they're heeeeeere .. Shh

Dat Gr33nb3rg. They should learn to delegate or cover their tracks better.

Sandy Hook was PuRe evil.

My question to this day is, if this was staged why WEREN'T the tracks covered better? If they have the knowledge, ability and power to stage an event of this magnitude then don't you think they would be smart enough to do so? Or could it possibly be that they know no one will say shit so why bother being that thorough.

You can't cover all the tracks with something that big. They count on the ability to fool the public with television-like "reality". And it works. Most Americans can not see the difference between reality as it's presented to them on TV vs. reality itself. They convince the majority and label the rest as conspiracy theorists. Simple formula, really.

Yup. Started with the magicians and illusionists and their stooges... Then others figured out they could totally fool people with actors and editing, too. Morals not required.

Morals not required.

You said it.

There's no if. It was staged. I know but am afraid to say what I know because the last time I did that I had all my web services hacked as well as my Android remotely accessed. So have fun figuring it out but don't expect to expose it in any meaningful sense because they will find you.

Because they don't need to. The vast majority have been fooled and anyone who disagrees is outcast as a lunatic.

Sounds like everything went to plan to me.

Faux argument.

It's difficult to speculate but there are many reasons why "they" may have done this.

1. To mock those of us paying attention.

2. To create division amongst those of us who question SH and those who don't and consider us "insensitive" for questioning a "national tragedy" such as SH

3. To see just how gullible people are and how much faith they place in the MSM - if they'll believe the reporting on such a poorly staged event, they'll believe the reporting on any event

4. If you want to get into the possible occult/ritual aspects of SH, it could've been a way to create reality from strictly artificial means - to the people who believe the official story, this event actually happened, kids actually died, etc. A false reality has been created (if the event was indeed staged)

I could probably think of a few more (you probably can too) but these were the first that came to mind.

Revealing the multiple planned outcomes of this event is vital for people to understand the function of these events. Good job!

Gun control is another obvious reason this event took place. That and furthering the narrative of the mentally unstable teen male domestic terrorist.

For those of us paying attention it's all far too obvious.

Agreed with these and (the event was indeed staged).

The domestic propaganda ban was abandoned in 2013 because too many involved in Sandy Hook were afraid of being exposed to a court of law.

And now it's legal, what they did. And what they're still doing.

Yep. Almost everything our "government" does is technically "legal", though certainly not in the democratic sense.

I wonder if there is any data at all that supports that this kind of thing reduces gun violence?

Maybe it will change people's perceptions but somehow I don't think the people using guns to get what they want are going to be persuaded by some data points.

It was the same thing with 9!! for ten years. Scare people bad enough, and they'll cover up your crime for you I guess.

Of course. We're being farmed. What better way to protect the herd mentality then by getting the sheep to attack the other sheep that aren't going with the flow.

One thing that always bothered me. I had heard the parents weren't allowed to see the children. If that was the case than why didn't we hear more uproar about it? I would want to see my child no matter what.

There were multiple open-casket funeral. Pretty sure those parents saw their kids.

If by "multiple" you mean one.

OKay I wasn't sure I had heard it somewhere in passing about this whole sandy hook conspiracy thing

Pretty sure you're just parrotting what you were "told" by the media.

[deleted]

[deleted]

My b, I disturbed the groupthink session.

For me it's the sites put up before the shooting actually happened. That just makes me confused about why that would be the case. I can't understand any scenario that it works out.

Well if that's what is bothering you, I can easily debunk it. The site you're referring to was a facebook page devoted to Victoria Soto's remembrance—called R.I.P Vicki Soto—and yes, it was made a few days before her death. Seems odd right? Well the creator said it wasn't created as Soto's memorial page, it was created as something else entirely irrelevant to Sandy Hook. After she died, he simply changed the name of the page, which also changed the URL, and changed the text that says "____ joined Facebook on December 10". That's the way Facebook works. No conspiracy here.

He is not related to Soto, he is just a random guy who created the page. Here is his exact quote:

Okay everyone, this is the final time I will tell you why this page was created November 14th. This used to be a 'unpublished' personal page for myself. Unpublished means it is not a public page and no one sees it. I was gonna use it, but never did. So when the time of the shooting came, I decided to create a better use for the page, and not remake a whole other one. Therefore being that if a page is unpublished, no one can see it except for yourself. So I could rename the page since it had 0 likes. I am no fraud, I did not predict something like this could happen, I am not linked to the shooting. Don't believe me? Fine with me, you can leave the page. So don't bother to ask. Thank you, and bye.

Why did he change the name? My theory is that he was an attention whore trying to ride on the wave of a tragedy to get a popular facebook page. He posts pictures like "1 like = 1 prayer. 1 share = 1,000 prayers. Keep scrolling if you don't care." I'm not making that up, that's an exact quote.

It's typical shitty facebook page fare. He probably decided to change the name of an already existing facebook page instead of creating a new one because he wanted to make it as quick as possible and be "the first" page out there in hopes of being the most popular. In a way, he succeeded.

Do you still have questions about that? I would be happy to attempt to explain any other thing you're still confused by.

Actually, smpjs, there were quite a few websites -- including, bizarrely enough, ones that are owned by news and media organizations -- that posted "coverage" of (and specific details about) the Sandy Hook shooting several days before the event even occurred. I believe that TaSteTeA may have possibly been referring to those sites, instead, as there has been quite a bit of talk about those sites on some forums and video channels, lately.

To clarify: I'm not stating that I, personally, know exactly what transpired, or that I have any concrete opinions on the matter or such. However, I just wanted to let you know that evidence exists that appears to show that multiple sites (other than Facebook) did, indeed, post articles about the shooting before it took place.

I'm afraid that I don't have the links to the most intriguing videos on the subject available, right now, but the following video partially covers the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKLClNlsNCs

Also, some of the GoFundMe pages (that were specifically devoted to raising money for the families of the victims in Sandy Hook) were also created a day or two before the actual shooting, as well.

I realize that I haven't given you many specific details to work with, but if you could explain how pertinent news articles were created and posted, online, before the date that the shooting happened, and how GoFundMe pages were verifiably created (photos, descriptions and all) and posted on December 13th, rather than the 14th, then I would genuinely like to hear your explanation. It's a subject that's been troubling me, as well, and I'd really like to hear your take on it.

Thank you.

That is the exact page. That makes the most sense and I can put my mind to rest. I just tend to over-think things as I feel most of us do on this site and subreddit. Thanks man. You're the best.

How do you make an unpublished page on Facebook?

Facebook explains it here: https://www.facebook.com/help/www/184605634921611

Her death didn't deserve a fresh, brand new Facebook page? Random stranger making a random page for a single random victim of a random shooting?

Funny how you think this story is a debunking rather than making it more suspicious.

Anyway, carry on answering questions for people who need to see the light. You're doing Gov's work! I mean, God... God's work.

Because what you're saying never happened. Sites never went up before the attack. Simple as that. People like to repeat and repeat and repeat things on this subreddit until users actually believe them as fact. But reality is that's not a fact, it never happened, you've just read it a bunch of times by other conspiracy theorists.

If I'm wrong please provide some proof that any site went up before the attacks.

Did you read the quote above from the person who made the site? It absolutely did go up before the attacks, it was just changed.

I love how you trot around the word "fact" like it makes what you're saying right.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/28enc9/that_school_we_cant_talk_about/ciaindw

Holy shit, can you really not read when comments were published? I published first. And I obviously meant no memorial pages went up before then. Which is still correct. Jesus Christ dude, read.

Regardless of the timing of the posts what you kept saying was "fact" was actually not true. The page was made before the tragedy. Why were you so certain that it wasn't?

Gotta love all of the cries about harassment against anybody who dares question the dubious events of that day. Apparently because one unstable goofball stole a sign and harassed the parents it's completely unthinkable to ever question the shooting again.

I'm sure the guy will get his due punishment from the state and if the parents are at all professional and mature they will have shrugged it off almost instantaneously. I'm pretty sure the prosecutors and the parents don't need their very own reddit white knights to demonize all questioning parties, but nonetheless there they are, full of anger and vitriol.

Maybe that's because of all the harassment the actors/family members received. Unless that harassment is ALSO part of the conspiracy...

Polarizing how?

That's like saying global warming is "polarizing" to scientists. 97% agree it's happening and 3% say it's not. It may be polarizing by definition but that's only because there will ALWAYS be a small percent of people who disagree with the norm just to disagree.

What statistic is that?

How about the "nuns" in the purple van wearing ski masks who were discussed on the police scanner as possibly being involved in the event and then were never mentioned or heard from again?

Do you have a source for this? Interesting it it was real.

It was reported over the police scanner on the day of the shooting that two people wearing ski masks were driving a purple van with unknown plates and may have been related to the shooting. A minute or two later in the same recording, they followed this up by saying that one of them may be wearing a nun outfit and reconfirmed that they're driving a purple van. None of this was ever explained or elaborated on afterwards to my knowledge - it's one of those things that just sort of "disappeared down the memory hole", so to speak.

http://youtu.be/ETkrxfYoQtc?t=1h34m10s

Another unnerving part of the story..I wonder if there's any security footage from nearby businesses or ATMs or wherever showing the van? I'm sure any footage would've been scooped up though.

I'm sure any footage would've been scooped up though.

Yep, kinda like how there isn't a single picture or second of video showing Ryan entering the school or walking through the halls despite a brand new CCTV system allegedly being installed at SH earlier that year. I guess these are all just "coincidences"...

Sofia Smallstorm talks about it a lot.

What do you think about it? Coincidences, people reading in to it too much, or symbols put out intentionally?

There is overwhelming evidence that Sandy Hook - like what happened in Colorado, Boston, etc, etc - was a false flag attack.

What about the photo sylvia calls the Christmas photo? Doctored or not?

The photo does indeed seems strange in the legs area of the kids, as is stated in the video, but it doesn't really matter that much if that particular photo is indeed doctored or not because there are so many other discrepancies that indeed are obvious and glaring as it relates to this case in general that there is really no question that it was a doctored event regardless of whether any alleged photos were tampered with or not.

Right, I'm just curious about the who and why this potentially doctored photo was put out, it didn't help to prove or disprove the event, just raised speculation from some. It is just bizarre.

How long before Sandy Hook Denial is illegal?

From the direction this thread took I'd say soon. I made observations that are clear to me and have been made by others as well and I'm basically slammed immediately and called crazy.

[deleted]

Denying the Holocaust is allowed

Not in certain countries.

[deleted]

Believe it or not, a large group of people actually did submit a petition to the White House on this very subject; they wanted to make it illegal for a person or group to publicly post (via the Internet) that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

The full text of the petition has since been removed from WhiteHouse.gov, but it was originally located at this link:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-sandy-hook-hoax-websites-channels-and-videos/WkKmcGnG

I've also read posts by numerous people (including notable Hollywood figures), on Twitter, that echoed this exact same sentiment.

So, could a person really be "fucking serious", as you stated, about this issue? Based on the petition and all of the related statements that I've read, I'd have to say yes -- and that fears of such insane and irrational measures are by no means "unfounded".

I agree with you that the idea of such restrictions in this country is an absolutely crazy one, to put it mildly, but please understand that there ARE groups that are trying very hard to put an end to any discussion on the matter. In truth, it is not really "crazy" for anyone to say that such a thing could happen, when, as you can see, there are people that actually are trying to make the simple act of discussion illegal.

Since I am not an american I don't have a lot of info on sandy hook. Isn't that a school where a public shooting happened? What's the conspiracy? Anyone care to throw some info?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

That was terribly depressing to read and I don't understand how this could possibly be a conspiracy.

I agree, I don't feel this was a conspiracy at all.

But, if you go here, you can read about the different reasons why people think it is a conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

My apologies as I have never been privy on hearing any conspiracy theories regarding SH. Can someone please explain what said conspiracy theory/theories entail (what they are, who committed then, what they stood to gain, etc.). I'm all for suspending my disbelief and hearing the other end of an argument but all I've seen from this thread is conflicting "facts" with no supporting links and hearsay (I heard/ read somewhere that someone said ...). It's brought me no closer to figuring out whether there's any basis behind a conspiracy let alone what it would be...

lmlk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molech

The American media stations, in their desperate race to have the next "breaking news", or to have the first coverage of something constantly misreports things. In an event like Sandy Hook, which was very chaotic, but also television ratings gold, news stations reports tons information that they don't fact check at all. Conspiracy theorists latch on to the misreported information, come up with excuses for real information and a conspiracy theory is born. You'd have to be a complete tool to believe that this was a "false flag" That word is being throw around so much nowadays that some dude could get into a fight in a McDonald's and it's a false flag operation to distract from the fact that the government is trying to take our civil liberties from us.

he's not suggesting that inquiry is based on bad reporting. He pointing out that with the type of zealous inquiry we have into an event like, any mistakes or discrepancies in the inevitably shoddy reporting is being latched onto as definitive proof of... something. People are far too eager to attribute to conspiracy what can be easily explained by simple media incompetence.

My biggest issue with all of your conspiracy theories on Sandy Hook is the fact that you feel they(the government) needed to come up with this crazy, complex, and interconnected network of people, buildings, and organizations, to push their agenda down the people's throats. I mean why would they even risk so many unknown variables that could be uncovered when they could simply just let some of the crazy shooters go on their planned rampages instead of intervene?

A prime example is when the FBI and local police were able to prevent a massive school shooting in a West Suburban high school in Illinois, where a student had planned(and had the capability) to shoot up the senior graduation. Easily he could have taken out 100+ students, family, and staff with the weapons he had at hand, which would have made headlines and pushed the anti-gun agenda further down American's throats without the risk of all the variables that are necessary to prove there was a conspiracy to stage the attack at Sandy Hook. If they let that kid shoot the graduation up they kill 2 birds with one stone, and don't risk being caught.

Would love feedback, because honestly this seems like the biggest hole in your guys theory.

tldr: why stage an attack and risk being caught, when you can just let shooters go willynilly and kill a bunch of people to prove your point that guns are bad

Actually most of the stuff is public records lol

Almost all of the police footage is redacted content. I have 3 hours of this footage and about 90% of it is just black with text on the screen that says "Content Redacted"

Well, i'm thinking it would be quite frowned upon to show the slayings of a bunch of kids right now. I mean, if you really want to go full conspiracy, think about how easy it would be to fake that sort of thing and show the shootings. So whether they showed them or not, i'm sure you'd still have your beefs with it

Honest question here. If Sandy Hook was not real, what was the motivation for carrying out this staged attack? I ask this because the motivation was obviously not gun control--I have seen no serious threat to gun ownership in this country ever.

You must be forgetting all about the assault weapons ban of the 90s and the attempt to revive it after this incident.

No, i did not forget about the assault weapons ban in the 90's. However, was their a serious attempt to try to ban them again or was it just a short lived reaction?

It made it to congress to be voted on. It doesn't get more real than that when you're talking about changing our laws.

In January 2013, one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Senator Feinstein and 24 Democrat cosponsors introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013), into the U.S. Senate.[44][45] The bill was similar to the 1994 ban, but differed in that it used a one-feature test for a firearm to qualify as an assault weapon rather than the two-feature test of the 1994 ban.[46] In addition, it banned: the sale, transfer, importation or manufacture of about 150 named firearms; firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons"; the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines; and high-capacity ammunition magazines (defined as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds).[46] It grandfathered in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempted more than 2,000 specific firearms "used for hunting or sporting purposes."[46] It eliminated the sunset clause that was part of the 1994 ban. On March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the bill along party lines.[47] On April 17, 2013, the Senate voted 60 to 40 against reinstating a ban.[48] --Wikipedia

So, what your saying is that these senators conspired with other people to set up Sandy Hook so that they could only ban weapons that are designed to kill people. Honestly, this seems like a stretch.

No that is not what I am saying. There will always be someone in congress with anti gun legislation sitting in their desk drawer just waiting for a good opportunity to introduce it. I don't think any senators were in on the.deception, the bill didn't pass after all.

Oh okay. So then, back to my original question. What do you think the motive was for setting up a "fake" Sandy Hook? I mean, their has to be a goal to achieve for such things to occur.

Disarming the public, you must know by now everyone who calls this a hoax attributes it to that end. All of congress is not in on this if they were the ban would have passed.

They fucked and had to drop the big gun control push because they left so many holes it would not stand upto the scrutiny.

See, or rather try and see, Obama's crocodile tears for more info.

It's difficult to speculate but there are many reasons why "they" may have done this.

1. To mock those of us paying attention.

2. To create division amongst those of us who question SH and those who don't and consider us "insensitive" for questioning a "national tragedy" such as SH

3. To see just how gullible people are and how much faith they place in the MSM - if they'll believe the reporting on such a poorly staged event, they'll believe the reporting on any event

4. If you want to get into the possible occult/ritual aspects of SH, it could've been a way to create reality from strictly artificial means - to the people who believe the official story, this event actually happened, kids actually died, etc. A false reality has been created (if the event was indeed staged)

I could probably think of a few more (you probably can too) but these were the first that came to mind.

I haven't seen enough evidence that supports the sandy hoax theory. The videos I've watched (i've seen them all) really don't do it. The german ex police officer doesn't make enough of a case to satisfy me. The only two things that seem suspicious to me is the typo on the death certificate and the fact that the kids were all declared dead in the school rather than being taken to a hospital.

My problem with the way it is being approached is that the people you are accusing are the victims of a terrible tragedy. It's like telling jews who were in concentration camps that there was no holocaust.

I'm not advocating that we buy the official story hook line and sinker, and I certainly don't think it's an appropriate platform for gun grabbers- but to go after the victims based on flimsy evidence like trying to deconstruct "photoshopped" pictures of families or say that someone who was acting strangely at a press conference is therefor a crisis actor, is way over the line.

I know the one father put out documentation of his murdered son, including birth certificate, death certificate and police report, but I never see that brought up in these videos.

I think the conspiracy theorists who think that everything is a fake drill end up making the rest of us look less reasoned.

I don't just disagree with your conclusion, but I find the method distasteful.

It's a process issue. And I would say the same about how you guys (there are a handful of you on this sub- some are maybe sockpuppet accounts.) have been approaching the Boston Marathon event.

AGAIN- > I'm not advocating that we buy the official story hook line and sinker

Questioning and positing theories is one thing. But you are promoting a theory as fact, and frankly the crisis actor theory doesn't have much evidence to stand on. That is the problem. You are actively accusing victims.

There has always been infighting among conspiracy theorists for this reason. You get so busy pointing fingers and defending yourself from people who call you crazy that some people become insular and think that anyone who criticizes their idea is "shilling"- weak hostility. We also attract a lot of mental illness and racism because our perspective IS a blaming technique innate to a victim mentality. I personally think that's important to filter because it makes me "guilty by association"

Posit your theories. Don't do so in such a definitive manner. Don't assume I'm a shill because I accuse you of being insensitive.

The only two things that seem suspicious to me is the typo on the death certificate and the fact that the kids were all declared dead in the school rather than being taken to a hospital.

Those are the only two things that seem suspicious to you? Have you spent more than 5 minutes looking into the official story?

Yes. I don't think it's suspicious that the parents weren't invited to identify their kids immediately. I don't think it's suspicious that Adam Lanza looks similar to his brother. I don't think it's suspicious that some of the kids escaped to some random neighbor's house. It doesn't strike me as evidence of a hoax that the names of all the victims weren't published or that the 911 calls weren't immediately released or that the nurse only heard 5 shots or that Adam Lanza "wasn't big enough to wear body armor and carry those guns" or that the "picture of his house from the outside couldn't possibly be the same house in the pictures of his room", or that there were originally some discrepancies about his mother's relationship with the school or that the school got torn down.

None of that strikes me as evidence of a hoax instigated by crisis actors/spooks who were all living in a fake town. I'm not saying that couldn't happen. I'm saying that it probably didn't and that the evidence presented isn't enough to accuse people of anything.

There were deaths, there just isn't any evidence of homicidal gas chambers or mass crematoria.

There will always be misreports on shootings. there have been since weve reported on shootings. Thinking it was some kind of grand conspiracy is just ridiculous.

There is a furious contingent that wishes to vilify anyone who dares to question the events of the day as if they are the murderers of innocent children.

That comes from the fact that Sandy Hook truthers harass the grieving families of dead children, telling them their grieving isn't genuine, they're paid actors, and their dead children never existed.

Someone who does that doesn't deserve any respect. Plain and simple. Even if you believe the children were actually killed but think there are other suspicious things revolving around the event, the reality is that you'll be grouped with the more extreme truthers. That's just the way the world works, no sense in complaining about it.

B-b-b-but think about the chilrun!

Please. I'd rather be a SH truther than a SH liar. We know which side you prefer...

That was not a mature or productive response. Reddiquette says that I should downvote everything that doesn't add to the discussion so unfortunately that's what will happen. My productive comment will be, next time, unless you're going to say something intelligent just keep it to yourself.

'Truther' is just the name for conspiracy theorist. It has nothing to do with what's actually true. And please, no need to resort to childish & immature comments, it doesn't help your case :)

What case do you think I have?

"it doesn't help your case" = acting like a child hurts whatever credibility you're trying to achieve.

Credibility towards what point of view? I haven't stated one, so I don't even have a case for you to critisize. But if truther semantics is all you have against SH then you need to study your textbook a little more.

B-b-b-but think about the chilrun!

You were attempting to discredit me by mocking me, yet in the process only discredited yourself. That's what I was referring to. It's not that hard to understand, bud. Why are you being so irrationally defensive? Did I hit a nerve?

Everyone deserves respect. I dunno what happened but everyone deserves respect regardless of their mistakes and misdeeds.

What if it is all an elaborate ruse? What if that sign was planted evidence and guy never stole it? I dunno what happened. I'm obliged to give respect anyway. Even if I did know what happened I'd still be obliged. Respect your enemies. Respect your friends. Most of all, respect strangers, lest you lose their respect in turn.

I disagree. Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. Respect is an entirely different game. You can lose respect, and you should lose respect for certain actions.

I don't respect Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong. I don't respect convicted child rapists, I don't respect child porn dealers, I don't respect serial killers, etc.

I also don't respect people who harass grieving families by telling them their dead children never existed. It's disgusting and not deserving of respect in my opinion. Whether you think the government planned it or not is an entirely different matter and I respect differing opinions. But the fact is, children and adults are dead from Sandy Hook and their parents and family members are grieving over a tragic loss. It's never OK to harass them over whatever "suspicions" you may have.

I disagree. Equal treatment under law is based on the flawed premises that all men are created equal and that men must exist under law. Respect IS a different game because it neither requires uniformity nor submission.

As it is you can appear to lose your false equality because the law's authority is not distributed equally. Some men are more equal than others and they get to decide just how much less equal everyone else is.

Respect isn't synonymous with approval, morality is relative, and individuals' actions cannot be judged separately from the society in which they were reared.

You appear to know something that I do not know. This is the fact you aforementioned. I still have yet to see any evidence presented of dead people as Sandy Hook. All I've seen is some highly publicized grieving, loads of politicization, and a concerted effort to stop any independent investigation of the alleged crime.

I mean, they even bulldozed the school. It seems very suspicious to me.

Respect should be given freely. I respect in accord with the golden rule. I'm as capable of mistakes as anyone. Misdeeds are assessed relatively. I don't condone harassment but I also don't condone lying. I particularly don't condone disrespecting anyone or anything for any reason. Love or hate them all you like but do so with a healthy dose of respect.

I personally would like to know some other people's opinions on the various strange photographs released in the media during the time of this event.

There was the Parker family portrait (warning, loud intro), where the youngest girl's hand is distorted or misshapen in some way, and a leg is missing one of her legs is missing and both her sister's legs are missing. The girl on the left is making the devil horn (or whatever you call it) symbol with her hand, and the young one on the right is making the same symbol by putting her two middle fingers in her mouth. In the picture with Obama the girl also has these two fingers in the mouth making the same symbol.

There was the photo of Viki Soto in the news with that old guy throwing up the same symbol.

Are there others I am missing? What are your thoughts on these photos?

Edit:

Another weird photo of the little girl. Look at her hand.

Here's on of Emily Parker doing the same hand symbol.

My thoughts are that you are reading far too much into innocuous things. I'm not going to watch that video, the loud intro talking about alien fossils from atlantis told me all I needed to know about that guy.

Show me any picture and I will do my best to explain it to you, but I just cannot watch that video. I will lose too many brain cells.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] Drama over satanic/Freemason symbols in Sandy Hook children photos.

• [/r/conspiratard] Sandy hook Demon?

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

See how the mom's fingers are cut off? Its because the little girl is straddling her fathers leg and that leg is crossing over to her mother's side. She is wearing black tights.

The little girl also has the two fingers in the mouth in this photo, as well as many others shown in the media. On the left side of the picture, that is a masonic hug that Robbie Parker and Obama are doing.

Of all these things, the legs being missing and the misshapen hand are the most bizarre.

Edit:

Here's one that shows where the girls legs are missing from the photo. Where are their legs?

Alright, here you go:

The one with her hand in her mouth looks totally natural to me, just an awkward angle is all. Excuse my rushed drawings, but to help me illustrate what I see: http://imgur.com/6ZyYdzC The first hand is what it would look like if she didn't have her fingers in her mouth. Second one is with the mouth bending the two fingers back.

And I see nothing that can't be easily explained about the legs either. The middle girl is wearing white leggings, clearly visible in the photograph: http://imgur.com/1fDKbiv,a3RJ5fb#0

And the other girl's legs can easily be off to the side, hidden behind the middle girl's: http://imgur.com/1fDKbiv,a3RJ5fb#1

The other girl is wearing black tights and her legs go off to the left, hence the fall of her skirt, her left leg looks higher and in front of the right, sitting side saddle like.

But I dig your illustrations and you are about right. It is hard to tell.

Maybe my eyes don't work the way yours do, I do NOT see any trace of legs in the places you suggested they are.

Does anybody else?

Do you not see the white leggings the middle girl is wearing? She's sitting on her father's lap like you would a horse. One leg on either side.

and as for the girl on the left, her legs aren't visible, but they can easily be behind the middle girl. She's sitting with both of her legs in between the father's legs. Just because they're hidden from view doesn't mean they aren't there. Look at my drawing again, her sitting with her legs behind the middle girl is totally natural and possible is it not?

But the father's legs are closed, and I don't see any legs between them. Also, her torso is clearly pointing straight forward. You can see one leg on the girl on the right in the middle, but I do not see the other, just the father's leg where you'd expect to see her leg on top.

Did my drawing of the hand not clear it up? It looks like I would expect it to. Her palm is facing the camera, and she's bending her middle and ring finger back with her mouth. Children have flexible hands, maybe that's why it looks strange to you.

And I'm sorry, but I can clearly see both legs of the girl in the middle. I cannot understand why you can't see it. Let me try drawing it again: http://imgur.com/E7dtCea She is wearing white leggings and HER right leg, the one on our LEFT of the photo, is in between her father's legs. Both legs are clearly visible.

As for the other girl, yes her legs are not visible in the photos, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Her legs could be easily hidden behind the middle girl in two ways that I see: http://imgur.com/vd0Md9V and this way http://imgur.com/5fYONGB

The gap between her thumb and pointer finger is not natural IMO. As for the other girl's legs, yes I saw where you drew legs but that didn't make the legs suddenly appear in the photo. She's not sitting at an angle that would allow for her legs to be behind her sister, and they're not facing forward or between the dad's legs either.

Our arguments are clearly stated, we'll let the other redditors on this thread decide what they see when they look at all this.

There's nothing unnatural about the gap between her thumb and pointer finger. Look at your own hand, there's a lot of space there. http://www.worldwideorphanages.com/images/dreamstime_4258968.jpg

The middle girl is sitting like this: http://imgur.com/2qwCxcY

And you're right. The other girls legs are not visible in the photo. If I put my arm around my friend's back for a photo, my arm doesn't cease to exist. I truly don't understand why it's so difficult to believe her legs are off to the side, behind her sister. Torso's are flexible, she can be pointing forward for the camera with her upper body and have her legs off to the side. Similar to this: http://imgur.com/YzM0Xuq Or who knows, maybe her legs are folded up beneath her? She's wearing a dress for God's sake, that tends to cover up the leg area.

And if you want to end it here, that's fine. If you can't see what I'm saying, we can agree to disagree, because I can't see what you're saying either. haha. But we'll just let everyone else make up their own minds I guess.

yup, its that gap between index finger and thumb that throws me off. Clearly not a normal hand.

Right. are these people not looking at the same photo or something? Weird....

Like it's impossible for a photo to look deceiving? What are you trying to get at, anyways? That the girl literally has no legs, and the entire family, school, and everyone else who has seen the girl is lying about it?

No you all are completely missing my point. I'm not saying the girl has no legs, I'm saying the photo was manipulated in such a way as to make her appear legless, and her sisters hand manipulated to be deformed. That's what the photo looks like to me, I won't pretend to know the reason why this might have been done but Im not the only one who thinks so.

Each of your posts have been heavily brigaded. I hope this hasn't discouraged you into thinking your points aren't valid - they are.

And what about the middle girl's hand? That does not look natural to me. Maybe I am wrong but certainly not the only one to make this observation.

That's not a Masonic hug. We masons chest bump.

The little girl's hand

Full portrait The girl on the left has no legs, the girl in the middle has either one or no legs, hard to tell. Girl on the left is also making the devil horn or baphomet symbol with her hand.

The girl's palm is clearly facing the camera. That's why it looks weird. It is hard to tell but I count two white stockinged legs and I can easily imagine the other girl is sitting sidesaddle in the man's lap.

I'm concerned about the coverup of sandy hook but I think this is stretching the allegations of intentional symbology pretty far. Something is up but this isn't it.

Her hand facing the camera does not explain the unnatural gap in between her thumb and forefinger.

Will you admit she has 5 fingers? Isn't that unordinary gap usually called an opposable thumb. Try sucking on your fingers like that in the mirror. It looks normal to me. As normal as devil horns can.

I didn't say she only had 4 fingers. I know that guy in the video does, but it's clear she has 5. That gap just looks weird to me.

Silly me. That hand is Actually ASL for I love You

http://cervetius.nl/by-illuminati-hand-symbols.html

The bushes sure do love the longhorns tho.

Do you really think the legs don't exist? Both girls are sitting the same, like how you would sit on a horse but on his legs.

that sign means I love you in sign language. it's not the same as the mano carnuto/hook and horns, which is a symbol meant to ward off the evil eye and was adopted by the church of satan.

Very curious indeed. Not sure about the whole satanic route, but the images are kinda eerie none the less.

Well that hand symbol is not necessarily a satanic thing. It's a masonic thing, there are photos of many US presidents throwing this hand symbol up in public as well. Perhaps symbolism like this is included so those in the know will be clued in that this event was brought to you by this group.

Also keep in mind that the freemason lodge was just across the way from the elementary school, and that guy who was running thru the woods was running toward it.

Yes, yes, I know all about the occult. I know about it more than most. Don't feed the trolls, don't feed their ego. Truth will not be found in symbolism, truth will be found in facts. Tell someone, most lay people, that these people are throwing up Illuminati signs. They will say your crazy, tell them the facts and you will move hearts and minds. Less occult, more facts. There are plenty there, but these people are so obsessed with symbols and occultism it's scary. People aren't the devil, nor are they gods or aliens. Step back from that. The truth will set you free.

That little girl is creepy as fuck

Maybe it's theorists calling children creepy as fuck that give them a bad rap. Something to think about. But you probably don't care as changing the world isn't what you want. You just want to say things on this subreddit.

If I'm wrong and you do want to change things, stop that shit.

Political correctness? Paint the world grey, why don't you.

No dude I can rap really good don't worry.

That little girl is creepy as fuck, and the whole Sandy Hook Show is a fetid mess.

Proving my point.

you are so smart

[deleted]

Who am I bullying, do tell? You could go through every single photo of me, my sister, my cousins, etc, from our childhood, and you would not find a single example of such bizarre contortions of our fingers or the blatant photo manipulation born witness to above. What is going on in these photos is not natural. It is rancid and vile.

There are no photo manipulations, I debunked it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/28enc9/that_school_we_cant_talk_about/ciaecyy

unless this girl has a severely deformed left hand, your debunking is shit.

That guy sure is passionate about defending this photo. Seriously though thank you for reassuring me that I'm not the only one who sees this.

On the eve of the equinox of equinoxes, the date so many had been expecting to bring radical change to our world, a vile poison was injected in to the collective consciousness. The alterations in this photo are sick and twisted, how did nobody in the media see this before putting it on the air and say WTF?

The alterations in this photo are sick and twisted, how did nobody in the media see this before putting it on the air and say WTF?

All they see is the teleprompter in front of them telling them what to say.

Wow my initial comment went from a plus 13 about two hours after I made it down to a negative 14 today.

There's absolutely no 'rancid and vile' photo manipulations going on, it's obvious when you actually take a close look at the position of the hand that it's totally natural: http://imgur.com/6ZyYdzC The first drawing would be the hand in a natural state. The second is with her mouth pulling back 2 fingers.

There's no mystery here.

Metal

Isn't that sign language for "I love you"?

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/ily.htm

This symbol is super common in Christian evangelical groups and really, churches in general. Awakening retreats like it too. It probably started by some pastor cleverly wishing to subvert and christianize the traditional satan hand symbol hard rock uses.

Basically, people saying, I love you, with the symbol. Also, the little girl has her hand flipped palm out.

Jesus christ...these kinds of people are the types that make conspiracy theorists look like babbling toddlers, grasping for straws where there are none, and then getting pissed at people for calling them nutjobs

Have you looked into the esoteric side of the ruling class? They are obsessed with symbology and anything they put their hands on for whatever reason is usually marked with their symbols. Call me crazy I don't give a fuck, I'm not alone in these observations.

I just think it is funny you are looking so indepth at a toddler sucking her fingers and an old dude making the metal fingers to photobomb that girl. Like seriously bud, also that little girl is just sitting side saddle so that is why you can't see her legs. And one last thing, you guys seem to really hate the freemasons here, but let me tell you. You have nothing to worry about with them. My grandfather is one and he i've been to their meetings a few times. It's just a bunch of old dudes telling stories and talking politics. Pretty harmless shit

Dat Gr33nb3rg. They should learn to delegate or cover their tracks better.

Sandy Hook was PuRe evil.

Do you not see the white leggings the middle girl is wearing? She's sitting on her father's lap like you would a horse. One leg on either side.

and as for the girl on the left, her legs aren't visible, but they can easily be behind the middle girl. She's sitting with both of her legs in between the father's legs. Just because they're hidden from view doesn't mean they aren't there. Look at my drawing again, her sitting with her legs behind the middle girl is totally natural and possible is it not?

Will you admit she has 5 fingers? Isn't that unordinary gap usually called an opposable thumb. Try sucking on your fingers like that in the mirror. It looks normal to me. As normal as devil horns can.

Silly me. That hand is Actually ASL for I love You

http://cervetius.nl/by-illuminati-hand-symbols.html

The bushes sure do love the longhorns tho.

you are so smart

I wonder if there is any data at all that supports that this kind of thing reduces gun violence?

Maybe it will change people's perceptions but somehow I don't think the people using guns to get what they want are going to be persuaded by some data points.

Did you read the quote above from the person who made the site? It absolutely did go up before the attacks, it was just changed.

I love how you trot around the word "fact" like it makes what you're saying right.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/28enc9/that_school_we_cant_talk_about/ciaindw

he's not suggesting that inquiry is based on bad reporting. He pointing out that with the type of zealous inquiry we have into an event like, any mistakes or discrepancies in the inevitably shoddy reporting is being latched onto as definitive proof of... something. People are far too eager to attribute to conspiracy what can be easily explained by simple media incompetence.

Almost all of the police footage is redacted content. I have 3 hours of this footage and about 90% of it is just black with text on the screen that says "Content Redacted"

It was reported over the police scanner on the day of the shooting that two people wearing ski masks were driving a purple van with unknown plates and may have been related to the shooting. A minute or two later in the same recording, they followed this up by saying that one of them may be wearing a nun outfit and reconfirmed that they're driving a purple van. None of this was ever explained or elaborated on afterwards to my knowledge - it's one of those things that just sort of "disappeared down the memory hole", so to speak.

http://youtu.be/ETkrxfYoQtc?t=1h34m10s

That was terribly depressing to read and I don't understand how this could possibly be a conspiracy.