2 votes

I Formally Accuse the "No One Died at Sandy Hook" Sources of Being Government Shills

Posted on behalf of James_Madison_Lives

by James_Madison_Lives

There are many good questions about Sandy Hook which have gone and continue to go unanswered. Where is the surveillance video, as Ben Swann asks, to determine that Lanza was the shooter, and the only one? What psych meds was he on? Why did CNN air false footage, provable dead-to-rights and beyond a shadow of a doubt, of a school purported to be Sandy Hook, but which was not?

Where are the two wounded witnesses?

Anyone can start to see that the extreme "no one really died" scenarios and "proofs" have a few things in common. The one now circulating from NoDisinfo.com "Proof the Sandy Hook Children are a Hoax: Barden’s Fake Pictures" is a perfect case in point.

- They are by definition inconclusive, no one can prove they are frauds one way or the other. Something might be Photoshopped, or it might not be. We can never know.

- They tend to demonize skeptics by placing them in the camp of "no children died," which is repugnant to many people. Now anyone asking good questions about Sandy Hook must work uphill against this association.

In Facebook posts the public is beginning to attack all skeptics with this association before ever reading an article, with "Not this disgusting crap again..."

Finally, the nature of the Internet means it could be anyone pushing this agenda. This is beginning to smell like very sophisticated disinfo, aimed at demonizing all skepticism toward the official narrative. Even Prof. James Tracy says he believes children died, although Anderson Cooper tried to imply otherwise.

Focus on getting the surveillance video like Ben Swann says, and the psych records for any SSRIs for Lanza. To say that actors may have been inserted at key points in the narrative in order to help with spin is one thing. To say no one died is another. If one asserts no one died, let him or her come forth with their real name. Who are you? I accuse those who are originating these stories, like NoDisinfo.com, of being government shills, working with assets inside newspapers like the Daily Mail (which published the "photoshopped" picture.)

If this was a false flag attack, it is of such enormity that it would be sprung with a clever double smoke screen in place such as this. I do not condemn those who innocently fall into the trap. I only urge them to take heed.

Come out of the shadows, shills. I accuse you. Who are you?

This posted on behalf of long-time and respected poster James_Madison_Lives who has been banned from posting by Johnsonite mods with no reason given...more info here

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

ok 2 relevant questions

why would , CNN pass off aerial footage of a drill being held a st rose of Lima School as actual footage from the sandy hook school ?

why did andersons nose disappear at the so called funeral he attended ?

anderson cooper discussing the conspiracy theory
"the government would hire crisis actors, whom i have never even heard of, to go into newtown...."

really, he has been a reporter since i was in high school and he has never heard of crisis actors ? really cooper ,


the round the robin part was interesting , or the so called recycling. i dunno looks legit to me , why would people normally be doing that ? in one door out another dont make sense, for hours on end ?
nuff said

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Cyril's picture


After reading Michael's comment below, and now the post...

... this just sounds plain WEIRD to me.

When the Sandy Hook killings came up in the news, with their oh-so-timely-wise convenience for pushing the gun ban argument, it didn't take me long to start smelling something fishy.

I'm like most of us, or should I say, the vast majority of americans... I still don't know "the truth" - put simply: just what actually happened.


I know, for I can ... just... read... what perverted government power could do, in the past.

Keyword: Goebbels.

I didn't even exclude the possibility that the killings could have been performed by... an agency. We may have seen many more innocents falling, by the past, out of the "operation" of some "agency(ies)" ... like, e.g., 11+ years ago.

Keyword: towers.

And now, what? Some of us question whether there were ANY killings of children at all, and if it was instead a large scale disinfo PSY-OP. What is "wrong" with that? Haven't we seen large scale gov't-operated propaganda operations by the past, in many countries?

"The simpler, the bigger the lie, and the more repetitions of it, they'll eventually buy it..."

So, who, in their sane mind, would NOT prefer to have to denounce a PSY-OP -if there is ANY chance for such theory to be investigated- where NO kids were killed instead of one event, PSY-OP OR NOT, where the kids DID die?

I PRAY no kids were killed and we are only grossly manipulated as we might find later or, maybe, never.

Yet, "some" do not even want ANYONE QUESTIONING ANYTHING?

They want SO HARD the official story be true, and that a crazy went postal and performed the officially reported slaughter?

Mind boggling.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

We have THREE scenarios:

1) I and others who promote the idea that the entire Sandy Hook event is a HOAX are government shills.

2) You and others that promote any other story (ie. official story or multiple shooters theories etc.) who distract people away from the HOAX theory are government shills.

3) Either one of us is just misguided.

I believe it is most often scenario #2 and DO believe in government intelligence shills. However if you believe in scenario #1, you also MUST believe there are LIVING, BREATHING government shills & actors that are actively perpetuating a LIE. That is the foundation of my premise of media fakery and hoaxes that we have LIVING ACTORS perpetuating a LIE, both online and offline. That automatically contradicts those that do not believe ACTORS can continue to keep up the BIG LIE (ie. 9/11 & Sandy Hook). This applies to everyone in the 'truth' movement.
Your formal accusation SUPPORTS my theory that what we have is a psyop with: media, actors, propagandists, disinfo agents, fake videos, and fake photos. Your move.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Michael Nystrom's picture

I formally accuse you of being James Madison Lives

Cut the charade already. Think I can't see IP addresses? I've let this go for a long time, but it is getting annoying.

Knock it off with the joking around, or I'll ban this account of yours as well. How many others do you have that you'll start posting under?

Most of your posts are useless, and if you want to continue playing this game of deception, you'll suffer the same fate as your fake doppleganger JML.

Is that clear? I accuse you. Come clean or leave. This is ridiculous.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Michael have you been drinking?


Release the Sandy Hook video.

Hey Michael

I don't know the background story, but I'm curious why JML was banned? Just curious. You don't have to disclose if you don't want of course. Thanks!

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Michael Nystrom's picture

Basically, he was banned for being annoying

I didn't want to go down the road of "Let's write in Ron Paul!" and have that go on for another few months. He wouldn't let it drop. And there is only so much I'll put up with from someone before I give them the boot.

I really felt like he was pushing a useless agenda and I was sick of hearing about it like it was something awesome and viable. And I didn't think it was a worthy agenda to get people wrapped up in.

I run a pretty loose ship around here, but sometimes it does need a hand on the steering wheel. I think we're at one of those times now again.

I had to ban a couple other people recently. They wanted to fight about Rand - literally, shirts off, fists cuffed, ready to throw punches. One for, one against. I banned them both. I don't need that around here. I don't want that around here. Mainly, I don't want to have to deal with it. I mean, this is my job.

Like all this Sandyhook talk. Does it serve a purpose?

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Got it..

Yeah that makes sense. Hey it's a private website and a lot of people don't realize free speech doesn't apply in private forums. But yeah this website has been a great place to exchange very diverse topics. That's funny to hear about the pro/anti Rand posters you had to ban. I can totally see how that can happen and will be interested to see how the whole Rand Paul thing plays out in a few years.

Anyways, the Sandy Hook event is one of my favorite topics and I'm glad to see a lot of interest in general. I think the content here about Sandy Hook is as good as any out there on the web. I think the topic is just an extension of 9-11 which is also a very important topic to many here. I remember someone tell me that in general the most ardent liberty activists are 9-11 truthers, whether they openly discuss it or not. I agree. I think it's because those who are truthers can see how completely twisted our current reality is and see how much there is to do.

Ideas are powerful and will lead to action in various forms. The same holds for truth. Just as lies get embedded in our history, last beyond our lifetimes, and echo in the chambers of the universe, so can truth. Like they say, the truth shall set us free and maybe someday we shall be.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

JML was banned after, first, a thread of his was deleted which

promoted a Ron Paul write-in candidacy, and then published the below post regarding the site seeming to become "The Daily Johnson."

Thread at RonPaulForums: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395479-Ron-Paul-...

Mr. Nystrom: Please Update Policy or Change the Name of the Site

By James_Madison_Lives

Hi Michael. Hope you are well. I'm writing because I have been coming to Daily Paul for awhile to learn, discuss, and support Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. It certainly made sense that a place called "Daily Paul" would be the right place. Now I have a hard time doing this, because it is not about Ron Paul anymore but a certain Libertarian candidate whom I won't name.

But first let us examine the possible parameters of one thing we all hold dear, free speech. It is admirable and fitting that on a Ron Paul site, speech would be hallowed. And it is. So the next question is, does it fit into a website which hallows free speech to constrain the parameters of that speech? I submit, good sir, that it does.

Now it would be peculiar if a handful of stock car, NASCAR racing aficionados, were to gather enough numbers to vote enough articles up to make this look like this was a NASCAR site. Would that be right? Naturally an article here or there about Danila Whatsername, or whoever that hot babe race car driver is, would be welcomed. We are not afraid of free speech and we like variety. The question is at what point, in a concerted assault, does Daily Paul become Daily NASCAR?

If I want to discuss and learn about the thinking, writings, policies, campaign strategies, and the general politics of Richard Petty, I'll go to Richard Petty dot com.

Let us see what others have done when confronted with the same problem. One example is one of our nemesis, the evil orange empire, Daily Kos (yes sign of the cross here!) They as well had numerous episodes of hijack, in which a cabal of gleeful partisans, non-Democrats, caused holy hell and took over the thread lists and had operator names going to utterly derail any discussion about Democrats, which Markos, who owned the servers and the bandwidth, wanted it to be about. He finally put out a mission statement:

This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together...It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.

Marko's ball, Marko's call. More over it made sense, since sticking to a topic of discussion is a very reasonable way to run a discussion without impinging on free speech. When a person gets off the topic now and then, no problem. When too many do over and over, perhaps it is time for the founders to say, you are in the wrong place.

It is neither fair nor right to allow anyone but Ron Paul to profit, trade, and imply some endorsement by overwhelming a site using Ron Paul's name. I propose that this site clarify that it is a vehicle for the discussion of the thinking, writings, and campaign news for Ron Paul, dedicated, as that devil Markos might say, to the electoral victory of Ron Paul. We say this about his write-in campaigns now, and about Dr. Paul's possible run for president in 2016 as he hinted on the Jay Leno Show.

It's not fair. I came here to read about Ron Paul.


Release the Sandy Hook video.

This is a private website.

1) It's up to Michael and the mods to decide what is disruptive or inappropriate to the website and act accordingly. It's been generally free and open especially when you consider there are probably a lot of people who aren't friends of liberty on this site.

2) It's also up to Michael and gang to decide the direction of the website.

3) The website name has changed to represent: Peace-Gold-Liberty. It wasn't even named DailyRonPaul and even it was there's nothing really wrong with a private fan site using a celebrity or public figure's name.

4) Why all the complaints?

Anyways. I wouldn't have responded to your complaint because usually these 'complaint' posts don't get much traction unless it's excessively bumped up by the originator.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Yep, the extreme of the extreme is always that way.

Used to undermine legitimate questions and concerns.


Only a matter of time

before a thread like this popped up.

Yes, they are government shills. So aren't the people who call government shills government shills. And the people who call those people government shills.

Let's just get it over with and claim that every single person who has ever visited, is currently visiting, or ever will visit the DP are all government shills.

Sorry, but the entire "shills" argument that pops up around here on a near-daily basis is useless to me, since there's almost never a way to prove or disprove the claim.

Are there shills around here? Probably, but many here are already doing the shill's job by tearing each other apart with nonsensical witch hunts over ultimately trivial bullshit.

A signature used to be here!

You misunderstand the post

This video Explaining Project Sandy Hook is the most penetrating analysis I have seen yet. The target is not the 2nd Amendment. That is the bait to incite us to civil war. All questioning of official narratives is the target, by associating them with heartless people who harass the parents of dead children. They want to make all skeptics look like mentals, and mentals you lock up.

This may be the most important video you have ever watched, worth every minute, and I say that about very few videos.

Project Sandy Hook Explained:

Release the Sandy Hook video.

I understood it fine, but thanks for the link

my point was that the "shill" term gets thrown around so often that it's losing its punch, kind of like witch/commie/racist/terrorist/etc.

It wasn't so much the content of your post as it was the title that I was responding to. Perhaps I should've clarified.

I'll watch the video you linked to though, thanks. I've largely stayed away from SH threads, but I do try to keep up with the various angles.

A signature used to be here!

I think the video says what the post is trying to say, but

does it much better. It is one of the most concise and compelling arguments I have ever seen. Yes, please watch. Thank you. I think I'm done offending people here for the night. I need a drink.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

This is where we could be heading if we do not pierce this


"Could a revolution be staged? They are not coming after everyone, they are coming after us."


Release the Sandy Hook video.


"The Mossadniks or whoever was behind this likely false flag are very clever."

Mossadniks? Where'd you come up with that? After writing an article about how we should be cautious about believing unsubstantiated theories, you throw in another one?

JML has edited after consideration of your comment.

thank you.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Mossadniks OR whoever

That is not a definitive statement. It is open conjecture. Furthermore, there is no conjecture that Mossad and rogue factions of the US government were behind another false flag, 9/11, according to former Director of Studies at US Army War College Dr. Alan Sabrosky, and as documented in Ryan Dawson's excellent documentary.

Therefore if they can be behind one false flag marked by utter ruthlessness, and a clear political agenda, they can be behind another. No proof, you are right. But reasonable in my opinion. You may disagree, which is fine.

Release the Sandy Hook video.