Connecticut Elementary School Massacre

[justdrew]

well, here's a blog following up on this idea that the most prominent pic was 'shopped...

http://www.libertyusapac.org/wordpresspac/2013/01/06/adam-lanza-photographic-manipulation/
not sure if I buy the theory propounded about "Whites of the eyes showing below the pupils" - but I guess it may have some physiological basis.

but I see in the comments section, the author also states: "Zionist World Cabal did 9-11"

[MacCruiskeen]

the picture, while "horrible" (and who would disagree with that? If my school picture had that deer-in-the-headlights look about it, I'd have gone back for a fucking re-shoot)

c2w just spent a lengthy post disagreeing with it less than an hour ago (on page 50)

(For me: "Thin, young, frightened, vulnerable, shy, surprised, white, male, uncomfortable, sad."
[...] and "sensitive," [...]

, and you chimed in in agreement:

Agree entirely.

So there are two possibilities here:

1. You can't even read your own posts.

or

2: You are a shameless, slimey and insufferably dishonest troll. You are deliberately wasting my time and everyone else's.

I'm going with the latter hypothesis, so the complaint's in to the mods.

[IanEye]

*


when eye woke up
mom & dad
were rolling on the couch



rolling numbers
rocking rolling
got my Kiss records out



*

[barracuda]

and you chimed in in agreement:

For me: "Thin, young, frightened, vulnerable, shy, surprised, white, male, uncomfortable, sad. ... Unfocused"

^^This attribute set contains, for me, some ingredients that add up to a horrible yearbook photo. I like my yearbook photos to relay the attributes of "handsome, confident, fun, intelligent". Personally speaking.

So yeah, I agree with her.

Also, you are mischaracterizing compared2what?'s post. Her point was that the picture is neither scary nor evil looking, not that it wasn't a terrible yearbook picture.

I'm going with the latter hypothesis, so the complaint's in to the mods.

Someone, alert the authorities!

[compared2what?]

[

I don't actually know where it came from

Thank you, c2w.

Du rien.

This is progress. We've just established a useful, verifiable fact here. Namely:

It is grotesquely difficult to establish any verifiable facts at all about this case -- even the most basic and indispensable information of all, information fundamental to any serious criminal inquiry: i.e., the identification of the alleged culprit. It goes without saying -- or rather, it should -- that the dependability and verifiable provenance of any such purported identification, photographic or other, is of fundamental importance.

That conclusion would only be progress if the person reaching it had originally been laboring under the misapprehension that it was possible to verify assertions in the news media to a reasonable-doubt standard by talking about them on the internet.

Seems unlikely to me. But if any such exist, I guess I congratulate them.

The grotesquery has not been established.

it does get to be more of a philosophical exercise than anything else, I feel,

I'm amazed to hear you say this, c2w. There is nothing remotely "philosophical" about it. We're not talking about some abstruse epistemological conundrum here. I am not speculating about (say) how we know we exist,

Stipulated. Withdrawn. Apologies.

nor am I asking for (say) the moon. We're talking about the baby-steps routinely taken in the early stages of any criminal investigation of any murder anywhere.

Believe it or not, it's actually not routine for criminal investigations to be carried out on an ad hoc volunteer basis by people with no training or other special qualifications who don't know any more about the crime than what they read in the newspaper. So that's not actually a more apt characterization than "philosophical" is.

That photo went round the world. Not only is it one of the very few pieces of evidence against Adam Lanza, it's fair to say that it is the main piece of evidence against Adam Lanza.

No it's not. It's almost not even fair to say that it's evidence. The only way a photograph like that could ever be introduced as such in court (and/or employed in a criminal investigation) would be as a means of confirming eyewitness identification. But that's almost always a choice of last resort, due to that notorious-unreliability thing. So unless there's a reason to assume that they haven't got (just for example) dental records, I seriously doubt they're relying on it.

It might also be introduced at trial just as a concession to the basic human need for narrative explanation, I suppose. But while that would technically qualify it as evidence, since it's fundamentally value-neutral wrt to questions of guilt and innocence, it still wouldn't qualify it as "evidence against."

Furthermore, the person in that picture is not being investigated by either its round-the-world recipients or those who sent it to them. So I call conflation.

therefore, it matters that, so far:

Nope. Your premises have not been established.

1) nobody HERE AMONG US can say where it came from;

2) nobody HERE AMONG US can say when or where it was taken (not even what year!);

3) nobody HERE AMONG US can say who* released it to, or rather on, a waiting world.

FIFY.

*Yesyes, "LAW ENFORCEMENT", I know

Oops. No, I didn't, I guess. Forgive me. I'll try to make up for it in the next post.

[compared2what?]

*Yesyes, "LAW ENFORCEMENT", I know-- but what does that mean, exactly? That could mean anything from the Newtown local cops to Robert Mueller himself.

And much, much more. If that's not a rhetorical question, would you mind narrowing it down just a little, though? I'm not sure what part of the meaning of "law enforcement" you want exactly to know..

And we have been fed so much utter crap about this case by "anonymous law enforcement sources" --- so many barefaced lies, not to put too fine a point on it --- that I am disinclined to take it on trust.

I don't know why not, since you apparently have no problem taking the word of the media for it that their unnamed sources even exist, never mind work in law enforcement.

Additionally, "utter crap" and "barefaced lies" are both in the same category as "that scary photo," wrt to not being so obviously and exclusively utter, crappy, barefaced, or intentionally false as to require no proof of same.

That law enforcement officials can and do feed people utter crap and tell many barefaced lies is beyond dispute. So don't straw-man me by suggesting I said otherwise. Please. Because it's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that when the standard requires distinguishing between/among viability, likelihood and proof, it's either a universal standard or it's pointless.

Because anyone who trusts a proven serial liar is a fool.

Serial lying has not been proven, per your standards.

Therefore, I continue to submit that that is not a photo of the same person. At present (19:21 CET, Jan. 22nd), I have been given no good reason to presume that it is and many good reasons to believe that it is not.

Wait a minute. How is this...

It is grotesquely difficult to establish any verifiable facts at all about this case -- even the most basic and indispensable information of all, information fundamental to any serious criminal inquiry: i.e., the identification of the alleged culprit. It goes without saying -- or rather, it should -- that the dependability and verifiable provenance of any such purported identification, photographic or other, is of fundamental importance.

...not a good reason for not presuming anything about the identity of the person in that photograph? Exactly?

Because it looks like the very definition of one to me.

- It beggars belief that it should take so long to agree on so little! Like drawing blood from a stone.

Agree.

I don't use the word "fascism" lightly, but it really disturbs me that so many people I like and respect have gotten so used to taking utter bullshit from "law enforcement authorities" on trust, often without even noticing they're doing it, even when those authorities are demonstrably serial liars. And we are really talking about the absolute basics here, not the fucking moon.

Straw. Please don't do it again without citation.

[justdrew]

Sanpaku Eyes

Generally, there are two types of sanpaku. The first is yin sanpaku, white showing below the iris, which is very common, especially among drug addicts. Here, the iris floats upward, revealing the sclera below. The second type is yang sanpaku, white showing above the iris; here the iris sinks downward toward the bottom eyelid. This reveals a dangerous or violent character. Charles Manson has beautiful yang sanpaku eyes. [ as seen in his life magazine cover ]

If the white shows below the iris, the condition is yin, indicating that the dangers come from outside. A person with yin sanpaku eyes will place himself or herself in dangerous or threatening situations unwittingly- and may not survive.

If the white shows above, the condition is yang, and the danger comes from within. A person with yang sanpaku eyes is extremely violent, filled with rage, and likely poses a threat to himself and others. He may destroy himself, but may also take others with him.

so yeah, the guy in the blog I posted top of the page, he had it wrong about sanpaku eyes, The picture shows YIN sanpaku, not YANG.

another YIN sanpaku example? ... here

I dont know. maybe there's something to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanpaku

probably not. and yet Others may react differently to a person based on it, there seems to be some people saying they've noticed it. I don't think I've ever thought about it or noticed it

Skepticism regarding sanpaku

There is currently no scientific evidence that supports the existence of the sanpaku eyes phenomenon. There is also no evidence to suggest that many of the listed conditions, such as the overconsumption of grain, are related to sclera visibility. Additionally, searching the term “sanpaku” does not yield any results in any mainstream psychological or medical journals.

The populariser of the sanpaku eyes phenomenon, George Ohsawa, did not have any training in the medical field, and is thus not qualified to make diagnoses or medically-related predictions. In a similar vein, Ohsawa also does not provide any explanations for the supposed links between particular physical ailments, mental disorders, personality types and the different types of sanpaku (e.g.: why exactly is a visible upper sclera indicative of psychosis?). Ohsawa also makes note of some famous people with sanpaku eyes, such as Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy, and insinuates that their demise was linked to the visible sclera under their eyes.[3]

However, there is no mention of people (both famous and non-famous) with this characteristic that do not adhere to the list of symptoms. Making observations on famous people exclusively results in a biased and non-random sample, from which results or observations cannot be generalized. It is highly likely that many (if not most) people with sanpaku live healthy and normal lives.

In order to test this phenomenon, a scientific approach would be to acquire a random sample, whose sclera visibility would be compared to their medical history.

---

possibly interesting article:
Why do we still know so little about Adam Lanza? Because he lived in the cloud.

[compared2what?]

For c2w, an extract from an interview with his Latin teacher, who taught him for three years:

“He trusted me,” Jennifer says. “He started talking — that was a big thing. And he looked at me, with big eyes.” They were not the same eyes, she says, that the world has seen in “that horrible picture.”

Thank you. But that's not a thing-in-itself characterization. It almost couldn't be less of one, in fact. So it's not really responsive to what I was saying.

Additionally, it contradicts the general premise (ie -- that Adam Lanza is being portrayed as scary and evil in the media).

As things stand, I am inclined to believe that this is literally true: they are not the same eyes.

And "inclined" is really the mot juste. Because unless you think she means it literally, you still have no better reason for believing it than inclination, same as before.

And I certainly agree with his Latin teacher, who knew him well, that the picture is horrible.

It's not a flattering picture. That's pretty typical for the genre it appears to belong to, though. And that's easily demonstrable. So cliched though it may be, I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Original subtitle:


The photo of Adam Lanza, seen around the world.

Damn right it was.

Yes. QED. It went round the world. No argument here.

Going around the world is not an indicator of scariness or evil, however. So I'm not really sure why you're calling attention to it.

The Adam Lanza who killed his mother, 20 children and 6 adults — and then himself — “was not the Adam I knew,” Jennifer says. “It was very disturbing to hear he’d done this — to realize the impact he had on the world. I have no idea where this awful, horrible thing came from.”

http://06880danwoog.com/2012/12/21/jenn ... -she-knew/

As I've already said, he's generally being treated very sympathetically by the media, relative to the norm. The circumstances prohibit that ever being a happy thing. But I'd much rather see it than the reverse. By far. That's for sure.

[compared2what?]

No it's not. It's almost not even fair to say that it's evidence. The only way a photograph like that could ever be introduced as such in court (and/or employed in a criminal investigation) would be as a means of confirming eyewitness identification. But that's almost always a choice of last resort, due to that notorious-unreliability thing. So unless there's a reason to assume that they haven't got (just for example) dental records, I seriously doubt they're relying on it.

That's not because I trust them to be anything but a bureaucracy, btw. The eyewitness-ID route would be more work by fewer people with lesser claims on the taxpayer's dollar in order to produce an intangible outcome with very little potential for public display and/or mystification and no particular implications for hierarchy at all.

And that's just not the way any part of the state I'm familiar with operates. So dental sounds more like it to me.

[MacCruiskeen]

Your premises have not been established.


1) nobody HERE AMONG US can say where it came from;

2) nobody HERE AMONG US can say when or where it was taken (not even what year!);

3) nobody HERE AMONG US can say who* released it to, or rather on, a waiting world.

FIFY.

Well, all that goes without saying. Or it should, if a person is not merely nit-picking and waffling and scoriing debating points that aren't worth scoring in the first place. In fact, you could have wasted even more time and made this even more (pseudo-)"philosophical" by also noting the further logical possibility that HERE AMONG US there are people who can say, but who aren't telling us, just to annoy us.

FIFY. So I hope you're as grateful as I was.

The point is, of course, that no one anywhere has yet stated publicly where the image came from and who supplied it to the press. So why make such an interminable meal of such a simple and obvious point?

you apparently have no problem taking the word of the media for it that their unnamed sources even exist, never mind work in law enforcement.

No I don't. They may in fact have been just pulling it out of some other orifice than the mouth of, say, Robert Mueller. But I don't know what point you imagine you're making here, unless it's the decidely trivial debating-club point that every chain of reasoning has to end somewhere, or that we all take a lot of things on trust, such as the existence of Australia even if we've never been there. In any case, you're just spreading smoke here.

I'm not sure what part of the meaning of "law enforcement" you want exactly to know.

I want to know which person from which law-enforcement agency supplied that photo to the world's press (and I want to know where the photo originated). This was already crystal-clear to anyone of even average brainpower reading my posts in good faith. Your brainpower is clearly above average, so I don't understand why you are deliberately obfuscating a very clear and very simple issue. Again.

c2w said: "Serial lying has not been proven, per your standards."

According to "a couple" of "law-enforcement officials", reported on NBC on Dec. 15: One day before the shooting, there was an altercation at the school between Adam Lanza and four school staff, three of whom he shot dead next day, while the lucky survivor was not at work that day. This altercation was being investigated by "state and federal" "law-enforcement officials".

That's already a pretty detailed scenario, right? An entire little five-character short story in itself. And it provides the beginning of a much-needed and blatantly lacking motive.

One day later, we were told that no such altercation ever took place.

Two short YouTube videos:

lTWh16ahbXE

2beUkUUMSeI

ON EDIT: sorry, this computer has started acting up. I can't format the post properly, viz. those YouTube links and my last quote from c2w.

Anyway: c2w, you are right that it is unclear exactly who is spreading disinformation. That disinformation is being spread is indisputable. Either NBC and others are inventing interviews with anonymous "law enforcement officials" that never actually took place, or else those unnamed "law enforcement officials" are deliberately spreading disinformation anonymously through the corporate media. All of them with complete impunity. (Why?)

There are further examples -- one of them particularly crass, even more detailed and disturbing, and deeply strange. I posted it way back and nobody commented. I'll post it again when I can get to a properly-functioning computer.

[Elihu]

hang in there mac. skepticism is called for. imo, a pillar of the msm-gov's psy war to achieve conformity of thought (or at least paralyzing ambiguity to go with the horror) is to induce the citizens to self-police their own opinions. the incongruities cause + -schisms that, with no other outlet, begin to attack each other. the conflict is fruitless, depletes the will and renders the audience more malleable for the next operation...

[JackRiddler]

It is clear from the quote that Jennifer Huettner is saying the Last Known Picture (let's call it that to avoid editorials either way) was of Lanza, and that he had changed. If you think she means otherwise -- for example, that she means the LKP is of not of Lanza but of another person altogether, and that the press has therefore misrepresented what Huettner said in the same way the FBI and Warren Commission misrepresented Dealey Plaza witnesses -- then that would be something to ask her, if you are journalistically inclined. (I hope if someone gets this idea now they will do it politely and without accusations against her, if she doesn't conform to the expected answer.) But as it stands her statement is an authentication that the picture is of the same kid she knew.

[barracuda]

Exactly, Jack.

According to "a couple" of "law-enforcement officials", reported on NBC on Dec. 15: One day before the shooting, there was an altercation at the school between Adam Lanza and four school staff, three of whom he shot dead next day, while the lucky survivor was not at work that day. This altercation was being investigated by "state and federal" "law-enforcement officials".

That's already a pretty detailed scenario, right? An entire little five-character short story in itself. And it provides the beginning of a much-needed and blatantly lacking motive.

One day later, we were told that no such altercation ever took place.

Two short YouTube videos:

lTWh16ahbXE

2beUkUUMSeI

Here's a written report of that altercation, published on December 15 at 8:09am, EST, via NBC US News, featuring Pete Williams' byline:

The motive for the mass killing was unknown, but officials told NBC's Pete Williams that they were investigating a report that someone had an "altercation" with four staff members at the school on Thursday – three of whom were killed the next day.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12 ... e-say?lite

My feeling is that Mr. Williams misspoke regarding just what was actually known, and sensationalizing the little information he had. Imagine that. And on The Today Show of all places. My estimation of The Today Show as a source for hard news will never be the same.

[compared2what?]

Your premises have not been established.


1) nobody HERE AMONG US can say where it came from;

2) nobody HERE AMONG US can say when or where it was taken (not even what year!);

3) nobody HERE AMONG US can say who* released it to, or rather on, a waiting world.

FIFY.

Well, all that goes without saying. Or it should, if a person is not merely nit-picking and waffling and scoriing debating points that aren't worth scoring in the first place. In fact, you could have wasted even more time and made this even more (pseudo-)"philosophical" by also noting the further logical possibility that HERE AMONG US there are people who can say, but who aren't telling us, just to annoy us.

I was not seeking to score a trivial point. I was seeking to point out, once again, that the fact no one (here) can say those things neither adds to nor detracts from the likelihood of that picture being (a) a scary photograph the distribution of which is part of a plot to frame Adam Lanza; or (b) evidence of anything in particular.

Because no one (here) can ever say where a generic ID-type portrait photograph that was published in the newspaper was taken, or when, or who released it to/on a waiting world. That's usual, ordinary, non-anomalous, implication-free, and unsurprising.

I fully concede that the pronouncements and actions of all public officials ought to be subject to verification. And I also fully concede that when they're not, they can't be taken to have been. So ONCE AGAIN:

I don't know where that picture came from or what it means. I couldn't say. Neither can you.

FIFY. So I hope you're as grateful as I was.

I genuinely appreciate your attention and consideration, irrespective of how much you appreciate mine. Comparison's not necessary, therefore.

The point is, of course, that no one anywhere has yet stated publicly where the image came from and who supplied it to the press. So why make such an interminable meal of such a simple and obvious point?

I haven't. Quite the opposite. That point's so fully pre-made that it barely even qualifies as one, as far as I'm concerned. It means so little that there's no particular reason to make or not make it. In fact.

you apparently have no problem taking the word of the media for it that their unnamed sources even exist, never mind work in law enforcement.

No I don't. They may in fact have been just pulling it out of some other orifice than the mouth of, say, Robert Mueller. But I don't know what point you imagine you're making here, unless it's the decidely trivial debating-club point that every chain of reasoning has to end somewhere, or that we all take a lot of things on trust, such as the existence of Australia even if we've never been there. In any case, you're just spreading smoke here.

No. I'm not. You just cut the part of my response that made it clear that I was saying their anonymity in itself did not attest to their being engaged in a systematic effort to portray Adam Lanza as evil by spreading lies about him.

I'm not sure what part of the meaning of "law enforcement" you want exactly to know.

I want to know which person from which law-enforcement agency supplied that photo to the world's press (and I want to know where the photo originated). This was already crystal-clear to anyone of even average brainpower reading my posts in good faith. Your brainpower is clearly above average, so I don't understand why you are deliberately obfuscating a very clear and very simple issue. Again.

And I don't understand why you're pretending that I haven't already explained that continuing to ask for those things to be made known to you does not, will not and cannot put anyone to whom you're addressing them in a position to give you an answer for reasons that are wholly unrelated to law enforcement being engaged in a systematic effort to portray Adam Lanza as evil by spreading lies about him.

But fwiw, once again:

I can't tell you that. You can't find that sort of thing out by asking on an internet discussion board.

But since it seems to be important to you:

If you ask the Connecticut State Police and/or the media outlets where it originated, they'll almost certainly give you enough of an answer to be subject to verification or falsification wrt where it originated, via additional inquiry and research.

Finding out which person from which LEA supplied it might be a little trickier, just because asking it in that form will almost certainly (and in this case rightly) be understood as indicative of a pre-existing negative bias of some kind. And in connection with the person, I'm not sure that a certain amount of cautious reserve wouldn't in fact be appropriate, depending on who the person is. I mean, they have no way of knowing that you're not a stalker or whatever. And in a literal sense, the person who obtained and sent it out was probably more on the clerical than the administrative/management side of things.

"Who was responsible" or some similar phraseology would therefore probably be a better way to go, prefaced by some explanation indicating that you were inquiring into nuts-and-bolts process. And you'd have to have already done something like the latter anyway. Because calling would only have yielded the fax number or email address to which the letter in which you would have done it should be sent. I skipped that part. But unless you want to make a charming impression on the phone for some reason, you should probably just get that info off their website and start there.

Anyway. You could find out which agency, assuming that the question was capable of such an answer. (Meaning: That it wasn't done by more than one of them at about the same time, which it probably wasn't, and was done by an LEA, which it probably was.) But I'm not sure you could find out which person, literally. You might have to settle for which department within the agency. Or, in person terms, effectively which department head.

The problem is: Unlike the where-did-it-originate thing, verifying those answers would be extremely difficult. And in some sense, impossible. At some point, you'd just have to take the word of someone working for an LEA for it. Or not. So it might not be worth the amount of time and effort you'd have to invest.

It's your call, really.

[MacCruiskeen]

Jesus, Jack, I never claimed that his old Latin teacher positively denied it was him! (Nor, for the record, does she positively confirm in so many words that "that horrible photo" definitely shows him, Adam Lanza.) I quoted her remarks that they were "not the same eyes" and that the killer was "not the same Adam", and suggested that this might be even truer than she intended.

One thing that is absolutely clear about her remarks regarding that photo is that she is appalled at the terrible change that has come over him in the few years since she last saw him. There are, of course, various possible explanations for that change, e.g.:

1) he did in fact change horribly;

2) the photo of him has been manipulated -- heavily or subtly -- to make him appear to have changed more horribly than he had done;

3) he had simply had a bad-hair day, and a bad-face day to boot (so bad that his eyes changed colour), plus the misfortune of sitting for a photographer who couldn't even focus the camera;

or:

4) it's a photo of someone else entirely.

I should also mention the possibility that the image was generated artificially, more-or-less from scratch.

None of those possibilities is entirely implausible, and certainly none can be ruled out a priori. We. Just. Don't. Know.

But what is increasingly striking is that all three of the cute and/or harmless photos can be easily sourced and verified, but the horrible one (the one that went round the world) emerged ex nihilo to appal his Latin teacher and everyone else. It's an orphan. No, it's a miracle, it's a virgin birth. We don't know where it came from, when it was taken, where it was taken, who acquired it, how it was acquired, or who released it to the media.

I find that quite remarkable, especially when we consider that only three other photos of him exist in the public sphere, and that the unsourced unprovenanced "horrible" image now serves as his primary identifier -- his posthumous public face -- across five continents.

Which is why I'm going on about it, more than five weeks after the massacre. I don't understand why there's such a prolonged and unnecessary mystery about such a simple and obvious matter. So I hope someone will put me out of my misery soon.


Monster ... Adam Lanza


^^That's the original caption from the Sun (UK) of Dec 16th, btw. So the handily-horrible photo of the "monster" (sic) had already "emerged" and crossed the Atlantic at least one day earlier than barracuda suggested.

Timebomb: the warped world of massacre outcast

By PETE SAMSON, US Editor in Newton, Connecticut
Published: 16th December 2012

— Weird geek who could not feel pain

— He had a row with teachers the day before

— Mother he killed had taught him to shoot


THE warped world of school massacre maniac Adam Lanza was exposed last night by former classmates who branded him “a ticking timebomb”.

Ex-pals told how the pasty-faced and scrawny 20-year-old was a deeply disturbed outcast beneath his image as a briefcase-toting computer nerd.

He is remembered as a goth who was sinisterly immune to pain.

[...]


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/47 ... z2IkmmHYbB