All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
58:17
REAL DEAL UPDATE ON SANDY HOOK (20 March 2022) with Brian Davidson, P.I.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on A Real Deal Special, a return engagement with Brian Davidson, a private investigator with Panoramic Investigations who's been doing some stunning stuff about Sandy Hook, unbeknownst to him.
This is, therefore, an updated report.
When experts look closely at the case, everyone knows I've done all this research, former Marine Corps officer, all these books, conspiracy research, and I champion the falsificationist methodology advocated by Sir Karl Popper, the great British philosopher, that you must test hypotheses of whether they can withstand critical scrutiny, whether they can be shown to be false.
If you can show an hypothesis that evolves, then obviously it's false.
You can have many confirmations that make it look as though it's true, however, where if you never get around to testing more seriously, severe tests, he referred to them as, you may not know that an hypothesis, in spite of a vast number of confirming instances, is nevertheless false.
The example here, all pennies are made of copper, where you could deduce billions of examples that copper penned is a confirmation, and yet it turns out that in 1943, because of the shortage of copper for military purposes, they were made of steel.
So here you have an hypothesis with millions of confirming instances that turns out to be false.
Now, we did our earlier special report with Brian.
It was rather fascinating, which I published on my blog.
He used Google and the research instruments he's mastered on the internet to ascertain the location of a crucial photograph, not knowing its source, not knowing when it was taken, not knowing the context, I did that deliberately because it's a photograph that has been under consideration and I regard as a single most devastating proof that Sandy Hook was a fabricated event.
So here's the editor's note I added in the publication of the blog about this.
And nobody died at Sandy Hook, 2015, 2nd edition, 2016.
We published an image of a CSI vehicle at Sandy Hook Elementary before the purported mass shooting had taken place.
In the first edition, we reported it as having been taken the morning of the 14th of December 2012, the day of the event.
And here you can see the context where the comments included, taken from one of the elevated cameras placed around the car park to record the drill, which, by the way, was done by the Connecticut State Police.
Leaves are evident in the trees in the background.
This is not December.
The author Alan William Powell believed at the time, no portable mortuary can be seen, which means it's early morning before the portable mortuary was delivered.
Now, in the second, we corrected that to having been taken the night before.
We knew it was before the event had taken place, because a string of windows in Classroom 10 have not been shot out, as they were presented in the aftermath.
So here's what we included in the book to make that point on page 149.
This again is a chapter by William.
The windows have been fixed to simulate effects of shots.
The mortuary tent can now be seen in the reflection of the window.
Very nice observation.
This means it's been set up sometime after the windows of Classroom 10, featuring three candle images apiece were staged to make it look as though bullets passed through some of them.
I recently learned that a private investigator, Brian Davidson, who's mastered internet tools for research, sent him the photo but without explaining the background or the context.
He did his thing using the photo I sent, and this is what I have just heard back.
No wonder they banned the book.
Jim!
I'm assuming you sent me the photo to try to determine the approximate time it was taken.
This analysis is a little sloppy.
I don't hold myself out as a pro in this particular area.
I simply claimed it could be done.
Not that I'm an expert in this type of analysis.
Again, I am a generalist.
First thing I did was find the original source here.
Notice I can read the plates in the original high-resolution image, and we have the link to where it was found.
Here you can see how amazing How clear a photograph can you get?
Not only can you see the crime scene vehicle in the foreground, obviously, but just above the roof you can see that string of four windows in Classroom 10 with the three little candles in each of the images that are completely intact.
Come down the flagpole and you see a familiar figure reclining against a wall with his arm folded, Wayne Carver, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
What is so devastating, of course, is we have crime scene tape set up for a crime that has yet to be committed.
So just uncovering this high-resolution version of the photograph, to me, was already sensational.
And notice, in particular, Regardless of whether the photograph was taken the morning of the 14th or the evening of the 13th, about which there was ambiguity between the two editions of the book, it proves this was a fake stage event because the candles are not shot out and yet they're already on the scene.
Brian continued, I'm guessing this image is very close to the original.
I believe he actually found the original.
Second I did was travel back in time to the location and pull satellite images of the structure bearing due north around the time of the event.
I took a satellite image from March of 2012.
I then went to the suncalc.org and traveled back in time to December 14, 2012 and found the exact pretty close placement of the camera.
I then overlaid that on Google Maps using the Dickinson Drive in Sandy Hook, Connecticut as my alignment tool.
I was unable to figure out who took the photo, and I'm introducing separately, as I learned from Alan William Powell, that it actually was from the Connecticut State Police files.
I can't seem to access anything else in the file where the photo exists.
I believe they've sought to cover it up.
The metadata on the image has gone from my earliest and most reliable image, which is strange, unless you realize that the Connecticut State Police don't want to be busted for having run this operation in the background.
I cannot even access a server without a better skill set.
Anyway, still more work that can be done, including the plates I don't want to bust out because it could be considered a violation of the DPPA.
It is evening sun, probably the day before, not likely the day of.
Therefore, my estimate puts us on December 13th, perhaps 445, give or take 20 or 30 minutes.
Brian Davidson, Panoramic Investigations.
Now, Brian, I know you have done additional research and you now want to qualify your original findings and add a whole lot more.
So I'm simply delighted to have you here.
And by the way, This turns out to be a bit of a subtle business.
I mean, if we could not determine if it's a morning of or the evening before in the book already, where I brought together 13 experts to sort what happened at Sandy Hook out, And to dissect the official narrative, which turns out to be a complete fabrication because it was actually a FEMA drill for which we even discovered the manual presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
It's no fault To not have got it exactly right to begin with.
I think you've already done something fantastic by discovering a high-resolution image.
So, Brian, take it from here and I'll give you, I'm going to make you the host now, so you can do a screen, you know, images you can introduce from your desktop, whatever you like, yours.
OK, well, so first I just want to sort of talk through this.
OK, I was given the image.
Now I'm going to say this.
I'm not an expert in Sandy Hook as nearly as much as you.
And what I did with that photograph was just simply try to ascertain the time it was taken.
And what I found out, again, I went back, I found what was the earliest, most reliable piece of information I could find on the internet at the time, is that that was published around January 12th off of this particular server.
I found it strange that I couldn't access the server and I did some more research on the server to find out that it's owned by Hearst Media Group or it appears to be owned by Hearst Media Group.
So here you basically have a large mass media institution that's publishing this photograph.
The second thing I did with that photograph at the time was just what I said in the blog, which is I put the sun on that face of that wall to determine the time it was taken, and it was indeed evening sun, as I said in my blog.
The question then arose, is this the 13th or the 14th?
And I was in agreement with Jim that I couldn't see the details about the windows.
I couldn't understand a lot that was going on in the photo, just with an initial cursory look.
And my thought was, this is probably on the 13th, but I'm going to clarify that I was wrong.
And I was wrong because I did more research after the blog was published.
Let me help you understand something about crime scenes.
Authentic crime scenes, okay?
One of the first people to get on a crime scene inside the inner perimeter is going to be the digital photographer.
This is before any dust is laid or any prints have been taken.
His job is to get in there and photograph The location of the evidence.
Now this would have been a massive job to work this particular school shooting location.
And what I found after doing more research is that I was able to find the original.
Image.
And I found it inside the Connecticut State Police.
Research file so.
That is located at cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov.
Okay, so I went and and found everything that the police released about the school shooting and then I took like a blank slate because again I hadn't studied Sandy Hook and and again I'll qualify when I do my studies for me I'm not being paid for it My job is to convince me.
That's all.
And that's what I did.
Anyway, I went and downloaded and started looking at the photographs and the evidence that were inside the CSP Sandy Hook report file that were supposedly processed by the police, or at least that's what they will have you believe.
Now, this is a massive trove of police reports, details, 9-1-1 calls, photographs, and videos.
So, I started looking through it.
Now, it would take me probably six weeks to process the entire thing, and I think that they do that on purpose to make sure that people lose interest rather quickly and just take the big narrative and walk away.
But I did start going through the photos, and I did find that, well, the first thing, if I found the original, Where's the metadata?
Because if this is a crime scene photographer, there's going to be metadata inside that photo that explains absolutely everything that could be asked by an attorney in court.
Well, they basically scrubbed the entire file of metadata.
I can't find a single trace of any metadata inside this official report.
So we're left with a lot of questions.
When you scrub that sort of evidence from an image, it means it's been altered.
Somebody has gone in and done it.
So this crime scene photographer, and I found the photo inside his file attributed to this person by their name, In theory, would be a very good crime scene photographer.
I mean, they work in murder scenes.
They're on the scene right away.
And you'll have to look at the evidence to make your own decision, but I found it to be less than convincing that it was carefully detailed work.
Okay, it was It appears to be put together very fast.
Now, let me give you an example of an authentic crime scene.
About a month ago, I was called on a Sunday morning to find a guy that had robbed A woman and and injured her during the robbery and the client really didn't know they were just mad.
It was it was the husband and he said go find him.
And so I worked with the client.
I gathered the evidence and within three maybe four hours.
I had a visual on the guy that had actually hurt the woman and and left the scene.
And the reason is when he walked away from the scene, he took her phone.
So her I just worked with the client and got the location data from the phone and was able to track him down live real time.
I photographed him.
I took a picture, sent it to the client.
He said my wife says that's him.
So I called the police to have him come on out and I. The police came out.
I was able to point the guy out to the police.
The vehicle pulled up.
And then all of a sudden, the police vehicle officer got back into his vehicle and he just took off.
So I had sort of an obfuscated view from my particular angle.
And I thought, well, that was weird.
I've never seen an arrest or even questioning go down anything like that.
And so I was still texting with these officers and I was like, OK, I'm assuming something's going down here that I don't understand.
And so I left the scene.
I was like, OK, I did my job.
Client's happy.
I watched the police get him.
Well.
I waited around for about 10, 15 minutes to figure out what I could, and the officers were just texting back saying, hey, I can't talk now.
OK, so I left.
About 30 or 40 minutes later, I come back.
I get a phone call while I'm driving home and the guy says, uh, we need you to return to this intersection and we need you to stay with us until the detectives can interview you.
I said, okay.
And in the background on the phone call, I could hear helicopters or a helicopter.
So I thought, well, that's strange.
What has just gone down?
So I went back all the way back to the scene and I realized that they had set up an inner and an outer perimeter, which is what you do with any authentic crime scene.
Now what had happened, I ascertained when I returned to that particular intersection, is that the guy had taken off in the vehicle and Hit about 10 different cars and basically tried to run from the cops.
About 15 of them fell in behind him and they finally got him where his vehicle was disabled and he jumps out of the car and he points his fingers at these guys like he has a gun and they five different HPD officers opened up on him at that moment.
So what we have here is an official crime scene and I'm back on the crime scene and I'm watching HPD's top detective work the scene.
Because the guy that was shot happened to be black.
And the five cops that opened, I think maybe only one of them was black.
And so the question is, is this going to be a black thing?
So they made a really big deal out of it.
Because in the end, he used his fingers like he had a gun and that's when they opened up on him.
So I observed this crime scene and I observed That I was not allowed to pass the inner perimeter.
It was taped off incredibly carefully.
There were police officers all around that had roped off the scene and there was nobody that was going to get into that scene unless they were invited like I was.
I watched them carefully look on the ground and scour the whole scene and find every casing for every bullet and mark it and I watched the photographers get over there and Take the pictures and make sure the light was just right and everything has to be just right because when you're processing a crime scene, it's got to be raw evidence.
It could be used in court.
Let's say that this guy survived the shooting and sues the police department.
Now you've got a lawsuit and you've got serious evidence that needs to be reviewed.
That said, I took a look at the files that were Put out by the Connecticut State Police, and I can tell you that it is very, very strange to have all the metadata on all the documents and all the files scrubbed.
That would never, ever, ever play in court.
Secondarily, I found the photography to be Less than what I would have expected.
Now, Jim, answer some questions for me.
How many rounds did they say Adam Lanza fired off?
Do you remember anything about that?
Over 150.
Okay, and this is with a semi-automatic weapon?
Yeah, it was supposed to be with a Bushmaster AR-15.
Okay, and then they also said that he had a couple of handguns with him?
Yes, a Sig Sauer and a Glock.
OK, so I'm going through the crime scene photography on the Connecticut State Police website and I'm scratching my head.
Why am I seeing?
Unspent.
Ammunition.
And spent ammunition.
Why am I seeing magazines dropped in the middle of the floor without a crime scene marker on them that would be photographed?
And I'm asking questions like where is the blood?
Because when something or somebody is shot there's blood splatter evidence all over the place and if you're going to take a body out of a structure you're going to bag them and bring it out and so it's going to get messy and people are going to get messy and there's going to be a lot that goes in it but I'm telling you that a body would not be extracted unless it was still alive and they were dealing with the emergency service Right away.
Emergencies first, digital photography second, detectives putting the pieces together third.
So what I'm here to talk about is I want our viewers to think critically and to take a look at this for themselves.
Don't trust Jim Fetzer, don't trust me, don't trust anybody else.
Do it yourself and ask yourself some questions because My initial assessment is that somebody shot the place up in a very scattered, haphazard way.
There's not nearly enough blood.
The scene is so sloppy that you've got crime scene photography.
This would never happen.
You would never have dust on a gun at a crime scene.
You've got one photo of a gun and one round is sitting on top of the gun itself.
And I'm looking at this thing and I remember going through this course saying where my job was to solve a staged murder.
And I remember getting back after doing the detective work.
And again, I'm just a generalist.
I'm not an expert.
To solve the staged murder, and he said, you need to tell me exactly what you saw, exactly how you processed the scene, and exactly what your notes are.
First thing I said was, it's staged.
And he said, well, yeah, beyond that, because this is a drill.
But I'm like, well, it's a drill, but I'm telling you that this scene was staged, because that is what was obvious to me from going through that process in the drill.
And second thing was you have to put all the pieces together.
And let me tell you, these murder detectives are very, very good at what they do.
They are my I had an old partner that was a murder detective for 20 years, or I think 15 of it was in murder and the rest of it, or maybe seven or eight was murder and the rest was burglar and theft.
And I knew what they knew.
I had been through Death investigation handbooks.
I've worked real files authentically in the real world, and I know what those files look like, and I know what's in those files.
And I can tell you that just based on a few hours of going through the data, it doesn't look right at all.
The quality, the craftsmanship, The lighting, the metadata, there is nothing there that can corroborate in my mind.
If I look, if I just look at these photos and give you my initial assessment, I'm going to give you my initial assessment, which is I'm looking at these photos and it feels staged.
There's so much here that doesn't make sense, just like that class that I went through.
So the reason that I'm here is that after we had published the blog about that Sandy Hook, I took a closer look, and sure enough, I found the original photographer purported to be a crime scene photographer.
I don't know anything about him, but I was able to find the photo that was taken after that photo, and I was able to find the video that was taken just after that photo, and I was able to ascertain that that photo was indeed shot late in the evening of December 14th.
Not December 13th prior to the event that supposedly happened that morning at 9 30.
But that... Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, okay?
Just because that photo was taken that day does not change the nature of the rest of the evidence.
And so when you're looking at evidence, you're going to look at Who signed it?
On what day?
On what day was it drafted?
Are the details accurate?
And so now you've got the Connecticut State Police having released this massive archive of information that includes a tremendous amount of information.
And just like I did with Orlando, when I started reading it, I could start to feel what was taking place.
Lanza was supposedly good went through all this ammunition.
Well, you can listen to the 911 calls from inside the building.
It took me about seven or eight phone calls of just listening before I heard a gunshot in the background or anything that sounded like a gunshot in the background.
Finally, I found one That sounded like it.
But if you've got a guy expending 130 rounds, let's see, as a Marine, how long does it take you to burn through a 30-round magazine?
Not very long, but... You can pop it off real fast.
150 rounds.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Many commentators observed the absurdity of his shot-to-kill ratio, which was phenomenally high.
98% of rounds, there were supposed to be only two persons who were shot but survived.
And he's killing 26 and he's only weighs 112 pounds six feet tall and he's carrying about 40 pounds of gear and he had no known training with weapons.
I mean the whole situation was absurd on its face but it's been promoted so aggressively By the state of Connecticut, by the Connecticut State Police, by the Connecticut Medical Examiner, by members of, you know, Newtown, that it's been very difficult to penetrate through the propaganda just bonanza, you know, it's just been smothering and the public bought it because it was so cleverly designed to have maximal emotional impact.
There's so many wonderful points you're making.
Brian, I don't want to distract from those, but I do have a summary in mind to review at the right moment, including that you were able to find that the source of the photo was hers, but the original had come from the Canadian police files.
By removing the metadata, they actually have erased their legal significance in a court of law because they don't have the metadata.
They cannot be used in a court of law, which in my opinion is consciousness of guilt.
They knew they were staging, they were faking this up, and they didn't want their own evidence to contradict their official narrative, in spite of the fact that it already does, because we have the crime scene vehicle on the scene before they finish rigging the scene, because they haven't done anything yet with the windows in Classroom 10.
In my opinion, this is even more damning than if it had been taken the night before.
And second question, if I'm a professional and I'm paid to come out and do my job as a private investigator, let's assume that the crime scene photographers are professionals and they're paid to do their job.
We have a very delicate professional reputation that needs to be protected when we do our work.
This photograph came from a crime scene photographer.
Why is it shown in the papers on January 12th?
Why is it on a Hearst Media server on January 12th?
They haven't finished the investigation.
They haven't completed anything, yet they're releasing official crime scene photography.
Sorry, that doesn't hold water with me.
As a professional, I would never, ever, ever let evidence like that get out into the realm of public because it would absolutely destroy my reputation.
It just wouldn't happen.
So I'm saying that the fact that Hearst Media had this image that came from a crime scene photographer is suspicious at the least.
That said, yes, keep going.
I didn't mean to interrupt.
Brian, you've done such wonderful, wonderful work here, and as you're suggesting, it appears to have been very sloppily, hastily put together, like they hadn't really thought this through.
Frankly, this appears to have been perhaps the first of the big False flags that were being perpetrated by the government.
This was Obama, Biden, Eric Holder, Daniel Malloy, Newtown school district, you know, Newtown cops, Newtown city attorney, Head of the fire department, head of the Newtown clerk's office.
I mean, all of these appear to have been complicit before or after the fact, either in planning and setting it up or in covering it up.
And I could go on at great length where I published a book of over 400 pages about how all this was done, bringing together 13 experts.
Where we concluded that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no kids there, and that it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, where we even found the manual, which I included as appendix A to the book, which is why Amazon had to ban it less than a month after it had gone on sale, even though it sold nearly 500 copies.
Brian, you got your bookseller.
You make money after every book that's sold.
This is one that sold nearly 500 in less than a month.
It's going to be a bestseller.
This is going to sell through the roof.
Maybe, you know, hundreds of thousands of copies.
This is going to be stunning.
And they banned the book.
They have all kinds of bizarre books on sale.
At the time, they had 20 books about Sandy Hook, 19 of which were consistent with the official count.
Only one that provided an alternative view.
But because it was objective science, thorough and detailed in its research, and blew the whole case apart, Amazon banned it, and I have reason to believe they were acting as an agent of the state, and therefore in gross violation of the First Amendment, and I intend to move forward against them on that basis.
I was contacted two days before the band by first edition of a TV show claiming they wanted to report on my work, but I had to do a pre-interview first.
And boom, I was in a, what I'm convinced now is a basement operation at Langley with a professional interrogator telling me, what have you got?
What do you got?
What do you got?
And I'd explain the number of the basic findings.
What do you got?
Well, we got a photograph from the Lonza house and you got in the Nancy Lonza bedroom and there's some red stuff on the bed, but it doesn't look like blood.
I think it might be raspberry jam.
There's papers there.
I think they were keeping records of how they were organizing.
There's a blue moving pad underneath the foot of the chair.
Well, we got these photographs of the presumptive evacuation of kids by a police officer, but it turns out there was a second photograph taken earlier where you can see there are parents there, hands in pocket, arm folded, casually looking on.
If you look in the background, there are a couple of women there that appear to be even seated down, calling, leading to me to refer to this photograph as lounging at the massacre.
Where Shannon Hicks, the Newtown Bee photographer, has acknowledged in writing, having taken both of the photographs, when you compare, you can see they rearranged the kids to get a better shot.
The earlier photograph had a little girl in a short skirt and a pink sweater.
She was replaced by a boy from back in the line, taller, wearing a dark sweater and blue jeans.
I mean, this is embarrassing.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
If this had been an emergency evacuation as it was presented as having been, what would parents be doing there in the first place?
Second, if parents were there, why would they stand around with their heads in their pocket and their arms folded and watch?
They'd grab their kid and get the hell out of Dodge.
So there's so many indications here that there's a pony.
What do you got?
What do you got?
Well then I said we got a we got a photograph of the crime scene vehicle already in place and yet it was and you got crime scene tape up and yet it's before the event has taken place because there's a string of windows back in classroom for Tim that are not shot out.
Somewhere there, he just basically hung up.
There were no niceties, no proprieties, didn't introduce himself.
In other words, this was a total sham.
They wanted to know whether I had enough, that they had to do something about it.
Obviously, I did.
And they took the action of having Amazon ban the book.
This is the operation of the state using Amazon, which wants to excuse itself as a private company from being obligated to follow the First Amendment.
Not so, I've even heard, because Amazon is such a monster of publishing around the world, as well as in every state, of course, that it's already subject to First Amendment prohibitions against censorship and so forth.
I have yet to confirm that.
But I tell you, the case here, and now they banned five more of my books about Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, even the moon landing, Brian.
Amazon had banned all those books.
And I'm telling you, it's not a coincidence that has happened.
I appear to be the most banned Editor in America, if not the world.
This is outrageous.
You have done something fantastic.
Discovering, confirming what Alan William Powell explained to me, that these had actually come from the Connecticut State Police files.
You found the files.
You even know the photographer took them.
None of this was done in standard procedure with a murder scene.
They didn't have an outer perimeter, an inner perimeter, none of the above.
They even claim—you're going to find this preposterous, Brian, you probably do not know—not only did they not allow the parents to see the bodies of their deceased children at the time, but They identified them using photographs, which is very appropriate because, you know, many of these kids were just made up out of photographs of older kids when they were younger.
Some used photographs of kids that belonged to somebody else that were given fake names.
Some may have even used photographs of themselves when they were children to be their deceased children.
But the fact is, according to the police, they left the bodies in the school until the dead of night when they were removed.
Have you ever heard of anything as absurd and improper as that?
Well, the bodies go out when the bodies are ready to go out.
In this case, I would probably ask a professional crime scene photographer, but... Okay, I want you to think through this, okay?
Inside the files from the Connecticut State Police, they include the reports from the first officers that were on scene.
They even include what they said about the scene, and I can find this.
Again, I could probably write a 10,000 page book on this incident myself, but one of the first officers to arrive on the scene said he took a look in the room And he saw that everybody was dead.
That's not how death works.
You don't arrive at the scene and everybody's dead.
People don't die that fast.
Just like the animals that I hunt when I go hunting for pigs.
Some of them die instantly when it's a good clean kill shot that I carefully constructed it.
But most of them you're gonna get Some post.
You're going to get a lot of bleeding.
I mean, if they're gunshot wounds, ballistics, yeah, you're going to have a lot of bleeding.
You're going to have a lot of blood splatter for those viewers that are out there that are questioning this.
Do it yourself.
Take a look at the photos, read the reports.
You want to know what happened?
You'll see it.
It's very clear.
And now with the Connecticut State Police having released all this information, Anybody can put it under scrutiny.
This is public realm now.
So, I'm suggesting you think through some things.
So, nobody lived any longer than 30 seconds?
Everybody was dead that fast?
Where's the blood splatter from the person that was supposedly standing here or the person that was standing there?
Why was the crime scene photography show the rooms all the deaths are cleared out?
I mean, that it just doesn't add up.
You need to look at it and say, OK, where were they?
And there are some staged photographs where they wrote in, you know, it's December 14th on the.
On the image on the calendar, I mean, they were careful to get some things like that, but take a look at it and ask yourself a question.
Was this school operating?
Does this crime scene look like?
Where's the blood splatter?
Nobody moved after they were dead.
There's no more blood splatter.
It was all just convenient little pools of blood.
There was nobody that tried to escape when they were shot in the leg, and therefore they bled out.
How come there's not blood all over the floor?
How many exits were there?
Where did the exits come from?
How did they get there?
What's happening on the 911 calls?
What am I hearing in the background?
These are things that any detective Can can do.
Or even a home detective can do.
You just have to ask questions.
And I gotta tell you, they've got a lot of resources.
They've got a lot of resources to put together a lot of information.
And some of it can be deceptive.
And some of it makes sense.
But once you start to see the holes, once you start to develop the holes, it becomes It becomes incredibly difficult to still work your way through the mainstream media narrative.
It's just impossible.
Let me put it this way.
Let's consider the alternative hypotheses.
One, that this was a bonafide shoot, and they were just a little sloppy about its reporting, even though it's in great abundance.
Or, alternatively, this is obviously a staged event, and they tried to make it look real, but some of the moves they've made have been self-discrediting, such as removing the metadata.
That's the last thing you'd want to do as a crime scene photographer, because that's what validates when and where the photograph was taken.
What's your appraisal?
And the focal length and whether you use the flash or not, and what type of lens was affixed to the camera, and how many megapixels went into the raw thing.
There's so much inside metadata on a legitimate photograph that it literally tells you just about everything you can possibly know about how many pixels are there.
I mean, why, if this was real, would anybody take the time to carefully strip all of anybody's ability to validate any of this?
So basically they went in and worked the scene and they knew it was a foregone conclusion.
Well, there's your shooter and he's dead.
So we're not going to, we're not going to process this crime scene like it's supposed to, because we've already, I mean, they've already had the trial.
It's already convicted.
I mean, it was done.
It was done upon arrival.
That's what it looks like to me.
And again, Sandy Hook is not my specialty.
I am a generalist, and I generally understand false flags from a very high-level perspective.
Again, I've only been doing this since 2016.
But I am a private investigator, and I do have a brain, and I can think.
And by the way, you don't need to have a license to be a private investigator to think.
Well, Ryan, I think it's sensational that even during your instruction, becoming a private investigator, you've been asked to analyze a crime scene that was staged.
And here you have the application of the similar principles to a crime scene, and it turns out to have been staged.
Is there any serious doubt in your mind about it, that the same conclusion applies, that just as you were correct in discerning That earlier stage crime scene was staged.
That this crime scene, allegedly from Sandy Hook, a school massacre, was likewise staged.
Do you have the least doubt about it?
As a private investigator, I don't go on record until I put it in writing, but I can tell you that if you or any of our listeners go out and do your own research, you're going to come to the same conclusions I have.
And there's a reason.
That's wonderful.
I may need to return.
Here we go.
I'm going to reclaim host.
I just want to say how much I appreciate your diligence.
You're a fresh set of eyes.
What's so wonderful about this, Brian, is you have just Gone into the deep end of the pool.
You've been willing to sort it out.
I sent you the photograph without any knowledge or understanding or background, so I wouldn't want to bias you in any way, shape, or form.
And you took the bull by the horns.
You tracked it down.
You found that it was from Hearst, but that he got the original, and the original was in a Connecticut State Police files, that the metadata had been wiped off.
And in my opinion, that is as telling, that is as devastating as the photograph itself.
That meant they did not want the public or the courts to know when and where these photographs were taken.
What could you have as a better sign or indication of fakery and fabrication?
And then when you looked at the actual content of many of these photographs, it was clear they were not consistent with the official narrative.
And you had a mixture of ammunition.
You had shells on top where they shouldn't be.
It's just ridiculous how it adds up and builds and builds to confirm the conclusion that this had to be a fabricated crime scene.
Do I have anything wrong?
You just have done a wonderful job with a fresh set of eyes.
And you know, as you observe, it's crucial to scientific investigations and capacity to replicate the evidence.
And what you have done is replicate our preliminary findings from the book.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
Where Alan William Powell did this brilliant job of discerning the situation here.
Would you like to add any comments about the windows?
You were starting to talk about the windows.
I think you wanted to add some images that you yourself.
I'm going to give you back the host because I think you've got some there.
Yeah, I'll show a couple images that tell you what you need to know.
Let me go ahead and show some.
Yeah, I've given you a screen share, yeah.
OK.
All right, let me just.
All right, so there's your windows.
This is among all the photos I looked at, which were all the photos in the file.
It shocks me that this is the highest resolution.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I enhanced the photo.
First of all, why are the windows open?
What was it, 38 degrees that morning?
Yep.
You gonna teach a bunch of kids with the windows open?
That's a great point, Brian.
It's 38 degrees, it's above freezing, but it's still very cold.
Too cold to be conducting classes, and yet these windows are open?
Wonderful.
Ridiculous, yeah.
This is.
A picture that was taken at night.
And here.
It looks like.
There's something going on, so I enhanced it.
And let me, I enhanced it.
Here you go.
So that window may be damaged.
But let's, more importantly, take a look at, by then, it is.
This is the window from the inside.
Okay.
I want you to take a close look at something.
thing.
Do you see it?
It's an intro.
Tell me, Brian.
Direct us.
They're claiming that Lanza was out in the parking lot and shot through the tin.
I mean, that's what that's supposed to represent.
I always presumed it was inside shooting out, but they drilled the holes in the aluminum to put these pink rods in, which is so obviously fraudulent.
This is the inside of the window.
Why is the inside of the window?
When a bullet goes through it, on the back side of the bullet hole, it opens up.
And that's exactly what is going on here.
So I believe they manufactured those holes with drills, Brian, that these aren't actual bullet holes.
Well, you have a zero degree pattern on all three shots.
I mean, the marksmanship is unbelievable.
Yeah.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
Literally unbelievable.
It's not credible at all.
It doesn't happen.
Yeah.
So anybody can do this.
So what's this?
Is this a, I mean, what broke that?
Was that a bullet?
What?
You know, these are the problems you run into trying to run these analyses.
And this.
This here.
Look at that.
Yeah.
What's your take?
What's my take?
This here is disturbing.
This here is terribly disturbing.
Okay?
Here's our three candles.
Here's where they were processing the scene.
So they took the candles down.
Right, right.
There's your window.
Where's that hole?
Where's that hole?
Where is the hole?
Where is it?
Where is it?
They were just messing around, Brian, again and again to try and make it look more realistic, and incredibly, they photographed themselves in the sequence of fabricating this evidence!
Unbelievable!
I mean, if you go through the photos yourself, ask yourself, Where is this bullet casing?
Where is this bullet?
What is this angle?
What type of bullet is it?
How do you move from weapon A to weapon B to weapon C?
Why are there unspent casings on the ground?
Did somebody bother to take the time to Just what unload the magazines.
He had, they say he had pockets full of ammunition.
Well, I get what he's, he's reloading his clips during 150 rounds.
If I'm going to go pull off 150 rounds, first of all, my shoulder probably going to be pretty rough.
Second of all, I'm probably going to shoot no more than a one round a second.
Right?
That was 150 seconds.
150 seconds of pure shooting.
How come that's not in the background of any of the 911 calls?
How long afterwards?
There are so many questions that need to be asked about this, but the problem that we've got is that the cognitive dissonance just hasn't set in.
People don't want to believe us, Jim.
They want to believe their televisions because it's comforting, and comforting lies are a lot easier than nutritional critical thought.
For the general public.
And that's what we're dealing with, which is why the whole purpose of this discussion, hopefully, is to get people to wake up and do some of their own research.
In the end, we're not helping anybody by talking the same thing to death.
Are the only photos of the pink rods from the inside of the classroom?
Because I thought they were extending outward.
Well, that's from the inside, right here.
That's the inside of the classroom.
Right.
I can see it because we see evidence of inside as you look down the windows there.
I see that.
I see that.
But the photographs I've shown in the past, you know, where you can see the pink rods, I thought they were sticking out from the, to the outside.
Is that wrong?
I mean, this is ridiculous on its face, Brian.
It's ridiculous that we even have to analyze it.
Yeah, because this is supposed to be Brian Launza shooting into the classroom from outside the building?
That's what you can see it for yourself.
Here it is right here.
Look, this is so insulting.
I mean, this is beyond belief.
They must be laughing all the way to the bank, you know, thinking that they pulled this off on the American people.
What a perfect angle.
This is God.
Yeah.
I mean, so that's just some of it.
I started working at a lot of different ways.
Just to see, just to deal with the issue.
What do you think made that hole up there in the upper right which is missing in the other photograph?
I do believe somebody took the time to shoot up the building.
I believe somebody used a weapon and did shoot the place up.
I don't think anybody got hurt.
Right, it was when the building was empty, no doubt.
I mean, just further fabricator-manufacturer evidence.
Right, and you can go download the files yourself and take a look and start going through the photos.
I mean, they redacted a tremendous amount.
But look here, this is directly from their file.
Cell phone, Lisa Shelley Burns, and look.
Every single photo in this collection, she took, oh, with the exception of this one, is redacted.
Redacted.
Right, and so you've got to work with what you can see because with redactions, and look here, the properties, the metadata, nothing There is nothing.
There is no creative date.
There's no modified date.
There's no application.
There's no title.
There's no author.
We don't know the string.
We don't know what sequence it was taken in.
We don't know where it was taken from.
We don't know anything about it, except they tell us cell phone, S.A., Lisa Shelley Burns.
That's all.
That's all.
That's all you get.
And you can go back and do it yourself.
Cell phone.
Yeah.
I'm going to reclaim host here, Brian.
Cease sharing so we're back together.
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
Let me do that.
No, it's fine.
It's not a problem.
Yeah, not a problem.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever gone this far into it, Brian.
The deeper you go, obviously, the more apparent it becomes that this whole thing was a complete sham from beginning to end.
If any very serious researcher got a hold of it, they'd figure it out.
I don't know if any serious researchers have yet.
I don't know.
This came out obviously way later.
I mean, the Connecticut State Report was released.
Let's see, this is cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov.
Let me use my little internet tools here and figure out what day that was created.
And let's see when that report actually came out, because it's not even dated.
So let's see, I've got website research.
I'm going to predict the creation date of a web page.
I'm going to type in that web page.
And I'm going to carbon date that web page, and I'll tell you the day it was released.
It was released on... I'm sorry.
Oh, my God.
That web page was created on January 23rd, 2012 at 9.56 a.m.
January 23rd, 2012?
2012 at 9.56 a.m. January 23rd, 2012?
The shooting wasn't until 14 December.
I'm just telling you what it says.
That website, cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov, was created January 23, 2012, at 9 56.
So roughly 11 months in advance, they were already setting up the website to document the event that wouldn't occur for 11 more months.
No, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
That was my mistake.
I had another report.
Just a second.
That was totally wrong.
Totally wrong.
That's okay.
So my carbon date report will not release anything about that.
I don't know when it was released.
Okay, fair enough.
Brian, you've done such sensational work here.
I can't begin to thank you for it.
And I know we're going to get more from you, and I like your Willingness to acknowledge when you discover you've had something wrong.
I mean, you originally thought it was the evening of the 13th.
It turns out to be the 14th.
But when you dig deeper, you're getting more and more proof, more confirmation as to what's fabricated.
Now it even appears they were.
Presenting evidence that would indicate Adam Lanza had to shoot into the classroom from outside the building, which is about as preposterous as it gets, and that the crime scene photographs from inside were shabby, shallow, very superficial, the way they were put together.
This is stunning stuff, Brian.
I can't thank you enough.
Yeah, I'd like to get professionals at each of these areas to take a look at this stuff, and I'd like to bring on a professional that just talks about real murder scenes.
Because they're out there, they do that for a living.
So I'd like to say, look, here's the big picture, okay?
Do you know how they train bank tellers to recognize a counterfeit?
Tell me.
They put them in a room and they give them real money and their job is to touch and handle that real money like 10,000 times.
So they might sit there for three days touching and handling money.
And then what happens?
Then they hand them a bill that's a counterfeit and they can feel it.
And they can tell it's a counterfeit because they've handled the real money so much now that they can just feel the counterfeit.
That's how you train bank tellers.
So what I'm saying here is the general public might not have the skillset that if you handle authentic, you will feel inauthentic when you see it.
It's just the nature of the game.
So, ask your friends.
Ask your old friends that are ex-detectives.
Have them take a look at it.
Have them give you an expert analysis.
It's the right thing to do if you want to know the truth.
If you want to keep watching TV, you know, great.
Good for you.
But, I'm a guy that wants to know the truth.
So am I, Brian.
So am I. I salute you and I'm so delighted and I'm sure we'll have many more exchanges like this.
Jim Fetzer here, hosting a Real Deal Special Report with Brian Davidson, who's doing completely brilliant work on what happened at Sandy Hook, initiated by my sending him a photograph with no information about the context, the circumstances, where it had been taken, or when, and look where this has led.
He's doing a brilliant job of exposing and confirming the conclusion we arrived at in 2015 that nobody died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
Thank you for joining us here today and stand by.
We'll be back with more from Brian Davidson and other experts in his field.
You can see the payoff.
▲
Export Selection