Friday, February 08, 2013


The kid is asked about the Sandy Hook event.

"The kid says 'When we were having a drill, we were hiding under, like...'

"His mother (the woman sitting next to him in the black sweater) nudges him with her arm, his body moves slightly in response, and his eyes quickly dart towards her, then back again.

"Then, Dr Oz immediately taps him on the shoulder and quickly changes the subject, so the kid doesn't say anything more about it being a drill."

The McDonnells at the Fire Station after the Sandy Hook event. Photo credited to Don Emmert.

Photo credited to Adrees Latif.

Photo credited to Chloe Poisson.

Video by Ted Shaffrey.

How many children did the Lanzas have? Has the form below been faked? Are Adam and Ryan the same person?

This is what the original form looks like:

There is a box with five lines available for childrens names.

The copy of the form posted above has been altered, and more important the second page which indicates which parent is to get custody of the child(ren) and the visitation rights has been (purposely?) omitted.

Divorce papers can be downloaded here ...

79 - Cluesforum

This is the matching revision of the document in question.



Anonymous said... This is the matching revision of the document in question. It is not he same as the one you posted from the .gov site, however it still does not match teh lanza's filings

Anonymous said...

couild not find comments section for Sandy Hook story. I believe an important part of the story is exactly who took photos. I researched all photos in early Jan, all of them said : Don Emmert; I can't find out if this is a person or a company. Why if a person would so prominent a photographer for AP be present there? do people sell their photos to him? this isall i could find
Donald Emmert
AFPNYC Photo Bureau chief at AFP
Greater New York City Area | Media Production
Current: AFPNYC Photo Bureau chief at AFP (Sole Proprietorship)
View Full Profile

Anonymous said...

Many photos and videos pertain the same people and the same acts - sign of embedded journalists.

freethinker said...

Re: 'Suspicious Photojournalism Sandy Hook Shootings'
Aang, you are have a laugh, aren't you? This is one of your little tests you like to play from time to time, no?

Quotes from the SandyHookTruth blog video in italics-
What's interesting is that 4 photo journalists captured the identical image.
No they didn't, the images are NOT identical.
Comparing the 3 still images using the Don Emmert one as the reference:
the Adrees Latif photo is shot from further left and with a shorter depth of field making the background more fuzzy;
the Chloe Poisson photo is shot from lower down (different alignment with the windows) and with a greater depth of field making the background less fuzzy.
The video maker is being dishonest by saying that these photos are identical.

How is it possible for four journalists to capture the same moment?
The same location, the same time, the same expressions on the people?
It's not possible!

Absurd! Of course its possible, it happens all the time. The photographers were either herded in to one location or else they themselves chose the optimal location within the boundaries set by the police.

Note that the background is different in them which can only mean they were photoshopped.
So now the photos are not identical? And we are given the absurd conclusion that this proves photoshopping!

I believe that the video was shot with the actors in a studio/controlled setting...
And then the journalists captured still shots from it and submitted them to news sites.

I've noticed lately a blue/green screen meme is being promoted, and this is more of that.

I think people should be very wary of SandyHookTruth.

Ann Diamond said...

When I first saw that photo back in December, my first reaction was that it looked posed. Some media propagandist's notion of how to compose an award-winning "portrait of a tragedy." I still think so. The MSM are purveyors of kitsch, and this is an example.

"Kitsch is the absolute denial of shit," -- Milan Kundera

Walter Wit Man said...

Most lawyers and many pro se parties use proprietary software that generates these forms and do not use the court provided forms (which you can't save and it looks bad b/c it prints out the "print" button, etc.).

The picture of the judgment above has left out the writing on the bottom (presumably clerk writing). There is a URL which may indicate this website created the form. Also, significantly, the parties represented themselves in the beginning and at the end. This is unusual for such a huge dollar amount for the case.

Also, there is no time stamp or filing stamp one usually sees in a filed document. It's odd the "clerk" evidently wrote "copy" on the document (another version later in the scrib'd documents reads "file") instead of stamping the document. But there is a judge's signature so I would be surprised if this is indeed 'fake.'

My view is perps often use a divorce case to establish identities or cover stories. Especially amicable divorces as this seems to be.

Walter Wit Man said...


Actually, there were not many photographer around when this image would have been captured. In fact, if you look closely at this footage, allegedly from a helicopter but probably from a drone*, you can see how the scene looked:

There are many people on Youtube, etc., who have used this raw video to expose the Sandy Hook Hoax.

Here is part of that footage that shows the actors going in circles to crate the illusion of mass chaos at the firehouse:

If you look closely you can see a photographer setting up a camera on a tripod across the street from the firehouse and this looks like the location of the picture.

I strongly disagree with Freethinker and agree that the image looks faked. The angle simply do not match up for these to be from to be two different cameras. The people look the same--their angles and positions and facial gestures, etc., but the background is totally different.


Walter Wit Man said...

I think people should be very wary of SandyHookTruth.

I agree in part. One should be very wary of each particular detail because there were lots of red herrings that were intentionally laid to distract and to make 'conspiracy people' look bad. I have always thought this probable psy op is aimed against 'conspiracy people' rather than gun rights.

Just look at all the false leads . . . it is unlikely these naturally occured. For instance the Newtown Bee printed an alleged interview with a dead principal. Or the idea Lanza's dad was going to testify re LIBOR. Or that an ex-felon immediately went to Newtown pretending to be a Lanza family guy and duped media. Etc., etc.

Also, I'm not a subscriber to Masonic conspiracy theories (not ruling it out just seemed improbable so never looked into it), but I believe the perps intentionally created a masonic/satanic/occult angle to this psy op just to mess with us. This is a fascinating video in that regard:

freethinker said...

Walt, I don't know how I can make it any plainer-

Comparing the 3 still images using the Don Emmert one as the reference:
the Adrees Latif photo is shot from further left and with a shorter depth of field making the background more fuzzy;
the Chloe Poisson photo is shot from lower down (different alignment with the windows) and with a greater depth of field making the background less fuzzy.

Ignoring the video for now the 3 stills were taken from slightly different sighting lines (but the differences in distances may have been greater) and at different f-stops, but at much the same time. The 3 photos are NOT the same - the photographers' locations were different and the camera settings were different.

Anonymous said...

There is a report of a Co autopsy technition being fired for showing body of Adam Lanza o her spouse. I wondered why such information was published by MSM. perhaps by your theory it was leaked to prove there was a body! I heard of this fired worker via M Howitt in this interview and then found the actual article on the internet from Jan 2013. Since there is a gag order I am suprised they published her name!
.Mark Howitt - Press For Truth Interview (01-29-2013) Sandy Hook Documentary .

Anonymous said...

State worker fired for showing body of ALanza to spouse is Feb 2012 not Jan.

Walter Wit Man said...

This video shows a photographer getting hounded by people at the fire station:

So maybe she was not part of the hoax and they harassed her into leaving (the man giving her the middle finger allegedly lost his son--but she is bounced around a number of people pushing her away).

Once again, here is the unedited 'helicopter' [drone?]footage that shows a video photographer that may have caught the image of the grieving people: At 8:09 you can see a photographer in a red jacket using a tripod (which may be unusual for a news crew). There aren't any other photographers that I can see in this video that ranges in time from approx. 10:25 to after 11:00. Also notice you can see Gene Rosen walking aimlessly about even though he claims to be at his house with 6 children.

Here's the spot on Google maps near where the above photo was taken: I assume this photo is staged and photoshopped but haven't looked at all the angles.

There is also video of a 'casualty' being wheeled by this spot as well (the only casualty we ever see), in an odd way (e.g. only one EMT gut when there are usually two), evidently filmed by News 8 WTNH: Was the guy in the red jacket with News 8?

It's looking like the scene was carefully controlled and all the photos were staged around the same time using actors. We see a lot of the same people over and over and very few children.

The two earlier photos of about a dozen children evacuating the school, while in the school parking lot, have been time stamped at approximately 9:45 and 9:55. and were evidently taken by a Newtown Bee photographer (need to verify). Odd there are no other photos from the parking lot at this time and the two similar photos are ten minutes apart, among other things.

Also, before the HD "helicopter" footage, there was the initial "raw" helicopter footage that was of worse quality. This was from "New Chopper 12." The same station, I think ("Interactive 12"), that also released the HD "helicopter" [drone] footage.

Did someone release this HD video to expose the hoax?

Walter Wit Man said...

Yea Freethinker,

Didn't mean to write I strongly disagree about the photos. It looks photoshopped to me but I would love to see a better explanation of your argument.

But in general, I have enough evidence to now classify Sandy Hook as *probably* a psy op.

But check out the google map link. I was wrong before btw when I said it could have been taken by tripod guy, at least at his location at 8:09 in the video. He was on the West side of the street and the photo in question was taken on the South side.

The photographer had to have been within 20 feet or so. So I don't see how the very slight change in angle in the foreground action will result is such massive changes in the background.

freethinker said...

Walt, I have no doubt at all that it is a psy-op. I believe that 'truthers' are a major, perhaps even the prime, target of the psy-op. The media has been very carefully controlled to instill the maximum amount of paranoia amoungst the truthers and many false leads have been sown and I'm sure there has been some staging. The PTB are even coming out and telling you its a psy-op - how else did Gene Rosen's rehearsal video get on YT? Only his handlers could have done that. The truthers are being gamed and are falling into the trap. Now we have endless pointless discussions over microscopic details. Also many are falling into the trap of forcing the evidence to fit their pet theory; so if the background of 3 'identical' photos is different then that proves that the backgrounds have been faked. Instead if they would look carefully at the 3 photos they would see that they are not identical and are taken from 3 different viewpoints so of course the backgrounds are different!

"The photographer had to have been within 20 feet or so"
How can you tell? It is very difficult to get depth queues from photos taken with a long lens.
An example of this is the video you linked showing a Cessna flying 'very low' below the helicopter-
Here the amateur sleuth seems to be clueless about the power of modern zoom lenses (which is demonstrated by another video you linked) and supposes that the helicopter is much closer to the ground and the school than is actually the case. When looking at the video without knowledge of the lens being used we simple have no informed way to judge height and distance.

Getting back to the 3 non-identical stills. Here is the scene from Bing birds-eye view-
In the first photo we see the small tree to the right of the door in line with the 1st window to the right of the door so that gives an approximate sight-line which be along a line roughly horizontal in line with the tree on that Bing image. How far are the subjects from the background (white weatherboard wall) - can't tell. How close is the photographer from the subjects - can't tell.

"So I don't see how the very slight change in angle in the foreground action will result is such massive changes in the background. "
The change in angle between p1 and p2 doesn't look 'very slight' to me. We see significant difference in alignment between the girls head and the mother's hand. That change in angle extended from the subjects to the background will have an effect proportional to the distance from the background and we have little idea what that distance is. I suspect that you Walt and many others misjudge the distance between the subjects and the background in these photos due to the foreshortening effect of long lenses.

I see no reason at all to suppose that these 3 stills or the Ted Shaffrey video are fake. I'm really tired of folks who evidently have no idea of photography shouting hoax or fake or blue-screen at every opertunity.

Anonymous said...

This particular fake photo-post is a classic example of what's going wrong with disseminating an alternate view of the official story. Three different press photographers all piled together in a herd standing in a designated area on the periphery of a crime scene, snapping a family coming together after a tragedy at different times is a perfectly rational explanation for this. That they all focused on the same family -- does anyone feel that originality is the media's strong suit?

We were all initially confused by the many different stories that were being released by the media in the immediate aftermath of this event, and this ultimately lead many of us to believe that we could not believe the final official story that was cobbled together in the days after. The same thing is happening with Truth videos and commentary.

Most videos or blogs I've seen do contain a few genuine kernels of food for thought -- legitimately suspicious anomalies that warrant further investigation. The problem is, they are far too often obscured by wild speculation and tangents that veer off into ritual murder and a shadowy cabal of special interests pulling the strings.

The latter could even be true, for all I know. But I feel like if focus were directed on a handful of potentially provable 'smoking gun' type of anomalies, then the public might be more inclined to take notice, and then in turn prompt their legislators for more disclosure on the matter. Even if nothing is done as a result, at least you've promoted more awareness, and fostered more skepticism the next time a similar tragedy takes place.

Walter Wit Man said...

I'm really tired of folks who evidently have no idea of photography shouting hoax or fake or blue-screen at every opportunity.

Me too! For instance I do not trust Simon Shack's site (but there is good info and good people there) because they take the fake image thing too far. There are some people, like Dallas GoldBug (WellAware--Ed Chiarini), who I suspect intentionally make false claims. But then I also suspect that sometimes these perps are tasked with releasing very solid 'fakery' analyses, simply to discredit this inquiry.*

But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I do think there has been substantial "fakery" and it's an important line of inquiry--even for average citizens--especially for them, in fact.

The truthers are being gamed and are falling into the trap. Yes, but this is inevitable and I don't blame common citizens seeking the truth. Of course we citizens can be led astray . . . the perps have an incredible propaganda machine. They are laying red herrings and traps. But to hunt for the truth one must deal with these. There is no other way. We should verify and inspect everything. We should trust no one. And even us common citizens without extensive photography experience should be questioning the pros. We can figure this stuff out too. I would rather err on the side of being overly suspicious.

I think we agree more than we disagree here freethinker. I agree that it was odd they released the "audition" footage of Gene (although it's styled as a real interview). The release of the HD "helicopter" video is odd too. The whole thing is odd. Just screams planned Psy Op to me though.

Regarding the helicopter video that may have captured a drone fly by . . . you're right, the uploader may have been confused about the possible distance of the lens, but the video definitely captured a drone-like craft in the air above Sandy Hook. It's not conclusive as to what it is, but combined with the audio and other clues from the HD "helicopter" footage, seems possible it's a drone. Which makes its release strang. . .

Regarding the photos above . . .

I agree we may have been tricked into having this discussion. Even if parts of the scene, like the background, were photoshopped, it doesn't mean that much. It doesn't prove the Sandy Hook Psy Op. Although the staging of the photo matters a great deal, if true.

But if you look at this picture from a newer post at 'Sandy Hook Truth,' it's a pretty compelling argument that the photo is faked:

If you look at the Poisson photo you can see the hugging woman's wrist watch and part of her arm, whereas you can only see her hand in the other two photos. So the angle is very slightly different. But you can see the bush just to the left of the woman in one photo and in the other photo the bush is 20 feet to her left. I think I understand your point about distance but I fail to see how that could explain it. It's hard to explain in text and I would love to see a diagram for this explanation.

I don't know why they would photoshop this image though. Maybe to play with us. Maybe simply for a better composition (photojournalists have been caught 'faking' supposedly inconsequential things in the past and artistic license is a nice excuse that hides possible sinister motives).

*Is this why Mrs. Lariby's name was brought up, for instance? To discredit Culto's and other's previous research on her and the use of fake victims in 9/11? I still read Simon Shack's place and will read Dallas Goldbug stuff, just to keep abreast, but I obviously am very skeptical.

Walter Wit Man said...

More photo oddities around that Southern side of the fire station:

I understand some lenses, like a telephoto lens, will distort the depth of field*, but here it's extreme. Would a telephoto lens have the foreground car, the middle ground people and cars, and the back ground garage all in perfect focus? Is there technology that does this? Most importantly though, note that the police cars in the middle/background behind the caution tape appear in the linked video, but we see ambulances instead in the HD footage.

The second photo shown in the linked video, re the "Dickinson" street sign, seems faked as well. Apart from the added house discussed in the video, you can see from the HD footage (around 8:08) that the poles and connecting don't match the linked video, etc. It's probably an altered photo.

I wonder if that photographer we see at 8:08 in red in the HD footage is the main or only photographer that day. I think I've seen that scene he's filming of the cops getting their tactical gear on (which occurs around 11:00 according to Pat Jack on Youtube--which is late to be showing up in tactical gear).

I would think we would see more photographers present in the HD footage. Certainly more news crews which should stand out.

*An example of depth of field making a far object look close is this Argus spy drone flying at 17,500 feet that still catches a bird flying near the ground, at 2:40, which makes it appear close:

Anonymous said...

Much is done just to keep truth seekers busy, Walter Wit Man.

freethinker said...

Walt I don't have the time to put everything under the microscope. As I've said I think a large part of this psyop is to get us chasing our tales.

I think you are making a basic mistake here-
"I understand some lenses, like a telephoto lens, will distort the depth of field*, but here it's extreme. Would a telephoto lens have the foreground car, the middle ground people and cars, and the back ground garage all in perfect focus? Is there technology that does this?"

You are confusing depth of field with foreshortening. They are indirectly related but are really different things.

Depth of Field is range of distances that are in focus. For a given focal length dof is controlled by the f-stop or iris setting. With the lens iris wide open (small f number) you get a relatively shallow dof and this is often used by photographers to differentiate the subject from the background. Conversely with the lens 'stopped-down' (high f-number) or closed iris you get a very deep dof and so both foreground and background can be in focus. An extreme example of this is a pin-hole 'lens'.

Foreshortening if the effect you get with a telephoto or 'long' (long focal length) lens that reduces the appearance of perspective, or sense of depth. Press often use extremely long lenses when shooting from a distance to 'get close' to the action. Conversely Google StreetView cameras use a 'short' or wide-angle lens to get a wide view at a short distance and that makes the background look more distant. This is photography-101.

The video 'Sandy Hook fire station footage filmed elsewhere?' is a classic example. Is this guy for real? If so he's pontificating from a basis of ignorance. Or is he deliberately trying to mislead the ignorant and gullible?

Re. the pic with sighting lines - the idea is sound but I don't see where he gets the 'transits' used to make the lines.

I'm all for people viewing photographs with a critical eye, but is it too much to ask for them to have a basic education in photography before screeching to the world. These people are making the Truth Movement look like idiots.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is "making the Truth Movement look like idiots" by writing inquiring comments.
But on many sites packs of NWO shills are intimidating non-professional commenters into silence.

Walter Wit Man said...


Thanks for taking the time for a follow-up response. And reminding me of the basic photography lessons I once was more familiar with.

But I still think the photos we are discussing are likely "faked." For instance, here is an interesting experiment with long lenses and small focal points, where he moves closer to his subject and farther from his subject to determine how the "flattening effect" (which is what I think you meant instead of "foreshortening") is effected:

Notice that the flattening effect is lessened the farther away he gets from his subject (Kermit the Frog). Also notice the depth of field is shortened the farther away he gets from his subject (which was sort of my original point).

Re the "Sandy Hook fire station footage filmed elsewhere" video . . . can you explain what lens settings would produce the result we see at :22 in the video?

Looks like the a long lens to me. The camera man must be across Riverside Rd. because you can see people walk in front of the camera earlier in the video. So it looks like the camera is a good 70-75 feet from the main subjects at the Southeast corner (a corner that appears to have a lot of *fake* footage associated with it). In fact, this shot was likely taken near where the red jacket cameraman is seen in the HD footage at 8:08. So the garage in the background is nearly 300 feet away!

Since the camera is so far away from the subject would it really produce such a flattening effect with such a large depth of field re the garage in the background? It looks much different than the Kermit Frog experiment above. I've never seen such an extreme flattening and depth of field. Can you or anyone find examples?

Regarding the "Dick[i][e]nson St." sign picture. I won't bother you with more analysis even though I spent way too much time on it. It's complicated to discuss these things in text. But the pictue does seem "fake" (the poles and connecting wires don't match other photos and the white house in is background is likely added in, among other oddities). I'm not sure if it's just enhanced reality video software of some sort or if they are photoshopping it to mess with us, or what.

I agree with you that the perps want us chasing our tails. I don't agree people analyzing the video fakery are hurting any movement. I'm giving them a break because I think the skepticism is sound and a few false leads is natural. Yes, if someone is intentionally leading us astray, (like Simon Shack?), then we should expose them and avoid them. Maybe 'Sandy Hook Truth' is leading us/me astray.

Furthermore, how can we find the solid leads if we don't follow the less solid leads until we are sure? Does an investigator beat himself up because he pursued a hunch that turned out to be wrong? Or does he try to learn from his mistake and move on to the next hunch? The video fakery hunch is well founded. We have no choice but to be citizen journalists and media fakery investigators. It's a real phenomenon and probably the most important tool of control the perps have.

freethinker said...

Walt, you're right I got the meaning of foreshortening inverted :blush: I knew what I meant :)

"Notice that the flattening effect is lessened the farther away he gets from his subject (Kermit the Frog)."
No it's the foreshortening (using the proper defn) that is reduced, that's the point he's making. Perspective flattening (inverse of foreshortening) is increased.

Also he says "Long Lens Perspective: Long lenses are believed to have a "flattening" effect, which is to say they bring the background closer to the foreground. I contend that it's the distance, not the lens, that creates the effect." which is exactly right; its not the focal length but the camera to subject distance that affects the perspective. However long lenses are generally used at long distances and short at close-up to control the image size.

"Also notice the depth of field is shortened the farther away he gets from his subject (which was sort of my original point)."
That's because the focal length of the lens is being increased. Depth of field for any fixed f-stop reduces as the focal length increases. He's using a wide opening ("f5.6 was chosen because it was the largest aperture available at all focal lengths") deliberately to get a shallow dof.

I think these will help explain dof- (mouse over photo to change f-stop)

"can you explain what lens settings would produce the result we see at :22 in the video?"
Long distance, long lens and small aperature.

"So it looks like the camera is a good 70-75 feet from the main subjects ... So the garage in the background is nearly 300 feet away!" Seems about right. Consider that in the shot the garage wall looks, very roughly, about 1/2 person height whereas in reality it would be about 2 person height so a ratio of ~4 and you estimated a background/subject ratio of 300/75, or 4. What's wrong with that? I don't see anything suspicious at all about this footage.

Walter Wit Man said...

Long distance, long lens and small aperature.

I agree this is the only rational explanation for this if it were true. But don't pro zoom lenses have smaller aperatures which would lead to shallow DOF? So what "zoom" lens can focus on a subject 75 feet away, and have the foreground subject 20 feet away just as focused as the background object 300 feet away. I'm interested in the particular settings. 500 mm/F-8? 1000mm?

Anyway, this research dispels any doubt I have:

These photos re the Southwest corner have been enhanced. What explains the lack of shingles on the building behind the people? What explains the dark lighting of some objects on such a sunny day?

Also, note from the video the scene of the grieving McDonnels pictured in the post. The huggers are rocking and the guy looking to the sky is moving around so the slightly different angles of the 4 pics above can all be from this one camera. They just added different backgrounds in to make it seem like 4 photographers.

Do you finally concede freethinker?

freethinker said...

No, but I give up. Feel free to believe what you want.

Anonymous said...

"Sandy Hook fire station footage filmed elsewhere" video
shows at 1:15 6 ambulances parked in front of the
brown building (garage) that should be visible at 0:40,
so the video of the actors playing desperate grieving families,
including father McDonnell trying to hide his laughing,
was shot at another occasion.

Same is shown at higher resolution at 5:33 in
"Sandy Hook. Conspiracy Fact! Proof the media is using phoney pictures and video."

Walter Wit Man or freethinker please take screenshots,
arrange them next to each other in one big image
with captions including source,
upload to an image hosting site and provide a link here.

Walter Wit Man said...

That's a great suggestion anonymous. I need to take this to the next level. Since this is new and I'm busy, I can't promise that I'll do this on this thread, but good suggestion.

Anyway, we don't *need* a new picture because the Ted Shaffrey video screen shot shown above, in the original post, tells us everything we need to know. Scroll up and look at the white building behind the 'grieving' actors, specifically the shingles in the background. The shingles are blurred behind the people. This explains the different backgrounds in the different pictures! The changed the background to cover up this mistake, maybe.

In any event, it's evidence of tampering because the shingles look normal in other parts of the wall and in other photos. Nothing can explain this effect that I know of--it can't be a reflection issue.

Plus look at the different shadows in the background compared to the middle and fore grounds. The people are in sun but the background is overcast. It was a very sunny day all around as seen from the copter shots.


I did it! I downloaded Gimp photo software and uploaded this comparison picture to imgur:

The train photo is credited to Cameron Knight, who freethinker linked to above:

This is the greatest depth of field I've seen from what appears to be a fairly long lens with the subject in the middlish ground. The photographer doesn't give his full setting though. Notice we don't see quite the flattening effect with the trains as we do with the garage. Those objects are similar size in real life (I think). Apparently, the distance between railroad ties is 2 feet. So maybe the train is 150 feet from the man? My estimate of the distance in the Handy Hook shots may have been conservative. People on Youtube have measured the garage as being almost 300 feet from the SE corner, while the camera man is close to another 75 feet away. The garage to be a good 150 feet farther away from the camera than the trains are from the camera, or about twice as far.

Closer, but the garage still seems unrealistic to me.

Anonymous said...

Walter Wit Man you are "busy" grasping at straws.

freethinker you are right they are detractors.
But you failed to see the scene was staged more then once.
See 5:00 PM comment.

Site Meter