

Lee doesn’t provide any examples of the other anomalies in the book, but it’s no secret that Google has inconsistent time-stamping when it comes to active websites. Feel free to Google it (just don’t trust the time-stamps).

Twitter will often use Pacific Time for its timestamps, presumably because the company is based in San Francisco. Either way, it’s no coincidence that any seemingly prophetic tweets just so happen to be exactly three hours early, every time. It’s almost like the time is taken from another zone or something.

As an example, here’s a screenshot I took of the Hartford Courant’s Twitter page last night at 10:54PM Eastern Standard Time. A twenty-six second old tweet appears to have been posted at 7:54PM, or exactly three hours earlier:

Lee even kind of understands that this is what’s going on, but only chooses to disclose the possibility in the footnotes for this chapter. “It is still unclear whether the time stamps on these early tweets reflect Eastern or Pacific Standard Time.” So it’s “unclear” to them, but they still printed it as fact anyway.

Of course these claims always appear after an event. Somehow no one ever notices tweets like this for the hours in which they’re allegedly left online before the actual event takes place. If this were the case, one could reasonably expect the replies be flooded with people asking “it’s 6AM – what the fuck are you talking about?” But of course they’re not, because the claim is total nonsense, born of technological ignorance.

As a kind of hilarious side note to all of this, Alec Baldwin found himself in an ugly spat with a reporter after it was suggested Mrs. Baldwin had tweeted during James Gandolfini’s funeral. It turns out that the Baldwins were another victim of the infamous “Central Time” Twitter bug. A reporter for Network World found himself empathizing with the actor after he himself became another victim of the bug, long after it was believed to have been eradicated.

“An evidence collection team and a policeman are shown finding the shotgun in the trunk of Lanza’s Honda Civic— the policeman handles the gun without gloves and ejects the ammunition on the spot, destroying evidence in the process.” pg. 69

Total bullshit. Lee chooses a single grainy still from a poor-quality video, taken at a time in which the lighting makes it appear almost as if the officer may not be wearing gloves. But there are other moments in the video where it’s clear that he is:

“It should of course be noted that Adam Lanza was initially listed in the Social Security Death Index as having died on December 13, 2012, one day before the alleged shooting.” pg. 70.

The conspiracy theorist who found this bit of information found it through Genealogy Bank, which obtains its information from the Social Security Death Master File. In the “Mandatory Requirements” section of the SSDMF website, you’ll find the following disclaimer:

To all subscribers purchasing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) Limited Access Death Master File (DMF):

As a result of a court case under the Freedom of Information Act, SSA is required to release its death information to the public. You, as a subscriber/purchaser of SSA’s Death Master File (DMF) are advised at the time of initial purchase that the DMF does have inaccuracies and SSA does not guarantee the accuracy of the DMF. SSA does not have a death record for all deceased persons. Therefore, the absence of a particular person on this file is not proof that the individual is alive. In addition, there is the possibility that incorrect records of death may have been entered on the DMF.

Errors: If an individual claims that SSA has incorrectly listed someone as deceased (or has incorrect dates/data) on the Limited Access Death Master File (DMF), the individual should contact his/her local social security office (with proof) to have the error corrected.

So the Social Security Administration is the first to admit that the information contained within their Death Master File may be wrong, which in this case it was. It’s since been corrected.

“Lanza was reportedly found dead wearing a bulletproof vest and military-style clothing.” pg. 70

Adam Lanza was not wearing a bulletproof vest. That is 100% incorrect. According to Lt. J. Paul Vance, “It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets”. The final report confirms that it was an olive green Eddie Bauer vest which, last time I checked, certainly was not bulletproof.

Lanza was also wearing a black Old Navy polo (just because it has the word “Navy” in it doesn’t mean it’s military), layered over a black Hanes ComfortFit t-shirt; black Propper cargo pants (held up with a belt and suspenders); black, fingerless Toesox exercise gloves (standard issue, I presume); black Nunn Bush oxfords; and a black Flexfit fisherman’s hat (which conspiracy theorists falsely claimed was not available in 2012, going as far as to fabricate documents when the actual CEO of Flexfit refuted their hogwash). Outside of being all black, “military-style” is a bit of a stretch.

“As Mike Powers, a professional military investigator and ballistics expert, has observed, this young man of slight build could not have carried all these heavy, bulky weapons and ammunition on his person. Furthermore, since first responders were supposedly inside the school within seven minutes, there was not enough time for Lanza to have carried out the shooting as reported. In an interview with Joyce Riley, Powers states that Lanza could not have fired so many times continuously without destabilizing himself from the intense noise from the Bushmaster. As a novice, he could not have shot an AR–15 with such speed and accuracy, supposedly changing magazines 4–5 times without a stoppage. For a real person shooting an AR–15 and what it entails, see Redsilverj’s ‘Sandy Hook Hoax Ultimate Case Closed'” pg. 70

All those heavy, bulky weapons? You mean that one, seven pound assault rifle and those two, < 2.5 lbs. pistols? Yeah, super heavy, super bulky.

The truth is that Adam was carrying 10.87 lbs. worth of weapons and 19.62 lbs. worth of ammunition for a grand total of 30.47 lbs. And even though he only needed to carry that weight for somewhere between 5-10 minutes, it may still seem like a little much for a young man who only weighed 112 lbs., even one who was known to spend four to ten hours playing “Dance Dance Revolution” at a time. But that weight was very evenly distributed.

According to the final report, Adam carried four rifle and six pistol magazines in his vest pockets. That comes out to about 8.75 lbs. right there. His pants, which were held up with a belt and suspenders, carried four rifle and four pistol magazines, for a total of 7.27 lbs., as well as his 2.15 lb. Sig Sauer. His 1.72 lb. Glock was holstered.

Also taking into consideration how little ground was physically covered during this incredibly short assault, it’s quite obvious that Adam would have had no problem with the amount of gear he was carrying.

As for “destabilizing himself” from the noise? I’m honestly not sure what that means exactly or what it’s based on, but Lanza – who again played “Dance Dance Revolution” for hours on end – was wearing earplugs during the attack.

“As a novice, he could not have shot an AR–15 with such speed and accuracy, supposedly changing magazines 4–5 times without a stoppage.” pg. 70

What is this based on? And a “novice” by what metric? Adam’s mother, Nancy, was an experienced shooter who shared her hobby with her troubled son. The two of them “shot frequently” and can be placed at least three area shooting ranges, including one where they are known to have taken basic firearm safety classes four years before the events of Sandy Hook. The final report also includes information provided by an eyewitness who, at Nancy’s request, had given Adam (who started shooting at age four) some “pointers and tips” on how to shoot her AR-15:

Yes, Adam reloaded frequently, but he sometimes only fired 15 rounds out of a 30 round magazine.

“According to Lt. Vance on the night of the shooting, one victim survived. So in less than seven minutes—or less than five minutes according to the media—Lanza killed 26 people and then himself, producing only one injured victim.” pg. 71

I don’t know if that’s what Lt. Vance said because there’s no source for the quote, but it’s incorrect as there were actually two injured survivors: teachers Deborah Pisani and Natalie Hammond. Pisani was injured by a ricocheting bullet, but I really can’t think of a reason why she should not be considered an injured survivor. Hammond suffered multiple, more serious injuries. Two children who were also seriously wounded in the attack were rushed to Danbury Hospital, where they were pronounced dead.

Armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle, Adam shot his victims – most of which were five or six year-old children – multiple times. It’s not difficult to understand why most of them were killed instantly. The children from Lauren Rousseau’s class were quite literally found in a pile, in the small bathroom they were attempting to hide in.

“Mike Powers thinks the whole scenario is a physical impossibility. He is not even convinced that Adam Lanza was a real person.” pg. 71

“Oddly, considering the horrifying details of the alleged massacre, as well as Adam’s own suicide by shooting himself in the head with the Glock handgun, the 2013 final report photos show no obvious traces of blood or gore on Adam’s clothes, hat, gloves, or shoes” pg. 71

Lee once again uses deceptive photographs in a sad and desperate attempt to strengthen her phony narrative:

Of the five tiny, grainy photos included here on page 71, four of them are from “Walkley – shooter’s clothing.pdf” while the remaining photo of Adam’s FlexFit hat was taken from Walkley’s scene photos. Lee wonders why you can’t see any blood on these all black items of clothing, but ignores a large number of photographs in “Walkley – shooter’s clothing.pdf” where you absolutely can.

Compare Lee’s choice of shoe photos with this one:

Notice anything different? Maybe a bunch of blood?

Or what about this picture of one of Adam’s gloves?

But why show that when you can show both of his gloves from a distance, ensuring no one with normal, human vision will be able to make anything out?

Now what about his pants?

Again, this looks a whole lot different from the photo Lee provided. Those aren’t dropped office supplies on those pants; they’re marking blood splatter.

Before we discuss Adam’s shirt(s), let’s start with the state his body was found in. From the final report:

“In one classroom I noticed a young male laying on his right side in a fetal position. His body was about three feet in from the door to the left. Someone yelled out that he was the suspected shooter. It appeared that he had his hands cuffed behind his back. I noticed a large pool of blood spreading from the right side of the suspect’s head.”

Again, Adam was laying on his right side. Now look at the following photo of his black Hanes undershirt (which Lee did not include) and you should have no problem making out a considerable amount of dried blood, consistent with someone laying on their right side:

It’s actually a pretty gory picture and is corroborated by “Supplemental Report: Exhibit #83: Shooter’s Clothing Processed”. On page 5, under “Black colored “Comfort Soft” t-shirt, size SP”, it reads:

This t-shirt was worn under polo-style shirt. There was an unknown physiological-type fluid on the right shoulder area of the shirt. A swabbing of the unknown physiological-type fluid on the right shoulder was tested using Phenolphthalein (Kastle-Meyer) blood presumptive test which yielded positive results.

The dried blood on the black Old Navy polo isn’t as prominent, but is still plenty noticeable:

It’s likely the FlexFit hat seen in Walkley’s scene photos would have been blown clean off of Adam’s head, but a closer inspection shows blood, hair, and even what appears to be brain matter on the top as well as the inside:

If there were any pictures of Adam’s vest in the final report, they’ve been redacted.

“Lanza had reportedly compiled a spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide in 9-point type detailing 500 victims of other mass murders. We are supposed to believe this, and, at the same time, that Adam Lanza was a shy, quiet kid who didn’t like noise and chaos.” pg. 72

First of all, no, the spreadsheet was not “7 feet long and 4 feet wide”. It existed exclusively in digital form, on one of Adam’s hard drives. Secondly, how are these things mutually exclusive? Is there a more isolated, quiet, and non-chaotic activity than creating spreadsheets?

Adam loved videogames, especially “Dance Dance Revolution”, which he played for four to ten hours at a time. He was also fixated on mass murders, particularly school shootings.

One of the main symptoms of Autism is repetitive behaviors. From Autism Speaks:

Repetitive behaviors can take the form of intense preoccupations, or obsessions. These extreme interests can prove all the more unusual for their content (e.g. fans, vacuum cleaners or toilets) or depth of knowledge (e.g. knowing and repeating astonishingly detailed information about Thomas the Tank Engine or astronomy). Older children and adults with autism may develop tremendous interest in numbers, symbols, dates or science topics.

“Anderson Cooper is the interviewer in two notable instances: his conversation with the McDonnells mentioned above, and an interview with Veronique Pozner, remarkable for its green-screen effects such as Anderson’s disappearing nose.” pg. 73

That’s not how green screen works! Anderson Cooper’s nose isn’t green, therefore it would not disappear in front of a green screen. What you’re seeing is the result of video compression. That’s what happens when you watch this shit on YouTube. Besides – again – what would using green screen even accomplish in this case? Why couldn’t Anderson Cooper simply go to Newtown?

Of course forensic video analyst and expert witness Grant Fredericks agrees, saying of the claim, “no credible video professional, editor or web-content specialist would conclude” that the interview was taped in front of a green screen.

“The nurse said that the gunman was the son of the kindergarten teacher, who was known to her and ‘an absolutely loving person.'” pg. 73

Surprise! This one is deceptive.

The school nurse at Sandy Hook is a woman named Sarah – or Sally – Cox, and she never said that the gunman was the son of a kindergarten teacher. Although their interaction was not captured by television cameras, WUSA reporter Andrea McCarren recounted her encounter with a “traumatized” Cox outside of Sandy Hook where she asked her “If it was known around the school that this young man – apparently a kindergarten teacher’s son – was an issue… whether he had any problems.” This wasn’t long after the shooting and McCarren was simply repeating an early rumor. If McCarren was in fact speaking to Cox, and it’s likely that she was, it’s entirely possible that she did not know whether this was true or not, at the time.

And despite the way that Lee structures this sentence, it was the kindergarten teacher that Cox was describing when she said that she “was an absolutely loving person”. She continued by saying that she was “a very caring experienced kindergarten teacher”, but Lee does not include that part because she really wants her readers to believe that Cox is talking about Adam Lanza, but that’s simply not true.

Here’s the segment, as it aired on television:

It’s worth noting that conspiracy theorists have been coming after school nurse Sarah “Sally” Cox for years with one failed accusation after another. They had originally claimed that she wasn’t even a registered nurse in the state of Connecticut, but it turned out these master researchers were searching the wrong name.

“In an embarrassing fiction, The Newtown Bee reported on December 14, 2012, that Dawn Hochsprung, the Sandy Hook school principal, told the paper that a masked man had entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots—more than she could count—that went ‘on and on.’ Of course, Dawn Hochsprung was allegedly killed by Adam Lanza and so could not easily have provided this statement.” pg. 74

The Newtown Bee fucked up. They fixed it. It happens.

“In fact, Dawn was said to have acted heroically, dying while lunging at the gunman—although one wonders who witnessed and reported this act of heroism.” pg. 74

Natalie Hammond reported it. Hammond survived and was with Dawn when this happened. This is public, well-known information. From Wikipedia:

Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach were meeting with other faculty members when they heard, but did not recognize, gunshots. Hochsprung, Sherlach, and lead teacher Natalie Hammond went into the hall to determine the source of the sounds and encountered Lanza. A faculty member who was at the meeting said that the three women called out “Shooter! Stay put!” which alerted their colleagues to the danger and saved their lives. A teacher hiding in the math lab heard school janitor Rick Thorne yell “Put the gun down!” An aide heard gunshots. Thorne survived. Lanza killed both Hochsprung and Sherlach. Hammond was hit first in the leg, and then sustained another gunshot wound. She lay still in the hallway and then, not hearing any more noise, crawled back to the conference room and pressed her body against the door to keep it closed. She was later treated at Danbury Hospital.

This is corroborated by Natalie’s follow-up interview with officers Peters and Mudry in which she states:

Hammond stated that when leaving the room to enter the hallway, it was Dawn first, Mary second, and she was 10 ft behind Mary, with Dawn and Mary running together… Mary and Dawn were already on the ground and she knew that she knew they were gone. The shooter was standing about a foot or two away from them, practically on top of them.

Source: Investigation Report 1200704559-00040126 (Book 5, 00040126.pdf)

Is Lee really this ignorant of the case or does she think her readers are too stupid to look this up for themselves? Maybe both?

“Gene supposedly harbored six children who ran away from the school, rode to his house on a school bus, sat down on his lawn and proceeded to cry and tell him that their teacher, Miss Soto, was dead. Strangely, Rosen took the children inside and gave them some toys to play with, instead of calling 911 like any normal person.” pg. 74

Nearly every last bit of this is incorrect.

The bus driver, who was in her own car at the time and not a bus as she was off-duty (they don’t just drive their buses around all day), encountered the four children – all of which had escaped from Victoria Soto’s classroom – on Riverside Road and stopped to help them. Gene Rosen, who lives next door to the firehouse on Riverside, saw what was going on and came out to help. Lee neglects to mention that Gene, a retired psychologist, was able to get phone numbers from the children and get in touch with their parents. All four were reunited with their parents.

“The Gene Rosen videos are important for the official narrative, in that they corroborate many of its details… These incriminating videos are some of the best evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.” pg. 75

So Gene’s interviews are proof positive of a hoax because they… corroborate the official story?

When there are inconsistencies, it’s proof of a hoax. And now when there aren’t any inconsistencies, it’s also proof of a hoax. You really can’t win with these people.

“The only photo we have seen of any children being evacuated from the school was apparently taken earlier in the fall during a drill—no coats, smiling faces, leaves remaining on a few trees.” pg. 75

The children were not wearing coats because they had taken them off when they arrived at school, as one is expected to do. They then stored them away before they were forced to flee from a gunman. You obviously don’t go and get your coat in that situation. Didn’t a self-proclaimed “school safety expert” consult on this scam of a book? Come on.

You can see some of the kids’ coats (along with their backpacks) hanging in Walkley’s scene photos:

Officer Rachel Van Ness notes how cold (as well as terrified) the kids were in her report (Book 6, 00001113.pdf):

This Detective was then directed by someone to approach the building and begin escorting the children out and through the parking lot as they were released by Officers from within the building. This Detective ran to the sidewalk by TFC Gregg and observed the first group of children being led out of the building along with several staff members and teachers. The children were holding onto each other’s shoulders from behind and walking in a single file line as directed. This Detective observed that many of the children were crying and frightened, in addition to being cold…

As far as smiling goes… I want you to take a look at the girl in the blue top and tell me if that looks like a “smile” to you. How about the girl behind her, in the dark blue?

And these are the “leaves” that Lee speaks of:

Yeah, that’s it: that tiny bit of green above the armed officer by the dumpster.

Now I’m certainly no botanist, but I’m relatively certain that those are conifers and Sandy Hook is surrounded by them. In fact, here’s what the other side of the school looks like:

A number of them can even be seen in the photo Lee misattributed to December 14th (the one that was actually taken on the 15th):

And you can also see a handful of them in this snowy photograph taken exactly one year after the shooting:

Jeez, if only there were some sort of tree that retained its green needles throughout the winter. I imagine such a tree would be very desirable around Christmastime. You could even hang lights from it. Or maybe even ornaments!

“No one’s breath has condensed into visible vapor (although the recorded temperature was 28 degrees F and frost appears on the ground in other photos).” pg. 76

1000% pure bullshit. The temperature was not 28 when this photo was taken. “Vivian Lee”, as per usual, provides no source for the weather that morning. But I actually give a shit about the truth, so I will:

The weather for Sandy Hook/Newtown, Connecticut on Friday, December 14th, 2012:

It had exceeded 28 before 4AM. By 10AM, which is when the school was evacuated, it had already reached ~36.

“Indeed, another photo appeared (Figure 29), showing what appears to be a preliminary staging for the famous ‘iconic’ photo released worldwide. Here also is the line of students but in a somewhat different order.” pg. 76

No, they’re just different students.

This claim is based on the idea that the same two children appear in both evacuation photographs. Why re-use two of the children and swap the rest? Who the fuck knows? But this is what James Fetzer, “Vivian Lee”, and a disheartening number of other conspiracy theorists believe.

Fetzer and Lee make the absurd claim that these two children:

Are the same as these two children:

Besides some superficial similarities in their clothing, it should be obvious that these are different students. Let’s compare:

Set #1 – The children in the black shirts:

A) The boy on the left is wearing a long-sleeved black shirt or sweatshirt with a large design printed on the front. The design appears to be of some unknown character, posing with a red skateboard. There doesn’t appear to be any writing. The other boy’s shirt or sweatshirt has what looks like some sort logo or something similar printed on it: you can see the word “South” at the beginning and it looks like “Fat” or “Fal” on the second line. B) The boy on the left has bangs that sit evenly across his forehead. The boy on the right has his hair swept up in the front, off of his forehead. C) The boy on the left is wearing light blue running shoes/sneakers with a sole that tapers off at the front, like a New Balance sneaker would. There’s nothing in his right hand, and likely nothing in his left hand either. The boy on the right is wearing dark grey sneakers with a uniform sole and holding papers in his right hand. His jeans are also noticeably darker.

Set #2 – The children in the grey shirts:

A) Both boys are wearing long-sleeved grey shirts or sweatshirts. The boy on the right looks like he may have a collar. B) The boy on the left has light brown hair. The other boy has much darker hair, though they are cut and styled in a similar fashion. Their facial features are drastically different. C) The boy on the left is wearing black or very dark blue athletic pants with a bright blue stripe that goes at least halfway down the leg. His sneakers are light grey and the large, white sole is very noticeable against the asphalt. The other boy is wearing dark blue athletic pants with what looks like silver strips just below the knees, at least on his left leg. His sneakers are black with a very thin sole.

You’d have to be nuts to think that these are the same kids.

“But how did he get past the furniture, with all his weaponry, without moving anything out of position?” pg. 77

In this chapter alone, and according to Lee, Adam is simultaneously too small to carry three weapons and too big to maneuver between a table and chair.

On his way in to the school, Adam toppled over a flower stand (circled in yellow below) and moved a magazine rack, which is visible in the crime scene photos:

From there he would have had plenty of room to move between the furniture. As has been explained, he held the Bushmaster while the pistols and ammunition were in his vest and pants pockets. They would not have gotten in his way:

“Most of the individual images of the children released to the media are peculiar—numerous images have a curiously similar background of green foliage” pg. 78

Yeah, it’s almost like they all went to the same school and a photographer came in on a predetermined day and took photos of them using the same backdrop. Like every other school in existence has done since the beginning of time. Look – this was literally one of the first Google image search results for “school yearbook page”:

What a “curiously similar” background.

School picture day, “Vivian”; look into it.

“Emilie’s red-and-black dress appears in both: once worn by Emilie in a Photoshopped family photo and then supposedly worn by her younger sister Madeline for the photo-op with Barack Obama.” pg. 78

Lee, as expected, provides no evidence that this particular photo has been “Photoshopped”, or edited in any way.

Other Parker family photos have been edited in the sense that they are composites, pieced together from multiple photos taken during the same session in order to achieve the best result. Emilie’s mother, Alissa, has spoken about this on her blog, and has even provided all of the unedited photos from a different family photo session. Stuff like this is incredibly common, especially when children are involved.

Both of Emilie’s younger sisters – the then four year-old Madeline and the then three year-old Samantha – met and were photographed with President Obama during his visit to Newtown in the days following the shooting, but I’m not sure what the implication is here. Is Lee suggesting that the younger Madeline is actually Emilie? Or that her sister couldn’t have possibly worn the same dress?

The family photo in which Emilie is seen wearing the red dress was taken in 2010, which is of course two years before she was killed, meaning she would have been four years-old at the time… or the exact same age as Madeline when she met with Barack Obama. So ask yourself what’s more likely: that Emilie was still alive and able to fit into the same dress two years later, or that her younger sister – now the same age as Emilie when she was photographed wearing that same dress – was simply wearing her sister’s clothing?

In case you’re still not convinced, here’s a picture of a six-year-old Emilie Parker in 2012:

And here’s a picture of Madeline, aged four years-old, from her photo with President Obama in 2012:

“Photos of Victoria Soto have emerged as Photoshopped creations. Images of Soto were inserted into photographs in which she did not originally appear, and several shots of her face were created from a single photo.” pg. 78

Again, zero proof is provided that these images have in any way been manipulated, digitally or otherwise. The book’s sole source for this claim is a YouTube video.

A number of photos of Ms. Soto exist, many of which show her inside of the school:

The well-known photograph of Soto’s class of first grade students is an elaborate composite, released in a small format, low quality image. Soto is wearing the exact same outfit seen in another photo with green foliage background, although there she faces the other direction; that image was merely flipped and inserted into the class picture.” pgs. 78-79

These folks have a whole lot of nerve accusing other people of intentionally releasing “small format, low quality” photos.

Anyway, a composite of which images? Unless the photos from which they were allegedly derived can be produced, this claim is entirely meritless.

Yes, Vicki is wearing the same outfit in both pictures, but that’s not proof of anything other than the fact that she liked it. And reader “Heather” offers up another possible explanation:

I also wanted to comment on Victoria wearing the same clothes in the class photo as she is in the foliage photo. There’s actually a more compelling reason for it other than she just liked that outfit. Teachers sit for their individual photo on picture day and then they pose with their students for the class pic which is given out with the student’s purchased photo package. That explains why she’s wearing the same outfit in both. If we saw the foliage photos for each of those kids in the class photo, I guarantee they’d be wearing the same clothes in both photos.

Now the idea that the photo was simply flipped and passed off as a new one is absolutely preposterous. Demonstrably so.

Let’s start by looking at the class photo:

And here’s the “green foliage” photo:

Now let’s flip the “green foliage” photo and compare it to the class photo:

Not much of a match, is it? Not even close. For starters, Vicki consistently parts her hair to the left. This is evident in every single photo of her. Every photo. So not only does flipping her photo change her part to the right, but absolutely nothing else lines up: the angle, the shadows, her necklace, her hair, her smile, her eyebrows, etc.

“In doing so the creators had to reconstruct her right hand and did so poorly, cutting off her thumb with a vertical line. Ann Marie Murphy was also inserted, and her hand too is problematic.” pg. 79

What’s “problematic” about Vicki’s hand? The fact that you can’t see her thumb while she’s standing nearly sideways? Were all of these teachers hack Photoshop jobs as well?

Vicki’s hands aren’t even visible in the “foliage” photo, so why would they need to reconstruct them? And what would they even be “reconstructed” from? The foliage photo cuts off above her elbows, so where does the rest of her body (including her hand) even come from in the class photo? If it were done in the reverse order, then they’d already have a normal hand to work with.

And what about Ann Marie? There’s no foliage photo of her, so why is her hand problematic? How do you explain the shadows on the stage in the class photo?

“The hands of the children are blurry, their eyes are fuzzy, and square and rectangular defects appear on their faces—all unnoticeable in a small image but readily seen when enlarged.” pg. 79

Does “Vivian Lee, PhD” honestly not know how image compression works? Less than a page ago, she complained that this exact photo was “released in a small format, low quality image” and now she can’t seem to figure out why the small hands and even smaller eyes of the children are blurry when you enlarge it.

Maybe this will help, “Dr. Lee”.

“In a likely sloppy slip-up, a photo of a real child, Lily Gaubert, who is apparently alive and well, was promoted in the media as an image of Allison Wyatt, an alleged victim. Lily’s mother supposedly discovered the error and made it public via Flickr.” pg. 80

It is indeed a slip-up, just not the kind that Lee is suggesting.

The mistake was allegedly made solely on the website of WJLA 7, which is ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate. So while “promoted in the media” is technically accurate, it’s a disingenuous stretch.

While the offending URL no longer resolves to anything, we can still use the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to see what the site looked like on December 31st, 2012, which is the oldest available snapshot:


That is absolutely Allison Wyatt. Interestingly, WJLA credits “musegal2, YouTube” for the photo of Allison while the other victims’ photos are credited to their families and the Associated Press, among other more legitimate sources. And while the video is no longer there, a YouTube account belonging to “musegal2” did in fact create a tribute to the kids at Sandy Hook in the days after the attack and accidentally used a photo of Lily Gaubert instead of Allison Wyatt. WJLA must have been unable to obtain a photo of Allison through other means and simply lifted it from the video.

“The ridiculously fraudulent photographs of Adam Lanza clearly do not depict a real person” pg. 80

They do not depict “a real person”? What does that even mean? Is he computer generated? A mannequin? There’s no explanation or evidence presented; just a preposterous claim that they expect their audience to blindly accept at face value.

“As with Ground Zero after 9/11, Sandy Hook Elementary and all the evidence have been completely obliterated” pg. 81

That’s not how it works. The evidence was removed before the school was demolished.

Lee and Fetzer want you to believe that the idea of tearing down a 56-year-old building in which twenty-seven people, most of which were children aged six and under, were shot to death is somehow suspicious. But this is something that the registered voters of Newtown decided on and historically it lines up with what has happened to similar sites:

Don’t forget that Fetzer has publicly stated he believes the Columbine incident to be entirely legitimate, and of course they would never demolish it unless they had something to hide, right?

“This would never have been tolerated if an actual crime had been committed—at least one that was meant to be investigated.” pg. 81

Except the investigation was over. That’s why they were able to release a final report.

“Employees who worked on the project were required to sign nondisclosure agreements. They were not only prohibited from removing anything from the site, but they were forbidden from discussing publicly anything they may have observed or not observed during the demolition, such as an absence of bullet marks on the walls or blood on the floor of the classrooms.” pg. 81

The obvious reasons for an NDA were covered earlier.

Crime scene photos show bullet marks as well as blood. In the Walkley scene photos alone, blood can be seen on pages 73, 365, 428, 473, 475, 636, 663, 665. Blood is also likely seen on pages 71, 495, 622-624, 626-627, and 643. 622-624 and 626-627 show the ceiling of room 10, which is the room in which Adam Lanza killed himself, so that may be his blood. Pages 636 and 665 also show blood and possibly even brain matter above the white board, again in the room where Lanza shot himself. Adam’s body is also partially visible on page 161, and it’s possible that’s his blood in the carpet. There also appears to be something pretty gory between Lanza’s body and the stool.

Fetzer claims that the bullet marks were actually made with a drill, but they would likely look all the same to construction workers.

“This is underscored by an article in the Newtown Bee, clear acknowledgment that Sandy Hook Elementary was old, unsafe, and not up to code at the time of the alleged shooting.” pg. 82

The Newtown Bee never, ever said that Sandy Hook had been unsafe to occupy. Feel free to read the article in question for yourself. The levels of hazardous materials uncovered in construction debris were higher than expected, but that is of course something completely different. It does not mean that a building is uninhabitable. After all, the children didn’t strap on their backpacks to go learn in a pile of construction rubble every day.

“Research has resulted in a ‘Sandy Hoax Surprise,’ a convincing youtube video by QKultra identifying eight alleged Sandy Hook victims and six brothers of victims singing in the Newtown children’s choir at the 2013 Super Bowl, February 3, 2013.” pg. 82

This is truly one of the dumbest claims of all-time. And that spans nearly every conspiracy theory that I’ve ever encountered. But what do you expect when your source is an anonymous YouTube user named “QKultra”?

The most prominent example provided on this page, by way of a still from a YouTube video, is of Dawn Engel. Or two girls that Lee claims are Dawn Engel:

Lee must think that her readers are too stupid or too blind to not realize that these girls look nothing alike. And in case it’s unclear due to the dubious quality of the provided example, here are better quality photos of Olivia Engel as well as the girl who performed with the Sandy Hook Elementary School choir:

“The newly recognized victims are all older than they appear in the photos released at the time of the ‘shooting,’ giving credence to the theory that the victims’ photos we were shown were outdated images.” pg. 84

Also giving credence to the fact that they’re not the same kids.

You can read more about this ludicrous claim here and here.

“The children in the Newtown choir, whoever they are, seem quite happy to be singing at the Super Bowl, smiling and running across the field after the event—giving no sign of the trauma they had suffered less than two months prior.” pg. 84

“We have no idea who these kids are, but they shouldn’t be happy to be singing at the Super Bowl” is what Lee is saying here. This sort of subjective nonsense sadly makes up a large percentage of their argument.

“‘The “shooter’ Adam Lanza had no apparent motive, as even the 2013 final report acknowledged” pg. 84

This is not true. The word “motive” is used only twice in the State’s Attorney’s report, and never to “acknowledge” that Adam Lanza lacked one. Feel free to check for yourself.

What the report does say is that there is “no clear indication” as to why Adam did what he did, and that distinction is important. From page seven:

The obvious question that remains is: “Why did the shooter murder twenty-seven people, including twenty children?” Unfortunately, that question may never be answered conclusively, despite the collection of extensive background information on the shooter through a multitude of interviews and other sources. The evidence clearly shows that the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Obviously, that is only one paragraph of a forty-eight page report, and context, as always, is key. I’d recommend reading the report for yourself for a deeper understanding.

As for an actual motive, I don’t know… is deeply disturbed, obsessed with school shootings, and heavily armed not good enough? Some murderers simply have no discernable motive, at least not in the traditional sense. Israel Keyes, Brenda Ann Spencer, Alfredo Galan, Joanna Dennehy, Sailson Jose das Gracas, Donato Bilancia, the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. Those are just some of the more high profile murder cases that lack an obvious motive. The article “Homicide without an apparent motive”, available on the Wiley Online Library (hidden behind a paywall) references “fifty-two defendants who allegedly killed without apparent motive”.

“$50 million in Connecticut state funds allocated for the destruction of Sandy Hook School and rebuilding of a new school on the premises.” pg. 85

$49,250,000, but who’s counting?

This is covered in chapter two. Demolishing an old school and building a new one is, unsurprisingly, expensive.

“And the Support Fund/United Way posted its condolences on December 11, 2013, which was three days before the actual event.” pg. 85

Your options here are believing that Google has inconsistent and occasionally inaccurate time stamping when dealing with active websites – something that has been acknowledged by an actual Google engineer (see below) – or a non-profit charity had advanced knowledge of a realistic “drill” in Newtown, CT, either believed it to be real or passed it off as such, and posted about it ahead of time, for some reason.

We can easily demonstrate the former by searching Google for information about a “sandy hook conspiracy theory” and limiting the results to anything from 2011. And as you can see in the screenshot below, a number of conspiracy sites pop up (including links referencing James Tracy’s firing from FAU as well as James Fetzer), all displaying dates from well before December 14th, 2012. Surely “Vivian Lee” does not believe that these sites had foreknowledge of the shooting (or James Tracy’s firing), does she?

Again, these anomalies are never actually discovered before an event, which would certainly be noteworthy.

“The families have also raised additional funds through private organizations with their own websites—some of which were apparently advertised on the web in advance of the shooting.” pg. 85

See above.

“A 2014 Connecticut report on charitable donations lists organizations such as The Animal Center, Inc., Newtown Forest Association, Inc., Sandy Hook Arts Center for Kids, and Angels of Sandy Hook Bracelets, all raising funds for Sandy Hook Elementary.” pg. 87

Charities raising money for a bunch of murdered children? Definitely fishy!

If the existence of charities is proof of a conspiracy, then I guess cancer doesn’t exist and no one is starving in Africa.

“The continuing media blitz has created an impression that the Sandy Hook hoax was all about gun control. Meanwhile, however, the gun industry has benefited immensely.” pg. 87

This is true. Gun sales spiked dramatically after Sandy Hook. Just like they do after every mass shooting. Wait, maybe this whole thing was actually orchestrated by the firearms industry? That would make infinitely more sense, wouldn’t it? Too much sense for conspiracy theorists, I suppose.

“Beyond all these agendas, the Sandy Hook ‘massacre’ was an exercise in trauma-based mind control” pg. 90

This is the actual claim. This is how this chapter ends. Seriously!

Next: Chapter Six

69 Thoughts on “Fact Checking “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, Chapter Five

  1. Avielle Richman is a Fraud on May 8, 2017 at 7:38 pm said:

    Who is paying for this stupid blog? You’re not debunking anything. Sandy Hook was a bad hoax, filled with bad actors, poor photoshop, fraud, and no-one died there. Debunk that.

    • Shill Murray on May 8, 2017 at 8:46 pm said:

      Who is paying for this stupid blog?

      As I’ve stated a number of times, this site is paid for – in full – by me and me alone. It’s a negligible amount of money. Unlike much of the denier cult, I am not on government assistance or a fixed income, etc, therefore I can easily afford the costs associated with hosting the site. I’ve invited schmucks like you to prove otherwise, offering up a substantial enough cash reward in the process, yet no one has taken me up on the offer. I wonder why!

      You’re not debunking anything.

      Sounds like you haven’t read the site. Or maybe some of the words were too big.

      Sandy Hook was a bad hoax

      Prove it.

      filled with bad actors

      Prove it.

      poor photoshop

      Prove it.


      Prove it.

      no-one died there

      Prove it.

      Debunk that.

      Done. Again, I’d recommend actually reading the site before you comment. If you have an actual, specific criticism, get on with it already.

      • XeiDaMoKa on May 23, 2017 at 8:03 pm said:

        then why the photo of the kids was taken 13.12.2012 at 12:00 hours ? x’DDDDDDDD
        why didnt the kids appear in the police officer car , like the report says ?

        • Shill Murray on May 23, 2017 at 11:26 pm said:

          then why the photo of the kids was taken

          This is the level of intellect that I have to deal with here.

          Which photo are you referring to? There are many here, and I cannot answer your question without knowing that particular piece of (vital) information. What is it with you nitwits assuming everyone immediately knows what it is you’re talking about? Is it a symptom of whichever mental illness you suffer from?

          • MikeJ on May 10, 2018 at 1:53 am said:

            I think he’s talking about the Shannon Hicks photos. Hoaxers keep saying that her photos were uploaded on December 13 2012. I haven’t seen any solid evidence yet that supports this. Hoaxers are just full of crap like usual!

      • Big carmine on February 28, 2018 at 3:31 pm said:

        I read it and you are a paid government lackey , moron . I WANT TO SEE THE DEAD BODIES OF KIDS !!!!! Where are the pictures?? Where ?? Over a million kids perished during the holocaust i saw those pictures . Why not PROVE ITS NOT A FAKE AND SHOW ME DEAD KIDS !! I can handle it believe me . A partial cleanup report ??? Really ?? Get over yourself you fool

        • Shill Murray on December 18, 2018 at 10:31 pm said:

          Sorry, “Big Carmine” (super cool name, BTW), but I’ve removed 2-3 of your other comments demanding photos of dead children because I’m not running some kind of hangout for sick fucks over here. I am holding onto this one though because surely your admission that you’ve searched for and studied photos of “over a million” dead kids (and are actively looking for more) will be useful evidence against you for whichever horrific crime you’re going to commit… or have already committed.

        • Daniel on January 31, 2019 at 5:55 pm said:

          You say over a million kids perished during the holocaust? You have zero proof the holocaust actually happened. By your very own logic, it didn’t.

  2. Brilliant, rational, scientific, investigative research! Thanks so much for your devotion to the truth! My utter respect and admiration and the very best of everything to you in your continuing courageous efforts!

  3. Shill, nobody will convince you because you are like hypnotised patsy…
    You are “paid actor” or, more likely, paid troll !

    btw, are you aware of what your “president” is doing in white House :
    snorting coke…

    America, go to hell soon !
    For bringing nazis there, for native indians genocide etc.

    • Shill Murray on May 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm said:

      I swear y’all are somehow getting dumber and/or crazier. Or both. I guess both is entirely possible.

      Shill, nobody will convince you because you are like hypnotised patsy…

      It’s true that no one will ever be able to convince me of made-up nonsense. I deal in facts. I’ll never apologize for not being a total sucker.

      You are “paid actor” or, more likely, paid troll !

      I’ll tell you the same thing I tell every other braindead numbnuts that makes this goofy, baseless claim: prove it. Prove it and I’ll pay you. $300 USD. So far, no one was put their money where their mouth is, likely because they know they’re just spouting bullshit.

      btw, are you aware of what your “president” is doing in white House : snorting coke…

      Barking up the wrong tree here; I think the guy is human shit, so insulting him isn’t going to get to me.

      For bringing nazis there, for native indians genocide etc.

      Never happened. False flags.

  4. NotToday333 on June 5, 2017 at 2:36 am said:

    What’s up with the caution tape around room 9? I always thought the investigators put it there because of the blood. In CFS 1200704597 00118939 p.21 it just states “there was yellow caution tape applied to the hallway floor in the area of the conference door.” It’s too vague to really know for sure.
    But now I’m seeing it in the photo with Vicki. Soooo…. what the crap? Why would there be caution tape there?

    • Shill Murray on June 7, 2017 at 2:45 am said:

      Because the door to room #9 is not set back like the others in that hallway. It’s there in order to (hopefully) keep the kids out of that area, so that they don’t get whacked when the door opens out towards the hallway. You can see the same exact thing going on with the double doors leading to the cafeteria.

      • NotToday333 on June 22, 2017 at 1:25 pm said:

        But there are other doors just like that around the school without the hazard tape. Room 2 and 1, although they do swing back to hit the wall so I would imagine this being less dangerous. And there are several doors in the cafeteria/gym hallway that swing out. But only the cafeteria door and the faculty lounge door have the tape. One could make the argument that it is due to usage. That perhaps the stage door etc are not as frequently used as the ones with tape. But even the door the the kitchen area swings out. I have a hard time accepting the idea that this door isn’t used often. But then again this could be because children aren’t expected to be in that area often in the first place. However, the one single door to the cafeteria off the lobby swings out. But no tape. The door to the main office swings out and no tape. (This door definitely gets used often). One cannot argue that it’s restricted to only doors children use. However, children have no need in a conference room or faculty lounge.
        Anyways, thank you for the new perspective. I will look into this.

        • Shill Murray on June 22, 2017 at 2:20 pm said:

          Yeah, I noticed the other day while looking for something else entirely that the cafeteria doors also had hazard tape surrounding them. Those doors are very similar to the conference room in that they are not set back and therefore swing out into the hallway. And like you said, rooms one and two are similar, but they swing back to the wall, so tape wouldn’t be necessary as kids are not going to be walking passed those doors. The single door to the cafeteria as well as the kitchen, I don’t think you’re going to have many kids walking passed those doors either. If you think about the way children would move down the halls from room to room, they’re very unlikely to walk directly passed the single cafeteria or kitchen doors. Same with the main office, especially with that bench just outside. I’m just guessing, but I think that makes the most sense.

          One thing I want to clarify is that I never made the argument that children would be using these doors, just that they’re doors children may frequently walk passed. Obviously children – especially the younger children, such as the kindergartners – are not going to be opening the conference room door or even opening the double doors to the cafeteria themselves. But based on their locations in the hallway, they are likely to see a lot of foot traffic in front of them; moreso than the other doors that open similarly.

          Certainly the tape makes no real sense in the context of a hoax (especially as we see the tape in photos dating back to 2011). It’s obviously placed on the floor in such a way to accommodate the doors opening, so what would be the purpose of doing that other than to keep children away from them?

          • NotToday333 on June 23, 2017 at 2:55 pm said:

            I know you never made that argument. I have a habit of thinking out loud and that sometimes ends up in my typing. I try to find both sides of the argument and any other (if there is any) as new information is given. I apologize for that. I never meant to suggest you argued it, it’s just how my brain processes.

            And you’re right. It wouldn’t make sense in a hoax context. I have reviewed all the photos over and I think your logic is sound. Thank you. It is very rare that one can find a logical mind while researching Sandy Hook (from either side). This site has been a great source of reason for me.

          • Shill Murray on June 23, 2017 at 6:58 pm said:

            No worries.

            Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Glad the site is of some use to you. I’m always up for a rational, scientific discussion.

    • NotToday333 on June 23, 2017 at 6:53 pm said:

      Not all “conspiracy theorists” are illogical you know. Some of us take our research seriously and actively search out “debunkers” and proof on all 3 sides (debunker/false flag/hoax). Some of us base our so called theories on the given evidence or lack of and logical observation. Change our minds when new evidence is given and believe in finding the truth no matter what that truth is.
      As a labeled conspiracy theorist (I actually prefer informed citizen with an inquisitive mind) I too am grateful for this site. In a way, it has helped be the checks and balances in many regards to my research. Clearly the school was not closed. But there really is something to this case. And yes, Halbig and Fetzer are absolute friggen morons. Their theories have been debunked beyond a reasonable doubt more times than I can count. I hate the fact that they have somehow became the poster idiots representing anyone who questions this case. Whenever I mention the case, people immediately assume I subscribe to their lunacy. I don’t usually do the name calling them, but with them it is warranted.

    • Shill Murray on June 23, 2017 at 6:58 pm said:

      Thank you!

  5. brian on June 23, 2017 at 7:23 pm said:

    this is the video that the people looping video was made from, there is one thing i notice that i haven’t seen anyone talking about , and that is at the 1:15 mark of the video ,it basically shows hundreds of cars , not counting the cars at the school , there’s at least 30+ cars that can be seen on Sunnyview terr. the side street across from the firehouse. or the cars in the community center on the other side of Dickerson dr, and the cars up and down riverside rd . if there are hundreds of cars there and it is before 11:00 am. why would they have to have pople walking in circles?

    • Shill Murray on June 23, 2017 at 7:29 pm said:

      They wouldn’t. You’re asking a illogical people (Sandy Hook deniers) a logical question, so you’ll never get a proper answer.

    • NotToday333 on June 23, 2017 at 11:21 pm said:

      The idea behind this notion is that they were meant to look like there was more people there than there really was by walking around making it look like a busy scene but failed. However, they’re just people pacing around impatiently. They’re nervous about what’s going on around them including all the media and probably scared out of their damn mind.

      Unfortunately I was able to witness firsthand what a homicide crime scene (outside of the actual crime scene) looked like. While it was just a stabbing of one girl as oppose to a mass murder, even I along with my whole neighborhood did exactly this, and we knew who the suspect was and we knew who the victim was. We were also not waiting for live people to be evacuated. Walked around, back and forth. Person to person to see if anyone knew anything we didn’t know. Even all those “Cars parked on the side of the road, in the middle of the road” bit is also a bullshit theory to go off. Once the stabbing made it’s way to social media the whole town decided they wanted in on the action. Along with people that knew the victim and the suspect. So our street was packed. Police along with other responders like the major crimes unit had problems with this. Not being able to get in or out (on a dead end street). We had people still coming down our street to park their cars and point weeks later. So effin annoying.

      Anyways, I hope this helps. I feel as though there really is something to this case, but the cars and the people at the firehouse are actually within the norms I would expect given my education in criminal justice and forensic science and my own personal experience. (No I am not trying to boast like I’m an expert or anything cause I’m not. Far from it. There’s always a chance that I am wrong, I just don’t think I am).

      • Shill Murray on June 23, 2017 at 11:39 pm said:

        I’m fairly certain that what Brian is saying is: based on the number of cars in the area at the time, there wouldn’t have been a need for them to “re-use” anyone. They – whoever they are – would have more than enough people available to them at the time. Even if everyone drove separately, there would be plenty of available “actors”. If I’m wrong, hopefully he corrects me, as I don’t want to put words in someone’s mouth.

        More importantly, the footage of people allegedly walking in circles is 100% verified as being fake. They simply took a snippet of the Channel 12 footage and looped it, addeding music, etc, so that viewers wouldn’t know the difference. If you want to talk about actual hoaxes, this is a great place to start.

  6. Chris Inwien on June 26, 2017 at 4:11 pm said:

    Has anyone ever noted that Adam Lanza was, for all practical purposes, a fatherless child? His dad moved out to live with his girlfriend in Stamford when Adam was nine. His dad was a top GE Capitol exec who could afford two expensive domiciles and supporting two women, one his wife.

    Mr. Lanza did not divorce Adam’s mother because she needed her platinum-standard insurance to deal with her MS.

    Fatherless children are more likely by a factor of ~10 to wind up in trouble with school, work, and the law. Adam’s mother was undoubtedly shell-shocked by her husband’s abandoning her, and so was Adam. She tried to be a “dad” by signing up for shooting lessons (OK, she tried). Did Adam hate her because she wouldn’t divorce his philandering father – because she couldn’t afford it?)

    The only person who knows for sure is Adam’s father. After the shootings, GE Capitol hired 24-7 high-end security for him comparable to Federal Marshals. He’s the only individual involved in all this we haven’t heard from, as far as I know.

    • Shill Murray on June 26, 2017 at 6:22 pm said:

      Peter did participate in a series of interviews with Andrew Solomon for an article that eventually appeared in the New Yorker. I don’t think he’s done anything beyond that, and it’s hard for me to blame him. What can you say when your son is regarded as one of the worst monsters in at least American history?

  7. Heather on October 10, 2017 at 8:09 pm said:

    Thank you for providing this detailed and well researched analyzation of the hoax evidence. I’ve just recently started wondering if Sandy Hook is a hoax and was certainly beginning to be persuaded until I found your blog. I’ve never seen photos of the actual crime scene inside the school and, while I will admit there are still things that seem fishy or strange to me about this, I now sadly believe it really did happen. I think there was a large part of me that truly wanted to believe it didn’t happen because the idea of 20 innocent little ones being brutally murdered is just too much for my heart to take.

    I also wanted to comment on Victoria wearing the same clothes in the class photo as she is in the foliage photo. There’s actually a more compelling reason for it other than she just liked that outfit. Teachers sit for their individual photo on picture day and then they pose with their students for the class pic which is given out with the student’s purchased photo package. That explains why she’s wearing the same outfit in both. If we saw the foliage photos for each of those kids in the class photo, I guarantee they’d be wearing the same clothes in both photos.

    • Shill Murray on October 17, 2017 at 2:08 am said:

      Thank you, Heather. I’m happy that this site has helped you to see through the nonsense.

      The thing is, and the thing a lot of deniers don’t understand is: people like me – people who understand that this event really happened – would be thrilled to learn that the whole thing was a hoax, and that those children are still alive. Really, who wouldn’t? Of course, as a result, we’d be forced to confront the fact the government deceived us. But people like me also understand that they government lies to us regularly (probably moreso now than ever before), and with malice, so that’s not some sort of Earth-shattering revelation that we simply refuse to accept. It’s the lesser of two evils, by a wide margin.

      I also wanted to comment on Victoria wearing the same clothes in the class photo as she is in the foliage photo. There’s actually a more compelling reason for it other than she just liked that outfit. Teachers sit for their individual photo on picture day and then they pose with their students for the class pic which is given out with the student’s purchased photo package. That explains why she’s wearing the same outfit in both.

      That certainly makes sense. I know a number of public school teachers, and I could have easily asked them about this, so that’s a bit embarrassing. Thank you for the insight. I’ll amend the entry and I’ll credit you, if you don’t mind.

  8. The photo of Victoria standing in a classroom holding some yellow papers in her hand. Can you explain why she has 2 right hands. Her left hand and fore arm are someone elses right hand and fore arm. The fore arm doesnt even come close to connecting properly to the elbow. The pic is dark, as it’s easier to cover photo shop, so you’ll have to lighten it up.

    • Shill Murray on January 7, 2018 at 1:01 am said:

      You are, if nothing else, persistent. I will give you that. But I have some time and although these conversations rarely ever go anywhere productive, I’ll bite.

      To me, it’s obvious that we’re looking at a supinated left hand. What I assume you believe is the knuckle of her right pointer finger is in actuality her left palm. There are a couple of things that make this clear, but I think that the most telling would be the fact that we can clearly make out the deep crease that is created when you try and touch your thumb to your palm (which is how Vicki is gripping those yellow papers). Try as you might, you simply will not be able to replicate this crease in any other way. If you’re having difficulty seeing what I’m talking about, try taking a look at the original photo (yours appears to have been lightened) or even increasing the contrast a little bit. In the original, you will also see that her other hand – her actual right hand – is also supinated. Context is important.

      What else? I’m struggling to see how anyone could (or why anyone would) hold papers in the manner you’ve suggested, like they’re holding chopsticks. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to hold onto them like that and not having them slide right out of your hand.

      Now I would be happy to demonstrate what we’re seeing here by photographing myself holding papers with my wrists supinated, because that would be simple, but before I put in additional work (which I still believe won’t amount to much, as I doubt there’s anything that’ll make you change your mind at this point) I’d love to explain why anyone would ever need to do this. What sort of circumstance or circumstances could have ever existed that would have required those responsible for this alleged hoax to “Photoshop” someone’s right arm in place of their left? Do you seriously believe that they’re piecing humans together piece-by-piece to make these innocuous photos? Why would anyone ever need to do that?

  9. A. Overstreet on January 7, 2018 at 3:41 pm said:

    Uh, it’s her pointer finger atop the paper…not her thumb.

    G-d, these people never give up. Multi million dollar hoax…but let’s use two right arms to fabricate Victoria Soto…mwahahaha!

    Some Marine vet friends and I volunteer to protect the Soto family from these Hoaxer children at the annual 5k run in her honor. You should come up and talk to us. We (real patriots who defended this country while idiots like you used the First Amendment to hurt the families of fallen heroes and children) would love to meet you and introduce you to the kind members of her family.

  10. A. Overstreet on January 7, 2018 at 3:56 pm said:

    PS- You rock, Shill! I am certain you are invited to and welcome at the 5k. The Soto family are kind and good people and I am sure they are aware of your work.

    PPS- Wolfy never responded to that thing we talked about concerning claiming the reward using the suit against the Holocaust denier (who are in good company with hoaxers, no?) as precedent. I will send you court dates as soon as they reach me.

  11. systemspm on January 27, 2018 at 6:57 am said:

    Shill just wanted to say thank you for all your work here putting these wild conspiracies to bed. It’s a shame that it’s even necessary to have to make this defense. I, like you, would be happy to accept a hoax if there was one somewhere but there is simply NOTHING here that points to that. It boggles my mind what people can pass off as an argument for a hoax. They just spew words with zero evidence and some people believe it. Bizarre and scary.

    Thank you for being an ambassador for truth and thank you for all your time making contributions to fight lies. I sleep a little easier knowing people like you are out in the world fighting for truth.

    • Shill Murray on January 29, 2018 at 4:11 pm said:

      Thank you.

      You’re right: I doubt that there is a single human being who refuses to accept this absurd fairy tale because they have some sort of boundless, resolute faith in the US government. Hell, no one trusts the them as it is. At around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, public trust in the US government was below 20%. That’s less than one in five people. And it’s only gotten lower. So people would be more than happy to accept that the government pulled yet another fast one on them if it meant that twenty 6-7 year-olds (as well as six educators, plus Adam’s mother) had not been slaughtered in their first grade classrooms. That’s an easy trade off. No, people refuse to accept it because it is a vile farce, and it’s one that isn’t backed up by a single piece of real evidence. And that’s the evidence – or lack thereof – that I looked at years ago when I first heard the theory for myself. It was so preposterous, and its proponents so dishonest and slimy, that I started this website. Like you said, my one and only goal was to get the truth out there, and while the sites pushing denialist nonsense may never disappear (they’re easy to run and they make money), I can at least increase the signal-to-noise ratio, so to speak.

  12. Thanks for all the work you have done to debunk logically and factually. I can understand not blindly trusting the govt/media etc, asking questions and research are completely normal and necessary, where they lose me is the insistence that things reported initially that have since been proven wrong are STILL quoted as fact by hoaxers.

    I got on a YouTube binge one night and came across live tv footage from both sandy hook and columbine (I was a jr in high school when columbine happened, I don’t remember watching live coverage as I myself was at school) on one of Wolf’s videos he claims that the fact that there was so much misinformation initially on sandy hook points to hoax, and that columbine info was factual throughout the day, but that just isn’t true, throughout most of the day at columbine it was reported 25 people were killed, which we now know to be wrong, I don’t know what time in real time the correct number of victims was released at columbine, when I was watching I wasn’t watching for the purpose of debunking, so I didn’t really take notes or pay close attention.. Sandy hook was pretty consistently 26. There were other mistakes made at sandy hook, but a lot of that could be attributed to the differences in news reporting with social media etc… with columbine there were frequent updates/interviews but they broke into programming frequently, sandy hook pretty much the moment was reported stayed on a special report for the next couple days with no regular programming, meaning reporters were scrambling to get new info to fill the time, and didn’t properly vet everything.

    The other thing that makes me absolutely crazy is when the hoaxers use the coroner as evidence. Yeah, he’s awkward as hell, but in his regular job he probably isn’t trained to be media savvy. And the worst is the claim when he says “parents were shown the bodies by photo” there are so many things wrong with that statement the way they break it down. It’s been proven that the parents provided pictures to aid in identification, and that’s how identifications were made, then the families were notified their family member was a victim. A lot of hoaxers argue that they would want to see their child no matter what and why weren’t they allowed… 1) not everybody could handle seeing that, and it would be a personal choice 2) dr carver even mentioned that photos were for initial identification and that there was “a time and place for up close and personal” it just wasn’t 24 hours after the shooting. He never said the parents would never see the bodies, in fact as far as I know most/ all did at some point, it just wasn’t appropriate immediately which is a fair assessment. The hoaxers never mention the time/place comment.

    Sorry that was long winded, it just annoys the crap out of me. Thanks again for the hard work you do, I am interested to keep reading more of your research.

    • Shill Murray on February 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm said:

      Thank you, Leigh. I think – or at least I hope – that most reasonable, educated people fully understand that misinformation thrives in chaos. Even the sinking of the Titanic was mis-reported at first. Of course things only got worse with the introduction of the twenty-four hour news cycle, and then again with the proliferation of social media. Hoaxers either don’t understand this or simply don’t care.

  13. Cheeseball on March 10, 2018 at 2:25 am said:

    The video for the television segment doesn’t work! Is there anywhere else I can watch it?

  14. Shill Murray – great name, very Dickensian.

    Silly sot, you are such a useful idiot.

    • Shill Murray on March 26, 2019 at 7:57 pm said:

      -10 points for saying literally nothing.
      +5 points for dusting off “sot”.
      -15 points for probably not actually knowing what “sot” means.

  15. Brenda on March 30, 2019 at 3:18 am said:

    I totally bought into the hoax. Thank you for putting this together
    These victims and families do not deserve to go through two tragedies. I am ashamed of myself for being a hoaxer…. may all those babies RIP, and all their families find peace… : (

    • Shill Murray on March 30, 2019 at 8:17 am said:

      Hi, Brenda. You’re welcome, and I can certainly understand why people would really want to believe that the shooting never happened: the idea that the government is lying to you is a much, much easier pill to swallow than the senseless slaughter of twenty small children (and of course six adults). I wish that were the case. I think we all do. The problem of course is folks who remain willfully ignorant in order to continue living that lie.

      Anyway, I think the ability to admit you’ve made a mistake is one of the bravest, most honorable things a person can do, so my hat’s off to you and I’m glad that this site helped you get there.

  16. TRex Hates Chaturanga on July 31, 2019 at 7:17 pm said:

    Do you know why the sign was put up? I always thought it was for the families picking up kids and what not for accountability reasons. But if it wasn’t put out til the 15th which clearly debunks that idea. Was it for law enforcement?

    • TRex Hates Chaturanga on July 31, 2019 at 7:56 pm said:

      I meant to say *then it clearly debunks that idea.

    • Shill Murray on August 11, 2019 at 8:00 pm said:

      I don’t know if the specific reason for the sign was ever made public (maybe it was discussed during one of Halbig’s FOIA hearings), but I had always assumed it was for members of the media as well as any workers heading up to the school. I did search the entirety of the final report for any mentions of the sign but came up empty handed.

      • TRex Hates Chaturanga on August 12, 2019 at 3:17 pm said:

        ick.. That means I have to watch a video with Halbig in it. Every time I even hear that man talk, think of that quote from Billy Madison.

        “Mr. Madison, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

        But you’re might, something may have been mentioned there. Erg, the things we do for the sake of thorough research.

  17. I’m sure there has been.

  18. You r full of crap as I’m sure you know. Love the invoice. That would sure hold up in court!

  19. As I was researching the Sandy Hook shooting and compiling this research on my website (no free promotion for your site here), my house in Anchorage Alaska was raided by 35-40 state and federal agents in Anchorage Alaska, this raid was said to be directed towards a tenant of mine, “Steve Landers”, I awoke the next morning to 24/7 stalking that has continued till this day, This has followed me through many states and the crimes committed are uncountable. This is a duplication of the FBI Cointelpro operations that were exposed in the 1970’s. This modern terrorism is combined with unethical human experimentation in the US which has a well documented history of well over a century. It would be interesting to find out how many others who chose to research this school shooting have undergone this same stalking. Most victims of this program refer to this as Gang Stalking, or being a targeted individual. Much more information and links at (no free promotion for your site here)

  20. le_berger_des_photons on November 20, 2021 at 4:06 pm said:

    so why is it that the fbi murder data base has zero murders in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012?

  21. Sandy Hook Parents Just Happen to be Actors and Musicians on November 25, 2022 at 2:41 pm said:

    Imagine investing this much time into cleaning up the mess left in Sandy Hook. You’re a pretty good bullshitter. You tackle the anecdotal evidence well while completely avoiding how the official story doesn’t match reality or hard evidence.

    You also get to moderate comments so it looks like you’re addressing everyone’s questions and you get to frame “hoaxers” (whether the ones in the comments are real or not) as crazy people.

    Not bad work.

    • Shill Murray on December 29, 2022 at 1:43 pm said:

      I wasn’t sure which of your four comments — all of which were left in the span of about an hour, using different fake names and e-mail addresses and written in different tones, clearly to give the illusion of four different authors — I should reply to, but I landed on this one as it includes what is probably my favorite dumb accusation:

      You also get to moderate comments so it looks like you’re addressing everyone’s questions and you get to frame “hoaxers” (whether the ones in the comments are real or not) as crazy people.”

      As stated in numerous other comments throughout the years, the actual truth is that I delete very few comments, even when they’re in clear violation of the comment policy (much like yours are). I absolutely delete off-topic trolling, and I will continue to do so unapologetically. I’d be stupid not to. Other than that, I address all serious questions, and even a cursory look around would corroborate that. So this is clearly nonsense, as always. And to be totally honest, if anything, the comments I’ve deleted would’ve made you folks look even worse. That is unless you think low-effort, edgelord bullshit about murdered six-year-olds is really it.

      Now the reason why I love this particular accusation so much, beyond it being unequivocal nonsense, is because it comes so, so close to self-awareness. Like it’s right there. You’ve basically realized that no real person could possibly be so nuts as to believe and say these things that you yourself believe. They’re so stupid and crazy that they could only be fake. Well, I got real bad news for you, champ.

      Imagine investing this much time into cleaning up the mess left in Sandy Hook. You’re a pretty good bullshitter. You tackle the anecdotal evidence well while completely avoiding how the official story doesn’t match reality or hard evidence.

      This is so demonstrably false that it’s barely worth defending myself. There are something like eighty entries currently on the site; the idea that all eighty of them are full of nothing more than “anecdotal evidence” is laughable. Furthermore, you have failed to cite even a single example of these issues I’ve allegedly been avoiding. Not one. So imagine investing however much time it took you to write all four of these comments only to not even bother to try and back up your claim.

      Meanwhile, this site is absolutely packed with examples of conspiracy theories at odds with reality or hard evidence. You can start with The Ten Biggest Lies in “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”.

Please read before commenting.

Comment policy: Comments from previously unapproved guests will remain in moderation until I manually approve them. Honest questions and reasonable comments from all types of folks are allowed and encouraged but will sometimes remain in moderation until I can properly reply to them, which may occasionally take a little while. Contrary to what some of you think, losing your patience during this time and leaving another comment in which you insult me won't do much to speed up that process. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

The types of comments that will no longer be approved include the following:

1) Off-topic comments. An entry about The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine are not the place to ask about Hillary's e-mails or pizza shop sex dungeons. Stay on topic.
2) Gish Gallops. Don't know what a Gish Gallop is? Educate yourself. And then don't engage in them. They are an infuriating waste of everyone's time and there is no faster way to have your comment deleted.
3) Yearbook requests. Like I told the fifty other folks asking for them: I don't have them, and even if I did, I wouldn't post them. I'm not about to turn my site into some sort of eBay for weirdos, so just stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up. These items are unavailable to the public; exempt from FOIA requests; and in violation of Amendment 14 of the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8b of the Connecticut State Constriction, and Connecticut Public Act # 13-311.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered/making claims that have already been debunked. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it painfully obvious that you haven't bothered to read the site by asking a question that I've already spent a significant amount of time answering. I'll allow a little leeway here if you're otherwise well-behaved, but please, read the site. There's a search function and it works fairly well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation