The Sandy Hook Problem – Emailing a Friend
I have a good friend presently enrolled as a graduate student in photo-journalism. During her recent holiday visit my friend disclosed that she is acquainted, through college, to a married couple having close ties to a family whose youngest child was allegedly gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The wife was so distraught, having known the child as well as being close to the bereaved parents, that she took a bus to New York right after hearing the tragic news.
For the purpose of this column, I have changed names of my friend to “Mary Doe” and those of her married acquaintances to “Dick” and “Jane”. As a skeptic of the official Sandy Hook narrative, I am particularly interested in gleaning as much information, albeit hearsay, as possible from a source that I consider personally to be reliable. “Mary” questions my own inclination to view the Sandy Hook narrative as highly problematical. Now that she has returned to college, we have ongoing email correspondence, a current recap of which I have decided to publish herein:
Date: 12:34 PM 1/8/2013
Subject: Touching Base
It was great to have your company here again. Today is another in the high 70’s, as the day before you left. This is just a little reminder that I am looking forward to the details you glean from Dick and, hopefully, Jane about the bereaved parents and their poor murdered child up in Connecticut. It is truly a terribly heart-wrenching situation.
There are a number of newer comments on a recent column at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/06/sandy-hook-analogies-with-the-london-77-bombings/. I know that you are busy with your regular graduate school work. However, I urge you to take time to go over all comments to the above. Journalism is your field. The “new media” and non-“accredited” intelligent men and women are reviewing and questioning “authoritative” reporting and opinions. Your background and disposition will serve you well in becoming part of this over the coming years.
Date: 01:02 AM 1/9/2013
Subject: “Professional” Journalism
The rules and practices of journalism are valuable. They are not trade secrets and can be learned by anyone of reasonable intellect. The problem today is inherent in all vertically structured institutions: corporations, media, military, etc. In the case of conglomeratized media, regardless of the skill and integrity of employees the decision to publish or not lies with editors who risk losing their jobs if they do not comply with owners’ demands. The seminal event of our times was 9/11. There have been many fine books written on the subject. Go into any large chain bookstore and see what you can find on the subject. It is not there. Why? Check out the ownership. Same is true for newspapers. Nary an article. Instructors in academia lose jobs if they broach the subject. Censorship is very much alive and well, First Amendment notwithstanding.
The internet, with all its warts, remains our final bastion of free expression in this country. The censors are very active on Google, YouTube, FaceBook, etc., removing items as fast as they can. Their problem is thousands of users who quickly copy and re-post material. It is a war for truth and information. Saying that there is junk online and that amateur researchers lack professional skills is true but what is our alternative today? The sins of today’s media are, no doubt, not seriously addressed in academia. They are, however, quite overwhelming as you are bound to discover for yourself sooner or later.
Names and address(es) of parents of murdered CT child, please.
Date: 09:57 AM 1/10/2013
Subject: For Your Interest
For your professional consideration: The-sandy-hook-school-massacre-unanswered-questions-and-missing-information.
The following may contain disinformation:Evidence-sandy-hook-school-shooting-staged-by-factions-of-us-government-and-mainstream-media. Have you had the opportunity to discuss Jane’s N.Y. trip with Dick or with her directly?
Date: 08:37 PM 1/12/2013
Subject: For Your Interest
Thanks for this information. It ought not be difficult for you to find out more details. Who is the relative of the dead child that Jane is friends with? Obviously, given the extent of her grief and concern, it must be very close. A parent? You mentioned that Jane knew the child. Are the mother and father together and is their last name Barden? Do they live in Sandy Hook and own their own home? What is the address? Did Jane attend the funeral in support of her close friend? Does Jane happen to know what James does for a living?
How does Dick know about the family being obliged to deal with fake fund websites? Did Jane tell him when she returned? Who told you that the parents did a TV interview with Katie Couric? If Dick told you that, did Jane give him that information? None of the above information in any way increases the already tremendous grief of parents suffering the loss of a child in such a horrendous manner. I assure you that neither I nor anyone else will, at my insistance, intrude upon the privacy of that poor family. It is looking more and more as if we have again the vicsim situation of 9/11 (see http://cluesforum.info) with respect to the Sandy Hook story.
Children of that age had neighborhood playmates. Some were on children’s sports teams. Many, if not most, have surviving older siblings in addition to grief-stricken parents. In a community the size of Sandy Hook the murder of that number of youngsters cannot be hoaxed. There are far too many others including teachers, babysitters, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, coaches, church school instructors, parents of playmates, neighborhood playmates, pediatricians, family friends, etc. impacted by a tragedy of this dimension. All of the above would be appalled and angered by anyone attempting to argue that such deaths never happened. Of course, they would be both willing and anxious to dispel any such claims. I know, certainly, that your friend, Jane, falls into this category. If she seems at all reluctant to provide answers to the above questions, be sure to point out to her the necessity of stifling absurd and uncaring untruths that are being increasingly spread with regard to those tragic and all-too-real murders. This is a matter of incalculable significance and I know that you will take it very seriously. I am looking forward to what you learn from Jane first-hand.
At 07:53 PM 1/12/2013, you wrote:
Have not had a chance to speak with Jane as I don’t see her that often but Dick told me that the boy who died was named Daniel Barden. Jane is friends with one of his relatives. His parents first names are James and Jackie. (They did an interview with Katie Couric) He also said the family has had to deal with people putting up fake “fund” websites using their names to collect money and they have been unsuccessful taking them down.
Date: 12:25 PM 1/13/2013
Subject: Barden interview
(Regarding the YouTube video interview of Couric’s interview with parents of Daniel Barden.) Personally, I do not find the demeanor of the traumatized and grief-stricken parents at all plausible. That is, of course, subjective and arguable. That the focal topic involved gun control strikes me as significant.
Date: 01:12 PM 1/13/2013
Subject: Google managed
Online research of the Sandy Hook narrative is being carefully managed by techniques that include the following: The most obvious and easily documented is that comments at their narrative’s websites and videos that contain the words “hoax”, “fraud”, etc. vanish almost immediately. The perpetrators anticipated that skeptics and researchers would go to Google to coordinate efforts and findings. They created “news” stories to corrupt Google searches, one of which involves a hoax report of a ship in distress offshore from Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The second involves fake or scam funds created for “victims”. These clever techniques result in producing hundreds of irrelevant responses to Google inquiries containing keywords: “Sandy Hook”, “hoax”, “fake”, “fraud”, and “scam”.
The “news” media is increasingly refining techniques of propagandizing the public. You probably will find this conclusion unacceptable at this time. However, I know your ability to dig into a subject and all I ask is that you keep an open mind. Unlike most of us, you have received years of education in academia’s rooms on subjects of journalism and media. That world has changed dramatically since the explosion of television in the 1960’s. TV does not happen to be all lies. There is no law stipulating liars to be consistently lying.
Date: 01:38 PM 1/13/2013
Subject: It’s deja vu
Take a look at this and tell me it’s real and spontaneous: http://swervingforbutterflies.com/page/2/. The perps are doing exactly the same thing with the Sandy Hook hoax as they continue doing with memorial and legacy 9/11 websites. From a career standpoint, you can probably find a good paying job by joining their insider teams. You can bet that there will be more of this stuff needed as time goes by.
_____ End of emails ______
I admit to harboring serious doubts about the veracity of TV news. With respect to any narrative purporting to be truth, it is critical to realize that the burden of proof lies with the narrator. It is unrealistic to require a skeptic to prove with total probability that any authoritatively based narrative is fake, in whole or in part. Keeping in mind the logical impossibility of proving a negative, it is both reasonable and important to demand more acceptable evidence with respect to an alleged massacre of women and children within Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=235760