SANDY HOOK CRUNCH TIME: Alex Jones has wimped out. They want to take our guns. I need your help NOW!



If “Lenny” withdraws his Complaint and our Counter Complaint is unsuccessful, then we will cease accepting donations.100% of any money donated to the MOON ROCK BOOKS LEGAL DEFENSE FUND is used exclusively for these lawsuits. Go to and click on the donate button at the upper-right. Any amount from $5 to $10 to $20 can make a difference. If all of Jim Fetzer’s twitter followers alone contributed $10 each, that would probably do it. And thanks for standing up for America!


Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-founder of
Please follow and like us:

114 thoughts on “SANDY HOOK CRUNCH TIME: Alex Jones has wimped out. They want to take our guns. I need your help NOW!”

  1. Just ran across this latest performance from our tops-in-tap guy, AJ.


    Alex Jones Defends Zionism, Kushner, & Netanyahu
    Know More News KMT
    Published on Apr 12, 2019
    FULL INTERVIEW from Tin Foil Hat w/ Sam Tripoli
    xxxxx…xxxxx may need to access this truncated video link via show notes from this KMT video.

    Are we having fun yet?

    1. When I walk away from an AJ \\\’show\\\’, I feel emotionally drained because I have been hit with waves of anger and frustration.When I walk away from a talk given by Dr. Fetzer, I feel educated through logic and common sense.

      1. When I was first started watching and listening to the AJ show back in 1996 or 1997, I was just also taking in “conservative” talk shows and ideology and AJ would really get me upset and about to throw things. Then I just thought he was mildly entertaining. But this flimflam-man video gets me upset again because it is the same big lie scam that all sides of the political spectrum use. And the people are becoming unable to see through any of it.

        1. As time goes on, the lie becomes like a snow ball rolling down a mountain of perception hiding the original truth more and more until it’s barely visible to the average person who has become blinded by the flurry and onslaught of the bought and paid for actors in the MSM and CONgress.
          The bigger the lie, the more likely it will be accepted and built upon….like landing on the moon and all the other ‘lights’.

          1. If you believe – they put a man on the moon
            Man on the moon
            If you believe – there’s nothing up their sleeve
            Then nothing is cool

            I have collected a mountain of visual evidence of CGI and harness wires on the ISS that I believe nothing from the PTB anymore and it is refreshingly liberating. Like seeing comments here from “Jack Parsons” – namesake being a satanist Crowley acolyte of Thelema and the OTO. Also, founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA confident of all the best Operation Paperclip Nazis.
            *The More You Know*

  2. Notice there is a guy I\’ll call \”Mikey\” (that probably loves his Life cereal the fake MSM and garbage food industry pays him to..)… within this page thread… that has a childish webpage… trying like middle school/junior high school boys do… to bash Fetzer while evidencing a Fidelity account image that has as much credibility as as anything coming from a Nigerian Internet cafe populated with 14 year old Photoshop experts… right?

    Let\’s see what credible anti-Neo Zionist top rated law firm can Mikey bring forth to bring credibility behind his proof of funds since he wants to \”protect his financial identity\” and waste time on subjects that tries to circumvent that real issues at hand. $300K+ can get pretty much any credibly law firm to pay attention… right?

    Hopefully Mikey can evidence that Mikey can produce a law firm that has competent errors, omissions, and professional liability insurance ready to rock and roll while professionally standing behind everything authentically Mikey including his Romper Room grade/quality website??!!. LOL

    Reminds me of Joke Morphunniest:

      1. Well, when he folds like a cheap suit or worse, throws Wolf under the bus – folks might understand better if they see that this was to be expected. People go mad in herds but only regain their sanity one at a time.

        1. IF one had any faith in AJ as a real investigator and not just a showman/ entertainer….I certainly never did. If he was yayzuse incarnate, his ridiculous antics (which he passed off and many accepted as passion) pretty much cut into validity as a real investigator. Compared to someone like Dr. Fetzer, he is/was a joke.

          1. Alex Jones is indeed a dubious character. But, at least he does cook up false stories about military service.

            Of all the visitors to my blog, none has even attempted to refute my debunking of Fetzer’s bogus USMC claims. That can only mean one thing.

          2. “Of all the visitors to my blog, none has even attempted to refute my debunking of Fetzer’s bogus USMC claims.” – Michael Lewis

            Maybe that’s because Michael Lewis has made no debunking to refute.
            FOIA, Michael Lewis, or it didn’t happen.

            “FOIA and Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF)
            “The public has access to certain military service information without the veteran’s authorization or that of the next-of-kin (the un-remarried widow or widower, son, daughter, father, mother, brother or sister) of deceased veterans. Examples of information which may be available from Federal (non-archival) Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF) without an unwarranted invasion of privacy include:
            Service Number
            Dates of Service
            Branch of Service…”
            Read the rest:

            If you won’t take Fetzer’s solemn word for his service, provide the documents yourself, Michael Lewis, and stop insisting others are afraid to so. It’s your fabrication. Prove it up. Stolen honor is a serious charge.

    1. I love the fake yearbook photo. How stupid to apply a page curl highlight filter and then not warp the underlying image to simulate a book scan. About as ridiculous as the Obama birth certificate background.
      I hope Dachsie Lady sees this. She might have known about AJ for 23 years, but that’s because he is 23 years old.

    1. Dude, let it go. Arguing about the windows is his FUD wheelhouse. Wolf got the city to admit that DHS provided the \”Everybody Must Check In\” sign, Wolf got the school to admit there was no legal record of Sandy Hook Chorus going to the Super Bowl, and the forms showing Chalk Hill Middle School as the location for Sandy Hook students receiving discounted meals were submitted before the event. Those three things alone are far more damaging. Heck, when it comes to photos, the photo of Lanza\’s suicide hat is a laff and a half. Now there\’s a photo!
      Also, the \”bus drivers\” affidavit, given to a beat cop 20 days after the event (yeah, right) states that Gene and the bus driver took a solitary girl to the firehouse – after all the other kids had gotten picked up at Gene\’s. How long did that take? Gene was also supposedly at the firehouse on a second trip with Scarlett Lewis after she showed up at his door. However, recorded video at the firehouse only shows him *alone* in the thick of the farce, walking around in circles, practicing his lines. He also forgot to mention going to the firehouse with the bus driver and little girl on his many news interviews.

  3. you answer none of my questions and are thus a time waster.
    get back to me with answers and factual references to your claims.

    “As long as everything is photographed/sketched first, things can be moved. It’s kind of obvious that at some point you have to move things to check for evidence.”

    wrong. it would be documented and numbered with tags.
    you give no factual reference to your claims, only hyperbole and conjecture.

  4. The window is open and tilted out, so that makes it harder to see the other bullet holes.

    The photo in Fetzer’s book is not clear. It’s small and blurry, while the photos in the report are clear in high quality. There is
    a reason Fetzer refers to the photos in his book, instead of telling people to look at the original photos. He wants people to see as few details as possible.

    How would they check the trajectory of the shots in the glass and window frame without removing the angels?
    The bullet hole I am talking about is this one the red arrow is pointing at:

    That is the same photo Fetzer uses in his book, just a better version. Fetzer calls that a defect. Seems odd that there would a defect in the glass in the exact same spot where later we see a bullet hole.

    On Sunday the 16th, they removed all the items from rooms and 10 to further check for evidence. The photo of the hallway filled with items was taken after the classrooms were cleared out.

    CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf

    On Sunday 12/16/12 following photograph and sketch documentation the furniture from classroom 10 and 8 were removed into the north hallway in an effort to conduct a more thorough search for any evidence in the classrooms.

    As long as everything is photographed/sketched first, things can be moved. It’s kind of obvious that at some point you have to move things to check for evidence.

      where are these changes SPECIFICALLY DOCUMENTED?
      List Paragraphs and sentences.
      where in
      \”CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf\”
      Are any of your claims specifically verified.

        1. You do not directly answer my questions.
          I did not say page, I said: give exact sentences, paragraphs, documented changes and numbered evidence that verify your claims.

          There is NOTHING on page 53 about tracing “bullet trajectory”
          only counting magazines and casings.
          No mention of taking down 3 paper candles to match trajectory or closing windows.
          So where do you get the “bullet trajectory” stuff from? sound made up to me. no factual reference to this whatsoever.

          odd that there are live casings that don’t match the “shooters weapons” but
          “possibly match responding officers” no? what type of tactical officer drops live shotgun shells?? lol.
          a “Federal Premium Tactical Rifled Slug 12ga.”

          Thanks for the link, it’s no small file, 1000’s of pages of PDFs. and gigabytes of video.

          1. Page 53 is where it mentions the moving of furniture out the rooms. So they can move things around. Scroll up on the pdf to see the trajectory report.

            What is the red arrow pointing at in this photo:



            This photo was likely taken on the 16th, arrow pointing at the same spot as the other photo.

            Fetzer says in the book that the photo proves it was taken before the shooting becasue the window in undamaged. He then claimed that the photo shows a “defect” in the window, so he is already backtracking. How long before he just claims the photo was taken after they drilled the hole?

          3. Scroll up? you said page 53 numbskull. Give a correct reference, not “scroll up” like the rest of your obscure references.
            Every. Single. Thing. Moved. must be documented.
            if they moved a chair, a chair should be documented as moved.
            No mention what so ever about altering a prime piece of evidence, the window in question!

            You are right, there is a trajectory report. and it says the shooter was 6 FEET TALL!
            Also, no mention of window in question, whatsoever in the trajectory report.

          4. “How long before he just claims the photo was taken after they drilled the hole?”

            That would be a pre-assumptive straw-man argument.

            That hole does not appear to be drilled at all, it looks exactly like a bullet hole.
            Hence the circular hairline cracks from high velocity impact.

            The Broken foldout window does not look like a bullet hole at all.

          5. If you agree it’s a bullet hole, then Fetzers theory is debunked. The question is will he move the goal posts or admit he was wrong.

        1. I typed a lengthy reply, i do not know what it’s not showing up.

          I can’t say, I’m still reviewing evidence.
          My question is: why 1 bullet hole in central window and one broken hole in a foldout window, that was not in the first picture?

          “If you agree it’s a bullet hole, then Fetzers theory is debunked”
          I’ll agree he should address this in further detail. There is ONE bullet hole.
          The Foldout window is broken and taped over, NOT a bullet hole.
          If the scene was tampered with, then how can one know what was done by whom?
          I’m just noticing oddities and inconsistencies.

          Adam Lanza was 6 foot tall. via: corners report. so that is consistent.

          -Odd that there are live casings that don’t match the “shooters weapons” but
          “possibly match responding officers” no? what type of tactical officer drops live shotgun shells?? lol.
          a “Federal Premium Tactical Rifled Slug 12ga.”

          -There is mention of “blood like stains”
          Why was this blood never analyzed to be confirmed as blood and DNA tested to link it to whom it belongs to?

          Do you have any other input? I’m in this for the truth, not bias or blind conviction. I base my conclusions on evidence and facts.

          Once again, I’ll agree there is one bullet hole.
          The other hole the foldout window is NOT a bullet hole, it was broken and taped over. I’ve seen no explanation for this.
          also, three paper candles were removed and a window shut, no mention of this in the report.
          No mention of trajectory analyses of window in question, in the report.
          So, how you can say the 3 paper candles were taken down for trajectory analysis , when there was no trajectory analysis of the window shown in the report? there is no evidence for your statement.

          it would seem you are biased against James, I’m not. I’m looking for the truth.
          I’m sure i will have many more questions as i further review evidence.

          1. There were pink rods put in the window, photos show that. So they had to remove the candles to do that.

          2. Pink rods to accomplish what?
            your story changes, first you say the paper candles were removed for trajectory analysis, now it\’s for pink rods.

            They don\’t look like pink rods to me.
            They\’re pink and 1 inch long. what they are, i can\’t say.

            The hinges are intact, 100% integrity and at the edge corners, so it\’s not interacting with the hinges at all. They\’re certainly not numbered evidence markers.

          3. Also, the amount of redacted information is unbelievable and unreliable.
            I’m sifting through the evidence and there is so much redacted, who knows what’s been removed.

          4. Also, there would be no need to remove 3 interior white paper candles to tape 2 pieces of pink 1 inch objects to the exterior of the window.

          5. The pink rods are what are used for trajectory analysis. The tape you said you saw on the bigger hole, was taped used to secure therods. The prods would also be sticking out inside, taped there as well. So they would need to remove the candles to do that.

          6. Those are FAR too small to be for trajectory analysis.
            look up \”Bullet Trajectory kit\” those objects are not to be found in one and useless for such analysis.
            the instruments and \”rods\” used are feet long.

            most modern trajectory analysis is done with lasers.

            Those pink objects are 1 inch long and are oriented in a way not at all useful for trajectory analysis.
            also, packing tape is not used in trajectory analysis. lol.
            The pink objects are taped flat against the aluminum window frame and do not protrude through to the other side.

            If it was a bullet hole as you see in all bullet trajectory analysis kits and video\’s.
            There is a plastic flared tip that fit\’s into the bullet diameter hole.

            it would pass straight through because the hole is not bullet diameter it\’s INCHES, with zero circular hairline cracks from high velocity impact.

          7. This is what bullet trajectory instruments look like:




            they look NOTHING like that is taped to the window frame.

          8. First link is not working, so here are more




          9. grrr. that darn first link. again.


          10. You think they are all the same? That every police force uses the same ones?

            There are these:


            and these:


            Here is an analysis done in a car, doesn’t look that dissimilar to sandy hook:


          11. LOL are you blind? those are not whats taped to the window!

            Trajectory rods go through the bullet hole!

            They would be through the glass. Those pink pieces 1 inch long are taped to the aluminum frame! perpendicular to the broken glass.

            sorry to name call, but you are nuts if you think those are trajectory rods.

          12. Very important!
            In the video of your provided link: CDMDS_school _exterior.wmv

            Those pink plastic pieces are marking bullet holes in the aluminum window frame!

            There are two on the left and two on the right. 10:26-10:35 of the 13:14 video.

            A trajectory rod would be able to fit through the holes in the aluminum frame.

            there is quite abit of redacted video, i don’t know why. Though, you can see at 10:26-10:35

            it would seem the glass broke from the bullets striking the aluminum frame.

            i am continuing to review the evidence.

          13. *update*
            in zip file: 22_assorted_files
            farr – scene photos.pdf
            page 111 to page 114
            you can see close up images of the bullet holes.
            there is one in the center pane.
            there are four in the aluminum window frame.

            bob was correct, there are trajectory instruments in the holes through the aluminum window frame, page 111-112. The paper candles were likely taken-down for trajectory analysis.

            i am continuing to review the evidence.

  5. The photo is clear, if you can see the bullet hole in the center pane you would be able to see a large broken hole in the folding window.

    It is completely the wrong “sizre” for a bullet hole, it’s fist sized, not bullet diameter and does not have circular cracks.
    Search “bullet hole glass” That hole looks NOTHING like a bullet hole

    if they moved or touched anything it would have to be noted and documented in the forensic report.
    you can not get trajectory from one hole, you need two holes to establish a line.
    Where in the forensic report did they document these changes / manipulations??
    It would specifically be documented: Removed three white paper candles to establish trajectory and closed a window.
    Can you give reference to where they documented this??
    why would they add tape as well?

    I’ll agree that the center pane has a bullet hole, the folding window has a broken pane that looks NOTHING LIKE A BULLET HOLE.
    It looks like it was broken from the outside because some glass shards are pointing inwards.
    Ridiculous to say it’s a bullet hole.

    Scene was altered / tampered with. Which is not allowed at all in forensics and would be grounds to have a case thrown out of court.
    Give evidence of your claim that they were removed for forensics! 😉

  6. The photo is clear, if you can see the bullet hole in the center pane you would be able to see a large broken hole in the folding window.

    It is completely the wrong “sizre” for a bullet hole, it’s fist sized, not bullet diameter and does not have circular cracks.

    bullet holes in glass

    if they moved or touched anything it would have to be noted and documented in the forensic report.
    you can not get trajectory from one hole, you need two holes to establish a line.
    Where in the forensic report did they document these changes / manipulations??
    It would specifically be documented: Removed three white paper candles to establish trajectory.
    Can you give reference to where they documented this??
    why would they add tape as well?

    I’ll agree that the center pane has a bullet hole, the folding window has a broken pane that looks NOTHING LIKE A BULLET HOLE.
    Ridiculous to say it’s a bullet hole.

  7. I wrote a lengthy comment and it did not show up. so I’ll re-type a fast reply and I’m done wasting time with trolls.

    Search “bullet hole glass” That hole looks NOTHING like a bullet hole, it’s fist sized with zero circular cracks.
    It would be bullet diameter with circular glass cracks.

    Crime scenes are not to be altered in any way what so ever.

    The scene was tampered with.

    stop lying to your self bob 😉

    the window was broken, the scene was tampered with; the reason you don’t like James’s photo is because it shows the scene pre-tampering.
    it’s abit grainy, still; if you can point to the bullet hole you would be able to point to a large hole in the folding window, you can’t because it’s not there. Saying ” angle” is BS, there are ZERO pixels to indicate the broken glass. I’ve super zoomed and re-scaled with a HQ filter. No broken glass on the folding window.

    Scene was altered / tampered with. Which is not allowed at all in forensics and would be grounds to have a case thrown out of court.

    1. In order to get the trajectory of the shots, those paper candles had to be moved. That’s why you photograph before you move something.

      What you call broken glass and Fetzer calls a defect, is exactly the right sizre fore a bullet hole. Imagine that. Go through the photos in the report, not Fetzer’s book. The report photos are in much higher quality, much better detail. There is no clear, up close, unedited photo of the undamaged window. And unless someone can produce one, we don’t have the best evidence.

      I don’t like the Fetzer photo because it’s a small, blurry, cropped photo.

      This is the photo in the book:

  8. Search “bullet hole glass” the hole in the folding window is: NOT A BULLET HOLE.
    the folding window has: ZERO circular cracks, fist sized.
    it WOULD BE: bullet diameter with circular glass cracks.
    This is what a bullet hole in glass looks like:,800×800,075,f.u3.jpg

    The folding window is broken.
    Absolutely ridiculous to say that’s a bullet hole!

    Crime scenes are not to be moved or tampered with: Clear evidence of tampering.
    Nothing is to be moved or altered for processing of evidence!

    I’ll agree that the center left one is a bullet hole, not the folding window, that was BROKEN.

    The scene was clearly tampered with.

    Jame’s photo with the 3 candles is an earlier photo and the folding window IS NOT BROKEN, show me pixels to indicate the much larger hole. you can’t. to blame it on “angle” is BS!
    you would be able to see a fist sized broken glass hole with tape on it.
    It would be right where the center of the 3 candles are, I’ve Super-zoomed and re-sampled with Lanczos filter.
    No hole at all!

    stop lying to your self bob 😉
    only a fool would think that’s a bullet hole.

  9. Just to clarify: there is only one bullet hole in the photo. In the center window, left side, missing 3 white paper candles.
    The folding window is BROKEN, it is clearly not a bullet hole.
    If it was a bullet hole, it\’d look exactly like the one in the center window: bullet diameter, circular glass cracks.
    Not: Fist sized with zero circular glass cracks. Does not look like a bullet hole AT ALL.

    Jim\’s photo: folding window with the 3 white paper candles: is not broken.

    1. The photo of the window closeup was done likely Sunday the 16th, the paper candles had to be removed to process the window for evidence.

      The photo in the book is a cropped photo, zoomed in. So the detail is is going to be very hard to make out. The window was also open and tilted up, making it even harder to see the holes.

      This is the photo from the book:

      I’ll ask again, is there a close up, clear, unedited photo of the room 10 window undamaged? The best evidence should be presented in an investigation. That tiny, cropped photo is not good enough. If you’re going to try to prove the window was not damaged you need to present better evidence.

    2. Based on this, that so-called defect in the window is consistent with a bullet hole:,online_chips:gun&usg=AI4_-kRFyAk_8klQsdmeduBumSH-iyaNUQ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqidedzMXhAhXHm-AKHdmvBbEQ4lYILigF&biw=1406&bih=741&dpr=1

  10. I don’t care if he were a marine or not, I’ve never brought that. that was someone else.

    What evidence? The FEMA manual? the FEMA manual with the .gove email address, with the the wrong job title for Thomas Romano. The manual that can be downloaded and created by anyone.

    Fetzer says the photos and helicopter footage was done beforehand. The evidence the video was done earlier is that some trees still have leaves on them. A simple Google search will tell you some trees can still have leaves into December.

    Hid evidence the photos were done earlier is supposedly see two men drilling a hole in the window. Yet even Fetzer has admitted that the photo does not show either man holding a drill. So that would make that theory total speculation.

    Here is the room 10 window photo Fetzer uses to try to prove the window was not shot out yet:

    The photo was originally a parking lot photo a vehicle with the window in the background. Since it was in the background it was already blurry and out of focus. Cropping it only makes the quality even worse.

    Here is the original photo from the report, zoned in as far as you can go while still being able to make out some details:

    Where the arrow is pointing you can see a spot on the window. In other, closeup photos of the window you can see the bullet hole in that exact same area as the spot the arrow is pointing at. Fetzer say the photo shows the window before the hole was drilled. yet, better photos show there was in fact a hole there.

    His other evidence is a small blurry version of this photo:

    The window is probably 30-40 yards away from the camera and at an angle. Impossible to see any detail of the window from that distance and angle.

    I have asked Fetzer this before and he has offered nothing. Is there a close up, unedited photo of the room 10 window undamaged? Not cropped in anyway, not in the background, out of focus. Not far off in the distance at an angle. A closeup of the window itself.

    1. Bob, LOVE HAVING YOU HERE. Anyone can download the book for free and check out Bob’s claims. You will find the key photographs on page 148-149 and pages 153-154. Or watch “Sandy Hook Update: Tracy loses, Wolfgang wins. The Deep State Strikes Back!” on Bitchute. It’s all there.

      1. Actually it’s better if they download the Farr or Meehan photos from the report. The quality of those photos is much better than the ones in your book.

        What is the red arrow pointing at in this photo?

        It’s pointing in the exact spot where in later photos a bullet hole is seen. It’s blurry, but you can see it. And that is the same photo you use in your book to try to prove the window was undamaged.

        1. Bob, I’ve explained this to you too many times not to see you are a complete fraud. You are talking about some tiny defect at the top of one window, when I am talking about a massive blow-out in the middle of the second pane. There is no comparison. I know you think you can get away with this kind of rubbish by distracting, but no one who looks at the evidence I have cited will be impressed–other than that you have outed yourself! My best guess is that you are the man who calls himself “Lenny Pozner”. Sorry, Lenny, nice try but no cigar! Unbelievable!

          1. The paranoia is strong in you. The tiny defect you say is actually the bullet hole that you claim is not seen in the photo. The defect is in the exact location of the window whnere a bullet hole is seen in other, close up photos.

            Compare the photo I linked, with the red arrow pointing at the “defect” to other photos that show the hole.

            I have asked you many times and you have yet to produce anything. Is there a clear, up close, unedited photo of the room 10 window undamaged? I have looked in the Farr and Meehan parking lot photos and no such photo is there. Anyone can look too. Since the photos in your book came from the report, it would seem you do not have that photo either.

          2. This is the photo that shows the bullet holes:


            Compare that to the photo you present as proof the window is undamaged:


            The defect, as you call it, is in the exact spot in the window where you see a bullet hole.

            The reason you can’t the other bullet holes in your photo is the photo is a fair distance away and the window was open, so it was tilted. Here is another photo of the bullet holes from an angle:


            At the angle, not that far away, it makes it harder to see the holes. You used a photo of the state police truck, with the room 10 window even further away, at an angle and expect people to see bullet holes?

          3. I’ve looked at bob’s photo’s referenced and have noticed inconsistencies.

            the closeup of the bullet-hole: has no white paper candles.
            the window to the left is shut.
            the foldout window is broken

            the photo with the red arrow: has 3 white paper candles.
            the window to the left is open.
            the foldout window is not broken

            looks to be photos from two different times, between manipulations of the scene.

            Take care, james. There are grim forces at work with this one…Podestas

  11. The way to see the shills is when they discredit. They attack first. Then, after being attacked, the victim in this case – the American people, but really, all of humanity – should be united against this unjust use of power by government officials, bankers, corporate leaders, and the wealthy, demonstrates the excesses to which power is the crime, where truth becomes subjugated, morality irrelevant. What sad times we live in.

    Debunkers use emotion, false correspondence, and psychographic allegiance to create division – a tool of the powerful. There’s only one way we gain control – by staying on the truth, with proof. “Truth proofs” should be what is required, without politics, without false witness, without bias.

    When the proof is proven false or questionable, mustn’t the facts be re-visited?

    1. The one thing all conspiracy theorist agree on is to not trust he Govt and MSM, that’s find. You shouldn’t blindly trust them and ask questions. But when ask questions, you might not like the answers you are given. More often than not, the answers are ignored or dismissed.

      The same people who say don’t trust the MSM will themselves blindly believe something a fellow conspiracy theorists says. It is very rare that they question each other. Halbig posts a photo of kids he says are the Sandy Hook kids, he offered no other information. Where or when the photo was taken, yet his followers just accepted it as fact. Last month Fetzer definitively stated in a blog that Rosen was a FEMA employee. His only evidence was a photo of an older man that he said looks like Rosen and an edited Wiki page with Gene Rosen added to the original caption. Nothing else. That kind of evidence should be questioned.

      If you’re going to question and demand proof of events, you should also question and demand proof of a hoax. Actual proof, not just saying person A looks like person B.

      1. Bob, you are not very good at what you do…maybe considering a job more suited to your talents might be a better life path for you….like selling encyclopedias, vacuums or brushes door to door …or even telemarketing.
        The preponderance of evidence that SH was a drill is so overwhelming that it makes details like whether or not Rosen was a FEMA employee of minute importance. Was Dr. Fetzer a marine? Of course….but hypothetically, IF he was not, what difference does it make? Dr. Fetzer’s integrity is beyond question. However, your integrity or value to this forum is HIGHLY questionable. It is most definitely to Jame’s credit that he allows you to continue to post your dribble without an outright ban. BUT, that is what men of HONOR do while those like yourself find morbid satisfaction is disrupting noble and principled intentions and efforts.

          1. If you won’t take Fetzer’s word for his service, why don’t you file yourself a FOIA request and get that info?

            Then you can back up your whining about Fetzer’s Stolen Valor with some evidence, instead of hanging around here, haranguing us about blurry pictures.

          2. SEND THE MONEY, Michael Lewis, lest you expose yourself as a sham and a fraud. I have published photos of myself in whites (at graduation from Princeton in 1962), in khakis at the USMC Recruit Depot as a member of the Recruit Training Regimental staff, and in my greens when my (first) wife pinned on my bars when I was promoted to Captain! Surely no one could ask for more–but I will be glad to provide more! Write me and we can take it from here. Your generosity overwhelms me!

  12. Am I the first to mention that Jim Fetzer has one hell of a load of guts to take this on as he has? This is seriously dangerous in many ways!

    I have clearly observed that the legal system is rife with all manner of corruption. And I’d guess that “they” would not be doing this if “they” didn’t have a full deck of dirty cards up their sleeves.

    I will continue street protesting against the green-washed crypto-fascist “ranked choice voting” “RCV”/”IRV” anti-democracy Trojan horse scam — And for the simple score voting method — But if “they” pull a dirty on Jim I will certainly be out by the courthouse protesting that too! (I don’t even have any guns.)

    Everybody should be prepared to do that! The weather is ripe for it!

    1. Jim Fetzer could show even greater resolve, and integrity, by coming clean about his history of military impostorship. He did not serve in the USMC as he claims.

      Apart from a few blurry photos who could be anybody, he has declined to present any evidence to the contrary. Any person with nominal cognitive function can see that he’s hiding something.

      If Fetzer could lift this cloud over his credibility, it would help his legal efforts against the Pozner machine. Two attorney acquaintances agree that the merits of his counterclaim are solid.

        1. The “evidence” of the hoax is really just speculation and opinion. Just saying you believe someone is acting in a press conference or interview is not evidence. Just saying one person looks like another person is not evidence.

          1. Why not try reading? My reply was in response to his asking for evidence of Fetzer being in the USMC. This simply shows how ready you are to jump on anything in a chance to discredit Dr. Fetzer. Begone, shill!

          2. It\’s not hard to discredit him, he does himself with blogs that say this \”SANDY HOOK: Gene Rosen Identified as Official FEMA Employee\”.

            His \”evidence\” of this was someone he thought looked like Gene Rosen and an edited Wiki page, that\’s it. Is that good research to you?

          3. Bob really has a time with reading comprehension. Maybe it’s time to enroll in a remedial course.

      1. The relevance of nature of the purported “shooting” at Sandy Hook is at perhaps 5% in relation to the significance of the massive other evidence, so Jim’s military experience does not apply to most of his analysis at all.

        Anyway it is obviously more likely that he is actually a Russian citizen than that he was not a U.S. Marine. Talk about your red herrings!

        1. Straw man alert!

          Now comes shills and bots galore.

          “Jim’s military experience does not apply to most of his analysis at all.”

          No one said it did.

          But Dr. Fetzer, by his photos, does prove that he is who he says he is.
          That is much more than the judges and the courts have required of plaintiff “Leonard Pozer.”

          1. “Straw man alert!

            Now comes shills and bots galore.”

            Dachsie and Willy, pretty hilarious, the inundation.

            It seems like all they got is either questioning some granularity in order to discredit the whole, or doubting the credibility of authenticated personal history. Lame.

          2. @DachsieLady Do mean to say that you consider blurry photos, which do not resemble, Jim Fetzer to be sufficient evidence that Jim Fetzer served in the USMC?

          3. “Michael Lewis says:
            April 8, 2019 at 5:43 pm

            @DachsieLady Do mean to say that you consider blurry photos, which do not resemble, Jim Fetzer to be sufficient evidence that Jim Fetzer served in the USMC?”

            I do not need to judge upon photos to know Dr. Fetzer is who is says he is and that Dr. Fetzer does not offer and provide a fraudulent curriculum vitae. I have been following Dr. Fetzer’s work, fairly closely, for fifteen years.

            Michael, what “evidence” do you have upon which you base your assertion that Alex Jones is Bill Hicks?
            I have followed Alex Jones’ work for 23 years and though he is a totally owned individual, he is the same person he was 23 years ago and is now.

            P.S. I have never beaten my wife.

    1. Trust Jake M. as much as I do Richard Gage.

      Even if WH “is backing off”, whatever that means, he has already done more than his fair share of pursuing Sandy Hook truth and we are forever indebted to him. WH has cancer and his health may be failing. Let’s cut him some slack and also let’s pray for him.

    2. Here’s what ‘Jake Morphonios of YouTube fame’, more formally known as Blackstone Intelligence Network, has to say:

      “Wolfgang Halbig has built his reputation on tormenting the families of dead Sandy Hook school children, calling the parents “crisis actors” and demanding they exhume their children’s dead bodies. From the bully pulpit of the InfoWars platform, Halbig & Jones have asked thousands of inane questions, suggesting everything is a dark conspiracy.

      Well, it’s time that we turn the tables and ask some questions about Wolfgang Halbig – where he came from, why there are so many discrepancies in his personal background, why he supported gun control candidates, why he originally said Sandy Hook was a real event, and why he has such passion about supporting the Zionist government of Israel.

      If Halbig can ask questions, so can we.”

      Lol. It seems ‘Jake Morphonios’ has a conflicted world-view.

      1. “Blackstone” and “Blackrock” are virtually synonyms for “Deep State” where by “Deep State” I include along with three-character agencies the vast security apparatus of the alpha plutocrats (e.g., the Rockefellers). He might as well have named his propaganda operation “DoD Intelligence Network” or “Strat-4-Intelligence Network”.

        1. Good comment, Les.

          I have listened to a few of Jake’s lengthy, 1.5 hour plus, yt videos where he very articulately describes problems with Zionism or Israeli government issues. He gives very good coverage on that subject but there is something awry about it all. He APPEARS to be exposing good information about what one may erroneously think is close to exposing the Mossad and the Third Temple loving rabbis and Netanyahu and the AIPAC gang. But that is NOT the case.

          Jake has a high-level Democrat party affiliated background AND, and here’s the rub…

          Jake is a member of the Mormon religion.

          The Mormon religion always is “Israel First” and “Make Israel Eternally Great”.

          The Mormon religion is founded upon Judeo-Freemasonic ideology.

          This rather unique entity is highly irregular for a Mormon, who are usually Republicans and very patriotic America first sounding. He probably is some Deep State creation or puppet as Les T. comments above.

          Jake’s good sounding rhetoric is really designed to support the entity that the Mormon religion always places first, Judeo-Freemasonry, and that has zero to do with America first and Bill of Rights first and support and protection of the American citizenry. Same goes for Mit Romney and Prager U and all the other oh so patriotic sounding Mormons.

          1. I used to follow Jake.

            I liked his take on the Summer Camp at Bohemian Grove [even Nixon said it was too faggy for him ] and Las Vegas shooting…then everything he said got real weird.

            Yes, he’s a Mormon which is cult with irregular ideas. Its in the same league as Scientology….imo.

            Then I un subbed him permanently. Six months of him was enough for me.

            I like the Apr. 6 report of D. Lady.

  13. I have seen a write-up as thorough as those done here that establishes to my satisfaction that Bill Hicks never died of pancreatic cancer, and popped up two years later as “Alex Jones”, where he proceeded to clean up financially much more then he was able to on the rubber chicken circuit. Yeah, AJ has face lift scars around his ears, and if you think he is actually his claimed age you would run as far away from the supplements he is hawking as fast as you could, Who wants to take something that makes you look ten years older?
    My point is this – of course AJ wimped out. He also told his wife’s divorce lawyer that he is just an invented character. It was under oath and it’s true. Bill Hicks doesn’t give a rat’s rump about Sandy Hook or gun rights. He hates us just like Rogan hates us, just like Beck hates us. He sold out, and he will play his part as his BS empire crumbles.

    PS – has anyone EVER seen an actual class photo for Soto or Rousseau’s room? The only one I have is from the website of a London newspaper and it has a blur filter applied… why? Looks nothing like a real scan of a class photo. Shouldn’t the original be in evidence if it’s not? If it is, could someone please point me to it? TIA.

    1. Marko, I totally agree. Alex Jones is Bill Hicks. Bill Hicks was a voice actor. He had many voices….same as Jones has.

      Alex Jones is the creation of producer Kevin Booth.
      That gravel voice of Jones is a total fake. Its all part of his voice actor days.
      Jones was first seen at the Waco incident where he confronted cops and Federal Agents in his run-up exposure as the new creation of Kevin Booth.

      Yes, that \’\’class photo\” of the Sandy Hooks kids screams photo shopped.

  14. Jones did NOT “wimp out”. Jones has always been a deep state asset tasked with discrediting sound conspiracy theories. He’s also running a limited hangout that permits US intel to know who’s out there talking. Now, he will claim that ALL conspiracy realists are both insane and dangerous. He now attributes much of his outrageous behavior to “psychosis”. His new spiel will be that he, of all people, is ideally situated to recognize the dire threat posed by “conspiracy theorists” because he knows them. More importantly, when he was still sick, he was one of them himself.

  15. OK, the pic is “by” Michael Duffy, not “from” Michael Duffy. My error.

    Point is, the photo brings to our minds an intriguing possibility. It does not prove any theory and doubt, even under the most proven circumstances, it ever would or could prove anything.

    I think we need some real live people giving testimony under very legal verified venue.

    The theory that derives from this photo looks good to me. The separate but identical ‘theory” regarding Noah Pozner and Michael Vabner also looks very good to me. I think there is more proof that Michael V. is a real living person, but I do not know what it is. I do not know how hard it would be to construct the teenage girls faces so that they look like an aged version of the “first graders” but the resemblance is certainly there.

    I do not know what WH knows or does not know, and it is a surprise to me today to see that he actually tweeted the photo on his now defunct Twitter account, but I do not think WH is hiding anything. It is just a theory based on a photo.

    I would say that by far most of the videos of 9-11 and the photos of 9-11 vicsims are either of unknown exact origin or can be shown to be digital graphics imaging that are a false representation of a real, living or dead, person. Same applies to photos related to other false events.

    There is some very sophisticated computer graphics imaging technology these days and we really do not know how long it has been around or how long our secret plotters of these events could have been using it.

    Still there is much value in examining and theorizing about what photos and videos do come our way. Even if we determine that just about everything about them is faked, that tells us something.

    The lawsuits under discussion involve circumstantial evidence for our side. That is valid in my opinion because there is so very much of it and it has been researched to the fullest extent possible.

    I guess I like Wolfgang Halbig’s “angle” and commentary on Sandy Hook because he looks at it from what would a parent do if the official story is true. What would the school administrators do if the official story was true. What would the police do if it was true. The logical answers given to those questions ARE NOT observed for Sandy Hook information we have. In fact, the opposite normal reaction or or opposite normal action taken is what we observe. If the story was true and real as stated, we would NOT see such universal incongruous anomalous data and in such large quantity.

    1. The deep state and major political players (also known as liars) are so neck deep in these frauds, I would almost guarantee a witness, whistle blower, horn tooter, good Samaritan or even Mother Teresa would never make it to a courtroom intact.

  16. FEMA, DHS, Obama, Holder and the residents of Newtown-Sandy Hook area truly believed the Sandy Hook fake massacre was gonna be IT.
    That it would be the catalyst that makes everyone willingly bow down and hand in their firearms. This hoax was modeled after another hoax which successfully resulted in the citizens willingly surrendering their firearms….in Scotland…the 1996 Dunblane hoax massacre… where someone walked into a school and “killed” a bunch of fake kids. The nation was so traumatized and in grief that they allowed their govt to take away their right to bear arms.

    They thought Americans were dumb too and it would work in the USA, too. They were mistaken.

  17. Sorry, should be

    If WH argues these kids *are* Sandy Hook kids *and are alive* but cannot show that these kids in the photo are even real or still alive, it is just stupid to make much of it until he has the bona fides.

      1. I’ve spoken to Wolfgang in the past. He has always been totally accessible. His number and home address is all over the place. If you have questions for Mr. Halbig, talk to him…WHY ask us? I’ll tell you why, because it serves your purpose more to spread your doubts here than do what any GOOD researcher would do and go directly to the source.

      2. All photographic evidence now must be validate-able with provenance, otherwise, it cannot be accepted as ‘fact’ or ‘proof’ any more. And while compelling, one simply need remind ourselves that lookalikes and doubles DO exist; (Hillary and Ruth Bader comes to mind, but many others.

        That being said, having been driving by the school at the alleged time, and I hearing NO Shooting, then having researched this for the past 6 years, well, I know it’s a psyop, too. Either no one was killed, or, in typical CIA-Cabal-tainted op, the alleged victims were killed by black ops traitors or MKUltra victims. Either way, this kind of behavior must be ended, and yet, it’s been going on for thousands of years. Maybe humanity isn’t supposed to evolve? Maybe the past 3 great civilization – ending cataclysms were just coincidences? Maybe this animal has run its course?

        1. Appreciate you recent comments here, Dr. M., and sorry I cannot be sure to read all of them due to the way the computer program is for this site.

          Not sure what you mean by ” validate-able with provenance” before we can call the photo proof.

          If you mean if we know validly and assuredly who provided the original of the photo, I still do not think that is any guarantee that the photo is a true and correct photo that may be accepted as proof.

          Even back in the 1940s, old movies mention “doctoring of photographic evidence” for use in court cases.

          I do not think photographic evidence is any good anymore in legal cases, but the courts are so corrupt that they gladly accept questionable evidence of this type as true evidence.

          That is why I say we need a real live crisis actor telling all in a steel-trap quality of venue.

          Problem with all the crisis actors is that they are never seen again in live real life today in the USA. They are gone forever.

          And with Timothy McVeigh, aka Lee Harvey McVeigh, his history, or legend, is that of his identity being slowly crafted, manufactured and created many years before the 1995 Oklahoma Bombing of the Murrah building.

          Doctor Moebius says: “All photographic evidence now must be validate-able with provenance, otherwise, it cannot be accepted as ‘fact’ or ‘proof’ any more.”

  18. Bob, you need to dig a little on this photo. WH retweeted it from someone named Michael Duffey, and now that twitter account of WH’s is closed by twitter.
    The photos over the heads of each of the girls are the well publicized child photos of the vicsims and the resemblance is strong and those names are well publicized too. You seem to be demanding answers of people who did not originally produce the photo. To my knowledge no one knows where that photo originally came from but just looking at it seems very telling.
    WH gives out his home phone number and you might call him.

    This is my second attempt to post.
    My first one never posted though I did complete the captcha.

    1. Wolfgang said the photos were “by Michael Duffy.” Duffy had used many places around Connecticut. Halbig has been asked about them before, but he has yet to give out anything other than “thanking facebook.”

    2. This is a non-answer, DL.

      If WH argues these kids and Sandy Hook kids and are are alive but cannot show that these kids in the photo are even real or still alive, it is just stupid to make much of it until he has the bona fides.

Leave a Reply