Asses and Assassins

January 21, 2013

Multiple Pages
Asses and Assassins

Moments after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School ended, theories of government complicity in the tragedy began. Some have been worthy of exploration, while many are patently ludicrous. Whether these incredibly feeble “theories” are being propagated as political disinformation or by speculators who seem only slightly saner than Lanza himself, we can here dismiss some of them.

That the name “Sandy Hook” appears in the most recent Batman film means precisely nothing. The map scene depicts a small island near the sea. Across America there are literally thousands of “Sandy” place names that appear near water because, quite simply, there is sand near water. That two places have a similar (or even the same) name is coincidence only.
Others say that some points on the movie map match the area of the shooting, except not quite. This phenomenon signifies only an overactive imagination. If someone tries explaining the world to you and mentions Batman within the first sentence, immediately walk away.
Query has been made whether one of the deceased children eerily appears in a photo with President Obama just before the Sandy Hook memorial service. Even cursory investigation reveals this is a victim’s sister.

“If someone tries explaining the world to you and mentions Batman within the first sentence, immediately walk away.”

While it’s curious that she is wearing an identical dress to that of her dead sibling, for anyone with even meager life experience such things are not “suspicious.” Widows often keep their husbands’ old clothes for decades. RFK reportedly went weeks wearing JFK’s suits after that tragedy. It may not be rational, but it’s what some people do, and it’s completely normal.

Gene Rosen (AKA Overemotional Sandy Hook Bystander Guy) is again doing the television rounds (again overemotionally). He’s telling anyone who will listen that he has been receiving death threats—well, at least some very nasty comments (which are the same to the unstably hyperemotional).

Is Rosen complicit in a vast conspiracy? Yes, but only the modern one of relentless self-promotion. He barely choked back tears, repeatedly, to dozens of news outlets all over the country. This alone makes any balanced person question his motives. Minor witnesses to history are obligated to tell their stories, but not make a living at it. He has altered his story significantly on several occasions. Sometimes Rosen relates his tale calmly (no media present), sometimes he is barely coherent (live feed to the nation).

Were there any children at Rosen’s house that day? Probably, but who knows? When assessing a person’s veracity, just ask yourself the following: Would I buy a used car from this guy? Not a chance. But it just means he’s an ass, not an assassin.

One of the more plausible theories, and one which actually did necessitate inquiry, was the seeming arrest of Christopher Rodia as broadcast over a police scanner at the time. Rodia has connections which have run afoul of the law previously and it is well known that authorities sometimes “turn” such types to their own ends. Since there was at least one witness from inside the school who reported more than one possible shooter, this seemed to be hard evidence that perhaps something was up.

After due diligence it now appears that Rodia was not complicit in the act, but was himself a victim of circumstance. The scanner in question had a radius of fifty miles and the incident simply coincided with the events at Sandy Hook and was not connected with them. This was a legitimate lead, and one the “legitimate” media failed to explain immediately, but it was a red herring just the same.

All of this said, there is good reason for some “theorizing” about what happened at the school.

Robbie Parker has gained notoriety for his press performance (and that is the correct word) only one day after the murder of his daughter. He comes out to give his statement laughing and joking with reporters, then gets into character, followed by a near ten-minute soliloquy where he struts the stage with his grief.

Yet this does not prove him an actor as some have claimed. Perhaps he is just a bad person, a venal one who has used the killing of his own kin as a platform for his politics. No one can say for sure, though there is reason to criticize him. People in mourning do odd things, even smile through their sadness, but they don’t do breathing exercises to get into form to show proper emotion for cameras. Not unless they are complete and total bastards.

Another interesting event confluence was a FEMA “Children in Disasters” drill nearby. Several “terrorist” activities of the recent past, including September 11 and the London bombings, all occurred on days that drills were happening. Whether that illustrates rogue government action or terrorist infiltration is uncertain, but it is alarming.

A similar oddity was the appearance of a memorial page to slain teacher Victoria Soto. It was created days prior to the slaughter, implying foreknowledge. An explanation may be someone made an unrelated topic page in days leading up to the shooting then afterward altered the page to make it a memorial site. This explains how it could both be erected earlier to the shootings, yet without any idea of what was to come. However, media and technological experts should be addressing this in an informed way.

Finally, there is helicopter footage that day of authorities chasing someone through the woods, throwing him to the ground, and arresting him. Who was he? He never existed according to the media. Anderson Cooper has spent considerable time “debunking” the claim that he existed. Yet while Cooper states the man was victim’s parent Chris Manfredonia, the evidence indicates more than one suspect in was custody that day.

The media had by turns confirmed the following: Lanza’s mother dead at school, Lanza’s father dead at home, Lanza and his brother both (not misidentification of one) arrested on scene, and Lanza’s brother’s girlfriend missing—all of which never happened. So why should anyone believe anything reporters say now? There is confusion during extreme events but it is the job of Anderson, et al., to clear that confusion and not create more of it.

Some will question my own motives. Yet having been involved in government and more than a few actual conspiracies, I know they sometimes exist. That doesn’t mean they always exist, and it doesn’t mean every incongruous element of a story is sinister.

Sometimes people self-promote, witnesses are greedy, and the media are lazy. Never discount simple error, erroneous impressions, and lies for money (as opposed to power) when questioning a narrative.

There is reason to be dubious of the official Sandy Hook storyline, but one’s suspicions should at least be reasonable. Keep watching the skies, but keep watch on yourself as well.

Daily updates with TM’s latest


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.