The Newest Reality TV HIT Show: Sandy Hook
I have been fixated on the events that allegedly took place on Friday December 14th, 2012 in Newtown, CT. At first it was because the whole scenario pulled at my heart strings to hear about these innocent children and teachers being gunned down. I mean, who could do something like this? Walking into an elementary school and shooting students and teachers for apparently no reason seemed so ’round the bend’ to me that it begged for my attention! Why would any rational, free thinking, and sane person surmise that going on a kill-crazy Grand Theft Auto style rampage would solve any of their problems? Especially using kids as your targets!
I continued to watch the ever changing story from the main stream media unfold. And the more I researched this event, the more inconsistencies I continued to find. There have been so many YouTube Videos, Blog Posts, and Internet Meme‘s made and written about these that I do not want to rehash them all in this post. Instead, I want to remain very focused on what I am going to explore about Sandy Hook.
I have been watching interviews of the supposed family members of the victims. As I watched these I started to realize that I felt like I was watching a scripted reality TV program. The families seemed to be acting out of character for people who were supposed to be grieving a lost loved one. They seemed to be reciting a rehearsed script in these interviews. Why were all of these families available for interviews so soon after this tragedy? We have all seen many horrific events unfold before us on the news. Usually the families and parties involved shun media attention to a point where the main stream media vultures camp out on their front lawns, place of employment, and even friends houses to get an interview. At some point they will have a spokesman address the media with a prepared statement. But this wasn’t the case in Sandy Hook. The families were available too quickly (5:22 PM for Robbie Parker) and all were so strong and positive it seemed fake. In many cases, the families were so calm, cool, and collected that you almost forgot that they had lost a child at all! This will be the focus of this article.
I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, so I won’t. I will relay my own personal experiences with grieving after the loss of a loved one. I have been no stranger to loosing people close to me. Over the last 2 years, I have experienced the loss of my Grandmother (cancer), best friend (overdose) and most recent ex-girlfriend (suicide). This is not a statement to illicit sympathy but more to illustrate that very recently I have been grieving and been around many others that were doing the same. I am not a person who cry’s very often and do not show my grief in that manner. I internalize it and try to accept what the fact is, I will never speak to the person I cared for so deeply. Even though I did not cry after these events, I was noticeably affected to the point that people who did not know me from Adam where asking if I was OK. So knowing how I dealt with my grief gives me at least a basis for how others would be feeling. In my opinion, if they were grieving the loss of their children, the grief would be even greater than mine! Yes, everyone deals with emotions in their own way but the actions and demeanor of these families are very suspect to put it politely, they are down right insulting to my intelligence to be blunt!
The first person I would like to look into a little more is Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, Chief Connecticut State Medical Examiner.
An especially important yet greatly under-reported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.
H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel he oversaw.
Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.” One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.
Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.
With this in mind extended excerpts from this exchange are worthy of recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified so I have assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be discerned of their voices.
Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?
H. Wayne Carver: Yes.
Reporter #1: [Inaudible]
Carver: Uh (pause). Question was what caliber were these bullets. And I know—I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court they yell at me and don’t make me answer [sic]—so [nervous laughter]. I’ll let the police do that for you.
Reporter #2: Doctor can you tell us about the nature of the wounds. Were they at very close range? Were the children shot at from across the room?
Carver: Uhm, I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from three to eleven wounds apiece and I only saw two of them with close range shooting. Uh, but that’s, uh y’know, a sample. Uh, I really don’t have detailed information on the rest of the injuries.
[Given that Carver is Connecticut’s top coroner and in charge of the entire postmortem this is a startling admission.-JT]
Reporter #3: But you said that the long rifle was used?
Reporter #3: But the long rifle was discovered in the car.
State Police Lieutenant Vance: That’s not correct, sir.
Unidentified reporter #4: How many bullets or bullet fragments did you find in the autopsy. Can you tell us that?
Carver: Oh. I’m lucky I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know. There were lots of them, OK? This type of weapon is not, uh … the bullets are designed in such a fashion that the energy—this is very clinical. I shouldn’t be saying this. But the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in [the tissue].
[In fact, the Bushmaster .223 Connecticut police finally claimed was used in the shooting is designed for long range field use and utilizes high velocity bullets averaging 3,000 feet-per-second, the energy of which even at considerable distance would penetrate several bodies before finally coming to rest in tissue.]
Reporter #5: How close were the injuries?
Carver: Uh, all the ones (pause). I believe say, yes [sic].
Reporter #6: In what shape were the bodies when the families were brought to check [inaudible].
Carver: Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We have, uh, uh—it’s easier on the families when you do that. Un, there is, uh, a time and place for the up close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this we thought it would be best to do it this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh … You can control a situation depending on the photographer, and I have very good photographers. Uh, but uh—
Reporter #7: Do you know the difference of the time of death between the mother in the house and the bodies recovered [in the school].
Carver: Uh, no, I don’t. Sorry [shakes head excitedly] I don’t! [embarrassed laugh]
Reporter #8: Did the gunman kill himself with the rifle?
Carver: No. I—I don’t know yet. I’ll-I’ll examine him tomorrow morning. But, but I don’t think so.
[Why has Carver left arguably the most important specimen for last? And why doesn’t he think Lanza didn’t commit suicide with the rifle?]
Reporter #9: In terms of the children, were they all found in one classroom or—
Carver: Uhm … [inaudible] [Turns to Lieutenant Vance] Paul and company will deal with that.
Reporter #9: What?
Carver: Paul and company will deal with that. Lieutenant Vance is going to handle that one.
Reporter #10: Was there any evidence of a struggle? Any bruises?
Reporter #11: The nature of the shooting; is there any sense that there was a lot of care taken with precision [inaudible] or randomly?
Carver: [Exhales while glancing upward, as if frustrated] Both. It’s a very difficult question to answer … You’d think after thousands of people I’ve seen shot but I … It’s … If I attempted to answer it in court there’d be an objection and then they’d win—[nervous laughter].
[Who would win? Why does an expert whose routine job as a public employee is to provide impartial medical opinion concerned with winning and losing in court? Further, Carver is not in court but rather at a press conference.]
Reporter #12: Doctor, can you discuss the fatal injuries to the adults?
Carver: Ah, they were similar to those of the children.
Reporter #13: Doctor, the children you had autopsied, where in the bodies were they hit?
Carver: Uhm [pause]. All over. All over.
Reporter #14: Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?
Carver: I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].
Reporter [#15]: How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?
Carver: [Slowly shaking his head] I don’t know.
Link to video of the full press conference:
The next person I would like to examine closer is the purported father of Emile Parker, Robbie Parker. This man just doesn’t seem to be a genuine grieving parent to me. In his initial interview he comes out to address the media very cheerfully and with a giant smile on his face. Then asks “Are we ready to start?” and subsequently appears to get into character right before the cameras! Take a look and see what you think.
In the next video of the same interview, he starts to give a lot of details. He talks about his last conversation with his daughter and about a Facebook page that was set up to help raise money for his daughter. What exactly do you need money for Robbie?
Now here are some more videos of other families and witnesses of Sandy Hook. Watch them and make up your own mind about how genuine they are.
If you just sat and dutifully watched all of the above videos, you may have noticed a few things that stood out. Not one single real tear is shed, using the same terminology over and over again, lack of expected emotions after such a huge loss, and availability as well as eagerness to be interviewed. Another thing that glaringly stands out is that each one of these interviews contains very detailed but generic descriptions of the victims and the relationships to the family members. My grandmother always told me “If someone tells you too many details without being asked directly for them, they are most likely untrue.” When I was a kid, this made no sense to me. How could someone with all the right answers that seem to make perfect sense be lying? If it sounds perfect, why question it? I came to realize as I grew up that most people do not recall events exactly as they took place. They also did not recall them the same way as anyone else. How many times have we played “telephone” with only a few people in the circle and the end result is no where near the original idea? Or how many times have you seen eye witness accounts of events that were nothing alike? This is natural because when tragic events occur, people do not focus on the same things and therefore the recall will be very different.
Now let’s take a look at a few children who were interviewed that were reported to have been in the building at the time of the shootings.
Not sure if you are noticing the same thing but I am hearing A LOT of details from these kids! None of them seem traumatized at all. No puffy or blood shot eyes from crying. And very willing to talk to the media.
If you have made it this far into the article, you may be saying to yourself:
“What the hell does this have to do with anything Travis?”
“There is NO WAY this could all be fake!”
“Something like this would take years of planning to pull off successfully.”
Does it seem possible that all of this could be staged? Where would you find actors to play the roles well enough to convince everyone that is was real? And who would write the scripts for this?
During my research, I stumbled onto a website that seemed impossible to believe. It was for an acting studio in Denver, CO called Visionbox. One of the tabs on the website read “Crisis Actors” so I naturally clicked on it. I was then brought to a page describing these actors.
When you click on the link to the Crisis Actors website, the very first thing you see is a woman on her knees with a man pointing (what appears to be) a gun at her.
A few things I found interesting in the featured story that just so happens to be a mass shooting event.
Excerpts from the article:
Visionbox Crisis Actors are trained in criminal and victim behavior, and bring intense realism to simulated mass casualty incidents in public places.
The actors’ stage acting experience, ranging from Shakespeare to contemporary American theater, enables them to “stay in character” throughout an exercise, and improvise scenes of extreme stress while strictly following official exercise scenarios.
Visionbox Crisis Actors can also play the role of citizens calling 911 or mall management, or posting comments on social media websites.
I can understand the practical applications for this type of training I was in the Army for 3 years and we spent most of our time training (pre 9/11). During the training exercises there were 2 units involved, the OPFOR and the BLUFOR. OPFOR stands for OPposing FORces (soldiers acting as enemy combatants, neutral civilians, rebels, and innocent victims, etc.) and BLUFOR means BLUe FORces or the friendly forces. I was OPFOR many different times and we had to go through a few different briefings so we knew how to ‘act” and play our “characters” for the different missions. These training scenarios prepared us for things that could happen on the battle field. A few things that stand out to me about this website:
- A “mass shooting” event is the featured story.
- The apparent gun in the picture is a long gun of some sort (looks like a shotgun).
- And the guarantees of realism throughout the exercises.
- The tag line at the top of the site “Trained Players and Actors Making It Real”
- And a very odd reference to schools specifically that is very out of place and by itself in the right hand sidebar “Helping schools and first responders create realistic drills, full-scale exercises, high-fidelity simulations, and interactive 3D films.”
This website was found somewhat easily and I would be willing to bet my next pay check that it isn’t unique. They have a very short list of actors available but no where near the amount of people they advertise being used in the mall simulation which implies that not all the actors are listed.
So if an agency like this exists that almost guarantees realism, is it that far out of the realm of possibility to think that this could be staged? Would it that hard to believe that these people being interviewed are being told what to say and following a script?
Now onto my last point about this subject. If something of this magnitude were to be undertaken and pulled off successfully it would require a lot of planning, say a few years correct? And it would have to be run by an agency that had the resources, experience, and authority to carry out such events correct? I would like to direct you to a website called HSEEP (switch the H and S to make sheep, js) or The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program. This program is run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and maintained by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These 2 agencies have more than enough resources, experience, and authority to carry out such an event. Furthermore, I found a page from the CT State website that details a training event that took place 2 years ago (Sep 22, 2010) at guess where?
Sandy Hook Fire Department: 18 Riverside Road, Sandy Hook CT. The address for Sandy Hook Elementary is 12 Dickenson Drive, Sandy Hook, CT. Lets go over to Google maps and see how far away from the school that is.
This is the very same fire department that was used to house the students and teachers after the shooting. Sept 22, 2010 to Dec 14, 2012 sounds like a fairly good amount of time to plan something like this. Can all of this be just a coincidence? Yes, I guess it could but remember the sage words offered by our former President:
So now after our long and winding investigation together, you may still have one very big question. WHY? Conspiracies almost always have some hidden agenda right? Great question!!! Here is another video that explains it very nicely:
In conclusion, I would like to encourage you to do your own research. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take the main stream medias word for it. Don’t take anyone else’s word for it. Do your own research and make up your own opinion about this case.
Think for yourself, question EVERYTHING!!!
- The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions (zen-haven.com)
- VIDEO: Sandy Hook Hoax “Medical Examiner” Wayne Carver (rawwscoop.wordpress.com)
- Grieving father remembers daughter (cnn.com)