Recently, there have been many conversations at higher levels than careless whispers about the Sandy Hook shooting possibly being a conspiracy. The common source of these theories is a conspiracy video that constantly asks questions and removes the creatorsâ€™ responsibility for making such claims. Apparently, claiming that youâ€™re just asking questions and not actually making declarative sentences means you are in no way responsible for what you are saying in a public forum.
By that logic, a bigot could go to a Town Hall meeting and propose a petition by â€œaskingâ€, â€œShouldnâ€™t we get rid of all of the minorities?â€ but they are not responsible for such a racist statement because it was phrased as a question. You canâ€™t buzz in multiple Jeopardy answers loaded with conspiracy theories of national tragedies and claim youâ€™re not responsible. In one-way or another, people know you said it.
The video itself is reminiscent of â€œLoose Change 9/11â€ with its slow-motion shots and hijacked faulty news footage warped into the general theme of the argument. It makes some valid points in hindsight of the tragedy and may even hold some water in certain cases (i.e. how far away the ambulances were from the actual school and the time-frame of evacuation plans). For the sake of understanding whether or not this conspiracy is truly valid â€“ it is necessary to go through itâ€™s claims and reveal the flaws in the questions this conspiracy video asks.
The video begins with the notion of a second or even third shooter, starting with an arbitrary interview with a young boy who was a student at Sandy Hook. The child has no real statement that points to another shooter, he could simply be describing his misunderstood recollection of a man who was arrested after the shooting and was later found to be innocent.
Then there is an interview with a bystander who makes a sensationalist claim that he saw a man arrested and put in the front of a police car. No one else seems to have divulged this information but this completely random man whose credibility is in question. They conclude this idea with an overhead shot of the woods behind Sandy Hook where a man was arrested, but he was later found to be innocent as he was just a hiker.
The video makes a big deal of whether or not the assault rifle was used in the shooting when it was found in the trunk of Adam Lanzaâ€™s car, yet the medical examiner is sure it was used to kill multiple victims. Well, the examiner is most likely correct because the gun found in the trunk was actually a shotgun, not a Bushmaster AR-15. Also, the video constantly uses some rehashing of a failed 1980â€™s guitar swell that is so loud, you cannot hear the rest of many peopleâ€™s statements and interviews in the video â€“ including the medical examinerâ€™s statements.
The nurse who claimed Adam Lanzaâ€™s mother was a kindergarten teacher was most likely mistaken, because she had just been involved in a tragedy and was definitely not in the right state of mind to be present at an interview. The news organization who reported her statements could have simply been looking for those answers in order to express some kind of contrast between Adam and his mother by employing loaded questions. For example, â€œWhat was Adam Lanzaâ€™s mother like as a kindergarten teacher?â€.
The picture of Emilie Parker with President Obama after the shooting was definitely her little sister which you can clearly see from the image that had a faulty dissolve beforehand.
Gene Rosen is not a member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild), according to Huffington Post, heâ€™s a retired psychologist â€“ not an actor.
Robbie Parker smiled before going to the podium to answer questions from the press and the McDonalds did not act grievously enough with Anderson Cooper. Firstly, who knows what was said to Parker before he began answering questions, it could have been an encouraging or heartwarming remark from someone in the crowd. Due to that annoying guitar swell again, you canâ€™t even hear what the McDonalds are saying in the interview and therefore have no idea how they feel or what theyâ€™re talking about until you watch the interview and see that they were reminiscing about their childâ€™s life.
This is one of the main problems with the video and the main issue with the theory in general: how it affects society and the families. If this video is wrong about what it claims to question, look what it has done. People now doubt the grief level of mournful parents and faculty members of a small-town school. Nothing seems to be sacred anymore, even if the video is right and there was a conspiracy â€“ children diedâ€¦children. One can be as angry as they want at whoever they believe to be to blame, but remember that it is still a national tragedy. People have lost loved ones and others are scarred for life.
What people can do to be more constructive about this sort of thing is join FEMA, start coalitions to aid in crises with your region or join others whose causes you agree with. Get involved instead of second guessing what youâ€™ve been told, maybe then people will realize that disasters both by man and by nature are nearly unpredictable and almost always impossible to contain ideally.
Contact Anthony Nicoletta at firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow us on Philly2Philly’s Facebook page! And, don’t forget to “like” Philly2Philly
Any ideas or submissions? Just send them to email@example.com