All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:21:22
Free Range with Gail of Gaia and Jim Fetzer (17 July 2021)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Is it over?
Okay.
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, whatever time it is wherever you are.
This is Gail of Gaia and this is Free Range where we graze on wild ideas.
And once again we have with us Mr. James Fetzer who has done some Very deep deep research so much research that he's been coined the conspiracy guy so We're gonna talk a little bit about an incident that many of you heard about and it's one of those other incidents that there was an official narrative for that just isn't true, so James would you like to
Oh, yeah.
I'm just delighted to be with you again.
I thought we'd talk about Sandy Hook.
Was it real or a mass illusion?
My guess, Gail, is about 80% of the American public still believes there was a real mass shooting at Sandy Hook.
That's true.
It's very challenging to try to penetrate.
It's called cognitive dissonance.
When an individual hears things they don't want to believe, that are threatening to their core beliefs, in this case, that the government, the state government, the city government, the people of Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut, And Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, the Connecticut State Police wouldn't pull a scam on the American people, would they?
Now, you know, but many of our audience may not, that I'm a former Marine Corps officer.
I graduated from Princeton Magna Cum Laude.
I was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, served four years on active duty.
Resigned my commission in 1966 to Intergraduate School in the History and the Philosophy of Science, and in 1970 earned my PhD and embarked on a 35-year academic career, offering principally courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
I became deeply involved in research on JFK in 1992 in the wake of Oliver Stone's film JFK, which is, no matter what you may have heard, the most accurate, complete, and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to the American people through the mass media, I would wind up
Pioneering an approach by bringing together experts from different fields in order to disentangle what happened in that particularly complex event and publish three books, Assassination Science 1998, Murder in Dealey Plaza 2000, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.
Which took apart the cover-up, showed how much of the evidence had been fabricated, altered, or faked, and I guess, in a way, launched my career in conspiracy research.
Now, Gail, as an academician, I was quite prolific.
I published over 24 books in the areas of the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, of computer science, of artificial intelligence, of cognitive science, of evolution and mentality, and now I've published over Well, 12 books in the area of conspiracy research, where I am implying scientific research to take these matters apart, where, as you may or may not be aware, there are four different stages of scientific reasoning.
First, puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
Well, that's well illustrated by JFK, because when Malcolm Kilduff, the acting press secretary, announced that JFK was dead, He said it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head while pointing to his right temple.
And yet when the Warren Report was released over a year later, it only had shots fired from behind when that one had been fired from in front.
Speculation.
Consider the complete range of alternative explanations.
Well, obviously we have the lone gunman theory as the government's preferred explanation to there having been multiple gunmen.
Indeed, those who watched television, you know, that day, and it really was the event that brought television into the American living rooms as a permanent fixture.
They would have learned, watched, as the reports were coming in, of two shots.
One a small, clean puncture wound to the throat.
The other, the wound to which I alluded, then entered the right temple and blew his brains out the back of his head.
A result attributed to Admiral George Berkeley, the President's personal physician.
So that later in the evening, when a story began to come in that the shooter had been above and behind, Frank McGee, who was nobody's fool, says, this is incongruous.
How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?
Well, if you continue to sort things out, you know, look at the available evidence and ask which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer a higher probability upon the available relevant evidence when you have sorted out the authentic from the fabricated.
For example, Gail, there were, you know, dozens and dozens of witnesses to Jack's brains being blown out the back of the head.
But the government dismissed it on the basis of x-rays, which did not show it.
Now, David W. Mantic, MD, PhD, entered the National Archives in late 1992 and discovered that they'd patched the blowout at the back of the head, and that there was even evidence of a second shot to the head, so that we learned there that some of the evidence had been manufactured.
It would even turn out that it was a Bruder film had been massively revised, that the original would have had Around a thousand frames, but the excellent version available to us now only has 487.
We eventually, when the evidence settles down, as it has in the case of JFK, accept the supported conclusion to wit that it was actually a large-scale conspiracy.
Far from having been the lone gunman, Lee Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository, Gail, when the JFK motorcade passed by.
Which means he cannot have been either the lone gunman or one of the multiple shooters where we've actually discovered there were shooters at eight different locations, believe it or not.
I have a piece online where I go through all of this in detail using 9-11 and JFK as my illustrations.
Here, I want to emphasize the methodological difference between looking for confirming instances and looking for falsifying instances.
This is a distinction emphasized by the great British philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper.
Here's a simple illustration.
In relation to the hypothesis, all pennies are made of copper, we can deduce billions of examples of copper pennies as confirmation.
What Popper emphasizes, Gail, is that if you're not trying to falsify the hypothesis, you may not realize that indeed, in spite of apparent confirming evidence, it's actually false.
As in this case, it turns out that in 1943, because of the shortage of copper for military purposes, pennies were made out of steel.
Now I've gone so far in my conspiracy research, collaborative all, bringing together the best experts, that I have published not only a fourth book about JFK, two books about 9-11, another book about the death of Paul Wellstone, and then A host of others about Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, the moon landing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland.
So you could count me a conspiracy theorist, but really better, Gail, I'm a conspiracy realist or a conspiracy analyst.
What I do is Take conspiracy theories from theories in the weak sense of rumors, speculations, or guesses to theories in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses like Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution.
So what are the alternatives in this case?
Well, we have H1, the official narrative that a 12-year-old young man, Adam Lonza, shot his mother in her bedroom with a .22 rifle and then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed 20 children and six adults, or H2, the alternative hypothesis.
This was a staged event using an abandoned school as the stage, which was in reality a two-day FEMA drill.
Technically, a mass casualty exercise involving children presented as mass murder to promote the Obama-Biden-Holder administration gun control agenda.
So what we want to consider, Gail, are there indications of fakery?
Are there anomalies that are puzzling and invite speculation and investigation about the condition and operation of the school, for example?
Is there inconsistent testimony, fake or photoshopped images, contrived scenarios, political motives for staging the shooting?
Were standard medical operating procedures followed here?
Have there been efforts to cover up research on Sandy Hook?
I believe when we look at the evidence, Gail, no one will have any doubt about what happened here.
Let's begin with a press conference that occurred in the immediate aftermath.
We had the Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut, with his Lieutenant Governor standing beside him, explain that he and the Lieutenant Governor had been spoken to, that something like this might happen.
Which got me to wonder, something like this, what could he possibly mean?
There are really only two alternatives.
Namely, he'd been advised that someone might go berserk and come into a public school in Connecticut and shoot it up.
In which case, as governor, he had the obvious obligation to Alert the school systems in Connecticut to make sure they took extra safety precautions to ensure that did not happen, which, however, he did not do.
Or he'd been told they were going to take an abandoned school, conduct a drill, and present it as a real event to promote gun control, which turns out to be exactly what happened.
I asked, too, by whom might he have been told?
Well, it turns out that Attorney General Eric Holder met with Daniel Malloy on the 27th of November 2012 to discuss The Obama administration's project, Longevity, which would send new federal grant money to Connecticut involving agents, academics, social workers, working for and with the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
So this appears to be the individual with whom he spoke in the occasion.
We know, however, from 1995 that Eric Holder was a very zealous proponent of gun control, where he addressed a National Democratic Women's Conference in Washington, D.C.
that year and explained, we have to brainwash the public against the use of guns, where I believe you will see from the evidence I induce here, That appears to be the intent and purpose of the events at Sandy Hook.
Another very odd press conference was the medical examiner, Wayne Carver, who, among other interesting points, observed that the parents were not allowed to see the bodies of their children, but were identified using photographs Now I can say as a parent that if I had been told that my child were dead, there's no force on earth that could stop me from viewing the body myself to ensure it was indeed my child and that they were in fact dead.
Absolutely, Jim.
I would do the same exact thing.
There's no way you would keep me from it.
Gayle, I know, I mean it's simply ridiculous to think that that could have happened and yet that's exactly what he said and I'll explain why the point about the photographs was crucial because in fact The kids were manufactured out of photographs of older kids when they were younger.
Now, Dr. Carver also talked about all the children having been shot 3 to 11 times.
It was a phenomenal kill to target ratio.
This would have had to be a phenomenal shot.
He also mentioned in passing that he hoped this whole thing did not come crashing down on the people of Newtown, which is very, very odd, cryptic for him to have said, except, of course, he knew that this was a fraud, an elaborate deception, and if it were ever exposed, there might be a lot of blowback.
Meanwhile, let's look at the school building.
It had in the past been given a 10 out of 10 star rating for the physical facilities inside and out, the quality of the curriculum, the credentials of the teachers.
For a kindergarten through fourth grade school, this was exemplary.
Except that was in the past.
Wolfgang Helbig, shown here, was a former Florida State Trooper, a former U.S.
Customs agent, a former school principal, and a nationally recognized school safety expert.
Put together a series of studies about the condition of the school, which was anything but a 10 out of 10 school.
Mold, weeds, hanging wires, windows covered up, no buzzer, all kinds of stuff stored in a haphazard manner, every which way.
You even had outside non-compliance With the Americans for Disability Act, which requires that every entrance and exit must be wheelchair accessible.
Notice here, Gail, you have a wooden stairway that no wheelchair could navigate.
And in the circle, there's a steel rod extruding there where a little kid could pop out his eye if he ran into it by accident.
No principal would allow such a hazard to exist at their school.
When we put up videos of the condition of the school inside and out, we got a lot of comments, especially from former teachers.
Here were some of the comments.
School looks as though it was used for storage.
No organization apparent.
Looks like material supplies just thrown into lots of rooms.
Strange findings.
Guitar case in garbage in one of the bathrooms.
Box on the floor in front of the sinks.
What was that for?
Were the sinks too high for the kids?
Were they supposed to stand on a box?
Crone a beer carton on the shelf.
At 7.16, storage closet stacked with junk.
At 7.29, stuff piled up in front of the exit door.
7.54, room full of boxes and storage containers.
8.48, dirty grout and tiles.
Mold.
9.27, damaged dirty ceiling tiles.
Perhaps the best of all came from Stephanie Slewinski, who makes it unmistakably clear that it is a common practice for public school districts to use a decommissioned school as a storage yard for old furniture, which was the function of Sandy Hook.
While her comment originated with the first of these videos, her observations are further substantiated by the second.
Stephanie Slewinski.
Ask any teacher, janitor, school administrator.
It is common practice for public school districts to use a decommissioned school as a storage yard for old furniture and items the district has little use for.
That's exactly what this is.
The fire marshal inspects each and every classroom each year, especially that close to a fire station just a third of the mile up the road of Dickinson Drive, where they were driving past it daily.
And there's no way in hell he would approve of all that large, bulky, old furniture boarded up against the windows.
What if a fire broke out in the hallway and fire blocked the door?
How would small kids escape?
The window's at ground level, of course.
This story stank from the first five minutes.
As a former public school teacher for 10 years, I have never seen a working school look like that.
Especially not an elementary in an affluent area.
Fake, fake, fake, as the day is long.
Meanwhile, many suppose that since there was an official report on Sandy Hook, it sealed the deal.
It was conducted by the Danbury State's attorney, Stephen J. Sadinski III, on the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in 36 Yolanda Street, where Adam is alleged to have shot his mother.
And was released not quite a year after the event had taken place.
Now, what's astonishing is, as a report on the shooting, it's a complete and total failure.
At this point in time, it is relatively trivial to demonstrate that the official report on Sandy Hook, authored by Danbury State's attorney Stephen Sedensky, does not establish a causal nexus between the shooter, his victims, and the weapons he is alleged to have used.
It suffers from the shortcomings of concluding that there were no fingerprints on the .22 caliber rifle that was allegedly used to shoot his mother, and even more surprisingly, that of the large number, around 150 shots that were fired from the .556 caliber Bushmaster, that's an AR-15, none of the bullet fragments could be matched to the weapon.
Talk the way in a rather obscure footnote it observes.
That's pretty amazing, isn't it?
Yeah, this is the most important point made in the whole report, Gail, and it's in a footnote!
Get this.
No positive identification could be made of any of the bullet evidence submissions noted in 5.56 millimeter caliber.
That's the same as a .223, so it's only slightly larger than a .22 caliber.
The physical condition of the bullet jacket surfaces were severely damaged and corroded.
They all lacked individual striated marks of sufficient agreement for the identification process.
The test fires also exhibited a lack of individual striated marks on the bullet surfaces for comparison purposes.
This condition can be caused by fouling in the barrel of the rifle and the ammunition itself.
The Bushmaster cannot be eliminated as having fired the 5.56 caliber bullet evidence examined.
But I'm telling you, Gail, that's ridiculous.
They could not identify the weapon as having been in bulk under these circumstances.
It would have been impossible for the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, to have been convicted in a properly conducted court of law for his alleged offense, because no causal nexus has been established between the purported shooter, his weapons, and the 20 children and 7 adults he is supposed to have killed, which one might have naively supposed was the point of the investigation.
But if that was its goal, then its objective was not achieved.
If there has ever been such an abysmal failure in the annals of forensic investigation, I would love to hear about it.
This is absurd.
Yeah, this is where it takes people like you or people that have knowledge of these kinds of things to be able to analyze that data, to know about guns, for example, and bullets and all that type of thing.
Because if you didn't know it, and probably a large portion of the public doesn't know it, that people like yourself and others can see that quite easily.
Oh, Gail, you're spot on.
Yes, yes, yes.
Now, I have been told that extraordinary claims such as nobody died at Sandy Hook require extraordinary evidence, but consider this.
That a final report from Connecticut authorities does not include the names, the ages, or the sex of the alleged victims of the shooting?
That is extraordinary.
That the clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid releasing their death certificates.
That is extraordinary.
That Connecticut state's attorney, Stephen Sedensky, who had authored the report, Oppose the release of the 911 calls and had to be denied withholding them by the courts.
That is extraordinary.
That a special panel of the state legislature recommended state employees who released information about Sandy Hook be subject to an e-felony.
That is extraordinary.
I mean, think about it, Gail.
Everyone wanted to know what happened at Sandy Hook.
But if any state employee released any information, they'd be subject to an e-felony with a massive fine and even a prison sentence as potential punishments.
Those who were involved in the demolition of the school building itself were required to sign lifetime gag orders about anything they saw or did not see.
That is extraordinary.
What good reason could there possibly be to withhold the names, ages, and sex of the deceased from the final reports about this child massacre?
The claim was made that it was to spare the feelings of their parents, but think about it.
Their parents already knew they were dead.
I believe it would have been fabricating a false report by having the names and the ages and so forth, Gail, so he did not do it.
That is absolutely incredible.
Isn't that incredible?
And think about it.
Lifetime gag orders for those who are involved in the demolition of the school, and I can tell you exactly why.
So they couldn't talk about the fact they didn't see any blood on the floor.
They didn't see any pockmarks in the wall because there had been no mass murder in that building.
I'm convinced that's exactly why.
Now let's return.
Let us return to the scene of the crime.
It was a very cold day.
It was actually 38 Fahrenheit ground temperature.
Look at the exhaust coming from the automobile's gale.
Now here's something you'd think was very innocuous.
This is simply an aerial photograph of the parking lot at Sandy Hook Elementary.
But!
If it was such a cold day, you obviously could not be holding classes in the building unless they were heated.
But there's no heat or steam rising from the building, I have no doubt, because the boilers were dysfunctional from non-use since 2008 and could not be fired up.
But notice too, and this brings home that really important point about the wooden stairway, there's none of the familiar blue and white parking spaces, blue and white signage for handicapped parking.
Gail, I reviewed The Americans with Disabilities Act and its requirements for both Connecticut and at the federal level meant, absent those parking spaces and signage, this was not a legally operatable school.
So, I mean, right there, based on the law and obvious facts about the parking area, you know something is terribly wrong.
Not only that, but if you were coming into the school from Dickinson Drive, which was the only ingress and egress, you'd come in and you'd curl round to the right and then round and park facing away.
But notice, we have two rows of automobiles and they're all parked facing the school.
Gail, what happened?
They brought in all the vehicles in a single string, and it was simply easier to put them in two-by-two-by-two facing the school.
After all, they were only props.
Who would even notice?
But once you do, of course, it shows.
This is a staged event.
This can't not possibly be real.
Moreover, we have not only a massive evidence that there wasn't a real shooting event here, but lots of additional proof that it was a drill right before our eyes.
We had the sign, everyone must check in.
We had boxes of bottled water and pizza available at the firehouse.
Porta-potties were present from scratch.
There were many wearing name tags on lanyards.
There were parents bringing children to the scene.
Gail, imagine.
Can you think of any parent who would bring their child to the scene of a child shooting massacre?
Well, we know, of course, it wasn't a massacre.
There was no surge of EMTs into the building.
No medevac helicopter was called.
No string of ambulances to the school to rush the little bodies off to hospitals where doctors could declare them to be dead or alive.
No evacuation of 469 other students, not to mention the 70 administrative, secretarial, custodial, cafeteria workers and others.
Triage tarps were placed in the parking lot, but no bodies dead or wounded were ever placed on them.
Meanwhile, a photo sent around the world to embody what had happened here turns out to have been staged.
Here you see, this is from the New York Times, taken by Shannon Hicks, who is a photojournalist for the Newtown Bee.
Now we thought this was a policewoman leading a string of about 15 kids to safety in the Sandy Hook parking lot.
But if you notice, there's some unexplained features here.
Notice the shadow at the bottom cast by a figure at the left.
What is going on?
Well, guess what?
This isn't the only photograph Shannon Hicks took in that parking lot.
She also took this one earlier, and you'll notice there are parents here just casually looking on, their arms folded, hands in their pockets.
I mean, I ask you, Could you imagine, number one, if there'd been a real shooting event, who would have thought, gee, I better call parents to get them up here right away so they could be in the line of fire?
And number two, if parents had been there and this had been an emergency, they would have grabbed their kids and got out of Dodge muy pronto.
I mean, what an absurd idea to be hanging around.
But notice more specifically the differences.
Look at the bottom, which was taken earlier.
We had a little girl in a pink sweater and a short skirt at the front of the line.
The little boy was further back.
So they moved him up to the very front.
Boy number one.
Notice, you can see from the green SUV, the relative proximity in the lower photograph.
They're closer to the green SUV in the upper, further away.
Indeed, the bottom photograph was taken earlier.
And look in between boy number one and boy number two, and you'll see other parents there.
Consider, they're just casually looking on.
Leading me to refer to this photograph, Gail, as lounging at the massacre.
Lounging at the massacre.
Those pictures were supposed to be taken after the shooting had occurred.
They were supposed to be taken even as it was taking place.
There's no way that people would have looked that way.
The adults would have been crying.
They would have been frantic.
They would have been, oh my God, unbelievable.
I know.
People won't look at the evidence.
I've been at an argument with my own sister, who had been picked up at a protest and spent three or four hours in a paddy wagon with Jane Fonda.
And they were talking about my skepticism about Sandy Hook.
And I said, but Julia, have you looked at the evidence?
And she says, I don't need any evidence.
I mean, it was just astonishing.
Gail, that's my own sister telling me she didn't need any evidence.
Well, here's more.
The Connecticut State Police, who were actually running the operation behind the scene, declared that an evacuation actually had taken place.
We're often told, Gail, that you can't prove a negative, but you can prove there's no elephant in your living room right now, which is a negative, by going to your living room and looking for signs of the presence of elephant.
Finding none, you're entitled to infer that's because there's no elephant there.
The state police specified locations and times where the evacuation was taking place, but we have dash cam footage you can see right here for those locations and times, and guess what?
They show no evacuation taking place, which is easy to explain because no evacuation was taking place.
So don't let yourself be played.
We even found the manual for the exercise.
It was a two-day mass casualty exercise involving children.
It began at 8 a.m.
on 13 December 2012.
It ended at 11.59 on 13 December 2012.
2012. It ended at 11 59 on 13 December 2012 to be evaluated on 14 December 2012 as a real-time
event and guess what? Everyone must sign in with a controller upon arrival.
We'll see you next time.
Look at this.
There you have the sign.
That's to tell all the participants to check in with a controller.
I believe they were even going to receive a stipend.
They were going to be paid, so they had to check in.
Then you had port-a-potties already in place.
I spoke to law enforcement and said, have you ever heard of port-a-potties set up at a crime scene?
They thought it was ridiculous.
There was bottled water and pizza at the firehouse.
We had all kinds of personnel wearing name tags on lanyards, name tags on lanyards, name tags on
lanyards.
And as I have observed, parents bringing children to the scene
because it wasn't a child shooting massacre.
It was a rehearsal, which they were treating as a festive occasion.
Thank you.
And all of this is compliant with the practices of FEMA exercises.
They provide refreshments and restrooms, and they identify the players on the basis of color-coded name tags on lanyards.
So we have just a mountain of evidence, Gail, that what was going on was a FEMA exercise.
Now, I mentioned before, they fake the kids using photos of older children when they were younger.
Here's one.
This is a little Noah Posner when he was younger.
He was supposed to be the youngest member, a six-year-old, a first grader at Sandy Hook, with his father, Lenny Posner.
But guess what?
One of my research colleagues, Kelly Watt, noticed a striking resemblance between Noah Posner and his older stepbrother, Michael Vabner.
She has friends.
Did they see a resemblance too?
And they said, oh yeah, that's the same person all grown up.
Well, I wanted verification if that were the case, and I reached out to my colleague from JFK Research, Larry Rivera, who's done brilliant research proving that the figure known as Doorman standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository was, in fact, Lee Oswald, as Harold Weisberg, Jim Garrison, and other serious students of JFK have believed.
So I was sure he could help to resolve this issue by superposition.
You take two photographs taken from the same perspective, and if you put the pupils on top of one another, in other words, create the same interpupillary distance between them, then you can create a GIF that will show you whether or not their features correspond They had the same eyes, the same eyebrows, the same nose, the same face, the same shape of skull, the same ears.
Noah Posner was a fiction made up out of photographs of Michael Vabner when he was a child, Gail.
In fact, my colleague Mona Alexis Presley has discovered evidence that some of the Sandy Hook parents even used photographs of themselves when they were children to be their deceased offspring at Sandy Hook.
Now look at this.
Wolfgang, a couple of years ago, shared this photograph reporting, just found out that I have cancer.
Newtown and Sandy Hook must be happy now.
So here is the great news.
Look at this picture by Michael Duffy, clearly showing 11 beautiful grown-up children from Sandy Hook who are alive today and not dead.
Merry Christmas.
So what we have here, Gail, is a group of the girls from Sandy Hook who are very much alive, looking very cute and perky.
They are not dead at all.
I mean, can you believe the nerve, the nerve of this, Gail?
Aren't you?
I can't believe it.
It's unbelievable.
Oh, my God.
And they carry this narrative that, oh, It's shameful, downright shameful.
I have more, of course, but let me point out.
Okay.
This was highly remunerative for them.
Sympathetic but gullible Americans contributed between $27 and $130 million in donations.
Divided by the 26 surviving families, that's between $1 and $5 million benefit for having feigned loss a child or a loved one at Sandy Hook.
I was just going to ask you, what were people paid to participate in this?
I'm telling you, Gail.
It's stunning.
Here are further crucial photographs that confirm that Sandy Hook was a hoax, Gail.
You'll love these.
This is from the Nancy Lanza bedroom.
Now, There are, in the book, there are 50 photographs from inside the Adam and Nancy Lonza home, but it's very clear when you examine the photographs, there are practically no decorations, no artwork on any of the walls.
I believe the realtor who allowed them to use the building, the house for this purpose, did not want them to do any damage to the walls.
They would then have to repair.
Now, notice on the bed there's some red stuff, but it's not blood.
I think it might be raspberry jam.
On the cedar chest at the foot of the bed, you have forms we also find in other photographs from inside the house that I believe were records showing how they deranged the room.
Now, Kelly Watt Who was a colleague who had her own home and commercial cleaning service with her keen eye spotted that beneath the leg of the bed here, there's a blue moving pad that in their haste, they forgot to remove.
A blue moving pad.
Gail, is that something?
Oh my God.
Now here is the piece de resistance.
This is a crime scene unit on the scene in the parking lot at Sandy Hook.
Now, there's a series of windows here in Classroom 10.
They have little candle drawings.
And by the way, although it was getting close to Christmas and Hanukkah, there's a virtual complete absence of any Christmas decorations.
Remember, this was a kindergarten through a fourth grade school.
Had to be the only one in America that wasn't just covered with Christmas and Hanukkah decorations.
After the shooting, these windows would be shot up.
In particular, the second pane here would be blown out.
So we know this is before the event.
The flag is at full mast.
If you come down, there's a figure here, leaning against the wall with his arms folded, that I believe to be Wayne Carver awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
Notice there's crime scene tape set up for a crime that is yet to be committed.
Now here's a close-up of those windows here before the event, after the event.
Notice how different they are.
So clearly the photograph we just reviewed was before the event.
Meanwhile, we have Herbst on the lower left examining the window frames to decide what to do about it, how to make it look as though bullets had been fired through this window.
Now, what they did, Gale, is to drill holes in the aluminum and instill these pink rods to replicate What are supposed to be bullet trajectories, but it's ridiculous on multiple counts.
Notice they're all 90 degrees to the window pane.
They're all perfectly parallel.
They're all on a absolute straight line.
If there had been a real shooter in there, they wouldn't have been in such similarity with such precise parallel content as a Marine Corps officer, I used to supervise 15 DIs and 300 recruits through recruit training, including marksmanship training at Edson Range Camp Pendleton.
No one with any familiarity with firearms would believe this was real.
And indeed, if you think about it, a bullet would expand as it passed through aluminum and therefore would make a larger opening coming out than it had going in, but these are all tightly drilled.
They weren't bullet holes at all, but simulacrum and poor examples.
Now notice here, Gale.
All the furniture shoved up against the windows of Classroom 10.
And ask yourself, what sense does that make? I mean, this is embarrassing and insulting
that anyone should take this seriously. Would you not agree?
Oh, 100%.
That's just totally unbelievable.
I'm just shocked.
And the public didn't get any of this information.
And all of that means that how many people were complicit with this story and just went along?
They had to be paid off in order to keep their mouth shut.
It was a real moneymaker.
The Newtown, which needed a new school because it had been abandoned before, got $50 million for a new school.
And I did a survey across the nation.
A new kindergarten through fourth grade school averages only $7 million.
So Newtown got seven times $7 million for a new school at Sandy Hook, leading me to speculate, what was this supposed to be, the Taj Mahal of elementary schools?
Get this, Gail, even the FBI reported no deaths in Newtown in 2012.
Consider.
Here you have the consolidated crime reports of the United States in 2012 for Connecticut.
Under Newtown, the intersection for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, zero.
And since Sandy Hook is a subdivision of Newtown, if there were zero murders or non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown, there were zero murders or non-negligent manslaughter in Sandy Hook.
Now here's an article they published after the event explaining why they couldn't have renovated the school and preserved it, talking about how it was loaded with asbestos and other biohazards.
It had been damaged by a hurricane.
It would turn out, I learned after publishing the book, there had been a huge flood in the area in 2007.
Well, Wolfgang Helbig and I traveled together to Newtown in 2014, and we visited the local United Way, which was supposed to be the repository of donations, which by law are supposed to be open and available to the public.
But they ran over seven, seven Newtown police officers to block Wolfgang from access to records that are supposed to be public.
We visited where the school had been, and as you can see there, it had already been turned down into dirt clods.
We timed our visit so we could speak to the Newtown School Board, where we each had three minutes to speak, and where I asked, when were the parents informed that their children were attending school in a toxic waste dump?
I mean, it's embarrassingly bad.
They knew all this already, which is why they abandoned the school by 2008.
Now, sometimes you get additional evidence you had not anticipated.
Someone merely identifying themselves as anonymous, for example, posted this on June 22, 2017, and I have verified that this radio show took place.
In November, 2012, on the PBS show Greater Boston, hosted then by Emily Rooney, the daughter of Andy, the guest was the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino.
The topic was gun control.
And Menino essentially bragged that he was good friends with then Vice President Joe Biden, who had called him, called him, and told Menino that by January of 2013, Gun control in the United States would be a done deal.
Rooney, stunned, asked Howard what could change for legislation to pass so quickly.
Menino wouldn't say, but that Biden assured him something would happen to bring it about.
And this, of course, is less than a month before Sandy Hook, And lo and behold, on the 16th of January 2013, a month and two days after the staged event, Barack Obama signed no less than 23 executive orders to limit our access to guns under the Second Amendment.
One of my colleagues and contributors to the book, Paul Preston, is a school administrator who actually had supervised active shooter drills in the past.
He was so disturbed by what he saw being broadcast from Newtown that day that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom confirmed to him It had been a drill, no children had been harmed, and it was done to promote gun control.
Gail, these are members of the Obama Department of Education.
Everyone knew what was going on except for the American people.
I mean, isn't that stunning?
Isn't that stunning?
Oh my God, yes it is.
It is absolutely stunning.
It's absolutely despicable as well.
That they would do such a thing in the first place and use children or the death or massacre of children to promote a narrative that was totally and completely false so that they could gain the basically a serious violation of our Second Amendment rights.
That's exactly correct, Alan.
You see, they designed it to have maximal emotional impact.
That's why you have these little kids, first graders, who are supposed to have been killed by a figure that I regard as fiction.
I don't think Adam Lanza is any more real than the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
Meanwhile, I have been sued for asserting that a death certificate was fake.
Mind you, in my book, we not only included the FEMA manual as Appendix A, but published a death certificate that Kelly Watt had been provided by Lenny Posner.
He called her and they wound up having over 100 hours of conversation where she told him again and again.
She didn't believe a thing he said.
She didn't believe he had a son.
She didn't believe he died at Sandy Hook.
She asked for proof.
Well, one day he contacted her and said, check out this web page.
And on the webpage, there was a kindergarten report for Noah Posner and a death certificate for Noah Posner and a photograph or two for Noah Posner, which Kelly shared with me.
Now, right off the bat, she was struck that the kindergarten Report had Dickinson Drive misspelled.
It's D-I-C-K-I-N-S-O-N, but on the report card it said D-I-C-K-E-N-S-O-N.
Obviously, it was a fabrication.
A teacher at San Diego Elementary would not have misspelled Dickinson Drive.
But look here at the death certificate.
It has no file number here in the upper right.
It has no town certification that this is an authentic death certificate from the town clerk.
And at the bottom, it would have a state certification of being a true copy of the authentic death certificate certified by the town clerk and be given a file number.
This has none of the above.
But notice what it does say.
The decedent died in a public school at 12 Dickinson Drive, correctly spelled, Sandy Hook, in Fairfield County, Connecticut, of multiple gunshot wounds on 14 December 2012.
Obviously, he is supposed to be a decedent of the events at Sandy Hook.
Well, in the book, I present all the evidence you've seen here.
Massive evidence that nobody died at Sandy Hook.
Absent, of course, a demonstration that Noah was a fiction made up of photographs of his older brother Michael Vabner.
Which in the second edition, simply emerged in the last appendix to the second edition authored by Kelly, where we subsequently, and this was in the second edition of 2016, where we went on to do all the research I've been describing here and more.
In our petition now, which is now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it includes this crucial point.
The circuit court at the outset of this case narrowly limited its focus, advising Fetzer that whether Sandy Hook occurred was beyond the scope of this action, stating unequivocally.
Whether or not Sandy Hook ever happened or not is not relevant to this.
The truthfulness or the accuracy of the death certificate.
Now, I understand the defendant's overall theory in believing that it never happened.
And I'm not going to take the bait and let this case go down that rabbit hole.
The Circuit Court's limited view of the matter is further indicated by the Court's refusal to read your book because it would not be appropriate for me to start educating myself about the larger controversy where the book presents evidence and much, much more of the kind I presented here.
So in our submission before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, we explained that I was denied the right to present my defense.
That which violated my rights as a defendant and, you know, was a structural error that requires the whole matter be reversed and sent back for reconsideration because it affected the entire case.
Also observing that complaints that implicate speech to be liberally construed to require constitutionally mandated proof of negligence Now, bear in mind, Gail, that I was being sued over sentences in chapters I authored or co-authored in a book that I edited and published, so my status as a journalist ought not to have been in doubt, moreover.
I gave the judge a seven-page summary of my qualifications, which are quite extensive, as a journalist, and yet he never ruled on whether I had that status.
The point we're making here is that I cannot be found liable for defamation without having been found to be at fault, which never happened.
Moreover, the Supreme Court should recognize a heightened standard for steeper liability for threats and harassment.
When the trial for damages took place as a separate matter after the judge had ruled as a matter of summary judgment, which requires that there be no issues in controversy, no facts in dispute, even though I'd introduce a report of two forensic document experts, Who agreed that not only the death certificate I published, but the death certificate attached to the complaint and two others that I produced, one I obtained from the state, the other the publisher had obtained from the new downtown clerk, were all fabrications and fake.
In spite of the fact that two forensic document experts supported my position, The court simply set them aside as somebody else's opinion and went ahead and ruled.
Moreover, subsequently, when I sought to secure an impeachment witness, in particular Wolfgang Helbig, because I believe that the party who showed up in Madison, Wisconsin and testified as Lenny Posner was not, in fact, Lenny Posner, the judge found me in contempt of court.
And added to the $450,000 award for being liable for defamation, the attorney fees for the plaintiff, which amounted to $650,000 more.
And yet, look here.
I managed to get a couple of frames from the video deposition into the public record in the middle.
That is a man who showed up and testified under the name of Lenny Posner.
Compare them with the man on the left and the man on the right.
I pointed out to the judge, since the plaintiffs had only really been concerned about his visual image, that that was absurd.
Because Leonard Posner's visual image has been published millions of times around the world.
The only reason they could be possibly concerned is if it were not the same guy.
And notice he's at least 20 years younger and 100 pounds lighter.
When I sent this to Wolfgang Helbig, in fact, he wrote to four chiefs of FBI agents in charge around the United States and asked, what are the consequences for impersonating Leonard Posner during a video deposition in Madison, Wisconsin?
But the judge would not hear anything I had to say about it.
I today believe that Sandy Hook was modeled after the Dunblane Massacre which took place at Dunblane Primary School near Stirling, Scotland on 13 March 1996 when one Thomas Hamilton shot 16 pupils and one teacher dead and injured 15 others The deadliest mass shooting in British history, public debate about the killing centered on gun control laws, including public petitions for a ban on private ownership of handguns, and an official inquiry which produced a 1996 Cullen Report.
In response to this debate, Gayle, two new firearms acts were passed which outlawed the private ownership of most handguns within the United Kingdom, which I believe they thought would happen here in the United States as well.
But look how Barack Obama set the stage for this event by nullifying the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 by means of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.
The Smith-Mutt Act of 1948, Gail, precluded the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation, including staged riots, shootings, whatever, within the United States that were being used without.
In other words, Barack Obama legitimized all these staged events within the United States by the Smith-Mutt Modernization Act of 2012, just in time for Sandy Hook.
And now, of course, as I continue to bring together groups of experts to sort these matters out and publish more and more books exposing what has happened in these cases, as opposed to the false narratives we've been given, They not only banned Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but also, and Nobody Died in Boston either, and also, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, and also, From Orlando to Dallas and Beyond, and also, Political Theater in Charlottesville, and also, The Parkland Puzzle, How the Pieces Fit Together, Gail.
I mean, it's a wonderful situation when you can perpetrate a fraud and then control who has anything to say about it by, for example, banning their books, subjecting them to lawsuits.
I'm hardly the only one who's exposed Sandy Hook to be hit with a lawsuit.
Happened to James Tracy, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic.
He wound up losing his tenure position.
Well, Wolfgang Halbig was dragged into court, and when he sought to have a video deposition, Leonard Posner declined.
He did not want to appear.
We were actually very surprised when he showed up in Madison.
We did not think he would, but I'm convinced it's not the same guy.
And of course, there continue to be lawsuits involving Alex Jones, who, alas, has been on both sides of the issue, declaring it was real and kids died, but also denying it was real and asserting nobody died.
I'm sorry, Alex Jones has made a complete mess of it.
And when I've sought to reach out to him to lend my support, he has shown no interest whatsoever.
In fact, During a video deposition he gave in Connecticut, he said he'd never even read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
I can't believe it.
You know, this says one thing, and I see it happening today, right now, and it's happened at the highest level of people, and that is our court system is disgustingly corrupt throughout.
Well, it's pretty embarrassing, I'll tell you.
We appealed, of course, a circuit judge decision to the appellate court, and the appellate court came back and in one of its opening paragraphs just re-edited the official narrative of Sandy Hook as though it could not be questioned.
They have cited a couple cases that never led to any finding that Sandy Hook had been a real event, but dealt with other issues.
So mine is the only case that really reaches to the question of whether Sandy Hook was real or a mass illusion, about which there really isn't serious doubt.
Paul, by the way, you've been very patient hearing everything.
If you wanted to contribute a thought or two of your own, you are most welcome.
I have heard so many snippets and bits and pieces of exactly the same data that you have put forth.
The only difference is what I saw and what I heard and what I came across was like a capture of a photograph of a page without any source material or background.
But it said exactly the same thing that you've said and you have provided the documentation to back it up.
Some of this is new to me.
Some of it is not.
But it's just staggering.
Mind-boggling.
Well, there's lots more, of course, but to put it into a comprehensible... I mean, the book is, what, I mean, 442 pages, you know, and it was...
They used the lawsuit and the finding that I'd committed defamation to shut down those who had been releasing the book for free as a PDF, which I did after Amazon first banned the book.
It went on sale at Amazon on 22 October 2015.
October 2015, 22 October 2015, it was banned by Amazon on 19 November after selling nearly
500 copies.
And it was obvious it was political.
I immediately released it for free as a PDF.
And a friend of mine who's followed these matters has told me it has been downloaded over 10 million times.
Which of course is fantastic.
Gail, I didn't expect to sell 10 million copies of the book, so I'm very glad it's out there.
But they have used this lawsuit to threaten those who were providing it for free that they could be hit with a defamation suit if they were to continue to release it.
So they have done their best to put all their thumbs in the holes in the dike that was springing larger and larger.
It's enormous fraud, and the man we have to thank is Barack Obama.
I have no doubt about it.
This was a Barack Obama enterprise from beginning to end.
Well, that and all the parents, the people that played school officials, pretended to be teachers at the school, anybody that actually got any money from any of the fundraisers, they're all guilty of fraud and misrepresentation.
Let me tell you an amusing story.
In Charlottesville, there's a woman named Susan Brough, who is supposed to be the mother of Heather Heyer.
We're told Heather died in the car crash, but she wasn't even there.
She died the following day.
She was massively overweight and died of a heart attack, as Mona Alexis Presley has confirmed.
But Susan Brough Haven't we seen this woman before?
They use the same crisis actor to play Susan Brough, the mother of Heather the Hire in Charlottesville.
They used to play Donna Soto, the mother of Victoria Soto, a teacher at Sandy Hook.
How bad is that?
I don't know.
It seems like a form of domestic terrorism in so many ways, because all of the lies that people have been fed and believe, and anybody that comes up against it are immediately silenced.
And our First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, are silenced.
When you put out books, we provide all the evidence to demonstrate That what they said happened didn't happen with hard concrete evidence.
And then we turn around and find out that they wanted to create and destroy the Second Amendment.
And this has just been going on nonstop.
It seems lately, I mean, we can't trust anything that comes out of the mass media anymore at all.
That's absolutely right.
I think that was one of the great contributions of Donald Trump to call out the fake news.
He did it so effectively.
Polls now show most Americans are very skeptical of anything they read in the mainstream media, and for good reason.
And the social media giants are committing these forms of censorship that are so massive, so that the Trump v. Twitter lawsuit, I believe, has excellent prospect of success, because And even the White House is admitting this, as unbelievable as that may seem.
They are using the social media to enforce their point of view and to censor alternative points of view.
I believe this is going to turn out to be a monumental lawsuit in the history of the United States.
I hope so.
And I hope to be a part of it because I've been censored on Facebook and YouTube both.
And they've taken down my videos and they've taken down my posts.
And I hate it that I can't just speak freely.
We're supposed to be able to speak freely here.
Right, right.
What the hell does it mean to be an American if you can't criticize your government, if you can't speak your mind as I've grown up?
And I'm now 80 years of age.
That was what it meant to be an American.
You had the right to speak your mind, to publish your opinion, to create videos.
I've had hundreds of videos taken down.
I was booted off of Facebook.
They closed down PayPal.
They took me off of Twitter.
I had nearly 5,000 followers, 2,500 tweets.
It's insulting beyond belief, Gail, beyond belief.
This is not what the Constitution requires.
And I do believe Donald Trump's lawsuit is going to go far to set things right, at least with respect to the First Amendment, which are trying to suppress opinion so they can move against the second, as this case so vividly displays.
Exactly.
And they're listed in that order for a particular reason.
Oh, those founding fathers knew what they were doing.
They sure did.
Contemporary Democrats have totally lost their way.
I mean, it's absolutely unbelievable.
It's like, it says, oh, it's the undemocratic party, now the authoritarian party.
I mean, there are so many dimensions to this.
Gail, I just want to thank you for featuring me once again.
It's always a privilege to join you, to have these opportunities to share my collaborative research.
Bear in mind, I brought together 13 experts.
Six PhDs to sort out what happened at Sandy Hook, and we discovered the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it was a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
And I hope you find that I made my case here tonight.
Oh, there's no doubt about it.
You did make your case, as far as I'm concerned, and it's blatantly obvious that Sandy Hook didn't happen as they purported.
And it's also very discouraging and disheartening that our judicial system will do anything and everything to suppress or not look at evidence or not, you know, participate in What they're supposed to do, you know?
If the Wisconsin Supreme Court does not set things right, I will be going to the United States Supreme Court.
And should that happen, I may come back to seek the support of your followers and any who would like to assist me, because one of the reasons for dragging me into court was that legal bills should add up.
I probably spent around $100,000 now.
I've been able to pay off $35,000, $40,000.
But, you know, there's a long road ahead.
And going to the Supreme Court, it turns out to be itself an expensive proposition.
So if anyone believes in the First Amendment and the Second, And who's sympathetic and supportive of what I am trying to do.
I would be glad to let them know how they can contribute to my efforts, because I would be most grateful.
Well, I certainly can appreciate that very much.
And it makes me sad to think that these kinds of things go on.
And the injustice of the justice system It goes all the way down to the lower levels and there are people that don't even have any resources to protect themselves when certain things are done and it's frequently done in order to make more money or to hide something or to accomplish some kind of agenda and so on.
It's very discouraging.
We need a total revamp of so much stuff and it's It's amazing.
I mean, the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence is certainly behind you as far as I'm concerned, Jim.
And I'm sorry that you have had to experience this.
Well, as a former Marine Corps officer, I'm going to tough it out.
I'm not going to stop.
And, you know, I'm going to do everything I can to bring the truth to the American people.
They deserve it.
And it's my way of giving back to the nation, which I've benefited from in so many ways, Gayle.
So I'm just grateful to be here.
Well, I really thank you for that.
And Donald Trump himself has always said, never give up.
Never give up.
And that's your motto, obviously, as well.
And that's what it takes.
And that's what we need right now to get our country back.
And I'm going to say this, and I said this before, and people need to listen.
Because it all started with, well, it started a little bit before that.
But John F. Kennedy, one of the things that he said is, ask not what you can do, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
And people need to step up right now, because our country is in serious jeopardy.
I couldn't agree more, Gail.
I couldn't agree more.
I value American freedom, freedom of speech, the ability to be armed, and many other things as well.
But those two are critical, and they're under attack.
The entire Constitution is under siege.
The entire country is under siege in order to be taken over and have communism take place.
And we have people from Cuba trying to escape Cuba and putting up an American flag as if we're free here when we're headed in just the opposite direction.
Yeah, you don't see any Americans escaping to Cuba.
Don't see that.
Not yet.
But give them time.
Give the liberals time.
They'll get us to that point if we let them.
Nice point, Paul.
Wow, they're trying.
They really are.
We had an interview with an amazing guy, Ted Marr, and he's done extensive looking into the JFK assassination.
And he brought something to our attention that I had never known before was that they actually published in the newspaper overseas across the international dateline that John F. Kennedy had been killed by what was his name?
Lee Harvey Oswald.
But they published that the day before it actually happened.
So they had the whole narrative... Yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead.
I'm doing a three-parter on JFK's assassination on America Media Periscope with Scott Bennett, a show called Great Awakenings.
We began on Wednesday, part one, on Friday, part two, next Wednesday, part three.
American Media Periscope, Great Awakenings.
You can watch it on AmericanMediaPeriscope.net.
I have now four books on JFK and, you know, hundreds of presentations and so forth, and I'll tell you, this is really serious stuff.
Had you heard about that newspaper article before?
Fletcher Prouty of Christchurch, New Zealand found it in a newspaper.
Yeah, it was out of New Zealand.
It was an important photograph of Lee Oswald in a biographical sketch.
He wasn't even sure the FK had actually been formally pronounced dead at the time he got it.
Unbelievable.
Yeah.
It was crazy.
And you cannot make this stuff up because they're too busy making it up.
Oh my gosh.
Well, do you have anything else you'd like to add, Jim?
No, Gail, I just want to thank you for the opportunity once again.
I'm very appreciative.
Well, I thank you for your deep research that you've done, because it's important for the American public to know the truth about these things.
We've been lied to about everything, and we're being lied to right now, today, and it carries serious, serious consequences, like your life.
Absolutely.
We need more people like you, Jim, and more people willing to stand up for what's right and to put the truth out there and to let people know what's really going on.
And there are some real warriors out there.
Light warriors, I call them.
And you're one of them.
And we have some others now about the other thing that I'm talking about, which I don't know if I should mention for fear of Well, I guess we won't put this on YouTube anyway, except for a teaser.
But I think you all know I'm talking about the jab.
But anyway, Paul, do you have anything to add?
No, I'm good.
Well, Jim, I thank you very much for your time and your research.
And maybe we'll do this again with another topic that you have done your deep research on, because it's important for people to know the truth.
I look forward to it, Gail.
Thank you so very much.
And we wish you all the best with your upcoming court battles.
Thanks, Paul.
Somebody's got to listen to common sense.
Well, it's evidence in the law.
It's really very straightforward, as straightforward as it could be once you look at the evidence.
Yeah, when you have a preponderance of evidence, it should be more than obvious.
I don't know, it just seems like they seem to be getting away with things that just shouldn't be happening.
Well, I think the beautiful part about it is they're actually refusing to hear your evidence, and they're refusing you the right to defend yourself, to present evidence to support your position.
And that's a violation of your rights, just plain and simple.
Exactly, exactly.
This is why I'm optimistic that the Wisconsin Supreme Court may want to set it right.
Better to clean up your own house.
These mistakes have been made at the circuit court and appellate court level in Wisconsin, and I'm hopeful they will do the right thing.
Well, yeah, because if they don't clean it up, some judges are going to lose their dresses.
They're going to lose their robes.
Well, we have a lot of what they call violations of oath of office going on, and it's going to get to the point where the people are going to have to step forward and remove these people from the positions that they're in in order for justice to prevail again.
That's what it appears.
I don't know what else we can do.
You presented so much evidence, and it should be so obvious, and it should have been ruled accordingly, but it hasn't been.
So that's very disturbing.
Well, thank you so much, Jim.
My pleasure, Paul.
Gayle, thank you both.
We'll see you again.
Thank you.
You got it.
I'll be in touch.
Bye all.
Bye.
Thanks for joining us.
Bye, everybody.
I hope you enjoyed this.
I hope you really took in what's been going on.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection