Connecticut Elementary School Massacre

[barracuda]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/12/17/1355755159818/Newtown-shooting-gunman-A-011.jpg
THE BLURRED, BLACK-AND-WHITE FACE OF PURE EVIL

^^That particular exemplar of that incomprably useful image is taken from the respected, liberal, quality broadsheet, The Guardian. Here are some facts worth verifying, and easily verifiable in any free country:

1. Who first supplied that image to the media?

2. For what organisation does that person work?

3. To which media outlest did he or she supply it, and how?

4. When, exactly? (On what day, at what time?)

5. How, where and when was that photo acquired by the person[s] and/or organisation who supplied it to the media?

In addition:

6. What other images of Adam Lanza, if any, are currently in the possession of that person and / or organisation? If other recent images are in fact available, why have they not also been supplied to the media?

7. Which person-in-authority ultimately authorised the acquisition, selection, and release of that photo?

Wikipedia says it's a yearbook photo. (Color me dubious, though.)

Media data and Non-free use rationale

Description: A yearbook photograph of Adam Lanza, the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Author or copyright owner: NBC News (cropping from the yearbook below)

Source: Original publication: The Newtown High School yearbook

Immediate source: [1]

Date: 2012

Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) To identify the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting with the last best known photograph (who killed himself after the shooting)

Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1): Reports explain that the shooter was not very social, so while there may be a chance of a free image of the shooter, it likely will not come to light very easily. Subject is also deceased.

Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3): Only a single photo of shooter.

Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2): It is a widely distributed (now) of the killer; it is a cropped image of the original yearbook page (which also protects the privacy of those that may have been on it)l.

Other information: Please note that due to media rush, earlier photos that claimed to be of Adam were, in fact, those of Ryan, his brother (as Adam had Ryan's ID on him when they found his body). Previous image upload attempts were using Ryan's image. This photo is pretty much identified by major press sources as Adam's yearbook picture.

Associated Press says the picture was distributed by law enforcement:

Event: School Shooting Gunman's Remains
Creation Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:20 PM
Submit Date: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:56 AM
Special Instructions: UNDATED FILE PHOTO - BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE. UNDATED PHOTO CIRCULATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROVIDED BY NBC NEWS. AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO CIRCULATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROVIDED BY NBC NEWS FOR EDITORIAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Subject: School shootings, Shootings, Violent crime, Crime, General news
Transmission Reference: NY107
Image ID: 301678582553
Image Resolution‡: 2000 x 1425 - 641.07 KB
Byline Title: HOEP
Credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Person: Adam Lanza
Photographer: uncredited
Category: Domestic News
Source: NBC News

Is that verified enough to at least answer a few of your questions above? Let's go through them...

1. Who first supplied that image to the media?

- Law enforcement, which almost certainly means the office of Lt. Paul Vance.

2. For what organisation does that person work?

- Connecticut State Police Department.

3. To which media outlest did he or she supply it, and how?

- NBC News (probably among others), as a handout.

4. When, exactly? (On what day, at what time?)

- December 17, sometime before 1:20 p.m.

5. How, where and when was that photo acquired by the person[s] and/or organisation who supplied it to the media?

- Unknown, but police had access to the Lanza household. (This raises the question of whether the picture was colorized by law enforcement or by NBC.)

6. What other images of Adam Lanza, if any, are currently in the possession of that person and / or organisation? If other recent images are in fact available, why have they not also been supplied to the media?

- Unknown, but I would guess that CSPD has had at one time or another possession of any and all photos contained at Nancy Lanza's house.

7. Which person-in-authority ultimately authorised the acquisition, selection, and release of that photo?

- That would almost certainly be the office of Lt. Paul Vance.

[BrandonD]

Okay, first of all, I am not the enraged one with regards to the interpretation of this event. For pointing out inconsistencies and irrelevancies surrounding the conspiracy talking points here, I have been called for my trouble a wide and colorful assortment of names, including but not limited to psychopath, asshole, jack-off and thought police. I am not and have not been enraged by any of these discussions. Disappointed, perhaps, but not angry. The anger is coming from the other side of the argument.

Perhaps I oughtn't've addressed Mac's request as stupid, per se. It would be more accurate to simply have noted its superfluousness to understanding and moved on. But how does one advance the discussion when the very identity of the body found and identified as Adam Lanza cannot be accepted as a basis for the discussion? Think about the scope and category of conspiracy you're outlining if you think the body at the school wasn't Adam Lanza. I mean, you might, like lupercal for instance, feel certain that Adam was killed by a covert op at his home and bodily transported to the school to be planted as a set up, but even there you're at least conceding that Adam Lanza was actually identified as the body at the school. According to all accounts, his father claimed his body, right? Where do you go with this thing if you can't settle that question? How do you begin to try and make sense of even the inconsistencies here if your standing point after five weeks and fifty pages of discussion is to simply contend that perhaps he doesn't exist at all? Does that perspective allow any certainty that the event happened? At all? Because if not, then what we're discussing is epistemology, or maybe even ontology, and ought, in my opinion, be addressed as such, in which case a fruitful discussion may ensue along philosophical lines.

I think the following simple facts can be acknowledged by most thinking people:

- Conspiracies happen, and authorities sometimes lie.
- Reality is not fully understood.

These 2 very simple facts mean that there is a whole world of speculation that is entirely within reason.

My feeling is that there is a third a priori acknowledgement we should be able to agree on: that while history is a constructed narrative, there are such things as verifiable facts. The pure historicity of those facts may be nigh impossible for us here to prove beyond all shadow of conjecture, but that shouldn't stop us from assessing them logically, making determinations as to veracity, and then using the variable hardness of those facts to gain degrees of footing.

The claim has basically been put forward that if you might accept the existence of Adam Lanza at the school, you're obviously cowed by the awesome Daddy-imperatives of the authoritarian dictate. This is simply wrong. That unanswerable claim is a pejorative attack which contains no moral or intellectual standing that I can discern, and seems censorious to the point of suppressiveness. You might just as well say all conspiracy theorists are kooks. Fortunately, I have become inured to both accusations by practice. There are weirder and deeper questions about this event than whether or not Adam Lanza killed anyone, in my opinion.

Yes, the context of this forum necessitates the widest possible leeway revolving around interpretation. No one can say that hasn't happened, or that it has been kneecapped in some fashion by attempts to interpose what facts and logic we can into the mix. It is not required that you surrender any and all earthbound notions at the login here, even if all we really know about the event is that a news story appeared on our LCDs. Because realistically, that is all we know. Nothing else about the event is provable without personal presence at the scene. And while that idea requires that any and all discussion in of necessity speculative, on those grounds the acceptance of the reality of Adam Lanza, or Robbie Parker, or the deaths in Newtown is no more or less an authoritarian position than the obverse.

I believe in this case that those people who are proposing what I consider to be outlandish non-conventional ideas in the form of disavowing the reality of the existence of the shooter, or the authenticity of the parents, or the reality of the victims, are actually performing a moral wrong. In which case, it is my responsibility as a member of the forum and a human being to make that known.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone else in particular. Honestly, I still don't know the people in this forum well enough to single anyone out. But I was reading posts that seemed un-necessarily nasty.

Any of us can certainly point out what we perceive to be a moral wrong, seems totally fine to me. But pointing out a moral wrong is one thing, and using insults and intimidation to silence dissent is an entirely different thing.

Even though people may hold an opinion that you or I consider morally offensive, I know for a fact that we can still discuss these opinions in a civilized manner. I say this because my entire family consists of born-again christians, I love them and get along with them and yet I still truly think what they believe is morally repugnant and is in fact detrimental to society.

To address some of your points, IMO two people privately disagreeing on the reality of parents or the reality or victims or the reality of murderers, all people that none of us have ever met and "know" only by virtue of our media system, doesn't really seem to be THAT offensive or morally wrong. As we acknowledged, conspiracies happen and authorities sometimes lie. So even if the official story is totally true from start to finish, to privately speculate that a particular element is being fabricated seems entirely within reason.

And more importantly, it is not in fact harming anyone at all.

My personal position here is similar to 9/11: I don't know what the hell happened, but it sure isn't the official version. And like 9/11 speculation is fine, but absolute proclamations are probably not going to advance the discussion.

I think something that might help this subject would be to present the main speculations on the story, and list in a sort of bullet fashion the main pieces of evidence that support as well as refute that speculation. List them side by side, and then people can make an informed assessment. It seems to me that if someone is purely interested in what in fact really happened in a situation, this would be a great approach.

I wish I knew (or cared) more about this particular story to put in that sort of work, but unfortunately I don't. I do however care about the quality of discourse among those of us in the "alternative thought" community.

[wetland]

Stories about "Newtown, CT as a Satanist hub" started appearing on the nets before the bodies had been removed from the school.

I have started noticing a rising front of fresh and explicit talk (and raving) about "Satanism" on the popular woo channels like Coast-to-Coast and The Alex Jones Show.

Jones keeps repeating a bit in which he reels off a list of shooters and other notorious scary mass/spree/serial killer criminals dating back to the 1970s, identifying them all as practicing satanists.

Noory interviewed the "Shatter the Darkness" guy uncritically for a few hours last week, then took a string of calls from "satanic sexual abuse survivors" and assorted "Bible quoters:"

http://www.shatterthedarkness.net/mp3s/ ... SENONE.mp3

This link is to the hour (among hundreds) re: "How to recognize the mind-controlled, coven-loyal, intact multiple personality 'Chosen Ones" in your midst with a special emphasis on churches, military, and law enforcement settings."

I have never heard the mind-controlled agent meme mixed technologically with the Christian culture warrior meme in this way, and and am very curious about this popular discursive flare-up of a formulation of "Globalism as Satanism."

What is going on here?

[Iamwhomiam]

^^^^ "What is going on here?"

Bait & switch.

Plain ol' & ancient deception. Nada mas.

[justdrew]

Stories about "Newtown, CT as a Satanist hub" started appearing on the nets before the bodies had been removed from the school.

I have started noticing a rising front of fresh and explicit talk (and raving) about "Satanism" on the popular woo channels like Coast-to-Coast and The Alex Jones Show.

Jones keeps repeating a bit in which he reels off a list of shooters and other notorious scary mass/spree/serial killer criminals dating back to the 1970s, identifying them all as practicing satanists.

Noory interviewed the "Shatter the Darkness" guy uncritically for a few hours last week, then took a string of calls from "satanic sexual abuse survivors" and assorted "Bible quoters:"

http://www.shatterthedarkness.net/mp3s/ ... SENONE.mp3

This link is to the hour (among hundreds) re: "How to recognize the mind-controlled, coven-loyal, intact multiple personality 'Chosen Ones" in your midst with a special emphasis on churches, military, and law enforcement settings."

I have never heard the mind-controlled agent meme mixed technologically with the Christian culture warrior meme in this way, and and am very curious about this popular discursive flare-up of a formulation of "Globalism as Satanism."

What is going on here?

that ep of c2c probably deserves its own thread. the whole show is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzY8jSgJBA0
we don't seem to have talked much about Russ Dizdar here.
I didn't buy what he was selling

[wetland]

It is certainly a deep and echoey rabbit hole.

Maybe what is making my senses tingle is the way this new framing of "satanic possession" triangulates to the realities of and pop narratives about mind control/related deep state programs *and* the current mass vogue for stories about zombies (and, recently, "Cylons). Talk about a recipe for divisive paranoia!



I had never heard of Russ Dizdar before happening to catch that Coast interview. His demeanor, tone, and presentation is very different on the (hundreds of hours of) audio posted on his site. How influential is this guy, anyhow?

[barracuda]

Even though people may hold an opinion that you or I consider morally offensive, I know for a fact that we can still discuss these opinions in a civilized manner.

Brandon, I agree entirely, even strenuously so, which is why I unfailingly attempt to acquit myself with an air of courtesy and graciousness, flavored with just enough touches of mild acerbicism and carefree wit to lead the reader to the nagging suspicion that I just might consider some particular argumentative adversary to be a bit of a dork, and all flavored with a touch of alliteration and wordplay to keep things fun. If on occasion I feel the need to alert the object of my commentary to the fact the I consider their ideas to be a veritable cistern of douchebaggery, I am sure to contain that characterization within the realm of subtle subtext, so as not to alarm the more sensitive readers for whom my unadulterated opinion might be too starkly bald.

This is the very essence of civilized discourse.

_______________________________________________________

Regarding this:

two people privately disagreeing on the reality of parents or the reality or victims or the reality of murderers, all people that none of us have ever met and "know" only by virtue of our media system, doesn't really seem to be THAT offensive or morally wrong.

You must be aware that we are not having a private conversation here. Rather, everything written on the forum is literally published for anyone to read.

And about this:

And more importantly, it is not in fact harming anyone at all.

I am hoping against hope that someone other than myself can point out the problems with that belief, in terms of both the particulars of possible and actual harm to the individuals under discussion here, as well as the more generalized potential harm to the environs of our subculture and forum, so that I don't put myself in jeopardy of being labeled as a thought policeman, self-appointed. Anyone?

[82_28]

http://classifiedhumanity.com/post/4108 ... l-just-let

Hint. Read it all. But look what the ONLY hit for Newtown CT comes up with. Top left corner story.

[Project Willow]

I had never heard of Russ Dizdar before happening to catch that Coast interview. His demeanor, tone, and presentation is very different on the (hundreds of hours of) audio posted on his site. How influential is this guy, anyhow?

I hadn't heard of him either, but I tend to avoid the overtly Christian anti-RA groups. Perhaps I shouldn't.

Dizdar presents some generally accurate facts about MC but covers and chunks them in Christian metaphysical malarkey. I don't like that he makes no distinction between RA and MC. Not all MC survivors experienced SRA, not all MC is based on SRA, nor are all of the practitioners satanists. I don't appreciate the introduction of demons (as if they are real entities) and the conflation of possession with DID. It's a very bad message for survivors as, well, it demonizes alters who were doing important jobs in order to ensure survival, and encourages feelings of powerlessness. That's just a start. What a mess.

As for the why now question, as I stated recently in the RA/MC thread, RA is again being covered in the MSM, with the recent cases and convictions in the UK, Savile, and Byington's Twenty-Faces making the talk show circuit here in the US. I'd wager Dizbar's emergence is a rear flank inoculation while the FMSF folks continue their head on attack, howling like wolves in comment sections all over the Internet.

I listened to the C2C show, and unless I missed it somehow, I didn't hear a single mention of Byington and Hill. That's a pretty big tell right there.

[Project Willow]

I am hoping against hope that someone other than myself can point out the problems with that belief, in terms of both the particulars of possible and actual harm to the individuals under discussion here, as well as the more generalized potential harm to the environs of our subculture and forum, so that I don't put myself in jeopardy of being labeled as a thought policeman, self-appointed. Anyone?

LilyPat illustrated an aspect of harm quite well in the other thread. If anyone had any doubt, I'd encourage them to read her moving and courageous post.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=489232#p489232

And, I'd hate to think that any speculative discussion I might be involved with here somehow led to victims or innocent bystanders receiving hate mail, or death threats, or worse. Not that I believe anyone on this board would engage in such things, but sometimes ideas and theories can take on a life of their own.

That should be enough to encourage careful consideration and caution, I would hope.

[Sounder]

And more importantly, it is not in fact harming anyone at all.

I am hoping against hope that someone other than myself can point out the problems with that belief, in terms of both the particulars of possible and actual harm to the individuals under discussion here, as well as the more generalized potential harm to the environs of our subculture and forum, so that I don't put myself in jeopardy of being labeled as a thought policeman, self-appointed. Anyone?

Cuda is so, so correct here. There are so many ways to harm discourse and individuals with words and otherwise.

As sensitive folk, we should know the harm that words can create so that choosing them carefully must be top priority.

I'm working on it.

[The Consul]

Seems like almost any form of belief ends up becoming a kind of denial, with most true believers easily concluding fish have no feelings as they cut the hooks out of the rainbows' stomachs.

[lupercal]

^ good points, well made, so before we venture further down this righteous road let us keep in mind:

a) The most vile accusations have been heaped ad libidem for weeks on two members of the Lanza family on the basis of zero, zip, nada evidence by the most righteous among us including barracuda, willow, and C2c. We're talking vile. If mother and son did any of the stuff they've been accused of here let the evidence be shown before this Lottery-fest continues.

b) "I don't need no stinkin' motive" is not a motive. Neither is "He's crazy, that's yer motive" or any variation. To date, the alleged perp had no motive whatsoever for committing these crimes.

c) From the preceding page:

I mean, you might, like lupercal for instance, feel certain that Adam was killed by a covert op at his home and bodily transported to the school to be planted as a set up, but even there you're at least conceding that Adam Lanza was actually identified as the body at the school.

Not exactly. I said before Christmas that it's likely that Lanza was never at the school:

Maybe it was Lanza, maybe not. Let's say it was. How do we know he wasn't shot in bed like his mother and then dumped at the site? At the moment I think it's more likely that he was never at the school, and his corpse was shipped directly to the morgue, if he's in a morgue. But he might not be there either.

Anyway my point here is that by straying from what we actually know and don't know we're playing into the current media pushback which is a vile thing in itself.

p.s. BO just this very moment mentioned Newtown in his inaugural address. . .

[wetland]

I had never heard of Russ Dizdar before happening to catch that Coast interview. His demeanor, tone, and presentation is very different on the (hundreds of hours of) audio posted on his site. How influential is this guy, anyhow?

I hadn't heard of him either, but I tend to avoid the overtly Christian anti-RA groups. Perhaps I shouldn't.

Dizdar presents some generally accurate facts about MC but covers and chunks them in Christian metaphysical malarkey. I don't like that he makes no distinction between RA and MC. Not all MC survivors experienced SRA, not all MC is based on SRA, nor are all of the practitioners satanists. I don't appreciate the introduction of demons (as if they are real entities) and the conflation of possession with DID. It's a very bad message for survivors as, well, it demonizes alters who were doing important jobs in order to ensure survival, and encourages feelings of powerlessness. That's just a start. What a mess.

As for the why now question, as I stated recently in the RA/MC thread, RA is again being covered in the MSM, with the recent cases and convictions in the UK, Savile, and Byington's Twenty-Faces making the talk show circuit here in the US. I'd wager Dizbar's emergence is a rear flank inoculation while the FMSF folks continue their head on attack, howling like wolves in comment sections all over the Internet.

I listened to the C2C show, and unless I missed it somehow, I didn't hear a single mention of Byington and Hill. That's a pretty big tell right there.

Thanks, Project Willow. That helps bump things into perspective. I need to catch up on the RA/MC thread (and keep my head out of this particular rabbit hole).

[compared2what?]

with most true believers easily concluding fish have no feelings as they cut the hooks out of the rainbows' stomachs.

^^Compliment, via lyric.
_________________________

It's kind of tangential, but fwiw, if I'd never seen that performance, I probably would have said that it was flatly impossible for someone who was that (apparently) high also to be in such an absolute state of (apparently) unrelieved emotional agony.

...

I don't know. I find it so painful to concede that possibility even now that I'm honestly not sure that I wasn't better off with the easy conclusion born of true belief It's the guiltier option by far. But for some reason, it feels much more innocent.

Not that you're really saying anything different, I realize.

[/unfocused sophomoric philosophizing]