Sandy Hook Denial Will Be Criminalized, Like Holocaust Denial?

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB 

Why has so much confusing material been published about the Sandy Hook massacre of December 14, 2012? I think I’ve figured out what’s going on!

This article will go much further than my November 30, 2014 article, “Duplex False Flags: Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, etc.” There, I looked at the fact that there are many ‘critics’ on Youtube who don’t seem to be ordinary critics. They’ve done amazing work digging up data that people like myself would never think of looking for. Until now, I was tempted to believe their findings.

For instance, one man claims that the homes of families whose children later died at Sandy Hook, were purchased on a public holiday (Christmas Day, no less!), and that the price of each house was under a dollar. The notion a reader may take away from this is that some individuals were paid to make up a tale that a child of theirs had been killed. (This is the logic being laid into your brain.)

The Youtuber in question never divulges what led him to undertake that amazing real-estate research! There’s also a video, which has received half a million hits, in which Robbie Parker, father of a deceased child, seems to be ‘acting’ for the TV news. Again, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this indicates that the Sandy Hook massacre was not real.

Note: such Youtubers never identify themselves. I always give my real name, and I doubt anyone who fails to do likewise.

In Boston, too, there was a lot of ‘noise.’ Let me say here that while I no longer think the Sandy Hook story is fabricated, I do I think that the story of the brothers Tsarnaev is untrue, just like the guys who supposedly blew up the London tube (on July 7, 2005). The business about the older Tsarnaev boy using an SUV to run over his brother is a bit more than I can accept.

boston3

I think the Marathon bombing was a made-for-public-terror event. Did actual bombs explode? If they did, it was probably a covert agency such as the CIA that did it. Purpose? The usual: to create general insecurity. And in this case to deprive us of the pleasure of outdoor events.

The Boston Globe gave us a complicated report of a man who was carjacked by the Tsarnaevs. The story is false on its face. The carjackee (unnamed!) said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev boasted to him about having done the Marathon bombing. How ridiculous! A man running away from the police would never admit guilt like that. The Globe must have felt confident that it would strike a chord in our brain, as all humans like to brag now and again.

On Youtube, there was a veritable army of know-it-all critics of the Boston affair.  Some of them made fun of the lady who had lost a leg from the bombing. (Personally, I’m skeptical of the amputation stories.) The conclusion in my November 30 article was: “I deduce that the point of the madcap reporting about amputees in Boston is intended to make a truther give up on investigating, as the whole thing is so confusing.”

The Shanley Lawsuit Is the Clue

On December 27, 2014, a press release informed us that William Brandon Shanley has filed a lawsuit, naming some famous mainstream media persons (even Rupert) as the defendants. In his pleadings to the District Court, Shanley says:

“Defendants entered in a multi-year conspiracy, meeting in groups separately and together, to commit fraud and terrorism, i.e., to brainwash the public into thinking a lone gunman drill known as the “Sandy Hook Massacre” was real, when in fact it was a staged FEMA Exercise ….. These crimes were undertaken with the intent of subverting the US Constitution and to affect national, state and local laws.  This fraud involved lying to the public, faking news, publishing one-sided news reports, censoring reality, suppressing facts, and deliberately skewing the news to shift public perceptions.”

There’s nothing I disagree with in that paragraph, except the claim that the shooting was not real. I believe a gunman did kill children and teachers at Sandy Hook (or at least I have no evidence to the contrary), yet I think the rest of that paragraph is fair in its accusation of the media. Plainly, the media have been stirring up terror for forty years, hand-in-glove with government.  It began long before 9-11.

Today I’m hypothesizing that Shanley’s lawsuit was not written in good faith. His pitch is so poorly constructed as to suggest that he didn’t even get an attorney to look at it. If you were going to ask for a trillion dollars damages (as he did) on such a vital matter, wouldn’t you make your case solid and persuasive?

Also, he proposes to call as witnesses James Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbig, neither of whom commands my trust. Fetzer has been fiddling around for decades with the JFK assassination. My guess is that Fetzer is assigned to keep amateurs busy.  (I’ve often wondered if such folks double dip, drawing an academic salary, and CIA pay.)

Framing the Debate

The plot thickens. Today I read a piece by Deanna Spingola, “Unraveling Sofia Smallstorm’s Video on Sandy Hook, Part 1,” dated February 11, 2014. Deanna has looked at some of the very-early critical reports about Sandy Hook, published in December 2012, and they strike her as having been placed there — by baddies, though she doesn’t quite say that — in order to frame the debate.”

She got that concept from Beverly Eakman’s excellent book, “How To Counter Group Manipulation Tactics.” My guess is that Deanna Spingola is right. The baddies got in there early, to set up the notion that the massacre was suspect. Later, more Youtubers came forth with seemingly authentic claims about ‘crisis actors.’

Consider also the fact that that Adam Lanza, the alleged gunman of Sandy Hook, looks like an implausible mass murderer, and was shown to us in a very weird portrait. This would serve to prep the public to call Foul on the whole thing.

6a00d8357f3f2969e201a73d90b40e970dAdam Lanza

And suddenly there’s the Shanley lawsuit, saying outright that no child died at Sandy Hook!  William Shanley, who is a film producer, doesn’t offer credible evidence for his claim. I think I see where this is headed. I think his claim will cause the general public to feel he has acted outrageously.  After all, can any person be more deeply bereaved than a parent who has lost a precious 5 or 6 year-old son or daughter?

I venture to guess that Shanley’s case is deliberately sloppy, because it wants to fail. A judge will dismiss it for its technical inadequacy. Then a new pack of Youtubers will stir up the complaint that the judge did wrong. Meanwhile, the families will quite reasonably be seen to have been hurt by such offensive publicity, and we investigators will feel embarrassed.

Now for the denouement. You know how legislators have been on a mad kick lately to curtail civil rights? They want to take away gun rights and free speech, and they want to criminalize acts by journalists that have the effect of exposing crime in government. Can’t you just see them proposing to outlaw Youtube criticism of “terrorist” acts, because of Sandy Hook?

Hence I hereby move from my November 30th position, which was that the Sandy Hook and Marathon stuff on Youtube is mainly intended to discourage citizen investigators. I now say its purpose is to pave the way for legislation that will forbid the discussion on Internet of any crimes that we are supposed to dutifully believe in, be it 9-11, Marathon, or terrorist acts yet to come.

The Laws against Holocaust Denial

Of course there is precedent for this.  Some European nations, such as Germany and Belgium, have enacted legislation to criminalize any public statement of doubt as to the existence of the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews, and many others, lost their lives.  Quite a few Germans are in prison now for this.

In Canada, Ernst Zundel, a Canadian citizen, distributed a pamphlet entitled “Did Six Million Really Die?” He was extradited to Germany for trial (despite Canada having no equivalent law which is most unusual). During his trial, his defense lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, was not allowed to submit, in his defense, anything to support the fact that what Zundel had written was true. Try to imagine his frustration.

When Stolz talked about evidence that challenges some particulars of the Holocaust, she was arrested in the courtroom. (She was actually physically carried out by guards.) She has finished serving a 3-year sentence for that, and additionally has lost her right to practice law for five years. One could say that this has sent a message to all lawyers everywhere!

Free Speech in Australia

Australia had a case in 2009, which was not strictly about Holocaust denial. Fred Toben, a retired teacher, served six months in a prison labor camp in Clare, South Australia, for disobeying a court order related to his website that was insulting to Jews. The Human Rights Commission in Australia is legally enabled to intervene when an ethnic group claims it has been offended.

fred tolbenFred Toben

There is no doubt that Toben’s website, AdelaideInstitute.org, was very offensive. A spokesman for the Jewish community complained to the HRC, which then ordered the insulting material removed. Toben held out and finally came under court order. I attended his court case and was surprised that no one showed up to advocate for free speech. In the end, he had to pay $60,000 for the other side’s fees, and was required to declare bankruptcy.

Here I will state my opinion that free speech is more important than protecting a community from racial slurs or ethnic insult. We all have to take some insults in our lives, and individuals who don’t want to see mud being slung against them on a website, can simply not go to that website.

I also think that if you want to allege that children who were shot by a maniac were not shot at all, you should be allowed to voice that opinion. Indeed I think if someone wants to say that the capital of Australia is Hobart, she has every right to say it. People will know she is incorrect and she will look foolish. How would it help to criminalize inaccurate blather?

If we start having legislation that precludes political speech, we may as well throw in the towel. As for a law that tells a journalist she must stay mum for national security reasons, every judge should have a little measuring stick right next to his gavel, for measuring how much national security is really involved in the case, which of course he can inspect ‘in camera.’

judge-gavel

He should also have a goodly supply of ‘bench warrants,’ so as to nab, on the spot, any government prosecutor who would have the audacity to prosecute a citizen for bringing forth information about crimes being committed by members of government, or more generally, by the Powers That Be.

(I can dream, can’t I?)

Conclusion, for the Time Being Anyway

I realize this story has been confusing – but don’t blame me!

To summarize: An event occurred at the Sandy Hook school in Connecticut in December, 2012.  Reportedly, 26 people died.

Soon there were claims on the Internet that the story was false. A bevy of Youtubers beleaguered us with amazing ‘facts’ to prove the falseness of the tragedy.  How can a citizen deal with such shocking ideas, such as a possible bribery of the families by providing them with a free house?

My new insight (or, frankly, my new nutball idea if I am wrong) is that the too-smart Youtubers are all Insiders, and that, as pointed out by Deanna Spingola, the plan was for them to “frame the debate.” They encouraged us to believe that the massacre never happened. This in itself would make us nervous of course – is society so messed up that reports of the death of 20 children can be sheer lies?

My Eureka came when I saw that the Shanley lawsuit could be a way to make utter fools of all of us who doubted the massacre.  Officials will now come forward with proof, and the poor suckers who doubted Sandy Hook will then be shy about doubting the next terrorist event.  Point of the exercise? To tighten up on all citizen-sleuthing on the Internet. No more for us to say our government is naughty. No more Mary Maxwell types running at the mouth.

Oh, by the way, whilst I can still utter it, the fact that I accused covert organizations, above, of being the likely bombers at the Boston Marathon, means that they should be charged with murder, posthaste. There’s no way around this.

Moreover, if my interpretation be on target, we can see that the bombers must have required plenty of assistance from the media.  Thus, dozens of media owners, news anchormen, and reporters may be charged as accomplices and as accessories after the fact.

Likewise, assuming that indeed Adam Lanza wasn’t the murderer at Sandy Hook, we must track down the killer. We’ll need to dragnet everybody who made those too-smart Youtubes. They must have been part of a major conspiracy. I’m thinking of things like the real estate report that led us to imagine the families as participants in a hoax.

Oh, aren’t I supposed to be in favor of free speech? Yes I am, but I have no reason to denigrate the laws against murder, including the law against being an accessory to murder. There are times when what you publish on the Internet is not considered “protected free speech.”

It is considered evidence.

– Mary W Maxwell can be reached, indeed is dying to be reached, at her website: ProsecutionForteason.com. She also respectfully calls your attention to her article “It’s Easier To Use the Law than the Sword Type Thing,” 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. richard mullins says:

    Mary I love your work.
    You advised us not to say that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
    Your advice turned out to be very good in that it can be applied to the case of the Bourke Street Mall event in Melbourne. I still think it was street theatre, but Peekay has been shut down – he will be fined heavily and maybe jailed if he talks about the event.

    I said to you the other day: “You say Sandy Hook is real. I am really frightened by this. I think it is taking me too far down the rabbit hole, to contemplate that Sandy Hook could be real. I may have to give up reading about these strange events. I say it was pure theatre. I have no proof”.

    I’d much rather believe that Melbourne was a hoax and that no one got hurt. But I may keep my ideas to myself. I certainly don’t want to attract unwanted attention as Peekay and Galileo did.

  2. At about 1:00:00 the matter of tourniquets and the double amputee are explored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiyZ5AOXuSc&t=0s

  3. richard mullins says:

    Mary I see your post on rumormillnews 6 December 2014
    where you say “My best guess about the Boston Marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting is that they were fictional exercises”.

    That’s still my guess, even though there was a double amputee at Boston marathon who still has not been shown to be an amputee actor.

  4. richard mullins says:

    Mary I love your work.

    But you say (in the current article): “The Youtuber in question never divulges what led him to undertake that amazing real-estate research!”. I don’t have energy to investigate this but your question is irrelevant.

    You say Sandy Hook is real. I am really frightened by this. I think it is taking me too far down the rabbit hole, to contemplate that Sandy Hook could be real. I may have to give up reading about these strange events.

    I say it was pure theatre. I have no proof.

  5. This drivel aside, thinking people already know that Sandy Hoax was a gun grab theatrical performance.
    The bigger question is why would our government want us deprived of our most effective tools for self defense; our mil pattern rifles?
    What do they see coming?
    My guess is that they know the dollar/banks/pensions will soon become worthless and the resulting anger will drive the populace to use these tools against the creeps who created it.
    Time will tell.
    The bottom line is that Sandy Hoax failed miserably and one look at gun sales since then will confirm it!
    Molon Labe

  6. …again…I am unsure of the writer’s agenda here…but in all of her writings she seems to be the moderate soul, accepting or dismissing events as she sees fit, and then attaching the “loon effect” on to anyone or any topic that doesn’t agree with her supposed factual research or findings on the topics. The writer does this with the intent of spreading the impression that she is an expert. One of the most effective communications tools a person has… is the appearance of empathy, or seeing things from another’s point-of-view, as it disarms those who have a certain belief system….(not a fact-based-view-point). Empathy has a way of distracting them into thinking they are making headway in convincing others…much like this writer does… except that she then immediately dismisses any information that does not match her pre-ordained viewpoint. She has either not researched her topics well enough and is simply misinformed as to the corruption-levels in our government and their ruthless goal of destroying our country, or she is purposefully drawing attention away from facts that the corrupt government do not want discussed in volume. Sad.

  7. Sandy Hook = GUN GRAB (Hoax).

    Police Evidence photos show gun-range target stamped “FBI USE” in Nancy Lanza’s basement:

    Everyone knows Sandy Hook shooting was a Hoax (to ban AR15 rifles) but LT VANCE keeps lying (pretending it was real):

    Forensic Proof: Adam Lanza’s AR15 DIDN’T blow out the window at Sandy Hook Elementary. It was blown out by POLICE 12-GAUGE shotgun “breaching round.”

    Sandy Hook school AND Adam Lanza’s house got BULLDOZED because fingerprints/DNA (of the fictional occupants) don’t exist:

    Neil Heslin (Sandy Hook “parent”) is a FELON with a long RAP SHEET. His (fake daughter) Jesse Lewis didn’t really “DIE”:

  8. J D Arsmith says:

    Nicely written. As a point of information, the deportation (not extradition) of Zundel to Germany had nothing to do with the charges he faced in Canada. In Canada, distribution of hate literature or false literature that promotes racial intolerance was against the law. The question before the court at the time was later deemed irrelevant when (1992) the Canadian Supreme Court determined reporting false news was allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Zundel emigrated to the US (Tennessee) before 911, and later deported to Canada (after 911). But because he never got Canadian citizenship (rejected), his original citizenship ruled (German), Zundel claimed refugee status, but because of his association with violent neo-Nazi groups Zundel was deemed a national security risk and deported to Germany. He then became subject to German laws – which prohibit holocaust denying.

    • Dear JD Arsmith, Thank you for the correction. I wanted my article to emphasize two things: the forthcoming restrictions on free speech, and the idea that a major contributor to the Internet hoopla about Sandy Hook seems to be You-Know-Whom.
      By the way, I have carried the latter point further in an article entitled “They Youtubed Their Way to a Guilty Verdict” (“they” being world government), at Rumormillnews.com.
      Still, I am interested in Ernst Zundel’s case itself, for another reason, so why don’t I spit it out now. I assume (and perhaps you would agree) that if Ernst had been an ordinary Joe who committed a crime n Canada, he would not have been deported. He had lived there peaceably since his youth. THUS HE WAS MADE AN EXAMPLE OF, SO THAT THE WORD WOULD SPREAD FAR AND WIDE.
      What word? Was the lesson “Leave the Holocaust alone”? Maybe, but whoever set out to harass Ernst so publicly would have foreseen that it would raise Ernst to martyrdom status. And, if so, and if everyone got angry at Germany (and its servant Canada, in this case) for constricting freedom of speech and desecrating people’s devotion to truth, who would suffer? I think Jewish folk, in general, would suffer.
      I got that notion partly from Philip Roth’s novel, “The Plot against America.” In that story all Americans were asked to turn against their Jewish neighbors — and they more or less obliged. (Boy, they sure went along, in 2002, with requests to persecute Arab Americans.) We hear that Rothschild arranged for pogroms to be carried out in the 1880s against Jews. I don’t rule out that Zundel’s case is AIMED AT HARMING JEWS.
      I regret that American Jews have climbed under a rock for the last ten years. Can’t they say what I just said (in my dulcet Catholic tones)? Anyway, please see my article “Something about Jews – A Reply to Ken O’Keefe.” Or my article to be published tomorrow “Dear Mossad, May I Have a Word?”
      One more thing about Zundel. He says he was beaten up on the steps of the court house, and “society” did not come to his aid. Same with Laurent Louis, MP, an even worse case. I think Louis and O’Keefe are too ready to say the trouble is blamable on “Jews.” They ought to change tack and say who could be MOST LOGICALLY behind what is going on. To say it is “Jews” is not only lazy but paralyzes most people.
      I would love to have some feedback on this, and I am so grateful for Gumshoe making space available.

  9. Free Gaza says:

    Before you say anything about mr shanley not having evidence you have to open his case and read the files. He clearly says he has enough evidence to prove to a judge that his statements are with merit. It’s a federal case so all you need is a pacer.gov account!

  10. Correction! Peter Hartung, director of the Adelaide Institute, has told me that Fred Toben’s prison term was 3 months, not 6. Will Dalia please apply white-out and correct the original? Thanks.

  11. fair dinkum says:

    in australia ive always spelt it “criminalised” – i really dont think we need move any closer to amerikas way of doing things than is really necessary… ( ie; not at all ) bad enough scores of people grew up watching sesame street and think its prounounced “zee” instead of “zed”

    • Dear Fair Dinkum, Thanks for zedding me. I agree with you. In Adelaide they now call public toilets “restrooms.” When I first came here I was astonished to see the word TOILETS on signs, but now I don’t want to Seppo-ize it (sorry, Seppo-ise it) to RESTROOMS.
      As for this article, it has already gone viral, thank God, so I ‘d better not fiddle with it. But next time….

      • fair dinkum says:

        i know, its pedantic, but if im reading you right “when you first came here” ?? does that mean youre from USA originally? if so, then youre excused..

      • fair dinkum says:

        i just did a quick “google” – ( more seppo-ism ) of the term “americanisation of australia” – lots of links came up obviosly.. it seems theres no stopping in.. from our sport, to universities.. if abbott gets his way, our healthcare and wages.. obviously a battle already lost, but a toilet.. to a restroom?? that really gives me the shitz! 🙂

        • Dear Fair Dinkum, well that was very fair dinkum of you to exonerate me. But I now express my disapptroval of your saying “It seems there’s no stopping it.” And you, of all people, who bothered to try to resist the Z in criminalise!
          As for google being a Seppo word, no, it’s a World Government word. Or maybe Esperanto. I guess we will find out when we get to heaven. (Kidding! Kidding!)

  12. A fascinating discussion…. I love it! What I see is TPTB trying to enforce a false equivalency and are relying on the sheer laziness of the average person to actually do some research. It is far easier, for many, to simply accept the MSM versions and I point the finger of guilt directly at organized religious mythologies, where one must have unquestioning faith and obedience, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nobody has mentioned the alleged lawsuit, by some of the Sandy Hook parents, to sue Remington. Do you have any further info on that, Mary?
    It appears to me that the vast majority of “false flags” we see being carried out and the accompanying propaganda (Russia being vilified within hours of shooting down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, without evidence, as one small example) is to ratchet up the cognitive dissonance, resulting in more confusion and division. Once people have been told the initial big lie, it is very difficult to break that established paradigm. Very few relish the idea that their perspectives or viewpoints might not be entirely correct and many will hold to them like Linus’s blanket (from Charlie Brown) even while evidence is staring them in the face. Very few want to admit that they’re wrong.
    My apologies if this seems like rambling. I will end by saying that I am quite impressed with the the commenters… unlike many sites, nobody is employing ad hominem attacks but simply arguing their points in a constructive and respectful manner.
    I have added you to my “Alternative News” links, Mary. You have a great site!

    • At the end of Sylvia’s Stolz’s video she says “To sense what is beautiful and to want what is good. This implies the ability to identify and label lies, the ability to identify and label the inhumane.” Start watching Sylvia at 35 minutes — she shows that German high courts refused to discuss the subject of “truth.”

      So can our courts do better here in Oz with the subject matter of Port Arthur? Martin Bryant never had a trial. Here is ‘our’ Sylvia Stolz: Wendy Scurr. Please start at 50 minutes: I wonder where Wendy is today. We have treated her very badly.

  13. I notice that my previous comment and questions were not posted. Hummmmm? Based upon Ms. Maxwell’s poor grammar and faulty logic, I ask myself from which diploma mill did she get her PhD?

    • University of Adelaide.

    • Ms. Maxwell can tell that Adam Lanza is NOT the killer just by his looks…..imagine.
      However, she’s not going to make any points with those that have assembled many interesting observations on the SH case. Not by a long shot. I find MM’s rambling verbosities to be of virtually no use in determining anything. Have you researched and seen all the tapes available on the Net regarding Zundel? I mean all of them, not your typical glittering generalities.
      How you can denigrate Dr Fetzer is pathetic. Would he undertake the vast researches on the JFK assassination AND implicate his employer, the CIA? Was he paid to pin the killing of Kennedy on some of the fine folks like Alan Dulles for some reasons of exonerating the CIA? Your generalized assumptions are sheer poppycock, I’m amazed at the diaphanous nature of this drivel. How can anybody take you seriously for over 2 seconds? Oi weh!
      You are amazed that the press could deny the killing of 20 children at SH, are you aware the press has been far from forthright regarding Eisenhower’s complicit murders of over 1.5 million German POW’s? He made a shambles of the Geneva Convention and that was a well kept secret for a long, long time. Are you aware of this?

      • To Gil Favor
        Yep. Already read James Bacque’s “Other Losses” about how the US starved its POWS to death in Germany after the war, and shot dead the women who tried to get into the camps to bring food to their sons and husbands.
        So what’s new?
        I’ve said elsewhere that I disapprove of the very existence of the Geneva Convention, as it creates the false impression that we DON’T starve people to death. Also, there’s no enforcement mechanism, and never has been, and never will be, for “war crimes.”
        Prove me wrong.
        By the way, it’s not Adam Lanza’s looks that clued me in.
        And would a CIA man write against the CIA? 90% of the anti-CIA books are inside jobs. Please. You ought to know.
        As for diaphanous, I admittedly had to look it up. Oxford Dictionary offers this sample:
        “He would ‘flit around the backyard trailing a long piece of diaphanous fabric, in the style of the ballets Russes’.”
        Oh well, if you say so. My self-image is more like sledgehammerish than diaphanous, but OK, OK.

  14. That people like Mary W Maxwell, who puts letters after her name to give the impression that she’s intelligent and well educated, can believe and propagate such utter and indefensible nonsense, makes me fear for the future of humanity (at least in America).

    There are many very real conspiracies that require investigation and exposure, such as the CIA-led assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. But the Boston Marathon and Sandy Hook tragedies are all-too-real for any rational person to question.

    That there are interesting CIA connections to the Tsarnaev family is beyond question, but that does not alter the fundamental facts of the horrible event.

    As for Sandy Hook, I have published the most comprehensive report on the event, and thoroughly debunked the malicious Hoaxer nonsense at http://riversong.wordpress.com/sandy-hook-the-real-story/

    • Dear Riversong, I said: “I believe a gunman DID kill children and teachers at Sandy Hook.” [emphasis added]
      I think Shanley’s lawsuit (which says no child died) might lead the public to a position where they will believe that we ought to have laws against ‘irresponsible Youtubing.’ I don’t want any such laws. I want freedom of speech.
      I especially want mass killings to be investigated, with an eye to seeing if officialdom was the designer of the whole incident in the first place.
      At Dunblane in 1996 it MUST HAVE BEEN officials that arranged for those children to get shot. Isn’t that awful?
      The judge in that case put a 100-year seal on the records. Can you think of any justice-oriented reason for him to do so?

  15. Dinnaverita says:

    Dr. Maxwell,

    With all due respect Id like to point out one very compelling piece of evidence that has left me puzzled about what truly happened at Sandy Hook. However first I want to say that, to state your opinion about Mr.Stanley’s civil suit is your right, to assume that the research community is in favor or supportive of it is wrong.  Couldn’t be farther from the truth. It is an embarrassment and an indignity that will stone wall future efforts in civil litigation.  We couldn’t be more unhappy with his, made for TV joke of a claim. 1 trillion dollars in damages, please.

    Also to point the paranoid finger at YouTubers as being disinfo agents on an ABC agencies payroll is careless and makes me wonder who’s payroll you might possibly be on. These “too smart” people have spent countless hours pouring over the police data dump and analyzing the “facts” we were fed to believe that the “official” story was indeed true.

    So with that I want to leave you with one piece of evidence to ponder. In the final report, they hired a third party expert to analyze the gun shots heard in the 911 calls. His name is Paul Ginsberg. Now the times are important. He found 19 shots over an 18 second time frame 9:39:22 to 9:39:40. At 9:39:59 the first shot from the glock was fired. 9:40:03 is the suicide shot. 23 seconds between when he finished firing the bushmaster and killing himself. His last 23 seconds alive, according to them. Not much time to do anything. He fired 19 shots 23 seconds before he died. The magazines he had held 30 bullets each. Now, wouldn’t you agree that the Bushmaster should have 11 or less bullets left in it? During that time frame, of course, we wouldn’t know how many weren’t recorded, but likely all of them were. Many of the shots were recorded on more than one 911 call. And 19 shots in 18 seconds is a lot because he has to pull the trigger for each one. So, even if he fired a few extra that we didn’t hear, it should be 11 or less left in the Bushmaster. But according to the final report, several reports state the Bushmaster was found with 14 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. His magazine holds 30 rounds. He fired 19 according to the audio analysis. There should not be more than 11 left. According to them, he had 30 bullets in the mag, or 19, at least. He got rid of 19 of them. When I look at the report about what was in the gun. It should say 11 or less. If they really did find a Bushmaster with 15 rounds left, 1 in the chamber and 14 in the magazine. I would say it’s planted evidence or there had to be 2 gunmen. It begs to question the validity of the official report if the physical evidence differs from the expert witness account of shots fired.

    I could also go on and on about Mr. Carvers sudden onset of dementia,  in not know which type of weapon was used to kill these victims. The inaccurately reported information about which Lanza was the shooter, the evidence of foreknowledge in websites created prior to the date of the event, the convenience of Chalk Hill being emptied out a year prior to this taking place, etc. I think it is reckless to assume no one died and that this is a satanic ritual of sorts. I cannot deny the factual evidence is anything but that, factual.  Every policy and procedure was broken that day. There are pieces of this story that were redacted to hide the truth. After inflicting PTSD on an entire nation, why do we not have the right to know the truth?

  16. Off-topic, however this group can appreciate … While Zundel is mentioned in this thread, this speech is worthy of a listen.

    Also this from a YouTube description: The Jews have successfully played the role of the victim in a strategy to elicit sympathy and quiet those who would dare speak out against them.They accuse others of being Anti-Semitic while simultaneously labeling all non-Jews as Gentiles or Goyim.This strategy has been successfully employed by Zionist Jews to perpetuate their agenda of deception, manipulation and control.

    • Christopher Brooks says:

      One important and very basic principle of discovering the truth is that nothing is ever “Off-topic”.
      Information is just true, false or of undetermined integrity.
      We all get to decide what we choose as relevant to our argument, or, knowledge that we judge should be brought before the broader court of the public conversation.
      I had not heard this speech. It is excellent material that speaks to the very heart of truthful revelation and method.

    • Is Maxwell a Zionist jewess?

  17. Sandy Hoax was obviously a gun grab theatrical performance with lousy actors who never shed a tear & smiled way too often.
    No blood
    No pics of Lanza (even though SH had a $300K security video system).
    No lawsuits (aside from this one)
    No bodies.
    The creepy coroner was mumbling incoherently.
    The cops behind him looked like they held a big secret on their faces.
    On & on it goes!
    Same for the holohoax since only about 271,000 died from typhus & starvation per the IRC records.
    Believe NOTHING from your TV, public schools or government.

  18. There’s a few facts concerning Sandy Hook that led me to believe it wasn’t real from the very outset. If you can adequately explain away these facts, I will be very grateful to you. First off. At Sandy Hook, the shooter achieved a near perfect kill ratio. Please find another mass shooting even wherein ALL casualties were Kills. Meaning, there were no wounded, only killed. Only one non-fatal shooting victim. In war, the ratio of killed to wounded is around 6 wounded for every killed. At Sandy Hook, a young, inexperienced shooter managed to kill all, wound none (except for one I believe). That right there told me it was false.

    • Dear Mr Lefew,
      I, too, think the kill ratio proves it wasn’t Lanza. But how do we know what that ratio really was? How do you know I didn’t photoshop that Christmas tree in the video below?
      OK, we don’t have to throw up our hands about everything just because there’s a new culture of doubting. We can say, “You who say it was Lanza (namely, the police), how do you account for the high kill ratio?” Mr Lefew, might you be willing to place a call, or send a letter, to Commissioner Reuben F Bradford, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection? He is at 111 Country Club Road, Middletown CT 06457. Tel 860-685-8000.
      If you get no reply, or get the bedbug letter, I think we can say that there is foul play. Going back to JFK’s death it seems the Dallas police that day were all in on it! I wonder how many cops feel bad about having to go along with such stuff. Maybe they are under hypnosis.
      If, as I think, 20 sweet children did die in Connecticut, and it wasn’t Lanza, were the cops tipped off in advance to hold back? Wow. Please see Sandra Uttley’s “Dunblane Unburied,” where that must have been the case. How can humanity have so fallen?
      Christopher Brook wants to know every level’s complicity. I think I am as complicit as anyone because I am not doing enough to tell folks. Sure, I can write articles, but broaching these subjects with friends is almost impossible. I’m working on cancer and autism (see maryWmaxwell.com), where the communication is almost as bad.

    • The shooter at Port Arthur in Tasmania in 1996 was even better and he used his non dominant hand.
      He was a bit below average IQ as well!
      There is little doubt that about 35 innocents were murdered at Port Arthur.. The Tasmanian government had a 20 (?) birth morgue truck available just prior, so much foresight!,
      Pityost of the head shots in the cafe cleaned out so many government operatives, but them the breaks.
      Just a thought!

  19. Richard Lefew says:

    I don’t know if I agree with much in this article, except that Canada was totally nuts for allowing Germany to extradite Zundel, and the fact that his lawyer was arrested in court for arguing on behalf of her client is madness. I can’t believe she served 3 years in jail for that. That’s such a tragedy. What’s shocking is that not only are we required by statute to believe the holocaust story, but we cannot even question the obviously false accounts presented by fraudsters looking for a hand out, or book sales.

  20. I’m not given enough information to form a real opinion, but I do know the real estate site mentioned is public access, exists, and one does not have to be a rocket scientists to utilize it. Resources like this are free market. You could check your own neighborhood on it, and somebody checked Sandy Hook real estate transactions. “Too smart Youtubers?” Maxwell has the contempt the affluent who can afford to put PhD after their names have for “commoners”. As somebody with an advanced degree myself, I learned a lot of respect for the Internet, and people who plug away at research like the guy on the real estate blog about Sandy Hook. A lot of people are really smart, not just Catholic school elitists (Yeah, I know, you most likely have a little bootstrap story. Spare me.)
    Rather than Robbie Parker being a clever plant to discredit Truthers, maybe he was just a really, really bad trauma actor who couldn’t read his lines with a straight face. I expect Maxwells to come out of the woodwork so this lawsuit gets laughed out and nobody makes a peep. I support making them produce the evidence. They don’t even know who cleaned the blood biohazard) up, if there even was any.

    • Dear Initials Only,
      Thanks for prompting me to re-state my theory.
      You say: “Rather than Robbie Parker being a clever plant to discredit Truthers, maybe he was just a really, really bad trauma actor….” I say, if he was a plant he was an actor, right? What’s the diff? In either case, the powerful MSM is up to something. What exactly are they up to?

      You suggest that I mean to “discredit truthers.” Surely not! Even that humble real-estate checker out there wants to get at the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be, no? What if the truth is that the killings did occur, and that (per my theory) a whole shindig of disquietude was let loose on the population?

      It could have consisted of loads of conspiracy videos that don’t stand up to scrutiny (as Deanna Spingola argues), plus a lawsuit like Shanleys. (There are umpteen fake lawsuits; ask me about it). As Rediscover911 says, the motive may have been to keep us away from the Main Chance. Actually I’ll bet on that!

      You say I’ll “come out of the woodwork so this lawsuit gets laughed out and nobody makes a peep.” Do you mean if I stay in the woodwork, Shanley is on a march to victory? Do you know what the court did to the Gallop v Cheney case? Is a judge likely to ask Murdoch to hand over a few billion for having made up a news story? May we live to see the day!

      Anyway, I think you dislike my stuff because it contains the Biggie. Last night when I wrote it, I thought I had the best Biggie so far, calling attention to the fact that if it ain’t Adam Lanza (and Tsarnaev brothers, etc.), it must be you-know-whom. But thanks to the leads below, such as the Giuliani template, I now think others got there before me. We’re seeing chinks in the armor. Yay!

      • We can now prove the Boston Bombing was a Hoax. We can prove not 1 single drop of blood was spilled that day. We have exposed 23 fake victims and counting. We have exposed bomb scene fabrication by the FBI, ATF and DHS. We have exposed countless examples of fraud, treason, and murder. If you really do care about the truth – then here it is…

        Forgive me for removing your bliss.

  21. Dianne C. Foster says:

    What you are trying to do is to stifle free speech, and that includes the speech of people who denigrate the law. You can take the girl out of the British Empire, but you cannot take the British Empire out of the girl? I am not one who for any reason favors a society which wants to chill free speech to the extent that if someone engages in discourse which questions the official story – for whatever reason, even if working for the perps of a crime – then they are guilty of such crimes as conspiracy, attacking the public mind, whatever you want to say.
    This is America. We find our First Amendment quite nice, thank you very much, and the internet should not give an excuse for getting rid of it.

    And my own personal opinion without any Youtube encouragement is that many drills by my government have been portrayed as real when it could be used to direct policy. It is due to the fact that I know my environment of New England, and these things could not and did not happen in it, and the evidence was all flaky and fake from the start. I do not trust the corrupt thieves in charge of taxing me to pay for these mass deception events. They neither protect me nor convince me of their truthfulness. The media is their handmaiden. Of course they tend to want to restrict the internet. It might find them out.

  22. desertspeaks says:

    Does anyone have any first hand factual evidence to proffer that proves anyone died at sandy hook?? no??
    Then how can you support the story. Do you just blindly accept anything you’re fed on tv??

    • Seriously confusing as I posted some time ago.
      https://gumshoenews.com/2014/09/27/sandy-hook-chicanery/
      The FBI stats are very puzzling.

    • Christopher Brooks says:

      This might fill in some holes in the story and the local media
      covered all the funerals and memorial events.

      http://riversong.wordpress.com/sandy-hook-the-real-story/

      • Thank you for linking to my exhaustive article on the Sandy Hook tragedy, which thoroughly debunks the “hoaxer” nonsense.

        You might also notice that my blog includes dozens of investigative articles on REAL conspiracies, such as the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations.

    • I have to admit it is a mystery, and should be solved by someone going to Newtown to find out. I don’t want to spend time on it, but re your question, I did look up the Social Security Death Index just now, which I’ve found accurate re members of my family. I looked up a Sandy Hook teacher and she was not listed there (Lauren Gabrielle Rousseau, b 1982) and neither was the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, b June 28, 1965. But there is a Youtube interview of Dawn’s husband that I find persuasive. (I’m not saying you should find it so.) It’s at [www.youtube.com/watch?v=k43zxNUnI-Q] There is also a big website of all the families at mysandyhookfamily.org, showing where you can send money for scholarships, in care of verifiable organizations.
      As to your query Do I believe TV? I haven’t owned a TV in many years. Why would anyone watch it?
      I do acknowledge that Sandy Hook could possibly be a hoax. I am certain that 20 children were shot at Dunblane in 1996, about which I have written a scathing article here at Gumshoenews,com, December 21, 2014.

      The British Empire is not in me, as I arrived here too late. But you might like to see me telling the Oz PM that I am miffed by the lies about “terrorism in Sydney”. It’s at

  23. These other events seem to be, in part, means for diverting a focus on exposing 9/11.

    The Achilles heel of the vast cabal is the truth of 9/11 (and Federal Reserve).

    Don’t let up on pressing for 9/11 truth. The new litmus test is advocating for indictments. http://911JusticeCampaign.org Read the indictment of Rudy Giuliani–a template which may serve for indicting those who cover-up the evidence.

  24. Christopher Brooks says:

    A further thought. Will WRH link Mary’s article?
    I will email a link and no doubt others will also.

  25. Christopher Brooks says:

    Okay, good article Mary.
    Like the Auschwitz lies, the Sandy Hook hoax “hoax” is a fertile subject to observe the method of cryptocracy in action.
    If we don’t understand the enemy we are fighting and the method of the “Lie” we are easily recruited as assistants of the very enemy we think we are opposing.
    The Sandy Hook strategy is like a cancer planted in the body of the truth communities to make us sick and justify radical surgery against the whole body. Mary identifies this possibility
    in her prediction of how the law might unfold.

    What if our brain food and thinking nutrition was correct so our thinking method immunity never let hoax cancers thrive?

    This is the issue we should be evaluating as we read this article.

    The Sandy Hook mischief contains opportunities if the contemplations of Mary’s article could be firmly and positively
    developed as an exposure of the method of the “Lie” and an objective study of the participating individuals and their motivations and degrees of complicity.

    Will we learn or will the next mischief swallow our intellect?

    How much of our present “reality” might need to be calibrated
    anew if we accept the thesis the Sandy Hook hoax narrative is itself just another hoax?

    The whole point of research is to keep discovering new things and adjusting our knowledge in accordance with the new discovery.

    The anti progressive attitude is to believe we already know everything and must try and fit new information around a previous faulty comprehension.

    Our own ego can be our biggest enemy which is likely highly efficient and amusing for high priests of deception and control.

    • Dear Christopher, It was your Comment to Dalia’s article “$1 Trillion against Big Media” that led me to Spingola’s item and that assisted my ‘breakthrough’ yesterday. Now that I recall it, she (Deanna Spingola) may have debunked the particulars of one of the fake videos, but that isn’t what moved me. It was her saying that we should believe her because she used to sew clothing and she followed the patterns correctly!

      I would be interested to know where you get your beautiful, clear mind. I was thrilled by your remark about us needing the right nutrition to avoid the sickness around us in the media.
      I assume that my ability to ‘think’ comes from my childhood at St Mark’s elementary school in Boston. Today I’ve jettisoned a lot of Catholic theology, but back then the emphasis on high principle caused my neurons to form a certain way. ‘Right and wrong’ are as visible to me as physical reality. (We used to say “You can take the girl out of St Mark’s but you can’t take St Mark’s out of the girl.”) Kids today are not given that training; they float free, which is tragic.

      I just rang Dalia to ask how the hell she got her clarity on moral issues. Straightaway she recounted an incident when she was age 8. They lived in Pretoria, the absolute heart of apartheid. One day, at a public event, everyone stood up for the national anthem (of course). But her dad, who was a doctor, sat it out. Dalia says “It was so embarrassing.” Nevertheless that act of courage, and mental nutrition, must have made a huge impression on his kids.
      If my question to you is too personal, skip it, but thank you for the Spingola reference.

      • Christopher Brooks says:

        Mary, at about 23 years of age I was introduced to the money trickery and the “Great Holocaust Trials” that were proceeding in Canadian courts where Ernst Zundel was being prosecuted for publishing contrary views to the established narrative.
        I had been educated at a “quality” private Catholic College
        and had no idea all those I had trusted were ignorant.
        My life was never the same.
        The process of researching and challenging my educators with this contrary information unraveled all the complexities of our political and information realities.
        Home educating 10 children, a work in progress, motivated me to ensure I pass on excellent thinking ability above all else, so that, wherever and whatever they will be part of the solutions and not the problem.
        Beyond the Christian doctrines and philosophy I have studied Social Credit ideas and found deep valuable insights in that school of thinking.
        Studying the Auschwitz lies over many years is a little like a masters degree in the method and techniques of sorcery and black magic.
        Well done on you article, WRH has linked.
        It will be interesting to see what it develops in terms of hostility and discussion.

Trackbacks

  1. […] I’ve already nattered on about that in two Gumshoe articles. On Dec 30, 2014, I wrote “Sandy Hook Denial Will Be Criminalized Like Holocaust Denial?”  and on January 4, 2015, “The Criminal Hoaxing of Sandy Hook, and Our […]

  2. […] If you are new to this whole story, are you confused? Yes, you would have to be, as that is the intention of the guilty party, to take the spotlight off themselves. They are creating layer on layer of complications. The Shanley lawsuit is one of those layers. (I made that allegation in my article, “Sandy Hook Denial To Be Criminalized like Holocaust Denial.”) […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: