Tom is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, single father, and long time resident of Oak Creek, who writes regularly about human interaction and perception as it relates to social issues, value fulfillment, and introspection. Tom encourages and challenges the reader to engage new perspectives; believing that through open and honest evaluation of all sides of a debate, conflicting parties can communicate with greater efficacy and more productive outcomes.
I recently watched the viral YouTube video about the Sandy Hook shooting. I refuse to hyperlink it because it’s just more nonsense propaganda from the extreme end of the gun lobby who would rather create a conspiracy theory and exploit the murder of nearly two dozen children as a scare tactic to affect your emotional psychology instead of your intellectual logic.
There are ways to advocate what you feel are your constitutional rights, this disgusting video should not be considered to be one of them. It was irresponsible and short-sighted. And, completely fabricated.
Many have probably seen the video already, but I hope fewer more will. It should be removed as it is nothing more than a dagger to the hearts of those who lost their loved ones that day.
Whether you’ve seen it or not, here are a few things that can be immediately debunked:
(I've now spent a couple of hours with the 30-minute video, and these points were quickly ascertained and able to be proven untrue by my own research. I suggest any naysayers also do their own).
At a couple of points in the video, the editor uses an aerial shot of the school and tells you to take note that there are no children running outside or emergency vehicles present. The editor forgot to crop the "Google" stamp from the top of the image. As most know, Google Earth images are not "real time." In fact, if you go to Google Earth right now you can pull up the exact same image. (Note the same cars parked in the same spots and other reference points in the photographs that are also identical).
I took a screen shot from the video and then from Google Earth before putting them side-by-side. They are identical.
Perhaps the most despicable part of the video is the editor’s use of shock affect by the insinuation that Emily Parker is still alive.
The morphing of the two pictures of Emily Parker is inaccurate. These photos are all available on the web, in several locations. If you do simple Google searches for “Parker Family Pictures” and “Parker Family Meets Obama” you will find the exact ones used in the video.
The family portrait that includes Emily (taken at some point prior to the shooting) is overlaid and then morphed into a picture of what is stated to be her on President Obama's lap, post-shooting. The narrator uses some compelling language to make the presumption that the two are the same. He couldn’t be more wrong.
If you look at these pictures independent of one-another (again, pull these up and do side-by-side comparisons), you can see that the little girl on Obama's lap is clearly her younger sister. Although Emily and the middle sister look very similar, there are very distinguishable differences in facial features, including the nose, mouth, eyes, hair, and cheek bones. To anyone with working eyeballs, this is easily discernible.
It would not be unusual for the sisters to share clothing with their proximity in age and size. And, just perhaps, the younger sister wanted to wear her sister’s dress that day. This entire part of the video nauseates me.
Further attempt is made to defraud her father by using a short clip of him laughing before the speech he made about his daughter.
Anyone who’s had to speak in front of a large group knows that often times no matter the scenario one has to find a way to polish the edge off of the nerves. Once things go quiet and the focus is on you, the reality sets in. Nerves could easily account for this change in behavior. Or, perhaps in the extreme anxiety, depression and overwhelming denial of the situation he was medicated (I know I would surely need to be).
The truth is that we don’t know, but assuming nerves or antidepressants is a bit more reasonable and responsible than tying it to some ridiculous presumption that highly skilled marksman in our government murdered twenty school children that morning, and the father of one of those children is in on the conspiracy that left his own daughter dead.
There is no way to verify the legitimacy of the nighttime video of officers apparently recovering something from the shooter’s trunk (said to be a long rifle) many hours after the shooting. There is no time stamp, and no way to verify the activity, intent or conversation of the investigators at the scene because all you have is a nighttime video from a roving helicopter.
This video of the trunk is used by the narrator to try to debunk the medical examiner's report twice in the same video. Each time it’s poorly edited (you can see the video skip, as it’s tailored for the story the editor wants you to believe and the parts he wants to manipulate) and rerun in different ways with different affects to entice what he assumes will be the feeble-minded viewer.
The second time around, the narrator captions the video, “We confirmed the rifle was in the trunk of the car and not with the body earlier…” Who confirmed this? The editor and/or narrator confirmed nothing; they made an observation with little more than a few seconds of a dark, blurry video to hypothesize about, and then made a presumption using persuasive, carefully-crafted language to assume your buy-in to his presumptions.
In fact, nothing was confirmed except the murder of 20 children and 6 adults by an individual who was clearly misguided.
Attacking the character and mannerisms of the medical examiner is baseless and has no credibility or relevance at all. The guy deals with gore every day, I would expect him to seem a bit “quirky.”
The video uses a lot of media reports that were broadcast as the situation was unfolding, as we all know are always full of inaccuracies and presumptions to fluff the story. The video opens with these in an almost theatrical instant climactic point to gain your attention, in the same way these same videos grabbed your emotions as the incident was immediately unfolding. There is nothing more to them than that, initial, and often presumptive and inaccurate reports.
There is more about this video to be proven fraudulent, but the above facts alone are enough to demonstrate that the overriding intent of the video is not to inform the American people of any valid government cover-up, but rather the malicious exploitation of murdered children by an individual or group of individuals who suffer from mental illness, with the purpose of scaring the American public into taking up arms.
There are a growing number of individuals in our society who want there to be civil unrest. They are so detached from reality that they will make videos like this, completely fabricating mistruths and circumventing all reasonable logic, in order to make their flaccid point.
If there were any relevant points in the video, they were lost in the obvious fabrications of the rest of it, which is too bad.
There will always be unanswered questions. The one who holds most of the answers, the shooter, is dead.
This video is the exact type of rhetoric we cannot fall victim to if we want to work together to find solutions to a problem that affects our constitutional rights.