Woman Claims Her Daughter's Photo was used for a Sandy Hook Shooting Victim

[katsung47]

Woman Claims Her Daughter's Photo wasused for a Sandy Hook Shooting Victim

Published on Jan 2, 2013
Sandy Hook Shooting Victim Allison Wyatt does not exist. Her photo wasstolen from her mother's Flickr page. The girl's name is Lily Gaubert and sheis alive and well.

 

[phoenyx]

Woman Claims Her Daughter's Photo wasused for a Sandy Hook Shooting Victim

Published on Jan 2, 2013
Sandy Hook Shooting Victim Allison Wyatt does not exist. Her photo wasstolen from her mother's Flickr page. The girl's name is Lily Gaubert and sheis alive and well.

It's interesting, but anyone could have done that. There's no evidence that this was anything more then a sick prank from what I can see.

 

[katsung47]

Well, is this Emilie Parke a prank?

Hired Actor Exposed-Sandy Hook (Please Read Info Box)



Hook Dad Smiling in the Wake of Massacre.(Read Info Box)



Fathers of slain children do not go around joking and laughing the next day this guy is a fraud and he is an actor and so is the aunt that spoke before him and this entire shooting is a scam to take away gun right for a much bigger global domination plan

There is no such a guy.

SANDY HOOK BAD ACTING POLICE THREATS GOOGLE INTERNET SEARCH

 

[phoenyx]

The father being so cheerful right before he's going to give his speech definitely looks suspicious. I fully admit that it's hard to filter out what's real and what's fake in all of this, including some of the conspiracy theories. That being said, what saddens me most is how few people seem to be interested in seriously investigating all the various claims.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The father being so cheerful right before he's going to give his speech definitely looks suspicious. I fully admit that it's hard to filter out what's real and what's fake in all of this, including some of the conspiracy theories. That being said, what saddens me most is how few people seem to be interested in seriously investigating all the various claims.

Perhaps because the claims are loony?

 

[phoenyx]

Perhaps because the claims are loony?

Some claims are unsubstantiated, yes. The question is, which ones?

 

[mike2810]

Some claims are unsubstantiated, yes. The question is, which ones?

Most likely the ones you tend to believe. :mrgreen:

Why don't you tell us which ones are unsubstantiated?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Some claims are unsubstantiated, yes. The question is, which ones?

Well for starters the claim that the school shooting was fake. Hopefully you guys have the decency to not involve the families of the deceased.

 

[phoenyx]

Most likely the ones you tend to believe. :mrgreen:

Why don't you tell us which ones are unsubstantiated?

As we're no longer talking about Lily Gaubert, I've responded here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...dy-hook-killings-w-24-a-9.html#post1061347446

 

[phoenyx]

Well for starters the claim that the school shooting was fake. Hopefully you guys have the decency to not involve the families of the deceased.

As with Mike, we're now talking about Sandy Hook as a whole, so I've responded here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ngs-w-24-a-post1061347474.html#post1061347474

 

[Thoreau72]

The father being so cheerful right before he's going to give his speech definitely looks suspicious. I fully admit that it's hard to filter out what's real and what's fake in all of this, including some of the conspiracy theories. That being said, what saddens me most is how few people seem to be interested in seriously investigating all the various claims.

Having discussed this topic last night with some friends while watching the NFL playoffs, what I'm seeing is the same sort of cognitive dissonance related to the events of 11 September, except this time because the events are so recent, it's a bit different.

Still, myself included, nobody really WANTS to discuss facts or evidence that suggest staged events.

And if this material the OP puts up is true and accurate, well.....:roll:

 

[mike2810]

And if this material the OP puts up is true and accurate, well.....:roll:

and "if" is true? and "if" the material the OP put up is not true and accurate , then we have what in your view HD?

"if" based explanations are used when someone does not have much of any truth to go on. It is speculation, and bad at that.

 

[Thoreau72]

and "if" is true? and "if" the material the OP put up is not true and accurate , then we have what in your view HD?

"if" based explanations are used when someone does not have much of any truth to go on. It is speculation, and bad at that.

You won't fully understand this Mike, but I am very much NEUTRAL on this matter. And like you, I would prefer to believe the official story.

The trouble is that the official story springs another hole in it almost every day.

IF this is true and accurate what the lady says about her daughter's picture, THEN it is another hole in the official story. And a pretty big one, too.

I will make my mind up when I see fit, and I don't know when that will be. In the meantime, I'm considering all the evidence.

 

[mike2810]

You won't fully understand this Mike, but I am very much NEUTRAL on this matter. And like you, I would prefer to believe the official story.

The trouble is that the official story springs another hole in it almost every day.

IF this is true and accurate what the lady says about her daughter's picture, THEN it is another hole in the official story. And a pretty big one, too.

I will make my mind up when I see fit, and I don't know when that will be. In the meantime, I'm considering all the evidence.

That is fine. Yet your statements seem to be critical to the official statements. When is the last time you questioned what the OP posted? Until the OP can provide other creditable backing of the statement. It remains highly suspect.

 

[Thoreau72]

I am suspicious of the government statements Mike, because they are beginning to show contradictions. It's just that simple.

Contradicting information suggests story telling is going on.

 

[phoenyx]

That is fine. Yet your statements seem to be critical to the official statements. When is the last time you questioned what the OP posted? Until the OP can provide other creditable backing of the statement. It remains highly suspect.

I think that Henry is like me here; we're not sure what to believe. But I, atleast, will not stop trying to answer the many burning questions that remain outstanding.

As to the OP, I decided I'd look into it a little further. Here's what I found in one of the comments when I went to the youtube page:
"Dailymail fixed the image and removed Lily's photo. But it does make one think: WHY did they have that image in the first place? When this whole thing started and I informed Cathy via Twitter that Lily's photo was being circulated as a victim, it was just on a FB page with a "RIP" caption. The page said she was a victim but didn't claim her name was Allison Wyatt or anything. So HOW and WHY did Dailymail put the photo with that name? This whole thing seems really fishy. Link imgur.com/cJP9t.png"

The image:

 

[phoenyx]

Having discussed this topic last night with some friends while watching the NFL playoffs, what I'm seeing is the same sort of cognitive dissonance related to the events of 11 September, except this time because the events are so recent, it's a bit different.

Still, myself included, nobody really WANTS to discuss facts or evidence that suggest staged events.

And if this material the OP puts up is true and accurate, well.....:roll:

I hear you. Ironically, this one gets me more then 9/11 in some ways. I've come to expect that adults are in an adult world, and it isn't always pretty. But to do this (or pretend to do this) to children is something else, which is why I've tried so hard to shed some light on what really happened that day.

 

[mike2810]

I am suspicious of the government statements Mike, because they are beginning to show contradictions. It's just that simple.

Contradicting information suggests story telling is going on.

HD, please tell me what makes you think you are being told the truth by your other source of information? What makes their information/conclusion valid?

what we are seeing is the weakness in instant reporting and the use of the internet. Not that the public is being fed a line, except from the alternative explanation sites.

 

[lpast]

I dont see how any one could or would stage something like this...they have to know the truth has to come out.
I dont want to believe someone would use this tragedy to promote a political agenda...but unfortunately I know theres those that would.

 

[phoenyx]

I dont see how any one could or would stage something like this...they have to know the truth has to come out.
I dont want to believe someone would use this tragedy to promote a political agenda...but unfortunately I know theres those that would.

As long as only a few people figure out the truth, I don't think they really care. I compare the event to 9/11. Some people have figured out it was an inside job, but many people haven't, and things seem to be going just fine for the war hawks.

 

[lpast]

As long as only a few people figure out the truth, I don't think they really care. I compare the event to 9/11. Some people have figured out it was an inside job, but many people haven't, and things seem to be going just fine for the war hawks.

bah i dont believe any of those wild conspiracy stories especially that 911 was an inside job...this is something different..this is IF TRUE slimey individuals taking an horrific trajedy and using it criminally for political gain...I dont want to believe this I dont want to believe weve slid that far...

 

[katsung47]

Sandy Hook massacre: Official story spins out of control

Niall Bradley
Sott.net Tue, 18 Dec 2012
The Newtown Bee
December 14, 2012

Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots - more than she could count - that went "on and on."

http://www.sott.net/image/image/s6/124104/large/Sandy_Hook_Principal_statement.jpg

How could the principal have survived to give this statement to local press describing what happened ... if she was one of the first to be killed? Incidentally, The Newtown Bee's article was taken down yesterday. Of course, a plausible explanation is that a reporter mistook another teacher for the principal.

Sandy Hook massacre: Official story spins out of control -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

We were initially told that two handguns - a Glock and a Sig Sauer - were found next to the body of the dead shooter, while a third weapon, a .223-caliber rifle was also recovered "in the trunk of a car" later, in the school's parking lot. All of the weapons were allegedly legally bought and registered in Nancy Lanza's name. The car was later identified as a black Honda, also registered in her name. More weapons have since been introduced to the story but we'll get back to those later on.

Besides anonymous 'law enforcement officials' telling the media that Adam Lanza was a former pupil at the school, they also said his mother was currently a teacher there, that she was found among the dead and that her son had specifically sought out her classroom first. But when it emerged that teaching staff at the school had never heard of a Nancy Lanza, it was suggested that she was a substitute teacher whose name therefore mightn't appear on staff lists.

But this claim too has disappeared down the memory hole because it's now known that neither Nancy nor her son had any connection with the school whatsoever. Adam Lanza was in fact home-schooled. Nancy Lanza has since been painted as a "survivalist" who loved firearms, taught her sons how to shoot and was "stockpiling" because she was "worried about economic collapse."

Sandy Hook massacre: Official story spins out of control -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

 

[505]

Of course, a plausible explanation is that a reporter mistook another teacher for the principal.

Hmm, a nice, juicy, yet plausible explanation in one hand... and a big ol' stinky pile of drippy conspirorhea in the other. Why do the same people always love the taste of **** so much?

 

[505]

As we're no longer talking about Lily Gaubert, I've responded here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...dy-hook-killings-w-24-a-9.html#post1061347446

As with Mike, we're now talking about Sandy Hook as a whole, so I've responded here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ngs-w-24-a-post1061347474.html#post1061347474

Tell ya what sport. Since you keep doing this crap and a lot of us are long past being sick of it, tomorrow while I am waiting for my back xrays to come in, I am going to bump every single WTC thread from this section and then start transferring every single one of your new replies on the matter into all of them. Seriously. You have been asked nicely before (multiple times) to knock it off.

It's ****ing rude for one, and as said earlier this is not YOUR section. People are going to post where they want to post and it isn't your ****ing job to go moving everyone else's posts around into different threads. Especially when they aren't even ****ing talking to you. It's confusing, impolite, get's convo's branching off into multiple threads, and it's starting to really piss me off. Knock that **** off.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Thanks for the laughs, kathak!