Sunday, November 29, 2015

Removed Infowars.com article on SANDY HOOK BOOK BAN has been found

by Jim Fetzer

While it's one thing for amazon.com to ban NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), which proves that the events in Newtown, CT, on 14 December 2012 were an elaborate hoax--for which there was a rehearsal the day before--it is another for Infowars.com, Alex Jones' website (based on the premises that we are engaged in an information war for your mind) to pull an article that reports on a stellar instance of precisely that taking place. The hypocrisy of disappearing such an obvious example that proves the case for Infowars.com has stunned and astonished me.


Infowars.com has published about Sandy Hook before. It published "MASSIVE MEGA-COVER UP: RETIRED FBI AGENT INVESTIGATES SANDY HOOK. Retired Nave Seal Says Sandy Hook doesn't add up" (7 July 2015), for example, where an article about banning NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK should have been an obvious development for Inforwars.com to cover. I want to share the article here and invite any comments or conjectures about why it was taken down. 

Among our most important proofs that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax are photographs unearthed by Allan William Powell from Australia, where we published 50 of the furnishing of the Lanza home in Ch. 7, including one of the Nancy Lanza bedroom (where you can see red stuff on the bed--but it is not blood; a form used to record the furnishing on a wooden chest; and a blue moving pad beneath the left leg of the bed, which they forgot to remove) and another 50 of refurbishing the school for its use as the stage in Ch. 8, including Exhibit 26, where the SWAT team is already there, the windows of Classroom 10 are not shot out, crime scene tape is up for a crime that has yet to be committed and Wayne Carver, M.E., is standing awaiting the arrival of his tent:
















We also included photos showing the windows of Classroom 10 BEFORE and AFTER the alleged shooting and of the perps drilling a series of holes in the window frame to simulate bullet holes, which make it obvious that the four windows which can be seen above the SWAT vehicle are not yet "shot out", which confirms that this photo was taken BEFORE the alleged shooting had taken place. These photos are all in Ch. 7:











These photos not only confirm that Exhibit 26 (above) was taken BEFORE the alleged shooting (since the windows of Classroom 10 are undamaged) but also demonstrate that the perps did there work too well by drilling those simulated bullet holes at 50* angles and parallel with one another, which would have been impossible in an actual shooting. I was therefore struck that the image corresponding to Exhibit 26 that was published by Inforwars.com http://www.infowars.com/ had a better version and an attribution to the CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE, which thereby verifies their participation in the scam:


























There was more to the article, but nothing that seems to be to have been reason for it to have been taken down. That it provides "IMAGE CREDITS CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE", on the other hand, must have caused panic among the participants, since here is one of the web's major sites offering conclusive proof that the CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE were on the crime scene BEFORE the crime had been committed and were therefore participants in perpetrating an elaborate hoax on the American public. THAT had to be taken down!





















































This forces me to conclude that Alex Jones is an internet eunuch who doesn't have the balls to stand up against the powers that be when real issues are on the line. He could prove that I am wrong by restoring the article, but by taking the original down, he has already proven that I am right. This may come as a shock, but those of us who have followed him closely in the past have noticed that he does not mention Israeli complicity in 9/11, in spite of a mass of evidence, and that he has made no effort to bring me on to discuss the banning of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK.

Here are a few articles by others who have had the balls to stand up about the book's ban:  
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, "CENSORSHIP SHOCK: Amazon.com bans investigative book NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK because it disagrees with government version of what happened"
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, "Amazon is the new Ministry of Truth: An interview with Jim Fetzer, editor of the Sandy Hook book BANNED by Amazon.com"
Glenn Candy, BeforeItsNews, "New Photos Prove Sandy Hook Staged: Amazon freaks out!" 
The Government Rag, "Amazon Suppresses and Bans NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK" 
I have been interviewed by Jeff Rense, James F. TracyDave Gahary of American Free Press, Joyce Riley of "The Power Hour", Michael Rivero, Pete Santilli, Mark Windows of "Windows on the World" (UK) and many other courageous journalists, but not by Alex Jones, who claims to be leading the fight for truth and freedom in the Western world.



Friday, November 27, 2015

Nationwide Media Blackout on Amazon’s Suppression of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK


On November 21 a press release reproduced below announcing Amazon’s censorship of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook was sent to almost 23,000 news media outlets by Sherwood Ross Associates, a Miami Florida-based public relations firm. Thus far almost without exception the press release has been ignored, representing a wall-to-wall media blackout of the internet powerhouse’s incredible act of suppression.

Further, journalists at those very media now have an opportunity to download the book for free and judge the validity of the research.

Here is the breakdown of media receiving the press release:

Black Weeklies – 183
TV Networks – 11
Local TV Stations – 1428
AM Radio – 7560
FM Radio – 6766
Dailies – 1404
Weeklies – 5586
Total: 22,838
















Amazon.com has banned the book NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK: IT WAS A FEMA DRILL TO PROMOTE GUN CONTROL from its list without giving the co-authors any specific reasons.

The book—-which presents hundreds of proofs that the shootings at Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) on Dec. 14, 2012, were a staged, elaborate hoax—-had enjoyed a brisk sale of around 500 copies since Amazon initially offered it on Oct. 22, of this year.

The book was removed by Amazon Nov. 19, after less than a month and despite nearly 80 reviews, where those who had actually read it gave it 5-stars and those who had not only 1.

“The whole Sandy Hook operation was a sloppily staged fraud perpetrated by FEMA in collusion with local and state authorities,” said the book’s editor, Professor Emeritus James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer.

“None of those allegedly 20 slain children were killed,” Fetzer said. “This looms as a far bigger scandal for the Obama administration than the simple burglary at Watergate ever was for President Nixon.” He termed Amazon’s action, an “egregious act of censorship.”

In response to Amazon’s action, which the bookseller termed “suppression,” Fetzer and the series editor, newsman Mike Palecek, decided to offer the book free of charge on the Internet at http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html

The 425-page book presents 12 chapters exposing the complicity of local and federal authorities, and includes as a 19-page appendix titled “The FEMA Manual for Sandy Hook” (subtitled “Site Activation Call-down Drill Exercise Plan”), which outlines the event as a two-day drill operation.

The FEMA Manual states, “The preparation for Mass Casualty is a drill designed to establish a learning environment for players to exercise emergency response plans, policies, and procedures as they pertain to a mass casualty incident involving children.”

Fetzer says that local conspirators in Newtown, such as the alleged parents of the murdered children, have made out very well financially soliciting contributions from a gullible public and that Newtown has been showered with aid, including $50 million to build a new school. This compares with the $7 million typical construction budget for an elementary school.

Among the scores of proofs of the hoax at Sandy Hook offered by the co-authors include:

* Local individuals, as well as the United Way, went on line soliciting funds in the name of the slain children BEFORE the December 14th shootings. How could they have known?
Fetzer notes his book contains photos of some of the Internet donation pages soliciting funds before the alleged massacre!

* A swat team was photographed at SHES in front of a classroom whose windows, later shot out, were still intact. Crime scene tape is already in place for a crime not yet committed.

* By what miraculous process did the Newtown Bee newspaper get an interview with SHES Principal Dawn Hochsprung hours after she was allegedly killed by shooter Adam Lanza? (The paper later apologized to its readers.)

* The book presents evidence that SHES was closed BY 2008; that there were no students to evacuate; and that Lanza appears to be “a work of fiction.”

* The only death certificate available for any of the 20 dead children is a fabrication and the annual FBI crime report for 2012 lists no murders at Newtown.

Fetzer writes, “The teachers, the parents, the Newtown School Board, the State Police, the Medical Examiner, and Governor Dan Malloy apparently were all in on the hoax.”


The Fetzer-Palecek book, after presenting dozens and dozens of examples of fraud, concludes that the Newtown “massacre” was, in fact, “an elaborate psy-op to promote gun control, which was supported by then Attorney General Eric Holder and the President of the United States.”

ADDENDUM

The only news venue to pick up the story (to the best of my knowledge) is the Colorado Springs INDEPENDENT:




















Showing a sample of the 39 comments:

Sample #1:



















Sample #2:












Sample #3:

Sample #4:

Sample #5:


Friday, November 20, 2015

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #5 amazon.com bans NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK

by Jim Fetzer

My earliest warning had come from Preston James, Ph.D., among the most prolific and widely-read contributors to veteranstoday.com. A social psychologist who is an expert on intel and covert ops, Preston had told me, "The book is too good. It has the potential to bring down the Obama administration. They are going to do everything that they can to suppress it--so don't be surprised when it happens!" The hammer fell on Thursday, when amazon.com suppressed NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), where I cannot even order a copy for myself. Try to link to it and learn it's "not a functioning page on our site", as I explained was also true of Sandy Hook Elementary School in "Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #1 Was it an operating school?" We have now made the book available for free.


The notification of suppression



It would be too embarrassing to not have a cover story for taking it down, where Mike Palecek, the Series Editor, and I, the book's editor, received the following notification from createspace, which is the subsidiary of amazon.com that published NOBODY DIED and where our earlier book, AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015) today remains available. The notification was intended to provide plausible deniability about an egregious act of censorship, where searching for parallels has brought to my mind the legal and other obstacles imposed to prevent the publication of THE PENTAGON PAPERS (1971), where they've enlisted amazon.com to do their dirty work.























But this is clearly a subterfuge for the sake of plausible deniability for at least three reasons, which support the inference that its suppression is a political move because this book is simply "too good", "too hot" and "too threatening" to the Holder/Obama administration:
(1) Create Space and amazon.com review every submission for its suitability for publication and conformity to their guidelines before they are accepted for publication. They accepted and published NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK on 22 October 2015, nearly a month ago. There is no good reason for this book to now be taken down for further review other than that it has become a sensation and has the potential to embarrass the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama, which appears to be the underlying problem.  
(2) Were there a bona fide reason for suppressing the book, amazon.com would have to have made that determination in advance of taking it down. But as you can see from the notification I have received, no specific reason is given. That belies the claim that there is a legitimate problem with the book. I called Create Space immediately upon learning of its suppression and was told they would get back to me "within two working days" by email: the customer service rep with which I spoke could not tell me why it had been taken down. 
(3) By suggesting that I should review of the content guidelines for createspace.com, a dozen in number (which are broad and varied in their character--including no pornography, no offensive material, no illegal items or stolen goods and such--I have no doubt that they are combing the book to put together a pseudo-justification for having suppressed it. In other words, they are looking for reasons to justify a predetermined conclusion, which is precisely what you would expect in a case like this. 
A book that addresses a politically-sensitive issue that has been central promoting the political agenda of the administration turns out to be too threatening and has to be suppressed on any ground the can contrive. What could be more telling than that they have taken the book down but cannot explain the reasons for suppressing it, which of course they had to have had in advance of taking it down. Just how dumb are we all supposed to be? After all, if we can figure out that Sandy Hook was a hoax, we can also figure out that amazon.com's suppression of the book is a sham.

The INSIDE EDITION interview


Preston has also observed (in relation to "Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #4 INSIDE EDITION does a hit piece") that INSIDE EDITION was only serving as cover to set up an intel evaluation of my ability to defend the book from hostile criticism. He pointed out that the questions I was asked, such as, "Why are you attacking the families of children who died?", "Is that the best you can do?", and the like, were unresponsive to my replies and explanations. And I has struck me on reflection that there was no introduction of me or of the book, which precedes a bona fide interview. Additionally, the man who asking the questions left me several times to consult with someone else, who must have been the agent who was evaluating whether they had enough to smear me. But I was unflappable.

The large room in the background, moreover, did not resemble that of a real television studio, where I now believe that Preston was exactly right: they used INSIDE EDITION to arrange for me to be interrogated by an intelligence agent in Langley, where I was being grilled by an expert in psy ops in CIA Headquarters itself. My suspicion is that the proof that I adduced for this interview was powerful enough that, when they could not provoke me into some kind of angry response, they realized the book was too much of a problem for the Obama administration that it had to be suppressed. The timing of this interview and amazon.com's removing the book from public access is otherwise an all-too-remarkable "coincidence". As FDR once observed, "In politics, nothing happens by 'coincidence'."

Dennis Cimino has told me that the interview showed them they had a big problem and believes that the instruction to take down the book came from the Department of Justice, if not the White House itself. And that makes a lot of sense, because the book was doing very well, it had been approved and there had been no problems up to this point in time. The connection between that interview and this action by amazon.com leaves no doubt that the government has intervened. They have no choice but to do what they can by way of damage control, where the situation has been further complicated by Mike and my decision to release the book to the public for free, which is what we have done.


Now available for free

The book delegitimizes the government of the United States, in particular, the Obama administration, which cannot withstand the exposure of its techniques of disinformation. Confronted with this rude development, Mike and I decided to make the book available to the public for free. Notice that, by interrupting access to the book on amazon.com, they have already accomplished the goal of discouraging others from buying it. We have sold around 500 copies in less than a month, which was a powerful indication that this book was almost certainly destined to become a "best seller". And in a true coincidence, I was featured on rense.com last night and made the book available during the interview.

Jeff Rense had asked me to arrange for Allan William Powell to join us, where Allan had come into possession of a vast repository of photographs. In Chapter 7, for example, we have 50 photographs of furnishing the Lanza home to serve as a prop; and in Chapter 8, we have another 50 photographs of refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. We have photos of the Nancy Lanza bedroom, for example, where Adam allegedly shot her; and there is some red stuff on the top, but it does not look like blood; and where, in their haste, they even left a blue moving pad beneath one of he legs of the bed, which is a sure indication that this was a phony arrangement and by itself proves this was a hoax:















Dennis believes that, after the "INSIDE EDITION" interview, someone at Langley called the White House directly to inform them of the threat that is posed by this book. While the horses are out of the barn and they can no longer control access to the book itself, Dennis (who has a background with intelligence work) does not rule out murdering some of us for having exposed them: that is not out of the question. I suggested that a lot of people would know if something were to happen to any of us, but he believes that they would do their best to keep it out of the media, where, given their success in keeping our discoveries out of the media up until now, he may have a point. Each of us should take nothing for granted.


The only available review 

amazon.com has business arrangements with other book sellers who trade in both new and used books, where a few copies of NOBODY DIED are currently available at highly inflated prices. But that also allows for customer reviews to appear, where this one is now the only review of NOBODY DIED that appears on amazon.com. As I have previously explained, "Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #2 What's wrong with amazon.com?", the book had nearly 80 reviews and a flurry of comments on them, which is remarkable for a book that only appeared less than a month ago--on 22 October 2015! But today the only review that you can find is the following 5-STAR review:


















Like the large number of other 5-STAR reviews that amazon.com has now obliterated, this author had actually read the book. Indeed, it was striking that, of those who had submitted 1-STAR reviews--where there were virtually none in between--none of them (with perhaps one or two exceptions) provided any indication that they had even read the book, where many of them explicitly observed that they had not and were not going to bother to read it, which was indicative that a psy-op was taking place to drive down the average rating to make the book appear to be of middling interest to those who may casually search amazon.com for good books they ought to read.


The irony of suppression


There is an irony to all of this, of course, because the most powerful proofs of the hoax are from the photographs, which we had to publish in black-and-white in the book lest it become prohibitively expensive. In the pdf, however, which we have made available, the color and precision of the proof we have adduced is simply beyond dispute. Take the astounding Exhibit 26 from Chapter 8, for example, where you can see the SWAT team is already present, the windows of Classroom 10 are undamaged, the flag is at full mast, crime scene tape is already up for a crime that has yet to be committed, and none other than Wayne Carver, M.E., stands leaning against a wall with his arms crossed awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent, which is clear in the color version now available:

















With the publication of the pdf, therefore, we have overcome one of the objections to our book that has been raised by our critics, as I observed in "Debuking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #3 Deanna Spingola and C.W. Wade". If I am correct--that this may be the most important case of book suppression since THE PENTAGON PAPERS (1971)--does that make me and the other contributors targets for government assassins? Are they going to take out a dozen contributors, including six (current or former) college professors and a half-dozen other experts? Maybe they will take measures somewhat less drastic and try to halt the electronic download of this book. So do it now and share it as widely as you can. Our government stands exposes for committing acts of terrorism against the American people.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #4 INSIDE EDITION does a hit piece

by Jim Fetzer

This afternoon, I received a request from Alison Hall with INSIDE EDITION (ABC daily, early evening in most cities). She said they were doing a story about NURTURING AND HEALING (2014) by Scarlett Lewis, one of the purported parents of a child, Jesse Lewis, whom the "official reports" allege to have been killed by Adam Lanza. Apparently, they noticed that amazon.com advertises NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) on the same page as Scarlett's book, which led them to contact me to discuss what we had found.















That sounded fine to me, since it meant that we are beginning to break through the curtain of silence that has been imposed by the media on NOBODY DIED. A media expert, for example, sent a detailed introduction to the book to 1,500 venues across the country, which invited them to contact me for an interview. When he asked me recently, "How many inquiries have you had?", I had to admit that the number was "Zero!" So this looked like it might be an exception to the rule. I would soon discover how wrong I had been.

Correspondence with Alison

Alison had actually already reached me by phone before I saw her email inquiry. Giving it some thought, I supposed it would be appropriate for me to send her some of the photos we have acquired along the way, in case they might want to use them. The book's cover was the first that I attached, but I also featured Exhibit 26, which is classic, Shannon Hicks' "iconic" photograph, the second Shannon Hicks' photo and a close up of parents in the background, lounging at the massacre, about which I had published my latest blog:






































I thought adding the Nancy Lanza bedroom photo was a nice touch, as though I had not already sent enough because, for those who are serious students of Sandy Hook, these are among the strongest proofs we have that it was staged and not real. Because Alison had mentioned the Scarlett Lewis book, I thought that I would send along a photograph of Neil Lewis, Jesse's father, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I (mistakenly, it turned out) might be of interest to INSIDE EDITION:

















That was an astute observation by Sofia Smallstorm, which might have made a different had INSIDE EDITION wanted to learn about our research rather than debunk it. As I was about to discover, they had no interest in what we had discovered except to trivialize and belittle it. How far they go by way of editing what I had to say will only become apparent when they broadcast the show.

The "hit piece" interview






It was not Alison who would interview me, but a fellow who did not even bother to tell me his name. He asked about me, so I told him I was McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. And, before we began, I added that I am a former Marine Corps officer. Whether any of that will be included, we will have to see. As I recall, the exchange (which ran about 15 minutes) went more-or-less as follows:

Q: So why are you attacking these families who lost their children at Sandy Hook?

A: Nobody died at Sandy Hook. There are contributions from 12 experts on Sandy Hook, including six (current or retired) professors with Ph.D.s. The families made out like bandits, where each of them has received more than $1,000,000 in donations.

Q: Who cares about Ph.D.s. What gives you the right to intrude upon their grief? 

A: And the school district received $50,000,000 to rebuild a school, where the average cost of a K-4 school across the country is only $7,000,000. They received 7 times that.

Q: We have been to their homes. We have seen the funerals. They experienced real grief.

A: They were closed-casket and we have no proof that anyone died. We have a mountain of evidence in a 425-page book, which is thorough, detailed and copiously documented.

Q: What about the photograph of the children being evacuated from the school? What is your complaint about that?

A: There is a second photograph, which shows parents were present at the time. And in the second photograph, the kids have been rearranged. In one, the first child is a little girl wearing a pink sweater and a short skirt; in the other, a (much larger) little boy who is wearing a dark shirt and blue jeans. And what are parents doing there?

Q: Couldn't one of the kids run up and changed their place in line? And wouldn't the parents, hearing that something was going on at the school, have wanted to rush down to see what was going on?

A: But there would not have been time for them to get there. This was an emergency evacuation during a shooting. There would have been no reason for them to have been there. And in the background, you can see some of the parents lounging at the massacre.

Q: Is that all you've got: some kids who have rearranged themselves in a line? Is that it?

A: No, we have the FEMA manual for a two-day event. The sign, "Everyone must check in!", boxes of bottled water and pizza cartons, many wearing name tags on lanyards, parents bringing children to the scene. We even included it in the book.

Q: Couldn' the sign have been there for almost any event? Pizza cartons? Is that all you've got?

A: On the day they went LIVE, we had no surge of EMTs into the building, no Med-Evac chopper was called, no sting of ambulances to the school, not evacuation of 469 other students.

Q. That's the best you've got?

A: No. We even have photographs from the evening before: the SWAT team is there, the windows of Classroom 10 are undamaged; the flag is at full staff; crime scene tape is up for a crime that has yet to be committed; and Wayne Carver is waiting for the arrival of his portable tent.

Q: What justifies your attacking these families who lost children during the shooting?

A: There is no proof that anyone died. One of the fathers sent a Sandy Hook student a copy of his son's "death certificate", but it turned out to be a fabrication. If his son had actually died, he would have had a real one.

Q: We here have visited with some of the families of those who lost children--and their grief is real.  They did not "make out like bandits".

A: We even have a photograph of the Nancy Lanza bedroom. There is something red on the bed, but it looks more like raspberry jam than blood. And there is a moving pad beneath the left leg of the bed, because they were in such a rush to get it furnished.

Q: So that's what you've got: a moving bad beneath the leg of a bed?

A: We have 50 photographs of them furnishing the home to serve as a prop and another 50 of them refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. We have the moving vans and even classroom nameplates with moving stickers still on them. 

Q: Well, it doesn't seem to me that you have much. A 425-page book, where the best you have is children rearranged in a photograph.

A: The media has controlled access to information about Sandy Hook. I thought that you might do better, but I am obviously mistaken.

Q: Why are you doing this?

A: We believe the American people are entitled to the truth about their own history. This was an elaborate hoax that involved teachers, parents, the school board, the state police, the governor, Attorney General Eric Holder and the President of the United States.

Q: And they were doing all of this for what reason?

A: To promote gun control.

Q: And what difference has it made to gun control?

A: Well, on 16 January 2013, just a year and two days after Sandy Hook, Obama signed 26 executive orders to control our access to guns--and that is only one example.

NOTE: I am drawing on my recollections and may have some of these points out of order. But I am clear that I got all of these in--and probably more. He was not happy with me and intermittently seemed to be looking at someone in the background, perhaps to see if he was satisfied that they had enough to edit and do the job on me. We shall see. If you happen to catch the show, record it if you can; but it will be in their TV archives. My take is that the existence of skeptics about Sandy Hook will provoke public interest. And I will be elated if they show the cover of our book.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #3 Deanna Spingola and C.W. Wade

by Jim Fetzer

The disinformation campaign against NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), like the "active shooter" drills being conducted around the country (where the latest "false flag" attack has occurred in Paris), continues unabated, where there are signs that the enemies of truth are being defeated, one by one, over the course of time, as more and more students of Sandy Hook stand up for truth, where the occurrence of an elaborate hoax in no one died has been demonstrated in this 425-page volume, loaded with photos, documents and records. Here is a video introduction for those who may have missed it:



A text-book example of disinformation about the book occurred during an interview on RBN by Deanna Spingola of C.D. Wade, Saturday, 14 November 2015, available here. The distinction between "dis-" and "mis-" information is an important one: misinformation only implies that the source has something wrong, while disinformation implies that the source knew what they were asserting was wrong, but asserted it anyway in a deliberate attempt to mislead their audience. It is parallel to saying something that is false (which appears to be an intermittent manifestation of the possession of a mind, as I have else where explained) and lying (which is a practice that is common with devious minds).

Signs of Devious Minds

Having offered courses on logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35-years, it has become second-nature to notice and identify common fallacies when they occur--no matter whether that may be in the context of domestic politics and foreign affairs (which I explore on a regular basis with my co-host, Kevin Barrett, on "False Flag Weekly News") or in the more pedestrian context of internet exchanges and amazon.com reviews. Here are a few of those most widely practiced, which you can test in relation to amazon.com:

(1) The Straw Man: This fallacy is committed by exaggerating the position you attack to make it easier--often, much easier--to debunk. Those who have argued for the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK, for example, might be suppose to be claiming that the conspirators--the SPONSORS, the MECHANICS, and the FACILITATORS--all met at the same time (rather like a rally in Washington Stadium), which is absurd. But it was thrown at me by Robert Artwohl, which I dispatched in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), pp. 85-92.

(2) Special Pleading: This fallacy occurs when you cite only evidence that is favorable to your side and ignore the rest. The new book by David Talbot, THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD (2015), for example, attributes the assassination to Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA, in an audacious attempt to distract attention from LBJ, who forced himself on the ticket in LA to ascend to the presidency when JFK was taken out. Lyndon even sent Cliff Carter, his chief administrative assistant, down to Dallas to make sure all the arrangements were in place.




















(3) The Ad Hominum: This "attack on the man" entails attacking the messenger when you cannot cope with the message. A recent example occurs in the review by Dark Shadow on amazon.com (now removed), where she assailed me as a Holocaust denier and someone who does not believe we landed men on the moon. In this case, she is combing the ad hominem with The Appeal to Popular Sentiments, taking for granted that most people believe the "official" Holocaust narrative and that we did go to the moon, hoping they will never consider the proof to the contrary presented in AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), which demonstrates that neither belief can be sustained.

To test your mastery of these common fallacies, go to 1-STAR reviews of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) on amazon.com. This book shattered the cover-up by publishing proof that the autopsy X-rays had been altered to conceal a massive fist-sized blow-out at the back of the head (in the case of the lateral cranial X-ray) and by adding a 6.5mm metallic slice to implicate the obscure weapon Oswald was alleged to have used (in the case of the anterior-posterior X-ray) and that another brain had been substituted for that of JFK (because once they patched up the hole, there was nowhere for his brains to have gone).

These were not my findings, either, but those of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in the case of the X-ray studies and of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, in the case of the latter. But you would not know that from these 1-STAR reviews, which were calculated to bring down the average rating of the book to suppress reader interest. As in the case of the Sandy Hook book, I brought together multiple experts on different aspects of the case to contribute their specific findings. Indeed, one pseudo-critic of THE WARREN REPORT (1964), Josiah Thompson, even called the book "Assassinated Science"!

The Spingola/Wade Interview










The opening segment includes discussion of Columbine, where the response teams were very circumspect about entering the building, and Sandy Hook, where C.W. Wade praises their courage in rushing into the school. Wade takes for granted that an active shooter, Adam Lanza, was at Sandy Hook and would have killed more students and staff, but for the heroic actions of the first responders. Taking for granted an issue at stake is known as begging the question. It required no "heroism" to simulate confronting a active shooter, when they knew no active shooter present, which appears to have been the case here.

In passing, Wade mentions that the Paris attack had just taken place and that many were assuming that it had been a staged event and then went about "scouring the internet for evidence". But, from the point of view of logic, it doesn't matter which came first: the theory or the evidence. What matters is the strength of the evidence that supports any alternative theories. Logic is atemporal. But a basic condition of scientific reasoning--the requirement of total evidence--that conclusions must be based on all the available, relevant evidence, which means that special pleading violates the scientific reasoning.


According to Wade, nothing is going to affect "the hard core hoaxer", because their minds are made up and they don't want to be bothered with facts. But for a claim to qualify as a "fact", it has to be both true and verifiable, which means there has to be sufficient evidence to prove that that claim is true. He talks about Adam Lanza having killed so many people in about 15 minutes (with around a 96% kill-to-target ratio), which Wade acknowledges is "incredible". But when you look at the circumstances, he claims, it did not require any special skill, training or expertise to do it, which is quite frankly absurd. 


Joyce Riley, "The Power Hour", for example, interviewed firearms expert, Mike Powers, on her show, who explained that this shooting was simply preposterous, even for someone with an extensive background and training. Sofia Smallstorm, in "Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 Dimensions", begins with a monologue by another expert, who similarly explains that this was an incredible--literally, unbelievable--performance, which I can personally confirm on the basis of my experience as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps. I served as a Series Commander at the Recruit Depot in San Diego (1964-65), where I had 300 recruits and 15 DIs under my command, including marksmanship training.





Listening to Wade casually dismiss the suggestion that a 112-lb., six-foot-tall young man--said to suffer from Asperger's Syndrome, which entails poor motor coordination--could not possibly have done the shooting provides convincing proof that, if someone has their mind made up and is impervious to facts, it would be C.W. Wade. This is a striking example of the violation of the requirement of total evidence: multiple experts have affirmed that he could not have done it, where Wade substitutes his ignorance for their expertise. 


How could he not know?

As it happens, I have engaged in public debates with several of the most notorious apologists for the Sandy Hook hoax, including Keith Johnson. Because he had contended that registration signs and name tags on lanyards were “standard police procedures” at crime scenes, I contacted Jim Rothstein, a Gold Shield Detective from New York City, whom I know from JFK research, and asked him if that was indeed a common practice or if he had ever heard of it being done.  His response was plain and simple: “No.” He thought that this was a ridiculous claim to make. And so did I, because of which I make that point in the second round of our debate.
During the third round of the first debate, I also observed that, although the “official narrative” would have you believe that Adam Lanza was a firearms fanatic, ATF Special Assistant Agent Gene Marquez said that his agency “has not been able to uncover any evidence that the mother and the son were actively engaged in going to the gun ranges, practicing marksmanship, or anything of that nature.” I published this in "Wolfgang Halbig heads to Newtown for the truth about Sandy Hook" (originally published on 24 March 2014). Could C.D. Wade have missed it?
During the second hour of her interview with Mike Power, Joyce Riley mentions a Wall Street Journal article that stated they couldn’t find any evidence of Nancy or Adam Lanza going to any of the shooting ranges in that local area.  In a video, “No Gun Permit Under Nancy Lanza’s Name in public records, says TIME Magazine”, at 57 sec mark, there is a screen shot from TIME, saying that in a public records search, they could find no firearms or weapons permits under Nancy’s name. Could C.W. Wade, a self-declared Sandy Hook expert, have missed this, too?
 
Video description:  Published on Jan 11, 2013- So gun permit records are public knowledge, and major news outlets are unable to find any for Nancy Lanza. Not even for the AR-15 rifle? The police are saying that those guns were registered to her and she had permits for them, but apparently the public records themselves are not supporting their theories.

It is possible that C.W. Wade has remained ignorant of the evidence supporting the conclusion that Adam Lanza could not have performed the feat of shooting attributed to him? Could he have missed Mike Powers on "The Power Hour"? Could he have missed the intro monologue to "Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 Dimensions"? Could have missed my public debate with Keith Johnson, one of his staunchest allies in the battle against "the Sandy Hook hoaxers"? None of that strikes me as remotely plausible, which means that C.W. has to know much better.



The drill and the manual

The most interesting portion of their discussion was about the nature of FEMA drills and whether we have "the FEMA manual" for the event. Wade talks about the difference between a drill and an an actual emergency, where they would not have used emergency vehicles and sirens to rush to the site in the case of a drill, which means (to him) that it had to be real. Spingola talks about the fact that a FEMA drill would not be conducted in an elementary school in the first place. But they are begging the question and ignoring that this was NOT "an ordinary FEMA drill": 








To create the impression of a real emergency, they had to feign that it WAS a real emergency, which seems to be an obvious observation that lies beyond the imagination of the parties to this conversation. But they did not do a good job of it, because the proof that it was not a bona fide emergency was surprisingly apparent from the beginning: no surge of EMTS into the building; no Med-Evac helicopter was called; no string of ambulances to the school; no evacuation of 469 other students; no bodies placed on the triage tarps. The road was so clogged that no emergency vehicles could have reached the school (apart from a token fire truck), had they wanted to:













Paul Preston, a Los Angeles area school safety expert, found the reports from Sandy Hook so peculiar that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, each of whom confirmed that it had been a drill, that no children had died and that it was to promote gun-control, which is found in Chapter 6--but not a peep from Spingola or Wade. The manual explains why we had so many oddities at the time: the sign, "Everyone must check in!", boxes of bottled water and pizza at the Firehouse; Port-a-Potties present from scratch; many present wearing name tags on lanyards; parents bringing children to the scene! It was a two-day drill, with the rehearsal on the 13th and going LIVE on the 14th, which explains otherwise inexplicable oddities like these.

Three Classic Fallacies 

During his interview with Deanna Spingola, C.W. Wade committed other fallacies, where the violation of the requirement of total evidence qualifies as special pleading, citing only the evidence favorable to your side and omitting the rest. Here are other examples, where those who review the entire conversation are bound to discover many more:

(1) He and Deanna talked about "the Fetzer/Tracy book", as though James F. Tracy and I were the only authors. But there are a dozen contributors, whose names are listed on the back cover of the book and where the Contributors pages provide fairly nice bio-sketches about each of them. Is that something of which either Spingola or Wade could possibly have been unaware? Anyone can find their names by going to amazon.com and looking at the back cover there:
















Or were they concealing the truth because admitting that there were a dozen or more  contributors--thirteen, including series editor, Mike Palecek. who is not an expert on Sandy Hook--six of whom are (current or retired college professors) with Ph.D.s--Vivian Lee, Ph.D.; Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D.; Dr. Eowyn, Ph.D.; Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D.; James F. Tracy, Ph.D.; and Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.--would have made them look absurd. So they simply left it out.

(2) They talked about debunking the morning photo, which appears as Exhibit 26 on page 148; but they ignore the proof that this photo was taken before the event had even taken place, which is the point: the windows of Classroom 10 are unbroken in Exhibit 26, which can easily be ascertained by comparing Exhibit 26 with Exhibit 30 on page 149. where they are broken, and with Exhibit 42 on page 154, where they are not. And Wayne Carver, M.E., is already there before the shooting has officially taken place! Q.E.D.
















Notice they do not discuss the Nancy Lanza bedroom, which shows a red smear (which does not look like blood) on the bed and where (in their haste to furnish the room) they left a moving pad beneath the left-front leg. Their willingness to ignore even the most blatant proof of fraud and fakery reveals the role they are playing in relation to Sandy Hook:

 











Spingola and Wade make their case against Exhibit 26 because the caption says that it was taken on the morning of 14 December 2012. Allan William Powell, who contributed that chapter, has acknowledged mistaking a sunset for a sunrise, which we will correct in a future printing. But what could be more convincing proof (a) that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax than to have Dr. Carver and the SWAT team present with crime scene tape already up before the crime has been committed and (b) that Spingola and Wade are not honest brokers but are willing deceive and mislead the public about the truth?


Shannon Hick's "iconic" photograph


(3) Wade also attempted to discount the proof that Shannon Hick's "iconic" photograph of a police woman leading a string of around 15 kids away from the school had been staged, which we have proven based upon at least three considerations:

(a) there was frost on the ground in Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012, when the ground temperature was 28*F; but there is no frost on the ground in Shannon Hick's photograph, which means that it was not taken on 14 December 2012 and is therefore not authentic;

(b) a second photo Shannon has acknowledged having taken shows the kids in a different sequence, where one is led by a little girl in a pink sweater, the other by a (much larger) little boy in a dark shit and blue jeans, which means they arranged the kids to get "the best shot"; and,

(c) there are parents present with their arms folded or hands in their pockets, but how could they possible have been present at the time? Did someone at the school decide to call parents as Adam Lanza was shooting it up and urge them to rush down for photographs?















Taking a closer look, we find more parents "lounging at the massacre":
















Wade trades on an equivocation, claiming that we were basing our conclusions on "fuzzy photographs". But while the photos published in the book, especially in black-and-white, could be claimed to be "fuzzy", the original articles on which this research was based are not "fuzzy" at all. And Spengola knows better, because she has a copy of the pdf of the book, which I send to Dave Gahary and he forwarded to her for a forthcoming debate.

C.W. Wade repeatedly describes us as "liars", as though we had asserted something false while knowing it was false in a deliberate attempt to deceive our intended audience. Allan made a simple mistake about the time of day; but that was an innocuous mistake, which we are going to correct. Exhibit 26 was taken before the shooting had occurred. The case is less simple for Wade and Spingola. Lies are abounding here, but not from us.