15 votes

Who is Behind These Anonymous Wordpress Blogs Spreading Sandy Hook Disinformation? You Are Being Made Fools Of.

Taking heed of Max Igan's excellent observation that there seems to be a deliberate and sophisticated campaign to send Sandy Hook speculation in all directions, I have noticed a common feature of string of "new revelations" which keep making Sandy Hook "stranger and stranger," in the words of many of us.

I am talking about many now-debunked stories like the school was never operational, that Adam Lanza died the day before, and now something about an oil pipeline. It is always good to ask questions, but rule number one of journalism is that if a discovery is important enough to be taken seriously, it is important enough to put a name behind the research. An anonymous person going to such and such a public records website or office and reproducing a screen shot of documents, in the era of Photoshop, means absolutely nothing.

What I am trying to say is many people with probing minds are being made fools of by red herrings tossed here and there to the detriment of other very good lines of questioning.

One of the few ways to completely hide source identity on the Internet is a Wordpress blog. Notice that these two do not even have contact information. Wordpress allows user profiles and contact information to be completely hidden. Also notice that these are fairly slick productions.



Note the tag cloud of the first includes "extraterrestrials, drake eliteETs, channeled messages, flying saucers, sirius..." and so forth. Search engines pick up these key words and associate any Sandy Hook questions with them.

In the case of "Adam Lanza died the day before" allegedly taken from the Social Security Death Index, in which screen shots of the record have been posted, any journalist knows that the public document of record in deaths is the state death certificate, signed and notarized by a public officer. Nothing else means squat, and if another source conflicts, that source is wrong.

I write this because we need to start thinking like researchers, as it is clear, as Max Igan says, that we are being subject to a secondary assault designed to make all skeptics look like kooks.

The originator of the "school was never operational" theory, who has a real picture and a real identity, has admirably retracted her speculation after checking with town budget records and doing real research. She writes in an update to the description of the Youtube in which she floated the theory:

"Update: 2/5/13 - I was wrong. I have gone through the Newtown Board of Education minutes and videos from 2010 forward and have found that Sandy Hook was mentioned and was an operating school and was on presentations for budgets. I did find that it had the largest expenditures for the aging building than any other school in Newtown. When I am wrong I say I am."

But that didn't stop anonymous Wordpress blogs like 2012TheBigPicture from continuing to peddle it.

Real live journalist Ben Swann has suggested a real course of action for the public to actually answer questions about Sandy Hook: demand release of the surveillance video. Also, 911 call audio is routinely released, in which the actual caller from the scene of the crime is heard talking with the police dispatcher. Where is it?

There is even a binding White House petition which would require the White House to issue a written response to a demand to release the video. As of now it has a measly 5,000 signatures out of 25,000 required by Feb. 10th. So it looks like the smoke and mirrors are working very well.

Every rabbit hole we go marching down distracts us from efforts to demand these. Any perpetrators of a possible false flag would know this.

There are many questions. The State's Attorney of CT himself has not ruled out further accomplices in Sandy Hook, and has even stated fears for witness safety. Don't fall for anonymous blogs posting the latest "new discovery." As Igan says, that could be part of the plan.

My dear friends who question authority, the backbone of our republic: if the "new revelation" cannot be traced to a real person with a sincere interest in the truth, and linked to true documents, not just screen shots, don't circulate it. Keep questioning.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

there's a lot

mentally ill people out there.

For a real insight try searching youtube for 'gang stalking.' Gang stalking is a tactic that is actually used by intelligence services BUT there's also a lot of paranoid schizophrenics think the government is gang stalking them. So it muddies the waters. Same is kind of true with conspiracies. For every well researched blog there's thousands of blogs from people who are challenged mentally in one way or another.

I'm not saying that accounts for all the disinfo just some.

Don't hate on all wordpress blogs

I created one for free because I got tired of emailing 100+ people everyday trying to wake them up. They now all know they can go to my blog if they want to read my posts and ramblings. And I also intentionally created mine so that it does not give out my personal information (at least not without some effort) because a lot of the things I post likely fit into the very broad catagory of promoting subversive and anti-government propaganda.

BTW - I love Max Igan. I check his site almost daily for new podcasts to listen to at night. I typically check Max, Allan Watts, The Corbett Report, and the daily 3 hour show from whatreallyhappened. My wife and I don't watch TV and we really have enjoyed the routine of me queing up several hours of podcasts each night that we listen to in bed when we used to watch TV before going to sleep.

But I do agree with your point. Like many, I still have a lot of unanswered questions about sandy hook but it started getting out of hand on alt websites in my view. Plus I still feel like 9/11 is key to waking the masses.

People Are Free...

...to have their opinions, whether they seem foolish or crazy. And no, not everyone with questions needs to have honed research skills or journalism credentials. In this age, anyone can put whatever they like (mostly)in their own blog and others can share it wherever they like. This is freedom. Sure, it's kinda messy and crazy and some of it is good and some of it is not. But that's why we exercise our own rights and abilities in deciding what to believe or not believe. The fact is, these blogs have some information that's pretty good and some opinion that folks will think is off the chart. But this is not the definition of "disinformation." It's speculation. To paint people as disinformants (and where's the proof of this...not opinion, proof?)is a bit hasty. It's fine to encourage everyone to do solid research (and I completely agree), but the tone of this is condescending and disrespectful. And the fact that someone is anonymous is not an automatic discreditor. Are all of our names on the DP "real" or are many/most just mock names (which keeps one anonymous)? Folks can make up their own minds about what they'll consider compelling and whether a person needs to supply their real name in order to be taken seriously. The critics of "conspiracists" be damned. It won't (doesn't) matter to them whether you've done sound reserach or not -- they will still call you nuts.

No argument with the right to post whatever you want

...but taking it seriously based on a few screen shots on an anonymous blog is another matter. That includes circulating it and having us argue over it like a pack of chuckleheads. If the records are online at an official site like a town clerk's office, link to the official site so they can be viewed, not screen shots. If the Social Security Death Index says Lanza was dead, think: is that proof of anything? No. But you'll have hasbarat online saying "PROOF! ULTIMATE ABSOLUTE FINAL PROOF LANZA WAS DEAD!" while secretly they are laughing their heads off at us.

What supplying your real name does is tell people a person is staking his/her credibility on this, which inspires confidence. It is not necessary if you have a exhibit which others can independently confirm as true. But if you expect someone to take your word for something, then why would we believe anyone who is anonymous?

And the critics of "conspiracists" will only stop calling us nuts when we stop giving them screen shots as proof of anything. You now have a CT State's Attorney who asked for search warrants to remain sealed due to the existence of other "possible suspects" and fear for the "safety and well-being" of other witnesses. How does that slip past us while we are arguing over a bunch of photoshops?

"Sandy Hook DA cites 'potential suspects,' fears witness safety"

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Oh, I see...

One can post what they want, but it must not be worded in such a way as to be misconstrued as final proof. Oh, I see. And one can post what they want, but the "we're afraid of being laughed at" committee says one must provide links, not screen shots (even though a lot of readers appreciate visuals...maybe the requirement is "at least" the links). And one can post what they want, but others are not allowed to share it without qualification that it isn't to be taken seriously b/c it's only screen shots and let's talk about it but no arguing b/c that is chuckleheaded. Maybe the rule is, unless it is vetted by the research commissars, just don't share it. Seriously? One must wonder, can the claim in the title of this post "SPREADING SANDY HOOK DISINFORMATION" stand up to scrutiny of vetting? Who sets the criteria for whether that is a true claim? What are the standards determinative of disinformation and have those standards been objectively and credibly established? Do we just take your word for it? Cuz I don't know who the hell you are since you do not supply your real name. What about labeling people as "stupid" or "imbecile" ... is that chuckleheaded or does chuckleheading only happen when people are trying to debate whether information is "dis" or "mis" or "credible?"

We all know supplying a real name adds weight to credibility. You miss the point. But it does not hold true that anonymity negates credibility. Again, this is for individuals to decide for themselves.

It is naive to believe critics will ever take real evidence and concede to the truth-seekers. Did you look at the example I provided?

It's my belief that the people here you think are "being made fools" are not being made fools. That's a projection of yours, b/c you don't like to be laughed at. Many of us here are unconcerned with the opinions of the "mainstreamers." The DP'ers here are plenty capable of weeding through the mess, even if they (we) get sidetracked in wrong directions sometimes. Few of these fellow truth-seekers missed the DA press release. Many of them saw it. And you should know that the DAs "ooohhh" language is legal boiler used as a standard to give the judge grounds to keep eyes off the evidence for some time to come. It does NOT necessarily mean they are admitting anything more than is already out there. But hold your breath and keep alert.

My overall thrust is that you could encourage your fellow truth-seekers to be careful without coming off as such a know-it-all. Let the hunt happen. Your way is not the only path to truth. Be respectful, even if you think people are being chuckleheads. Else you are guilty of what you protest.

I don't think you really care about an answer,

but to answer your question "what is determinative" of real evidence, for example, a scanned death certificate for Lanza with the wrong date on it and the registrar's name so people can call him/her, not a screen shot of a Social Security website. It's not rocket science. Any other questions?

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Took a While to See This (going back to February!), but...

The question was, what are the standards determinative of "disinformation." The question was NOT, "what is real evidence". Neither was it, "what is NOT evidence," about which your response asserts an opinion. If you think you are going to answer a question, please answer the actual question, rather than making your own statement under the disguised attempt to answer a question, which actual question you did not answer in your biased statement. So, thanks for the effort but completely off the mark. I do "evidence" for a living -- I know what real evidence is in the strictest, most rigorous use of it. Screenshots are not hard evidence, per se -- on this, we agree. But a screenshot is also not ipso facto "disinformation" simply b/c it may or may not be rendered from hard evidence. You made a claim of disinformation and do not have the real evidence to support that claim. Nice try, though.


If you vote me down, Max Igan says you're a disinformant. LOL ;0 Humor, people, humor! Lighten up!

PS wouldn't vote you down, what you said is fair

enough. Max igan has blown this double disinfo campaign wide open. My view of Aussies has gone up appreciably. (I seem to run across a lot of Neocon Aussies...)

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Here's An Example...

Of how sound research (scholarship and studies) are completely dismissed by the bloviating critics of truth-seekers. This one is O'Reilly hammering Dr. Jim Fetzer of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."


LOL. I had forgotten how mean Bill O'Reilly is to people who disagree with his view of the world.

The irony of the whole thing

The irony of the whole thing is that the people who keep perpetuating these conspiracy myths think that they are uncovering something that nobody wants them to talk about, when in reality the government probably loves it because it destroys the credibility of libertarianism.


Maybe a mistake is having a hypothesis, finding a few facts that make it plausible and then jumping to the conclusion that you have proved it. If there is a cover-up going and if there is huge psy-op budget it makes sense that we will have dis-info.

It is helpful when people make timelines of report "facts" to see if they are plausible. There is a Memory Hole blog where people do just that. http://memoryholeblog.com/


You could also say

Who is Behind These Anonymous MSM reports Spreading Sandy Hook Disinformation? You Are Being Made Fools Of.

As they never state the persons name, just Anonymous law enforcement

Long story short

A conspiracy is only as good as the details. I've heard several over the years and said "Meh", "This person is grasping at straws". However, Given that each mass shooting this year changes so quickly and vastly from initial reports to something that falls inline with a big Gov agenda brings one to questions. When you question and there is no answer or a seeming wall of confusion then you dig deeper only to find more walls/retractions/half-truths/spaceships ect.

Keep it simple stupid: If it looks like they're hiding something, they are which implicates them.

The Author of SandyHookTruth.WordPress.Com is ...

Sunshine05 here on Daily Paul
(see: http://www.dailypaul.com/273297#comment-2943060 ).

The author explains the purpose behind the blog here (see: http://sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/about/#comment-977 ).

In a nutshell sunshine05 believes Sandy Hook is a hoax, I assume because of the lack of verifiable evidence and dubious reporting by the media that explains the circumstances behind the case.

She/he says in the DP thread you post:


sunshine05 said:

"I don't think Nancy or Adam existed at all. They aren't in People Finders. I know that people say there are mistakes there all the time but I just don't think they existed. It is my gut feeling."

People Finder is not a definitive source for your existence. Birth records are. He/she bases it on a "gut feeling."

Next is "the whole thing is a hoax" and no one died, which is rightfully repulsive to the public. You CANNOT say something like that to a family that lost a child based on a "gut feeling." You CANNOT repeat this based on what this person said and maintain any credibility.

We have either uncovered an agent, an imbecile, or a very sick person. This is who they are trying to associate anyone who does not swallow the official story with. It is a campaign to demonize ALL questioners, as Max Igan says. We MUST get smarter than them, and fast.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Well said.

I've been burned on this a couple times, and I am no newbie to this. I do feel like there are traps being set. I feel like the traps are being set because they are trying to hide something really nasty, and I want to get to that really nasty thing and expose it.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.


Me too. Sandy Hook is my first big scandal. I poured over everything I could find. It got to a point where it hit me, the scandal was obvious and nothing else mattered but the truth. As to the people that were satisfied with the "official" version, I just had to point out that even they could not substantiate their convictions because in fact there wasn't any "Facts". The sole, single fact thus far is that it just doesn't add up.

This has led me to my next point. We as a nation have been setting ourselves up for these types of events. What can we expect when the public is so bloodthirsty. Sandusky was convicted without any real physical evidence, Armstrong was wrecked having never failed a drug test. Mind you, I'm not necessarily defending one or the other, just stating that our society has foregone it's heritage of truth and justice. So it's no surprise to me that such scandals are so ridiculous.

Know me, and you will know of the men and women that forged my soul.

bin Laden was executed without ever being charged with a crime

and all of America rejoiced. Truth is, some poor, duped body-double was executed without ever having anything to do with any attacks on this country, since bin Laden died of kidney failure soon after 9-11.
There is a sign in a town near here: "Bin Laden. Justice Served." The irony makes me want to laugh and cry all at once. No charges. No arrest. No trial. Just execution (and then kill the executioners, just for good measure.) We're #1! We're #1! In imprisoning our citizens.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.