This further exchange with Michel Flagg can be found on amazon.com: click here.
Last edited by the author 6 hours ago
Last edited by you 5 hours ago
Last edited by you 5 hours ago
Last edited by you 4 hours ago
You edited this post
That means we BELIEVE what we are asserting. Unlike you, however, our BELIEFS are supported by mountains of readily verifiable evidence. You often say that we were not there, as though that were determinative of what we can and cannot know. But we have subjected the record to intense scrutiny. We have appraised the statements that have been made. We have analyzed the photographs. We have studied the behavior of the players. And we have discovered PROOF UPON PROOF that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax.
You cannot understand the meaning of “factual” when you are making claims that are FALSE. To be factual, a claim must be TRUE and VERIFIABLE. The claims that we make throughout this book are true and verifiable. Let me illustrate with one of the proofs presented on the back cover that you seen not to understand. We have a photograph of around 15 students apparently being led away from the school by a policewoman because of a young man entering the building and shooting a lot of people. It was taken by Newtown Bee photographer, Shannon Hicks, and sent worldwide.
This “iconic” photo was the single most important form of “proof” provided to the public. But we have a SECOND PHOTOGRAPH, also taken by Shannon Hicks, where we can see a row of parents looking on, some with their arms crossed and some with her hands in their pockets. And when we take a closer look, we discover that some of the children are not in the same place in line in both photographs, which means that the sequence of children was rearranged by moving them around in order to get “the best shot”.
Now I hope you are following me this far, because you claim to have “discussed and debunked the information on the back of the book”. Do you seriously think, under those circumstances, fleeing from a shooter who would reportedly kill 20 children and six adults, any adult, much less a police woman, would stop to rearrange the children to get a better photograph? Do you seriously believe that, if this really were the emergency we are told it represents, that parents of any of those children would be standing around looking on, with their arms crossed or their hands in their pockets?
And how–under these extraordinary circumstances–could they possibly have been notified and have reached the school in time to be present here? Think of what that would have entailed. Someone at the school presumably would have had to have known that there was a shooting and have taken the time, not to eliminate the threat, who was killing their students, but to call some of their parents, who, in turn, would have had to rush down to the school in time to be present for the Newtown Bee photographer–who just happened to be on hand–to take a photo in which they were present? Are you beginning to get the picture?
Not only that, but on the morning of 14 December 2012, the temperature was 28*F and there was frost on the ground. But, in those two photographs, there is no frost on the ground; and the breath of the students is not visible as it would be in 28*F weather. (We have photos of cars near the Firehouse, for example, where their exhaust is clearly visible.) There are also too many leaves on the trees for this to be 14 December 2012. That means these photos were not taken on 14 December 2012. I ask you, what is the alternative interpretation? We aren’t making this up.
William Shanley, a film maker who resides in Connecticut, wrote to Shannon Hicks when I published those photos together and made the points I am making here and now. He asked her about the authenticity of her photographs in light of what I had said about them. At the time, I believed that the woman in the blue jacket WAS Shannon Hicks. But she wrote back to William and explained that I was wrong and that she was not the woman in the blue jacket, because SHE HAD TAKEN BOTH OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.
Now you claim to have read the book. You not only claim to have read the book, you claim to have refuted every proof that Sandy Hook was a fraud. But if these photos were not taken on 14 December 2012, then they were staged; and if they were staged, then Sandy Hook was a fraud. I published a chapter in the book in which all of the evidence I have just described is presented, including the email correspondence between William Shanley and Shannon Hicks. So what exactly am I missing? What is there here that remains to be proven? What leaves any room for doubt?
And how can you possibly claim that you have “already discussed and debunked the information of the back of the book”, under these circumstances? I am very reluctant to regard you as a liar, but I am having a hard time resisting. Because among the claims presented ON THE BACK OF THE BOOK are the sentences, “This photo was sent around the world. But there was a second picture. They rearranged the children to get ‘a better shot’!” So where have you “discussed and debunked” this information, which is ON THE BACK OF THE BOOK?
I am sorry, Michael, but you are in the classic position of having your mind made up, where you don’t want to be bothered with facts. Each of the claims that I have made about these photographs is both true and verifiable. I presented the proof in the book in Chapter 4, “Shannon Hicks denies staging her ‘iconic’ photograph”, which I wrote with Dennis Cimino. You have the book and you claim to have read it. Chapter 4 runs from pages 47 to 53. It is not a long chapter. But it provides conclusive proof that Sandy Hook was a hoax–and that you are either lying or confused.
And that includes what you claim in your most recent reply to me. Egad! We also have a mountain of proof that the school had been closed by 2008. Perhaps you missed that, too. But if the school was closed by 2008, there were no students there. And that means there were no students to be shot or to be evacuated. And when you complain about profiting from lies–royalties from books, by the way, tend to be rather modest–why are you not concerned about the “parents” who are pretending to have lost children at Sandy Hook, yet are pocketing millions? Your beliefs are warped, alas, and your values are misplaced.