Obstacle 2<\/em>. The kill-to-wounded ratio of Adam Lanza is impossible even for a military marksman. Adam is said to have killed 26 and wounded only two. I suppose one can worm out of the \u201choax theory\u201d by saying several gunmen did the deed.\u00a0 But no one has ever postulated that. To repeat: the official story contains an impossible kill-to-wounded ratio.<\/p>\n Obstacle 3.<\/em>\u00a0The policewoman in the iconic shot, Rachael Van Ness, has signed a sworn statement that she helped a few sets of kids to get from the building to the safety of the firehouse (down a hill from the school). Her testimony includes the absurd statement that she walked at the back of the line.\u00a0 How would first-graders, with their eyes shut, and crying, be able to walk without a leader? Her testimony also includes the bizarre statement that she made sure no parents grabbed their child.<\/p>\n Obstacle 4<\/em>. Remington\u2019s demurral from demanding Discovery is itself an insurmountable obstacle to the Sandy Hook massacre being real. Any judge would see that something peculiar was afoot. He or she would suspect that the plaintiff and defendant are in cahoots.<\/p>\n The massacre did not happen. I identify many ways to analyze this in my book\u00a0Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds.\u00a0<\/em>Do I really care about the Sandy Hook hoax?\u00a0 In truth, no. But I care about the messing up of minds. We need our minds.<\/p>\n I care a lot about the lies in the Marathon bombing story and the judiciary\u2019s willingness to turn a blind eye to the exculpatory evidence in the\u00a0US v Tsarnaev<\/em>\u00a0case. (I am an amicus curiae in that case.) See my book \u201cBoston\u2019s Marathon Bombing: What Can Law Do?\u201d for PROOF that the FBI killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and that he was never in a police shootout in Watertown\u2019s Laurel St. I have filed a RICO suit to no avail, see\u00a0Maxwell v FBI et al<\/em>.<\/p>\n As stated in the title of this article, we need real adjudication.\u00a0 Just think, such a huge thing as a disputed mass murder and it has never come to court. The defamation cases, which should have been a victory for free speech, have been judged summarily, \u201cfor the government.\u201d<\/p>\n I call upon courts to man up to this challenge. I also urge the participants who never really wanted the hoax to occur, to speak out \u2014 and be rewarded. A heartfelt apology is due to any under-age person who was instructed to lie.<\/p>\n There must be thousands of people in Newtown Connecticut. who are sick of the whole damn thing.\u00a0 If necessary, a citizen-led grand jury can be convened to help in this vital matter.<\/p>\n Vital matter? Why vital?\u00a0 Because our countrymen need to find out, pronto, the extent to which governments create unrealities \u2014 such as the vaccination-passport bullshit.\u00a0 It\u2019s got to stop.<\/p>\nReal Adjudication Is Called For<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Vital Matter<\/strong><\/h3>\n
As or the actual\u00a0district,\u00a0<\/em>I have no criticism, nor do I think ill of its\u00a0people<\/em>.\u00a0 If anything, I sympathize with the large number of residents there who were ordered to tell lies.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Sandy Hook story\u201d says that a massacre occurred there on December 14, 2012. No such thing happened.\u00a0 It is all fictional. It\u2019s very important for Americans to grasp this as soon as possible. It is quite common for the MSM (mainstream media) to put out stories \u2014 some big, some small \u2014 that are fictional.<\/p>\n What can we do about this? In the old days, journalists had a Code of Ethics. It required that they not publish, as fact, an item for which they had only one source. They needed to find a second source, or go out and personally investigate the allegation to determine its worth.<\/span><\/p>\n I do not know the solution to today\u2019s lying by the media.\u00a0 On four occasions, I have been so annoyed by false-flag stories that I have gone out and investigated them myself, to the extent of writing a book. The first three were: Port Arthur massacre of 1996, the Sydney siege of 2014, and the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013.<\/p>\n I hadn\u2019t considered the 2012 Sandy Hook story to be false. I thought it was true and assumed that the hoopla about it on the Internet was perhaps a psy-op unto itself. I was particularly disgusted when a Connecticut citizen named William Brandon Shanley sued various newspapers. That looked to me like a way for those newspapers to mock conspiracy theory (the judge dismissed the case). But I later concluded that Shanley knew the truth. Too late to apologize to him, as he is now deceased.<\/p>\n Here, in a nutshell, is the\u00a0false<\/em>\u00a0story of Sandy Hook Elementary School: A guy named Adam Lanza, age 20, broke into the school at 9.30am on a school day, went into a classroom of first graders and shot dead 16 kids. Then he went into another classroom and shot dead 4 more, plus he shot dead 6 staff members. He also shot and wounded a staff member named Natalie Hammond, but she has never appeared in an interview as far as I know. There is also a wounded child whom we have never seen. Adam then killed himself.<\/p>\n Here, in a nutshell, is the correct story: It has been common for over half a century for powerful persons in the US to arrange for real violence to occur, to make us think our neighbors are to be feared. A possible early example of a shooter killing randomly is that of Charles Whitman in 1966. He reportedly stabbed to death his mother and his wife and then climbed a tower at the University of Texas to shoot students. He killed 15 and wounded 21, until a policemen shot him dead. His motive?\u00a0Wikipedia<\/em>\u00a0\u201csettles the matter\u201d by saying:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the months prior to the attack, Whitman had sought professional help for \u201coverwhelming, violent impulses\u201d,\u00a0i<\/sup>ncluding fantasies about shooting people from the tower. An autopsy conducted after his death revealed a\u00a0hypothalamic<\/a>\u00a0tumor.\u201c<\/sup><\/p>\n To the contrary, I think Charles may have done all of that under hypnosis.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n At some point, the powerful realized that they could make up a story \u201cfrom whole cloth.\u201d This happened in the Gulf of Tonkin episode.\u00a0 In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told Congress, deceitfully, that a US ship in a Vietnam harbor, had been torpedoed by the Viet Cong (the communist enemy).\u00a0 It did not really happen, but the telling of it was enough to make Congress approve LBJ\u2019s large escalation of the Vietnam war.<\/p>\n The purpose of a false flag is to blame the enemy for some atrocity which will galvanize the domestic public. Often, a government itself carries out an atrocity so that a false flag can be hung on the perpetrator. He will be labeled a Viet Cong, or a Muslim jihadist, or whatever.<\/p>\n In that example from 1964, the atrocity was very inexpensive \u2014 no ship was torpedoed at all! I guess you could say our brain was torpedoed.\u00a0 Note: a German analyst of false flags, Elias Davidsson, looks at the 9-11 false flag where 19 Arabs were \u2014 absurdly \u2014 credited with hijacking 4 planes.\u00a0 He entitles his book \u201cHijacking America\u2019s Mind on 9-11.\u201d<\/p>\n So there we are, torpedoed and hijacked.\u00a0 We had better improve our game, and soon. Anyone with a working intellect needs to join this effort.<\/p>\n To create a fictional story of a school massacre would naturally require a lot of money and a lot of effort. So why bother? What was gained? I have heard three purposes suggested.<\/p>\n The first is gun control. Certainly much is made of the shooting by persons who do not want the public to easily acquire a gun. And the bereaved families (I mean the \u201cbereaved\u201d families) at Sandy Hook have taken a prominent role in the anti-gun movement. A helpful book, co-edited by James Fetzer and Mike Palecek, is entitled: \u201cNobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill To Support Gun Control.\u201d<\/p>\n The second possible purpose of Sandy Hook was to use it as a try-out for later events, such as the Boston Marathon bombing. In other words, the powerful were testing the public\u2019s gullibility. It seems we passed with flying colors.\u00a0 Although there are many critics of Sandy Hook who publish comments on the Internet, no official action has taken place in opposition to this false flag. (Note: It took Congress nine years, from its Gulf of Tonkin gullibility in 1964 to its official opposition in the 1973 War Powers Act.)<\/p>\n I go along with those first and second purposes of Sandy Hook \u2014 nuking the Second Amendment and prepping for the Marathon affair \u2014 but I am especially devoted to a third purpose. Namely, the powerful want us to stop making any distinction between fact and fiction. This is the premise of my book \u201cUnreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds.\u201d I claim that the Sandy Hook issue is meant to expose us to huge lies, whilst we sort-of-realize they are lies, and finally give up on trying to distinguish between reality and unreality.<\/p>\n I mentioned above that I had \u2014 until 2021 \u2014 believed that the massacre was real. This was partly because I have been a student of both the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia and the 1996 Dunblane massacre in Scotland. Both were real. Port Arthur had about 35 adult victims and Dunblane had 16 kids and one teacher. I am sure that in both cases they were false flags. That is, the alleged gunman (Martin Bryant, who is still in prison for Port Arthur) and Thomas Hamilton (killed himself at Dunblane) were not the real killers. They were substitutes.<\/p>\n In any case, I got over my intellectual laziness about Sandy Hook when William Sumner Scott, who is an attorney for Jim Fetzer, showed me the case of\u00a0Soto et al v Remington<\/em>. This was a civil lawsuit brought by Donna Soto and eight others against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster gun that was allegedly used at the Sandy Hook massacre. (The case is also called Soto v Bushmaster.)<\/p>\n The stunning thing about the lawsuit is that the defendant did not ask for Discovery. That is, Remington did not demand proof that Adam Lanza did the shooting, or that he had access to a Bushmaster gun, or that the deaths were specifically caused by that gun rather than by the Glock pistol that Adam had in his pocket.\u00a0 In other words, Remington took it all lying down. They have, to date, proffered $33 million to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n Note: This case is not yet closed and it is intertwined with a matter in the Bankruptcy Court, as Remington is now bankrupt. Shareholders could squawk at the lack of Discovery, and creditors who hope to get some of Remington\u2019s holdings could squawk that it is not fair to hand $33 million to the Soto folks so long as Adam-and-his-Bushmaster story are in any doubt.<\/p>\n Also note: There is a case still a-happening in Wisconsin,\u00a0viz<\/em>., Jim Fetzer\u2019s attempt to get an appeal with that state\u2019s supreme court over the award of $450,000 that a jury made to Leonard Pozner in the defamation suit\u00a0Pozner v Fetzer<\/em>. Mr Pozner claims that Fetzer in effect called him a liar by saying that his 6-year-old son Noah\u2019s death certificate was fake.\u00a0 When Fetzer attempted to get Discovery, he was denied it by Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County Judge Frank D. Remington. This is a wrongful denial as Fetzer was ready to present two expert witnesses concerning the non-authenticity of the death certificate.<\/p>\n Similar cases for defamation were brought against Internet broadcaster Alex Jones in Connecticut and in Texas where he lives. Jones is still litigating them, but he has withdrawn his assertion that Sandy Hook is a hoax.<\/p>\n Let me identify four insurmountable obstacles to Sandy Hook being real; each should have been caught by any court or any competent defense attorney or any careful investigator.<\/p>\n Obstacle 1<\/em>. On the day of the event, December 14, 2012, a photo of 8 children escaping from the school was sent to media all around the world.\u00a0 It is called \u201cthe iconic shot.\u201d The photographer was Ms Shannon Hicks of the\u00a0Newtown Bee<\/em>.\u00a0 In the shot we see a policewoman in the middle of the line. She is Rachael Van Ness. She seems to be helping the kids who are walking with their eyes closed and a hand on the child in front of them.<\/p>\n This piece of evidence in favor of a real massacre is surely compelling. However, another photo \u2014 I\u2019ll call it Photo B \u2014 reveals the iconic photo to have been taken at a time other than the December 14, 2012 date. We see the same scene, with the same kids (and same position of the parked cars), and the same Officer Van Ness, but this Photo B reveals five parents standing there watching it. They would not be standing so casually if they had been told that many kids were murdered.<\/p>\n I deduce that all these photos were probably taken on a day when the kids were told to act like a drill was in force. Drills are common. The reason that critics say Photo B was staged is that Officer Van Ness was trying out various arrangements of the line. Note how, in one pose, a girl in pale pink jersey is at the front, while in another pose, a black-jersey boy leads the line (that one must have passed the test for suitability; it became the iconic photo used by mainstream media).<\/p>\n Granted, a picture could have been taken by Shannon Hicks and then misused by the media \u2014 this often happens. But she has said that the iconic shot is the picture that she took on the day.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nFalse Flags<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Whole Cloth \u2014 Gulf of Tonkin<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The Purpose of Sandy Hook<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Court Cases<\/strong><\/h3>\n
My Appraisal of the Hoax \u2014 the Four Insurmountables<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/gumshoenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/sandy-hook-5.jpg?resize=640%2C276&ssl=1\")
<\/a>