Paul Craig Roberts, Who Remembers the Sandy Hook School Shootings?

Paul Craig Roberts

The official explanation given of the Sandy Hook school shootings struck many people at the time as fishy.  Various aspects of the story did not seem to go together well or fit normal procedures for such a crime.  Contradictory evidence was never explained, and doubts based on evidence were ignored rather than answered.  

Now a Wisconsin state judge, Frank D. Remington, has renewed doubts about the Sandy Hook event.  This was not Judge Remington’s intention.  It was the result of his summary judgment in a civil defamation lawsuit in favor of Lenny Pozner against James Fetzer and Mike Palecek.  Fetzer accused Pozner of using a fake death certificate as evidence that Noah Samuel Pozner, age 6, was shot and killed at Sandy Hook school. 

Judge Remington has renewed suspicions about the school shooting, because he kept expert witness testimony favorable to the defendants from the jury and issued instead his own declaration of the defendants guilt in place of jury determination.  

Two highly qualified forensic experts examined the various copies of the death certificate that have featured in the controversy.  Larry Wickstrom concluded that one of the certificates “is an altered and unreliable document” that permits no conclusion of forgery or originality, that one “is a forgery,” that the State of Conecticut “has issued two different and certified as true versions,” and that one “has been digitally and physically altered.”  Wickstrom concludes: “That until such time as the State of Connecticut addresses and rectifies the conditions that allow this kind of record manipulation, any ‘true copy of a record filed,’ certified by the Seal of State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, should be considered suspect and treated as unreliable.”  

The second forensic expert, A. P. Robertson, noted many anomalies and concluded: “Given the vast array of different versions of the same document and all the numerous documented anomalies that are clearly visible, I would ask the question, ‘Would a reasonable person of average intelligence draw the same conclusions as the Defendants?’ I think that the answer is almost certainly yes. I would dare to say that any person of average intelligence would come to the conclusion that there appears to be some sort of intentional document manipulation.”

By removing such powerful exculpatory evidence from the defense and taking the case out of the hands of the jury, Judge Remington has given the trial the appearance of a show trial in which the outcome was pre-determined.  It is not defamation if a person states in good faith that a document is fake.  This is merely a person’s honest conclusion, in Fetzer’s case backed up by forensic experts.

The forensic testimony should have gone to the jury.

Then to get to the bottom of the Sandy Hook school shooting controversy Judge Remington, if it was within his power, should have had Connecticut state officials explain the anomalies and differences in the certificates or denounce them for not being official copies.

The inappropriate way in which Judge Remington handled the case smells like a coverup and an orchestrated lesson to people that they will be punished if they doubt official explanations.

If the official story of the Sandy Hook school shootings is correct, there should be abundant evidence with which to answer skeptics.  Instead, skeptics have been demonized and evidence in their behalf ignored even in a court of law. 

When judges fail to follow proper procedures, especially in such controversial cases, they contribute to public perception that legal processes are corrupt.  

Carl Herman reports here:  on the violation of due process by the judge apparently in order to deep-six the evidence that the death certificates were, as Fetzer had concluded, altered or fakes.  For the experts’ finding, scroll down to near the end.

Please follow and like us:

90 thoughts on “Paul Craig Roberts, Who Remembers the Sandy Hook School Shootings?”

  1. What “facts and truths” are necessary to achieve support for the actual solving of a question? Does an investigator, say, Dr Fetzer, need 100.0% of the critical facts before he can be credited with actually solving the problem? With a case that has thousands of bits and pieces, why would he have to have the full complement of these facts before he could be credited with the solution of the problem? WE have these odious trolls who interject often useless “facts” to our discussion and they insist that unless their drivel is accepted, somebody like Fetzer is to be denied the actual solution of the case. Certain critical facts are necessary for successful solution of the case but not every truth. Conversely, should there be missing parts to a hypothetical solution, why should this preclude solution of the problem if the problem collection, not requiring totality, of facts is amply presented?

    1. It’s impossible to be 100% accurate when attempting to re-constrfuct a crime scene that has already been purposefully destroyed. Courageous men like Fetzer do their best. So, for trolls like Bob et al to pick out specific details that may or not be correct is simply a method of disrupting the investigation and it’s value.
      That is why I voted to ban the Bob and anyone else who consistently does the same.

      1. VP Biden says that he saw photos of the dead kids……… really he did.
        He added that he could not say more because news cameras were in the room….

  2. “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” is a reductio ad absurdum that the Trolls herein use endlessly to argue one trivial point after another. What a tedious job they have….especially at 1 penny per sentence.

  3. Funny how I was criticized for mentioning the Hicks photo, which is part of the article, but people bring up the moon landing and nothing is said.

    A good site for you Moon hoax believers:

    1. Tomorrow is Moon Landing Hoax Day. I believed in the Moon Landings until I did some research about four years ago. Even the inventors of the Hasselblad cameras that were used on the moon affirm that the landings were a hoax. Its all revealed in the 10,000 NASA photos that were supposedly taken on the moon. Hasselblad technicians tell us that its obvious that the photos contain evidence of secondary lighting.
      Even their use of plastic film negatives in the unprotected camera in the extreme hot and cold conditions on the moon is a red flag.

      The astronots even provided analog TV pictures from the moon which is impossible due to the distance.

      Oh well, people can believe what they want.

      YouTube that bastion of 1st Amendment free speech has removed most of the videos that reveal the moon hoax.

      1. If that’s the case, why haven’t you said something to those who brought up the moon landing?

      1. Mike Rivero (a devout moon landing believer) refuses to even discuss the possibility that Apollo might have been a fraud on his radio show.

        But he said yesterday that he is going to take some calls on that very topic on Friday, it’s 50th anniversary.

        One thing is guaranteed, he won’t take many. He is either stupid, or on the payroll. But at this point, I don’t think anyone who claims to have worked at nasa is that stupid.

        His show is on YouTube. What really happened.

      2. Joe Rogan is another one. He used to be anti-moon landing, but took a 180…as if someone got to him.

        I’ve looked into it enough to know it’s a total hoax..,,but few will accept it as it goes too much against their ‘reality’….cognitive dissonance and all that psycho babble.

        Keericed, my entire existence in todays world goes against what I thought as little as 20 years ago….suck it up, move on and spread the truth at any cost.

      3. The Swedish designer of the Moon Landing Hasselblad camera stated unequivocally that the thousands of Moon landing photos reveal that the entire Apollo program was a hoax.
        Director Kubrick filmed several of the fake landings in the North London MGM studio where he had made the film 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1969. Nixon, Kissinger and Haig were deeply involved in the fraud. Kubrick lived as a recluse in his North London mansion for the rest of his life as he feared being assassinated.

    1. I have a simple question for you Will. Fetzer claims that Noah Pozner is really Michael Vabner as a child. Since Vabner was born in 1995, the date of all the Noah photos should be around 2001, right? In this photo, the two girls are holding books that were not released until 2011. The books are called Ponyella, released in January 2011, and Diary of A Wimpy Kid, Cabin Fever released in November 2011. How is this so?


      1. Fetzer’s only response will be it’s Photoshop. When he can’t refute it in any way, he just says Photoshop.

        I have asked him many times about this video, but he can’t answer it.

        His only explanation of the video is this:

        “At the time of the event at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012, however, Noah was supposed to be 6 years old. He cannot have been 4 years old in 2002 and only 2 years older in 2012. He would have been around 14 at the time of the alleged shooting, which would better fit Michael Vabner, not Noah”

        Jim Fetzer PhD, doesn’t know how a boy born in 2006 can watch a movie made in 2002.

      2. Well look there are a lot of things about Sandy Hook that don’t make much sense. The only thing I was trying to point out is that once a claim is made that has been proven false, you have to acknowledge that you were wrong. Otherwise, it looks like you are just making stuff up to support your claim instead of relying on the facts.

        And what did I get for this? I’m a shill, I’m you, etc. etc. Very disappointing but life goes on.

      3. @rodney

        The reason this is is because you come in on the attack an than say well I’m just agreeing with one false claim , but I believe things are “wierd” than continue onto ad hominem against Professor Fetzer and anyone disagreeing with you like you are being attacked personally.

        Professor Fetzer does admit when a premise is incorrect ie the death certificates being in different fonts not meaning it’s fake

        The conclusion is still correct as two expert forensic document examiners have concluded.

        Onto the hicks photo again the minutia gets attacked without taking the overall obvious absurdity and photos being evidence of fraud .

        There’s over 400 people evacuating yet only two photos taken ? They both happen to be in almost the exact same spot ?

        So the photographer sat there and waited only taking two pictures while this lady led 400 students out in groups of a dozen at a time ?

        This was the slow procedure yet they didn’t grab jackets ?

        Yet somehow all 400 some students got out before the non communicated too helicopter “via halbig foia hearing no helicopter was ever communicated too”got there ?

        They both happen to be with the same woman leading the way ? And the adults are just chilling .

        Shadow analysis “ which has been scrubbed from the internet along with any objective analysis of this case” (presumably by bobner uh Pozners network) of these photos and helicopter videos also show the time of day they occurred make the official narrative impossible.

        Rodney by your own admission the inconsistencies and anomalies are innumerable.

        Yet you don’t discuss those. In fact you barely mention them accept to try and credit yourself as not being agenda driven .

        One premises could be incorrect the conclusion is the same .

        Onto why bobners and possibly your tactics are viewed as just that “tactics”

        Your first comment on here has nothing to do with the text of the article . Just a picture with an assertion meant to discredit Professor Fetzer .

        Another thought is the smith mundt modernization act alots 700 million yearly to “diplomatic programs” geared toward United States citizens. That’s a large payroll budget for shills . Not that it’s even needed .

        Now had you read the article and article referenced in this article we would perhaps be discussing the astronomical odds the official narrative of this event is even possible via the average age of the parents.

        But you don’t want to talk about that . No it would appear the main goal would be to discredit Fetzer and act as though somehow we that view this topic objectively are irrational .

        If that indeed isn’t the case . What are the anomalies your referencing ?

        And if you don’t think it’s fema what evidence do you have it was something else ?

        Why do you think the United way has donation sites open December 11th and there’s a bing cache of the newtown Dawn Hochsprung article the 12th.

        What do you make of Carver saying “ I hope this doesn’t crash down on the people of newtown “

        Or the time of death being incorrect on Noah Pozners death Certificate.

        Or the Ct police report not finding a single finger print linking a supposed Adam Lanza to the crime .

        If you are actual researcher searching. The truth what research have you done and where does it lead ?

      4. The shadow analysis debunked


      5. @keefergreen

        I never once made an ad hominem against Fetzer so stop the bullshit. I simply made a comment agreeing with Bob and it was Fetzer who decided to reply calling me a shill. BTW, you guys use the term shill like libtards use the term racists. After a while it loses its power. Just a suggestion for future reference.

        Yes I do not believe what the government is saying happened at Sandy Hook. A lot of inconsistencies. I don’t see the need to recount them here as you already know them all. The ones you do list I am aware of, except the United Way donations one. Don’t know about that, time stamps are often wrong on internet sites, and it usually is a technical thing. One thing I would be curious about is there any online evidence of people on blogs, etc. asking what the hell United Way is talking about, after all it was three days before.

        All I am saying is that you have to be careful when making claims that can be proven false. It can discredit the good work one has done, which Fetzer has done good work. Once again sorry I ruffled so many feathers.

      6. @rodney

        So we agree on the conclusion.

        Caches are not “often incorrect” actually .

        Where is your well researched documentation supporting that claim

        And yes it is “ad hominem” to say Fezter ignores when something has been proven false which makes him and his “followers” not “credible “

        Followers is derogatory and an insinuation there is a bias and lack of critical thought .

        See frued in group psychology and Edward Barnays on propaganda.

        Also saying one has to be “careful” about making an assertion .

        I do Have to apologize about asserting no one called you bob I didn’t see the comment asserting that.

        The point stands your idealogies are inconsistent

        “ I don’t believe in the official narrative”

        “Than arguing with others who agree the official narrative is b.s.”

        The minutiae really doesn’t matter if we’ve come to the same conclusion correct Rodney ?

        So we’re on the same side . Let’s do something about it .

        I plan on organizing a group of people to head down to sandy hook ourselves and get he truth .

        You say you want the truth ?

        Why don’t you help out than .

        Let’s put our petty differences aside and make some positive change in the world

      7. @rodney


        You guys use the term “shill” like libtards

        Is an ad hominem attack as well.

        You are asserting derogatory statements about the nature of individuals as to discredit the arguments they purpose

        Notice not once have I resorted To calling you a name .

        There’s no need .

        Especially if we have the same conclusions as I just stated “were on the same side “

        Why bother arguing about tidbits minor details

        The conclusion is the same .

        If you want to actually help out and have a genuine interest in the truth .

        Let me know I’ll send you an email and you can help out with co ordination efforts .

      8. @keefergreen

        Once again you guys need reading comprehension classes. I never called YOU a libtard, I used the term to describe those that see racist in everything Donald Trump says or does. If you are one who does this, then yes you are most likely liberal and yes ignorant to believe this nonsense. BTW Fetzer believes the same so I guess he is evil too, I don’t know.

        But I did not attack Fetzer’s character at all which is what an ad hominem is, I just stated that he has an inclination to ignore evidence that contradicts his claims. I have given three examples on this blog today and he won’t respond. Neither have you or anyone else for that matter. You just say minutiae details do not matter. Well they do to the average person. I know I have had several arguments with friends and family and you can give all the evidence that supports the assertion you want but if they see/hear one that is proven false, they tend to latch on to it. It’s because their minds don’t want to believe it, so they hook on to anything that makes them feel good. You and I understand otherwise, but the average Joe not so. And to get to the bottom of what happened we have to have numbers. And yes it hurts Jim’s credibility, just go online and read all the attacks on him, they always point to his obvious errors.

        What else have you said. Yes timestamps are frequently incorrect, particularly on search engines. Some timestamps are initially created and assigned to URLs that are then repurposed, meaning that a URL linked to a current event can have a much older date. But like I said, an easy test to the validity of such a claim is to see the internet traffic for the three days that this was allegedly up before the event. People should have blogged and commented on this all over the place, particularly those in the area of Sandy Hook. I have never seen this if you can find something please share.

        I think it is great that you are forming a group to go up there. I have always said why don’t people go up there themselves and ask questions. However, I don’t expect you will get very far, they will bitch to the local police and run you out of town. That Gene Rosen is loony, he is the first one I would go too. Let me know I may be able to swing it.

      9. @ Rodney

        Ok just to get this straight

        “You guys need to take a reading comprehension class”

        I never said you called anyone a libtard I quoted what you said which was

        “Use the term like libtards do”

        Libtard =a derogatory term towards radical leftists

        When you state

        You are using a term like they do .

        You are inferring a causal relation of idealogies in simili form

        What you are doing is like what they are doing. They are irrational therefore you are like them which would be inferring the conclusion you are being irrational

        This is an attack man I don’t know how it could mean something else

        To restate another way
        The assertion is calling someone a shill makes you similar to those stamping the term racist on anyone who disagrees what (Trump) does

        Which would be unintelligent and close minded ergo

        Those asserting the possibility of you being a shill is unintelligent and close minded . “It is just like” which is a simile I’m assuming you know what that means

        It is an assertion via an inference and exactly what you said .

        I stated the above two different ways sorry for the redundancy but to state you are not attacking credibility is simply not the truth.

        And please do some research on caches they are not often wrong that simply is not true . I will find several sources to validate that statement for you if you would like .

        Another note is that “grains of sand make a mountain”

        Perhaps even if by some stretch caches could be wrong .”which again is not the case “

        You have multiple caches and errors for one event

        From the ss index (not a cache) for Lanza to the Hochsprung article (bing cache) to the original Facebook post and the United way foundation page.

        And yes originally there was a lot of information and blogs about the early caches including a newtown citizen who went to a safety hearing after watching “we need to talk about sandy hook” which documents all the incorrect caches and subsequently is scrubbed off of almost everywhere on the internet .

        The statement “timestamps
        Are often incorrect” holds little merit against the probability there would be so many incorrect (caches) not just “time stamps” and there is a difference .

        Why would the United way page have a bunch of traffic ?

        No one would have been searching it three days before the event .

        If I put a website up for donations to Switzerland

        A) if it is not seo optimized

        B) if no one has a reason to search it why would they ?

        Of course there wouldn’t be blogs about it.

        If subsequently something than happened in Switzerland the site would be searched more visits would than make it more prevalent.

        “ all you say is the minutia doesn’t matter well it does to some people and they latch onto it to feel good”

        Are we talking to other people whom minutia matters too ?

        Or you ? Who are we talking to ? And in my experience most people don’t cling onto these minutias

        You say it’s cause we need numbers , well truth is the amount of people that have drawn the conclusion. This event is staged for gun control is overwhelming . Now what we need is organization not to convince anyone of anything .

        Also you say I didn’t answer I did answer by saying it doesn’t matter if those are the same kids or not the evidence is still overwhelming the photo is staged .

        That’s an answer man .it doesn’t matter if there’s a hole in the premise .

        This is why we have discourse why we have inductive deductive and abductive reasoning as well as hypothesizing off of historical evidence and testing said hypothesis for replicability in order to find truth .

        Through these methods mass consensus is the conclusion “ the event was staged “

        We could item by item go through this list which has been done “ad Infinitum”

        evidences as you stated it is unnecessary ( although please add the inconsistencies you see maybe we haven’t heard or seen them
        It’s always Appreciated and of value to add)

        With the ad hominem attacks with Dr Fetzer you keep repeating your not attacking anyone’s character , while simultaneously attacking said character .

        “ you guys need to take a reading comprehension class”

        Inferring one cannot understand simple text is an insult on there intelligence again by inference . If I cannot understand what you say I am unintelligent therefor my insight becomes less valuable .

        ^ outlined this hole in logic twice .

        “ I am not attacking James Fetzers character”

        “Btw he believes the same so he is evil I guess?”

        See the dissonance there ? ^

        It’s contradictory.

        I’m not attacking Fetzer I’m saying he is not credible cause he won’t admit being wrong.

        Another thing your forgetting is . This is his blog ! If you disagree with him and think he discredits why be on his “personal blog ?!?”

        Also if you respect the work he has done . Why wouldn’t you lead with that ?

        You didn’t you started with holes in the premise.saying he won’t admit he’s wrong that is an attack on character man .

        All of this what I just said .

        Doesn’t even matter if we both have consensus

        Now we are at a better spot though as we have both agreed on the conclusion.

        So awesome yes . What is your email.

      10. Rodney….Quote:
        I never called YOU a libtard, I used the term to describe those that see racist in everything Donald Trump says or does. If you are one who does this, then yes you are most likely liberal and yes ignorant to believe this nonsense. BTW Fetzer believes the same so I guess he is evil too, I don’t know.

        I have never once heard Fetzer call Trump a racist. Can you point that out?

      11. Rodney, In re-reading your comment, it would seem I have mis-understood what you said. If so, I retract what I said in my previous reply….if not, it stands.
        Once again, I beg the admin for an edit function.

      12. To all:

        I made a huge mistake coming on Fetzer’s blog trying to give you all constructive criticism. I agree with many things he has said about Sandy Hook, but I also disagree on some things. I have attempted to point them out because it is my firm belief that one has to admit when they are proven wrong on a particular issue. It will not make them a lesser man to admit fallacies, in fact it will build their character and credibility. I find this to be a major anathema to the truth community. They are quick to point out the opposing views error in logic, but are so resistant to admit theirs.

        Dr. Fetzer will continue to state that Noah Pozner is in reality MIchael Vabner and this is simply not the case. There is overwhelming evidence, and I have presented just a few pieces of said evidence here. You can ignore it if that is your prerogative, but the truth is immutable. Remember this the next time you here Fetzer stating this on Don Grahn’s radio show.

        So I will not be returning to this blog. I see that it is for those that don’t want to hear an opposing view, but just want to agree 100% with what Fetzer says. That is not me. Good luck in reaching out to those who are still in the dark. It is a long journey, and you will make many enemies, including your own family. Believe me, I have the scars to prove this.

      13. Very strange attitude. Others have been making excellent points. I am not convinced by some of your arguments, while others–such as that “Noah” is not a fiction made up out of photos of Michael Vabner as a child–are completely indefensible. Egad! How much proof do we need? Larry Rivera proved it:

      14. Rodney…personally, I would rather accept and encourage Fetzer’s overall premise and not be concerned with minor details that will eventually sort themselves out. Folks with the courage and tenacity of the good Dr. need to be supported and encouraged as much as possible. At this moment, I am sure he’s engaged in figuring out his strategy and how to avoid a million dollar defamation lawsuit.
        If you are so easily discouraged because others do not go along with your ideas, maybe this blog is not for you.
        I’m a flat earther and believe me, I got some flack from a few posters…one of which could not stand the heat and just left.
        Is that you? Suppose Dr. Fetzer stopped when he was confronted by God knows how many nay sayers.?

      15. You should see the flack I get when I post on Zero Hedge with the name, Flatearther….but as time goes on, I get less…some start to really listen.

      16. Thanks for posting the larger photos of Michael and Noah, makes it much easier to see their ears are different shapes.



        Ears are not the same shape.

      17. @ Rodney

        Too interesting

        My precise thesis was why argue over little details if the conclusion. Remains the same

        Send me your email and we can actually do something about this conclusion.

        And if your correct that Noah and micheal are not the same

        An expanded blood test would have proved this without a doubt and we could eliminate that as a possibility .

        The only area I gave you flack was when you were stating things that just weren’t true. You did in fact make derogatory inferential statements about Dr. Fetzer and others that was merely outlined using your own words

        Whether you realized it or not

        If they were correct or not doesn’t necessarily matter .

        It’s like if I say “soda is bad for you because of the carbonation”

        Soda is bad for you . It may not necessarily be only because of the carbonation it is also due to high fructose corn syrup.

        So why argue with me all day that carbonation isn’t the problem when you also have the idea “soda is bad for you”

        We can just agree and from there both stop drinking soda .

        I honestly appreciate you and bob your criticisms force myself and others to be more well read

        Interlocutory debate is just that and never meant to be personally taken . Sorry your family isn’t on board with you as well I don’t know how I got so lucky but I never run into anyone that believes the official narrative or the news in general .

        Cheers man best of luck ! If you wish to add inconsistencies that you see or efforts that could be made to help get to he truth I know I would appreciate it and I’m sure that goes for everyone here though I’d never speak for anyone else

        Offer still stands to send your email if you want to help out

      18. Don’t be taken in. We did a blog about this with six participants. They have the same eyes, the same eye brows, the same nose, the same mouth, the same ears and the same shape of skull. They are one and the same person. What is more probable: that they share all of these features and are not the same person or that “Bob” tweaked the photo to create a minor variation so he could make arguments like this?

        Everything about Sandy Hook is faked. If you have followed this case, you know that all five of the death certificates for “Noah” are fabrications. A.P. Robertson established that his Social Security card is fake. And Mona had already determined that the passport for “Noah” that “Lenny” had posted is counterfeit. So how much more proof do we need that “Noah Pozner” is a fiction? This is how they faked him.

      19. So now you accuse me of tweaking the photo. Anyone here can take those two photos and compare the ears and see they do not match.

        Whatever resemblance you see can easily be explained by the fact that Michael and Noah shared the same mother. Pozner put Noah’s birth certificate, medical records and report cards into evidence. If need be, he could do the same for Michael’s records. All you have to counter those records is a GIF of two young men with the same mother. A judge/jury would conclude that two children with the same mother could resemble each other. Unless you have some other proof beside that GIF, you have nothing to counter the records Pozner put into evidence.

        Here is part of Michael’s birth certificate:

      20. @bobner

        I have a half brother and half sister .

        We don’t look at all alike . Simularities yah but way different , you can tell we’re related but our eyes nose mouth all different

        My step son and my son also look entirely different .

        For half brothers to look identical, exactly the same
        Is very improbable.

        I mean you have one parent with an entirely different genetic construct .

        Also an expanded proper blood test(with proper chain of custody) would clear all this up as requested .

        Yet it wasn’t granted .

      21. Half-brothers looking alike is improbable? If you share a parent, it’s possible you and a half-sibling will look alike. A simple Google search would give you examples of this. Plus, in the hearing it was brought up that resemblance is too vague anyway. It’s basically just opinion. Fetzer needs more than resemblance to prove Michael and Noah are the same person. Pozner’s attorney could just argue they had the same mom, so they could look similar. That’s reasonable enough for a jury.

        The fact is though, in Fetzer’s GIF Noah and Michael’s ears are different. When the two faces are blended together, you can see the outer edge of Noah’s ear sticking out.

        So they are not a match, despite what Fetzer wants to claim.

    2. Here is another photo of Noah and his twin sister. Taken on 11/20/11, proudly holding their new toy. The children are holding “Ultimate Optimus Prime” Dark Side of the Moon toy.

      Transformers: Dark Side of the moon was released in 2011.

      Again, how is this so if Noah is Michael Vabner?


    3. I’ve made many comments and posted photos here that the Trolls ignore. The reason they ignore them is that they can’t refute or deny them. Heck, they can’t even make a silly reply…..they’re frozen in fear.

      The only way a Troll can comment is if there’s a tiny chance they can imagine some brainless alternative fantasy-land and hope that ignorant readers will fall for their flap-doodle hogwash.

      There’s Tolls on this site that appear to be an escaped cookie from some booby hatch with a broken door.

      1. I answered the photo. You show a photo of people are standing and you wonder why they’re just standing there. It’s a photo, so you will only see them standing.


      2. I don’t ”wonder” why they’re standing there…I know why.

        As predictable….we get nonsense gibberish at 5:52 pm from a Troll. Trolls are paid about a penny per sentence… that’s 3 cents.

      1. Bobster :

        Yes, since nothing happened at the school, the parents would just be standing there.

        There is nothing in this photo that says that 26 people were just massacred.

        The only people who believe this was a real event are brain dead zombies.

      1. One more time . I know you have issues with words

        You forgot to “read” the words and say something of relevance to the text

        You do it a lot . I’m
        Trying to help you out bobner

      2. Also in your photo cropping you forgot about the parents chilling drinking water and hands in pockets while a mass murder/slaughter event and possible multiple psychopaths are you know feet away .

        So there’s that .

      3. As I said, why include the photo in the article if Roberts and Fetzer did not want people to comment on it?

        How do you know they have water? The man in the white jacket, you can see his right hand and it’s just specualtion on where the hands of the two women are.

      4. @bob

        Never said anyone didn’t “want you to comment “ on anything

        I said you didn’t comment on the “text” of the article . Which you didn’t .

        That’s just a statement of fact.

      5. As a doubter of the official Sandy Hook narrative, I nonetheless have to agree with you on this Bob. The photos clearly show different kids which debunk Fetzers assertion. This is the problem with him. When given evidence which prove a claim of his is wrong, he ignores it. I’m just after the truth, Trying to deflect what you have shown as these Fetzer followers have done gets us nowhere in finding the truth. Thanks for this.

      6. Well, Shannon Hicks has acknowledged taking both photographs, one of which was sent around the world. But how can you ignore the fact that there are parents there, with their hands in their pockets and arms folded casually looking on? And this was supposed to have been a 38*F ground-temperature day, yet the kids are not bundled up and the trees look like it’s still autumn. I am sorry, but when you dismiss such important proof based upon quibbles, there is no good reason to take you seriously. We know Bob is a shill. Your defense raises questions about you. Who would think to call parents to come to the scene of a child shooting massacre? And, when you look closely at the women in the back, they are casually looking on and even appear to be seated! Why I call this one, “Lounging at the massacre!” And given the massive proof that this was a FEMA exercise, I have to say your attempt to dismiss collaborative research on Sandy Hook discredits you all the more.

      7. Absolutely spot on. In no reality could that picture represent the atmosphere of a mass shooting of children. It’s casual and there is no fear present on the faces of the children or adults.
        It’s the overall feel of the picture and NOT the minutiae that counts. The overall feel is that of a recess or an outing….. certainly not a mass killing.

      8. “And this was supposed to have been a 38*F ground-temperature day, yet the kids are not bundled up and the trees look like it’s still autumn.”

        Would you expect children to grab their coats before they lefty the school? They were leaving because there was a shooter in the school, you’re not going to stop and get your coat. You’re getting out as fast as you can.

        The Hicks photos being staged is a dumb theory anyway. Why would they need to use the same two kids in the 2nd photo? Why not just get two other children. Why not just use two fewer children in the photo. Why not just use one kid in the 1st photo and the other kid in the 2nd photo.

      9. Bob, no one takes your seriously because you trifle, huff and puff, over trivia. These are OBVIOUSLY staged photographs. No one in their right mind would think any differently, once they had studied the poses and the expressions of the parents–or thought through the proposition that there are ANY PARENTS THERE AT ALL. Has this been real, none of them would have been there. And had, by chance, some parent been in the vicinity, they would have grabbed their kid and got the hell out of Dodge! Everyone knows that, which is one more reason your role here has been apparent from the beginning. You are shilling for the Deep State. You may yourself be deeply involved. Either way, no one has any good reason to take anything you say seriously because your motives are completely transparent. You are a fraud.

      10. Do you seriously think children would have stopped to get their coats before they left the school?

      11. Why are you attacking me? I’m just pointing out one specific of Bob’s comment which was that the kids are not the same. Do you agree? If so, you need to acknowledge this and do a retraction.

        I agree that this looks staged in terms of the parents behavior. Like I said, I have serious doubts as to the official story, but we need to be partial and admit when some of our assertions are incorrect. Otherwise, we are no better than the shills/trolls who work daily to suppress the truth.

      12. They appear to be the same kids but in a different sequence, where they rearranged the kids to get a better shot. And do you think they were bringing in parents by the truckload? This was so OBVIOUSLY STAGED that it’s completely indefensible to adopt any other interpretation. We even have the shadow cast by one of the parents in the foreground of the top photo, which corresponds to their presence in the bottom. And there are parents talking with an officer at the end of the line in the top photo, where they are now sitting down in the bottom. (See their complete versions at

        It’s a standard ploy–and implicit in the phrase, “conspiracy theorist”–to insist that those who are skeptical of “official accounts” have to prove every aspect in excruciating detail, which appears to be the tactic that you and “Bob” are deploying here. I am sorry, but I make no apologies for having blown this elaborate hoax apart with the brilliant contributions of my colleagues. It’s pathetic to see the kinds of excuses that we get from you and from Bob. All that is required to prove this was a hoax is to demonstrate major blunders in faking it, which we have done again and again. It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control. Given the evidence, there isn’t any serious room for doubt.

      13. So Hicks told boy #1 and 2 to go change their hair, shirts, pants, and shoes and then get back in line for the 2nd photo? But she made sure to put them in different positions in line.

        Wouldn’t it have been easier to just get two different kids for the photos? Or have two fewer kids in the 2nd photo or put boy #1 in the 1st photo and boy #2 in the 2nd photo.

      14. By saying boy 1 and 2 are the same in both photos you’re adding something to the theory that isn’t needed. You can just say it’s a staged photo, you’d be wrong, but you can say that. There is no reason to add the layer of Hicks using the same two kids in both photos. that part doesn’t make sense and too risky to even do.

      15. They may appear to be the same kids from a distance, but the truth is that they are not. The logos on the black shirts of both boys are not the same.

        Sorry for pointing out an error in your analysis, I thought I was dealing with a mature adult. I will leave you be on this forum since only those that agree 100% with what you have to say are wanted/allowed. Good luck with your SH endeavors/lawsuit.

      16. Rodney….I do not know if you are a shill or just a normal commenter. I DO know that when you come eher criticizing one of the few men who has the courage to put his life and treasure on the life for the truth, it’s a damn good idea to be ready to take the heat.

      17. Rodney is only criticizing one part of the conspiracy. You can’t be open minded enough to accept that criticism?

      18. Where did you come from, Rodney? You just came upon this article and started commenting? You?, looking for the truth? Hahahahahha! You jumped right in with no introduction but your comments appear to be from Bobner. We don’t expect a shill to seek truth, ever. Bye, Bobner.

      19. Yes I am looking for the truth, but apparently you are not. These are not the same kids, that is the truth. Apparantly you and Fetzer have reading comprehension issues. I have always thought the Sandy Hook tale was ridiculous. As 911, Boston bombing, etc. I have followed Jim’s work in detail since the incident and agree with many of his claims. All I’m saying is that once one of your assertions is proven false, you must retract it and admit your mistake. It doesn’t make you a lesser man, in fact, in gives you more credibility.

        The average Joe out there is very fickle in terms of these sensitive issues. Once they get shown that a particular assertion is proven to be false, they will most likely discount everything else the asserter has. It’s a technique shills use called poisoning the well.

        So sorry for trying to get to the truth. It was a big mistake thinking I was dealing with mature adults on this issue. Good day and good luck exposing SH for what it was.

      20. @rodney

        See right here first comment was an ad hominem attack against Fetzer and his “followers”

        You make the claim
        That once something is disproven
        It is ignored.

        This is not so . It is that the minutia does not matter whether it’s the same kid or different kids the oddities are still extreme . As outlined here and thousands of other “scrubbed” articles

        They are not ignored the points simply do not “debunk” the overall thesis , it’s a lot like the shill Murray website .

        He has to propose hundreds of alternatives for every single bit of minutia .

        When one statement explains every single oddity and inconsistency

        The way your comment is phrased is geared specifically at discrediting the source of an idea. That is why it is an “ad hominem” fallacy

        This is why you would receive backlash . On top of that no one has called you bob ?

        Yet you say that later ? You refute claims that have yet to be asserted .

        Like bob saying “oh fetzer will just say it’s photoshopped “

        Fetzer didn’t say that . No one did . Except for bob .

        Without taking into consideration the fact the position and pose of the photograph

        They just so happen to be holding “presenting” dated objects to prove a time period ?

        Kind of like the terrorist passport floating down the World Trade Center , or the “found checked bag with the hate letter and Koran in it” or inflated tire when everything else was reduced to dust.

        That in itself is odd .

        If the book happened to be on the table or something of that manner it would be a little less suspicious or look a little less fake.

        I’m not saying whether it’s real or fake frankly I don’t think it matters .

        Just sayin it’s convenient they would both have books and be presenting them to the camera as such .

        You’ve yet to make one assertion, discovery or researched statement regarding on oddity . Yet say you don’t believe the official narrative.

        Than are obsessed with minutia that may or may not be incorrect .

        The overall conclusion is the event is fake “ you yourself state this” this can be agreed on . Who cares about the tiny discrepancies.

        It stands reasonable to conclude a fema event for gun control as the giant gun grab and lobbying for gun control immediately after the event is in itself proof of the motivation of gun confiscation

        . It’s reasonable
        To assert also the parents are actors . Well because the wheelers are indeed actors !

        So how do we respond ? I find that to be a much more interesting conversation and the reason we have so much respect for the professor. As well as folks like halbig .

        He is a shining example of actually doing something .

        Inspiring really . Also one funny thing I appreciate the bobners and Rodney’s .

        They cause me to be more astute in my thought process and research.

        For example I am now in the midst of a detailed analysis of the official ct police report .

        Pretty astounding stuff .

        As I’ve stated before Bobner and the fellas can scrub as much as they want . They cannot destroy the absurdity of the official narrative .

        This case has and will be the undoing of corruption. There’s thousands and thousands that aren’t impressed .

        So Rodney your conclusion and well as everyone else’s on here is event was a hoax.

        Where do we go from here ?

        My proposal is gathering the thousands upon thousands of people that have come to the same conclusion. Marching right on down to newtown police station and city hall , school board , courthouse , And PEACEFULLY . Demanding the truth. Demanding the imprisonment of the actors and perpetrators of this event .

        We cannot stand for this corruption and we can end it peacefully . Without any violence whatsoever .

        That’s where we are heading I’m certain of it .

  4. Trolling
    When we talk about “abuse” in real life, it usually comes in three forms: physical, sexual, and emotional. Since you can’t physically nor sexually abuse someone over the internet, the abuse is perpetrated through the medium of a keyboard, with typed words. Ergo, trolling is a form of emotional/psychological abuse over the internet, and the intent is almost always to incite a “negative” emotional reaction in a person or group of people, which is usually nourishing and entertaining to the troll himself (and his audience) by way of humor and amusement.

    I look back at what I used to do for fun on those lonely Friday and Saturday nights and realize how truly pathetic a life I was living. I had no social life, had never had a girlfriend or gotten laid, had substituted my mundane reality for a virtual reality, bought IP-altering software just for account bannings, and was just an all-around unhappy asshole who loved ruining otherwise happy peoples’ days and bringing down their moods to the shitty one I was constantly experiencing. The reality is that, just as with real life emotional abusers, most trolls suffer from one or more various personality disorders (usually narcissism) and/or an inferiority complex, low self-esteem, and depression, as I was. Trolling is a cyber-expression of emotional abuse, and emotional abuse itself is part of a grander pathological mental DISORDER THAT THE TROLL SHOULD SEEK HELP FOR.

Leave a Reply