While Jim Fetzer has been thoroughly exposed as a shameless fraud more times than anyone cares to count, folks will still occasionally ask me to look into one of his many outrageous lies regarding Sandy Hook. And while I really have to wonder why anyone bothers to pay the guy any mind these days, I’ll always make an effort to accommodate such requests as it is yet another opportunity to demonstrate what a total nitwit the guy is.

But occasionally there are people who prefer not to bother with such formalities and rather than ask me for my thoughts, they will attempt to introduce one of Fetzer’s fables as well-established fact. For example, a visitor posting under the name “Truthseeker” (are you, though?) included the following bit in a comment they left on my previous entry debunking some of Fetzer’s more recent hogwash:

Also, did you know Gene Rosen was a FEMA employee? Source: https://jamesfetzer.org/2019/03/sandy-hook-gene-rosen-identified-as-official-fema-employee/

For the uninitiated, Gene Rosen is a long-time resident of Newtown who, along with a passing off-duty bus driver, corralled and watched over a small group of children that had appeared in front of Gene’s home on Riverside Road after escaping from Victoria Soto’s classroom. The two adults were able to quickly reunite most of the children with their parents and handed those that remained off to police who were stationed at the firehouse located directly next door to Mr. Rosen’s residence.

Because of this, and due to his heightened visibility by way of the numerous stories about and interviews conducted with him that followed the shooting, he has been the subject of harassment, threats, and the kind of gross disinformation Jim Fetzer has peddled in for nearly seven years now. One such piece of disinformation published on Fetzer’s site makes the claim that Mr. Rosen is/was at one point working as a “FEMA representative” in Texas, and as proof he has shared the following photo and accompanying description, taken from an old snapshot of Wikimedia Commons:

Of course this is really only relevant if you already buy into the absurd idea that FEMA – yes, the often bumbling government agency tasked with coordinating the response to natural disasters – is somehow responsible for or at least had a prominent role in staging the Sandy Hook shooting (which I guess includes moving one and only one of their representatives to the area from Texas in order to run a pet sitting business… ?).

And just like FEMA isn’t out there staging school shootings so that Obama can finally steal your guns, this guy isn’t Gene Rosen. Like I’ve said a number of times before, just look at ears; if they are not an exact match, then they are not the same person. It wouldn’t matter if they both had six toes on each foot. It would be weird (and my apologies to any Polydactylys that may be reading this), but it absolutely would not matter.

That’s Gene Rosen’s left ear on the left, and I probably don’t need to tell you that that is not the same left ear on the right. Most noticeably, there is a prominent v-shaped crease in the lobe on the right does not exist on the left. And that’s just one of the numerous anatomical differences between the two: the width of the helix, the crus of helix, the antitragus, etc. They are clearly different ears, therefore they are different people. But we don’t have to stop there. Compare the photo of the FEMA representative, taken in 2008, to this actual photo of Gene Rosen, taken by the Newtown Bee in June of 2010:

How does Gene Rosen in 2010 look younger than “Gene Rosen” in 2008? Surely Jim Fetzer will use this as evidence that the government allowed him use of their top secret age reversing technology as a reward for his role in the shooting. Otherwise how do you explain the fact that while “Gene Rosen” in 2008 (left) has liver spots – otherwise known as age spots – on his left hand, Gene Rosen in 2012 (right) has none:

So if that’s not Gene Rosen, then how exactly did his name end up in the description of the photo taken from Wikimedia Commons? As it turns out, this one’s actually quite simple: Wikimedia Commons, which again is the original source of the photo and description published on Fetzer’s site, allows users to “collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browse”. That means that literally anyone can make anything on the site say whatever they’d like. And that’s precisely what happened here as the description was deliberately and maliciously altered by Sandy Hook hoaxers in an on-going effort to smear Mr. Rosen while supporting their insane narrative, since they can’t rely on actual facts to do that for them. As per usual, this isn’t speculation; there are receipts.

By viewing the publicly-available revision history of the “FEMA representative” photo, we can see that it was first uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on October 14th, 2009 with the following description:

English: Harbinger, TX, August 19, 2008 — FEMA representatives participate in the 25Th National Law Enforcement celebration in Harlinger, Texas. FEMA is working with local and state agencies to bring services to residents affected by Hurricane Dolly. Photo by Patsy Lynch/FEMA

Yes, you read that correctly: there is no mention of Gene Rosen anywhere. Mr. Rosen’s name was first added to the description on January 30th, 2013 – over six weeks after the shooting – by a unregistered user with no other contributions linked to their (Vegas-based) IP address:

And just in case it wasn’t obvious enough that this is a total sham, roughly one hour after Gene Rosen’s name was fraudulently added to the photo’s description, someone just so happened to initiate the first manual save of that page ever via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine:

Not at all suspicious, right?

So did James Fetzer have a hand in this deception? I can’t say for sure, although I honestly think he may be too technically inept to have pulled something even this dead simple off. But the alternative – a total inability or desire to do even the most rudimentary research – isn’t necessarily any better. Hell, it may even be worse.

Oh, and seeing as how I was already poking around on Wikimedia Commons, I decided to make my own edit, just to show how quickly and easily it can be done. You know, for science:

Get it? It’s a pile of horseshit.

17 Thoughts on “Was Gene Rosen Identified As An Official FEMA Employee?

  1. truthseeker on May 20, 2019 at 2:05 pm said:

    Great. I already replied to your previous post that you fully answered my question.

    We know SH is fake because the SH families got VIP seats at the famous Boston Marathon, which has been exposed as a 100% hoax.

    But I agree the points raised by Fetzer and Halbig are all moot. SH operates at a much deeper level, it is not about “double actors” or “check-in signs”.

    So keep in mind: debunking is not yet truthseeking.

    • Shill Murray on May 20, 2019 at 2:41 pm said:

      You’ve submitted this comment twice, albeit with minor differences, so I’m going to respond to this one while also covering points raised in the other one rather than approve and reply to them both.

      Nothing is being “censored” here. Please re-read the comment policy. Nearly everything goes into moderation and I’d say 98% or so of those comments are subsequently approved. Sometimes it takes me a little while to get to them, but they get approved. The comments that do not get approved – and there are very few of them, although it’s picked up recently – contain blatant violations of the very simple, very reasonable rules set out in said comment policy. I’ve never once deleted a comment because they didn’t agree with me or because they thought Sandy Hook never happened, etc. If you truly replied to both of my previous replies, they somehow did not make it to moderation. They are nowhere to be found. That is a promise.

      We know SH is fake because the SH families got VIP seats at the famous Boston Marathon, which has been exposed as a 100% hoax.

      Come on, man. This doesn’t make a lick of sense. I’m not going to delve into the conspiracy theories surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing, but the idea that you can conclusively prove a school shooting never happened because the families were invited to a race is about as absurd and as unscientific as it gets.

      But I agree the points raised by Fetzer and Halbig are all moot.

      They’re not “points”, they’re blatant lies. The Gene Rosen FEMA stuff was 100% manufactured. It’s disinformation. For someone who refers to themselves as “Truthseeker”, you seem all too eager to gloss over that.

      • truthseeker on May 21, 2019 at 9:06 am said:

        I first replied and said you fully debunked the Rosen/FEMA lie. Whether Fetzer did this himself or simply fell for it, we don’t know.

        I also replied to your 9/11 points. First you said there is CCTV of the Twin Tower hijackers boarding planes. But there is not. Then you said you meant CCTV of security at Dulles. But this is undated and edited and doesn’t prove anything. My reply including links got sacked, for whatever reason.

        Boston has been exposed beyond any shadow of a doubt as a 100% manufactured event. Moulage, silicone and protheses are visible in HD quality and have been confirmed by several doctors.

        If you even try do deny this, which you seem to do, you are outed as a fraud. You might as well claim the earth is flat and the world run by vampires.

        The SH families were not simply “invited to the race” (you twist my words here), they got VIP seats to a 100% fake event, they “witnessed the (fake) carnage”. This immediately proves they are fake.

        (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309729/Boston-Marathon-explosions-Newtown-families-witness-carnage-VIP-seats-near-finish-line.html)

        Again, debunking is only a fraction of actual truthseeking. I don’t know if you and Fetzer are simply deluded or outright dishonest. But you clearly appear to belong to the same league of disinformation.

        • Steve on May 23, 2019 at 2:54 am said:

          The Boston Marathon bombing was not exposed as a “100 percent fake event.”

          Go crawl back under your rock.

          • truthseeker on May 23, 2019 at 3:11 am said:

            Do your research, or continue believing the earth is flat. With Boston there is HD photographic and video evidence showing it was 100% fake. No serious researcher can doubt this anymore.

            With SH there is basically no useful photographic or video evidence of the actual supposed crime. You have to believe it.

            But since we know SH families “witnessed the (fake) carnage” of Boston, we know SH must be fake (in some way).

            Despite that, the points raised by Fetzer and Halbig are all wrong. Whether due to extreme confirmation bias or dishonesty I can’t tell.

            But clearly, this site is not engaged in truthseeking, so I’m not expecting any useful research here towards solving SH. In this sense, it is very much comparable to Fetzer and Halbig.

          • Shill Murray on May 23, 2019 at 10:27 am said:

            Look, I have every intention on fully replying to your previous comment when I get the time, but I just wanted to quickly chime in to tell you that if you continue to insult me and the work I’ve done here, you’ll quickly find yourself back in moderation purgatory, which you managed to escape from after I approved a couple of your previous comments. Even if I think your ideas are nonsense (ie Sandy Hook is fake because you haven’t seen video evidence, but the Boston Marathon bombing is fake because you have seen video evidence… and you accuse other folks of suffering from “extreme confirmation bias”), I believe that I’ve treated you with respect, so I expect the same from you. If you want to have a real conversation, that’s great and I encourage that. But if you’re just hear to insult everyone and everything without actually refuting a single point that I’ve made, then I have no time or patience for you.

          • truthseeker on May 23, 2019 at 12:42 pm said:

            Unlike you guys, I’m not insulting anybody, and I’m certainly looking forward to your detailed response.

            Your first point is already moot (again): with Boston we have HD photographic and video evidence proving the event was fake. With SH we lack any video/photograph of the actual supposed crime, so we can’t decide either way.

            However, since the “planners” went one step too far and invited the SH families to “witness” and testify to the fake Boston event (which they did), we already know SH was fake. We just don’t know yet how it was done. We DO know it was done very differently, without any fake wounded and amputees.

            Looking forward to your response, on SH, Boston or your previous 9/11 double-mistake.

          • Shill Murray on May 23, 2019 at 3:50 pm said:

            Unlike you guys, I’m not insulting anybody

            In reverse chronological order…

            Telling people to “do their research”, comparing them to Flat Earthers, “no serious researcher can doubt this”, “this site is not engaged in truthseeking”, “I’m not expecting any useful research here”, comparing me to known and exposed liars and con-men like Fetzer and Halbig, “you are outed as a fraud”, more comparisons to Flat Earthers (you really seem to love this one, and while I would never just assume someone was a Flat Earther, many of your arguments are shared by them), “I don’t know if you are deluded or dishonest”, “you clearly appear to belong to the same league of disinformation”.

            I probably missed a couple. But your words and your tone are obviously dismissive, insulting, and not conducive to a productive conversation.

            Looking forward to your response, on SH, Boston or your previous 9/11 double-mistake.

            I’ve already admitted that I made a mistake. Once again, I said that there was footage of the Twin Towers hijackers boarding their planes when I was thinking of the Pentagon hijackers going through security. It was a very brief, rather insignificant part of a larger comment that wasn’t even about 9/11. So I’m not sure what else needs to be said about the subject or why you want to continue to harp on it.

          • truthseeker on May 23, 2019 at 12:45 pm said:

            And again, if any of you even tries to deny Boston was fake, you’re immediately outed as an actual “shill” or fraud in league with flat earthers.

            Do your research on Boston first, and then come back and solve the actual SH questions.

            Believe me, truthseeking is much harder then merely debunking false claims.

          • Shill Murray on May 23, 2019 at 3:53 pm said:

            Do your research on Boston first, and then come back and solve the actual SH questions.

            Which questions have I not “solved” in regards to Sandy Hook and why in the world would I need to “research” (I assume that means watch a bunch of spooky YouTube videos to you) a separate incident before I can “solve” them?

          • truthseeker on May 24, 2019 at 9:15 am said:

            Murray, you are twisting my words once again. I said you are a fraud or in league with flat earthers / Fetzer *IF* you deny Boston was fake. Unlike Steve, you still haven’t done that.

            So your simple choice is this: Either you confirm Boston was fake and anwer the question why SH families “witnessed” the fake carnage. OR you deny Boston was fake. Then you are outed as a fraud, similar to Steve, Fetzer and Halbig. (and flat earthers)

            Looking forward to your choice. And please stop twisting my words.

            With regards to 9/11, you have been wrong not just once, but twice: there is no boarding footage from anywhere (which is a huge red flag in itself), and there is no confirmed footage of Dulles security from that day (the footage is undated).

            I think by now you are pretty much cornered, for everybody to see. But it all depends on your answer to Boston now.

          • Shill Murray on May 24, 2019 at 12:23 pm said:

            Nobody’s twisting your words. Stop being a baby.

            I figured it was clear, but in case it is not, of course I believe that the Boston Marathon bombing was legitimate. I have no reason not to. And if you think that in order to successfully debunk Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, you must also debunk all Boston Marathon bombing conspiracy theories, you can get bent.

            With regards to 9/11, you have been wrong not just once, but twice: there is no boarding footage from anywhere (which is a huge red flag in itself), and there is no confirmed footage of Dulles security from that day (the footage is undated).

            The fact that the available footage is undated does not mean that it is not security footage from Dulles. The fact that you dispute that is not evidence of a mistake on my part. If the footage was faked, why wouldn’t they have simply added a timestamp? Furthermore, how many times do I need to warn you that I’m not going to let the comments section of this entry (or any entry) turn into a conversation about 9/11 before you finally get it? You’ve continuously broken rule number one of the comment policy, which is no off-topic posts. This thread is now more about the Boston Marathon bombing and 9/11 than it is Sandy Hook. If you have further Sandy Hook questions – and I asked you point blank to tell me which questions I have not answered – then by all means ask them already and we can bring things back on track. Instead you’d rather try and drag me over a mistake I made about a totally unrelated event, which brings me to my next point…

            If Fetzer is such a fraud, and you are a true truth seeker (not to be confused with a debunker, of course), then how did you fall for his obvious lie about Gene Rosen? Let’s not forget how this all started: you came here and stated matter-of-factly that Gene Rosen worked for FEMA. I’m not “twisting your words”; anyone can go see your post for themselves. You did not appear to approach the claim with any skepticism whatsoever and your proof was an article lifted straight from Jim Fetzer’s site. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker. So why would you not only share something from someone you yourself have labeled a fraud (multiple times now), but not seek the truth for yourself since you are apparently its sole arbiter?

    • Steve on May 23, 2019 at 6:02 pm said:

      I’m from Boston. I’ve talked to people who were there. I’ve met the uncle of one of the people who was killed. Sean Collier, the MIT cop who was killed, is from my hometown.

      I resent you saying it was fake. There’s no way it could have been. There’s no way all the doctors who treated the wounded could have been in on it.

      • truthseeker on May 24, 2019 at 9:05 am said:

        You’re either a fraud, or you have been conned. We have HD photocraphic and video evidence proving Boston was fake.

        Then again, it doesn’t surprise me to see you on this site.

        • Steve on May 24, 2019 at 6:46 pm said:

          So you think I met crisis actors or something?

          The photos don’t mean anything.

          Poking holes in “the official story” doesn’t mean anything. Why not tell me what you think happened. Lay out a plausible narrative and give us your best evidence to support it.

          Until you can do that, you have nothing.

  2. truthseeker on May 24, 2019 at 9:30 am said:

    I feel Murray already knows Boston is fake, but he tries to avoid the issue, because he knows it will bring down the whole SH event, and all of his hard work will be exposed as futile, because he answered the wrong questions, those raised by folks like Fetzer and Halbig. Of course, the three may also play ball together…

    But I expect his answer to this simple question: was Boston fake, and so SH was fake? Or was Boston ‘real’, and he is a proven shill/fraud?

    I’m going to buy popcorn now.

    • Shill Murray on May 24, 2019 at 12:26 pm said:

      I feel Murray already knows Boston is fake, but he tries to avoid the issue, because he knows it will bring down the whole SH event

      This is an absurd leap. You are being absurd.

      While I viewed your original comment skeptically, I still gave you the benefit of the doubt and replied respectfully. However it is now obvious that you have not come here in good faith, and that’s a shame.

      Since you stopped contributing anything meaningful many comments ago and are at this point just spamming, it’s back to time out for you. Once you’ve calmed down a bit, re-read the comment policy, and shown that you can behave like a reasonable adult, you’re more than welcome to re-join us.

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.

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

1) Off-topic comments. Articles 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? Then Google it. And then don't engage in them. They are absolutely infuriating 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 stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up.
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 paifully 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