All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
54:07
David Zublick's Awake Nation, The Latest (NYT) Sandy Hook Sob Story (4 May 2023)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, well, we have Dr. James Fetzer with us, so let us bring him on in.
Hey, Dr. Fetzer, how are you?
Hey, David.
I lost track of an hour, a whole hour.
I have no idea where it went.
It just disappeared like that.
Yeah, because I was, you know, I'm looking for your little presentation, which you normally send me, and I said, I don't see anything.
So yeah, it's okay.
We'll have a conversation.
So how are you?
What's happening in your world right now?
Well, quite a lot.
The New York Times Magazine published what I call a sob piece about Sandy Hook that I wanted to share with you.
And because Ron Avery, who knows a great deal about these issues, had a short piece, a critique that I published on my blog along with one I did a bit longer, I suggested he join us today as well.
Okay, so hopefully, did you send, did we send him a link too?
Yeah, I sent him the link, yeah.
Okay, very good, so hopefully he'll be joining us.
In the meantime, so this was a hit piece on you, No, it's a hit piece on the idea the public should have access to the crime scene photographs from Sandy Hook.
So it's three parties who claim to have been crime scene investigators who say it was so horrific it's better that the public not see them.
And Ron explained how this is a disservice to the public, and indeed concealing crime scene photographs, which the Connecticut legislature actually agreed to do back in 2013, is a way of concealing the commission of crimes.
In other words, it actually promotes the occurrence of crimes, and it makes it more difficult to sort out what's going on.
They actually included a few photographs of their own that seem innocuous and to support the official account if you did not know better.
So what I do is, in my piece, I go through it and fill in the background as to how you can tell that, in fact, the photographs they did publish are damning of the official narrative.
But you would never know if you didn't have a lot of background information about what actually happened at Sandy Hook.
It would lead me to believe, Dr. Fetzer, that if they don't want to provide crime scene photographs showing bodies or whatever, it's because they don't have any.
Well, I think that's correct, David.
And they even talk about how they're reading the mind of Eric Holder, how he's supposed to have looked at this bathroom in one of the classrooms where the teacher is supposed to have saved 15 kids by packing them in together.
And then she herself hidden.
Well, think about it.
It was only three by four.
The door swung inward.
If you had 15 first graders say the average 50 pounds of piece at 750 pounds of squirmy first graders was a teacher another hundred pounds.
How could you even get the door closed?
Or as Ron observed, how would you be able to open it?
I mean, it's swung inward.
So if you had all these bodies in there, I mean, it's just a ridiculous scenario, but it's illustrative.
It exemplifies the kind of nonsense they have been feeding us about Sandy Hook.
Very, very embarrassing.
Any more on the situation from a couple of weeks ago regarding the two women that had contacted you while we're waiting for Ron?
David, I'll tell you, I had invited one, Vicki Aurelio, the daughter of the town clerk Debbie Aurelio, to join us on this show today.
Nice.
And I'm sad to say I received no response.
No response.
So I'm not anticipating we're going to be hearing from her.
And I'm, you know, going to have to just proceed on the basis that I may have been misled.
I can't imagine it could have been that entirety of all my exchanges with Steve, but I'm very disappointed at the way this is turning out.
All right.
While we're waiting for Ron, do you want to just begin?
Maybe he's talking to Ron right now.
We're talking with Dr. James Fetzer.
His blog, by the way, I want to mention, jameshfetzer.org.
And you can contribute to his legal fund by going to givesendgo.com forward slash fundingfestival.com.
Fetzer, givesendgo.com forward slash funding Fetzer.
Just promoted your blog and your Give, Send, Go, Dr. Fetzer.
Yeah, thank you very much, David.
And yes, that was Ron, and he will be joining us probably.
All right.
Very good.
So looking forward to that.
So this, this was, this piece was in the, did you say the New York Times?
Magazine.
Oh, New York Times Magazine.
Okay.
And when did this break?
Is it online?
Can people see it?
Yeah.
It's online.
Definitely.
We can actually go ahead and begin with the slides if you like, David, and Ron will be joining us.
I'd be happy to do that.
I, okay.
Now, let me see.
Hang on.
You sent them late, so let me download the slides right now.
Right, yeah.
My apologies.
No, no, no, it's fine.
I'll have it open in just a moment, so we'll be fine.
Let me just get that going.
In the meantime, kind of give us a little bit of a setup of this.
When did this come out?
Well, it just came out a few days ago, David, and a lot of people thought it was very curious.
As Ron puts it, it reads more like a short story.
In other words, it's supposed to have an emotional impact.
It's very short on facts and it presents none of the crime scene evidence they're talking about that is supposed to be so disturbing.
You will remember Brian Davidson, who's this private investigator from Texas, went into Connecticut State Police files and discovered that the photographs in the files contradict the official narrative.
For example, there's a photo down the hallway that is perfectly clear and bereft of bodies or blood, and yet, according to the official narrative, you should be able to see the body of the principal, Don Hofstring, and the school psychologist, Mary Sherlock, but they're not there.
Or again, in one of the classrooms, you'd expect to see a lot of bodies, blood and so forth.
But there's not only no bodies and no blood, but there are no student desks or no student chairs.
There's no teacher desk.
There's no teacher chair.
In other words, what he turned up not only substantiates that it was not a mass murder, but that it was not even an operating school.
And none of these photographs have ever Well, the files have a large number of redacted photographs, and the authors talk about that.
But what they're saying is, you know, basically, it was so horrific to see bodies that you want to spare yourself having to look at anything like that.
Let us be the ones, the guinea pigs, as it were.
Who were the, you know, absorb the blow emotionally.
I just really just intended to.
Explain away the absence of proof that anyone actually died at Sandy Hook, for which we have a massive amount of evidence that it's not the case, including not only the FEMA manual for the two-day exercise, which I've shared with you before, but we have the new Connecticut State FEMA announcement of the
Exercise to take place on 14 December at in in in Newtown where they actually provided a map.
Yeah, here we go, David.
We can start talking about it.
As I say, I call it a Sandy Hook sob story because it's an emotional appeal.
The next slide, of course, is merely reminding my background as a former Marine Corps officer and retired professor of philosophy who began doing serious research into conspiracies with JFK back in 1992.
So in the next slide, David, yeah, you see, this is the story.
They saw the horrific aftermath of a mass shooting, should we?
And this is now Ron Avery's commentary, and he explained, yes, we should.
Take a look at the next slide.
Now, you can find this on my blog.
Let's start with the overall character of this New York Times article.
Ron Avery writes, I would call it a short story about the experiences suffered by three Connecticut state police crime scene investigators who claim to have been involved with the investigation.
It's about 14 pages long with seven photographs, making it fairly lengthy.
Little of this story has to do with real evidence related to the crime scene, but rather what these three suffered as a result of working the Sandhuic crime scene and how they reacted to one another's horror.
As the title explicitly asks, should we see and be exposed to the same?
The article's implied answer is, no, we should not.
Let it stop with these three.
One might think, at first glance, the title asks, should we see any more mass shootings?
But that would be incorrect because the public, to which the subject article is addressed, has never seen the crime scene of any mass shooting in recent history.
So the object of the New York Times article is to show that the public should be insulated from the horrific sight of the Sandy Hook crime scene.
The whole article is a pathetic, useless attempt to justify the concealment and redaction of conclusive photographic evidence that anyone was actually killed at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012.
Now in the next, he cites a key paragraph here.
Even though the Attorney General, and that would be Eric Holder, was convinced at this moment, reeling on the threshold of this tiny obliterated bathroom, the one I was describing, that if the American people only saw what he was seeing, Congress would be forced to do the right thing.
Nothing would change in the end.
Tragedy in America would prevail.
Some would say nothing has changed because we have not yet been made to see, after each new mass shooting, the question the debate returns.
Would seeing the crime scene photographs have an effect on the gun crisis in the same way images of Emmett Till's body in an open casket and on the civil rights movement?
The Sandy Hook photographs have been redacted by Connecticut state laws in 2013.
Even if the law were to change with the consent of the families of the victims who push for the legal restriction, public viewing of the photographs would require one outlet or another to first make the decision to publicize the image.
In a culture Where reality is no longer agreed on, many will not believe what they see unless it is funneled through their propaganda of choice.
So until that unlikely moment arrives, the whole truth of these images and those of shooting after shooting, for the decade after Sandy Hook and into the future, will live on only in the atrocity exhibition that exists in the memory of those who photograph, measure, and collect a foul evidence.
In other words, This is basically an apology saying that you really shouldn't be allowed to see the photograph because it would be so traumatic.
But here's the question that I have, Dr. Fetzer, because we have time here.
Even if they didn't want to show photographs of the children's bodies, and I can understand that.
That is traumatic.
The photographs that you have shown, that you have, Don't even show any blood on the floor, and you pointed out that you talked with someone who said, what blood?
In other words, without being overly graphic or gruesome, they could show scenes that something had taken place there without having to show the bodies.
They won't even release that!
David, you're so correct in the photos they put in, as you'll see when we turn to my commentary.
Expose that they're actually giving us evidence that it was not a real event, but rather an illusion.
Perhaps you could assist with the next paragraph?
To my knowledge, no mass media cartel outlet ever said or interviewed anyone that suggested that the public be allowed to see unredacted crime scene photos of Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting.
Therefore, that quoted photograph is an attempt to defend themselves from their own conscience and knowledge that stealing crime scene evidence does not result in good individual reactions or good social policy.
Notice also that the object of the Sandy Hook mass shooting, regardless of the sealing of crime scene photos, is to force Congress to do the right thing.
What is that right thing?
Even here, the author is reluctant to overtly declare their ignorant, wicked desire to disarm the American public, making them defenseless to tyranny.
The author wants to violate a greater law to prevent mass shootings.
They do not know what mass shootings are until the American people are disarmed.
Removing effective firearms from the American people, making them defenseless to tyranny and military arms, is the worst social crime possible.
But there is a solution to the question of sealing crime scene photos.
If the crime is being used by others to alter the law of the land, such as infringing upon, altering, or abolishing the Second Amendment, the crime scene photos must be released to the public.
If the crime is not being used for such purposes, the crime scene photos may be sealed from public view.
Interesting.
And he even has a bill to promote that purpose.
He continues.
Unfortunately for Jake Kirk, the author of the subject article, who, by the way, is an instructor of creative writing, the Sandy Hook mass shooting has been used extensively and successfully for the unlawful purpose of altering the law of the land by the use of the violence of Adam Lanza.
It's amusing that the article said the FBI ruled out terrorism at Sandy Hook.
S.W.A.T.
had cleared the building and the FBI had checked for explosives and ruled out terrorism.
But terrorism came into play when the parents and politicians began to use the violence done, threatened, or pretended by another Anam Lanza to alter the law of the land, which is the definition of terrorism.
It's clear—yeah, one final—it is clear that in the case of Sandy Hook, the answer to the question of should we, the public, see crime scene photos and videos, the answer is yes, and we must for the preservation of our life, liberty, and possessions.
Please, yes.
So here is mine, the latest pathetic New York Times Sandy Hook sob story.
I'm going to ask you to read this paragraph real quickly, Dr. Fetzer, this next paragraph, because I have to do something with my dogs.
So go ahead.
I'm going to put this up.
Oh, you got it, David.
Thank you.
I added an editor's note for background.
Those who are unfamiliar with the evidence related to the Sandy Hook event might want to watch two presentations from my False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2020, which you can download to your own desktop.
Kelly Watt, Sandy Hook, a Mass Illusion, and Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., What Happened at Sandy Hook?
Perhaps better titled, What DIDN'T Happen at Sandy Hook?
As the following explains.
There must be over a hundred proofs that suggest that Sandy Hook was staged.
Here, I'm going to review only a half a dozen as illustrations.
While at times treat these claims as facts, there is the tiniest chance that something more just might be involved here.
As a long-time student of Sandy Hook, who's had his book banned, been sued and attacked, and the target of innumerable smears, up to and including in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I find it offensive, extremely offensive, when rags like the New York Times publish disputable claims about Sandy Hook as though they were facts.
I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs, where we provided evidence strongly suggesting that this school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that it was a FEMA drill, presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
As officials, the Obama Department of Education confirmed to Paul Preston at the time.
David, would you?
Yes, Sandy Hook Redux.
Obama officials confirmed that it was a drill and no children died.
And this is, of course, by yourself, Dr. James Fetzer.
I have a lot of sources in regards to as to what's going on with the president of the administration and so on.
And every one of my sources said it was a false flag.
And that's, of course, a quote from Paul Preston.
Sophia Smallstorm, who produced and directed the documentary, Unraveling Sandy Hook, Which many regard as the best video study of the Sandy Hook event, recently interviewed a Los Angeles school expert, Paul Preston, about Sandy Hook and his knowledge of what had transpired.
Governor Malloy had held a press conference that day, explaining that he and the Lieutenant Governor had spoken to that something like this might happen, which raised the question, what something like this did he mean?
Had he been told that a school shooting massacre would have taken place?
Or a drill would be presented as a real event?
Which appears to be what took place.
Remarkably, we now have confirmation from an unexpected source.
Paul Preston had obtained information from officials in the U.S.
Department of Education of the Barack Obama administration who confirmed to him on the basis of their own personal knowledge that 1.
It had been a drill. 2.
Yeah, that's just stunning because it comes directly from the Department of Education of Barack Obama.
So, I ask, why was this piece published?
Let's start with the overall character.
As Ron Avery's observed, it could probably be called a short story about the experiences suffered by three Connecticut State Police crime scene investigators who say they were involved with a Sandy Hook mass shooting investigation.
Virtually nothing in this story has to do with actual evidence related to the crime scene notice, but rather with these parties who claim to be crime scene investigators who have suffered emotionally As a result of working the San Diego crime scene, as Avery explains, the title explicitly asks, should we see and be exposed to the same?
Their implied answer is no, we should not.
Let it stop with these three.
The whole New York Times article is a pathetic, useless attempt to justify the concealment and redaction of conclusive photographic evidence that anyone was actually killed at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012.
The essence of the whole is summed up here in a paragraph we've already reviewed.
So skip to the very next, David.
Thank you.
I'll take this one.
Crime scene photos, however, surely ought to be available to the public.
The purpose of this paragraph appears to be to defend themselves from their own conscious and awareness that, as Avery observes, sealing crime scene evidence does not result in good individual reactions or good social policy.
Sealing evidence of crimes makes crimes easier to conduct and conceal, whether we're investigating fake crimes or real ones.
A case of this kind, which is immersed in controversy, especially deserves thorough and meticulous investigation, which cannot be properly conducted when evidence is suppressed.
In this instance, based upon the evidence I and my colleagues have amassed, the Obama administration appears to have conducted, let's call it, an act of faux-terrorism by faking a mass murder of children to instill fear into the hearts and minds of their target audience, American parents, to make them more amenable to political manipulation.
It was an act of domestic terrorism.
And that it was also fake can be considered in relation to the photographs they included here.
What do they tell us about Sandy Hook?
Do they help to resolve whether this event was reality or illusion?
The answer, surprisingly, turns out to be yes.
The C.S.A.V.A.
parking lot photograph.
Because my edited book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
2015, second edition, 2016.
Has been taken improperly in my view, an under review.
I shall not rely upon photos from that source.
Most of them originated elsewhere.
Even though they may also appear in the book, they are not derived from the book, and therefore using them does not violate the book's contested copyright.
Let's begin with the first paragraph about the presence of a CSI van in the parking lot following the event.
The crime scene van was parked next to the black Honda Civic already identified as belonging to the shooter, the yellow tape marking its perimeter, juddering in the helicopter gust.
Earlier that morning, before the van was cleared to move closer to the school, Jeff Corvello, the crime scene van supervisor and his team, were crowded around the dry easel board.
Art Walkley, The only one on the van who had so far been inside sketched out what he said were the two main areas of impact.
He arrived with the other responders and officers and stormed the school as children were running out and there's no evidence for that whatsoever, David.
We do have the two strings attached.
photographs a string of kids in the parking lot where the police officer is rearranging them to get the better shot but there is no evidence of any children having actually even been at the school.
Right.
It's undrawn, ready to kill on sight, in fact quite eager to pull the trigger once he glimpsed classrooms ten and eight.
Now here's a photograph.
Brian Davidson got this directly from the Connecticut State Police files on Sandy Hook, where you want to focus on the four windows at Classroom 10.
David, look just above the front roof of the van.
You can see that string of four windows.
When you compare, yeah, very good.
When you compare the four windows at Classroom 10 discernible immediately above the roof of the CSI van, notice that they are intact, while they would subsequently be presented as shot out.
Here you can see the difference, along with a photo of the perp studying the window frame and what they did is simulate the shots.
Next slide, yes.
This is so devastating, David.
See, top left is how you saw them above the van.
Top right, how they'd subsequently be presented.
Then lower left, you got the perps looking, and they actually drilled holes in the aluminum window frame and inserted pink rods.
That's from inside the school to simulate shots, but it's preposterous.
No one with any familiarity with marksmanship or crime ballistics would be taken in.
In the book, we had suggested the CSI ban photo was taken the morning of 14 December 2012, before the event had taken place.
Brian Davidson, a licensed private investigator, however, has taken a closer look and discovered it was taken the evening of 14 December 2012, before they had completed staging the scene.
In other words, Even though officially the shooting has already taken place, this photo proves they had not quite completed the staging.
The parking lot photograph.
Now, so we have proof the entire event was fake right off the bat, implicitly, if you know the evidence in this case, which the Times anticipates you do not possess by its irresponsible efforts to mislead and deceive you In its latest attempt to promote a hoax as though it were real, with similar intent, they include other photos.
Yeah, now this is a partial parking lot.
You might not notice if you don't think about it, but they're no handicapped.
I'm trying to go in a little bit.
Yeah, we'll get there.
Okay.
Next.
Yeah.
But there are no handicapped parking spaces in this parking lot, nor any of the familiar blue and white signage required under the American with Disabilities Act, which means that this cannot have been an operating school at the time under either federal or Connecticut law.
Moreover, if you look at other photographs of the entire parking lot, additional missing elements stand out.
It was a 38 degree Fahrenheit ground temperature day above freezing, but cold enough you could not conduct classes unless the rooms had been heated.
Yet there is no heat or steam rising from the building, no doubt, because the school had been closed for so many years that the boilers were dysfunctional.
And notice the rows of cars in the middle of the lot which are all facing the school.
Following the driving instructions on the roadway, you would have come in and turned to the right, then curled around to the left and parked facing away from the building.
So what's going on?
Yeah, that is weird, isn't it?
So just as you thought you were being given information about the SCI van, but which turned out to be only partial and incomplete, you thought you were being given information about the parking lot, but it too was only partial and incomplete.
The fallacy involved here is known as special pleading, like the case of a used car salesman who emphasizes the leather upholstery in the stereo system, but neglects to point out that the rings are shot and the car needs a new transmission.
That's what you get today from our nation's newspaper of record.
I just threw in an additional to show they were in violation of Americans with Disability Act, which requires that all entrances and exits be wheelchair accessible.
This obviously is not, and there's actually an extension of pipe sticking out there, could pop the eye of a little kid if he ran into it.
Further evidence, this was an unkempt school that had been closed for years.
I was going to say, when did the Americans with Disability Act go into effect?
I think it was 1971 as I recall.
1971 and so okay so here it is allegedly 2012 when this photograph was taken and they don't have any ramps.
Right and I checked Connecticut and federal law at the time and it would have required that blue and white signage and the handicapped and wheelchair accessibility none of which were true.
Okay.
Notice here, in spite of the blown-out window, none of the furniture appears to have moved, even an inch.
It's all there, exactly as you would expect, had the window remained intact.
What you don't know about this photograph is that Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper and U.S.
customs agent who's been a school administrator and remains a nationally recognized school safety expert has found 10 sworn affidavits by connecticut state police who claim they entered the building through that blown out window yep just look at that that's That's a photograph right from the story, David.
They put it right in the story, and it's stunning because it's so damning.
Listen to what I continue to say about it, yes.
As Wolfgang has observed, no trained law enforcement officer would have entered that window without first breaking it out using his hat on.
Moreover, to avoid the risk of cutting their uniforms on shards of glass, instead of all 10 entering that way, one of them would have entered that way to open the door to the other. - The others, right. one of them would have entered that way to open The Times, the Three Stooges would have done better.
Curly would have come in and then opened the door for Joe and Mo.
Just how dumb are we supposed to be?
Apparently they think dumb enough.
Then we have the hallway photograph they also include.
Or consider the hallway photo they include in the picture of the broken window at the front of the building at first.
You might think you are being given important information once again, because what's most important is what they are not telling you.
The hallway photo, for example, doesn't explain what the official narrative maintains.
Brian Davidson, PI, accessed the photographic files of the Connecticut State Police and discovered, among others, that a hallway photo that should have included the body of the Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsprung, and of the school psychologist, Mary Sherlock, included neither, which means this and similar photographs contradict the official account
But you'd never know unless you had background knowledge the Times does not provide.
Looking down the corridor that the shooter walked to enter room 10 after passing room 12, which is immediately to the left.
Note that the room on the right is room 9, the conference room, where the principal, the psychiatrist, and the teacher were killed.
This is the floor area that is described as having Holksprung and Sherlock laying in pools of blood.
While some evidence of a red substance is present, in my opinion, it is not consistent with the statement, pools of blood.
All I see in this little spot, there's a little bit of stain, that does not look like a pool of blood to me.
Exactly, David, you got it exactly right.
Again, the time Robert's a photo from inside Classroom 8.
But it gives a visual impression of a busy, active classroom.
None of the photos in the Connecticut State Police Archives have their metadata identifying the place and the time each photograph was taken, which has been removed, clearly not by accident.
Absent that data, these photos would not normally be admissible in a court of law, except in this instance as circumstantial proof that the Connecticut State Police were involved in the scam, since what other reason could they have had to delete it? since what other reason could they have had to delete So here we have this classroom photo that looks initially.
Once again, Ryan Davidson found other photos the classroom made where the furniture is shoved up against the wall.
And there are not only no student desks or chairs, but no teacher desk or chair either.
Which means he discovered proof not only that this was not the scene of a mass murder, but that Sandy Hook was not an operating school.
Other evidence you're not going to learn about from the New York Times include that we located the FEMA manual for a two-day exercise, technically a mass casualty drill involving children, and more recently found this exercise on the agenda of events to be conducted by the Connecticut FEMA office, which is located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, complete with a map
of how to reach the Sandy Hook School, which some may find rather persuasive, as proof that it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, just as the banned book explains.
And there, I can zoom in a little bit on this, just so that you can see.
And you can see, FEMA drill scheduled for the 14th of December 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School, And tells you how many miles away, 935 AM, it's all right there.
This evidence is clearly available.
The Connecticut theme is scheduled on the map from Bridgeport to Sandy Hook School.
By the way, we're in the appendices to my U.S.
Supreme Court petition for reconsideration of the 7th and 14th Amendment issues.
which I raised regarding my bizarre case in Wisconsin, where the court was entitled to set aside any evidence that considered to be unreasonable, including the reports of two forensic document experts supporting me against the plaintiff who claimed to have been defamed including the reports of two forensic document experts supporting me against the plaintiff I had made that the death certificate for his son was not authentic.
There was one more sentence there.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Let me go back then.
There was?
Oh, I'm wrong.
I'm wrong.
Yeah.
Look at the map there.
I mean, they didn't even give you a map to tell you how to get there.
Thank you, David.
Yeah.
Next.
Covering up Sandy Hook.
So how much more proof do you need that it was a drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control?
And don't expect to see photographs of the alleged victims.
As Wayne Carver, M.D., explained during his press conference, they did not allow the parents to come into contact with the children, but instead identified them on the basis of photographs.
Which made sense, as most of them only existed in the form of photographs.
Check out more of my work for additional proof, which they don't want you to find.
That, after all, is why they banned the book.
This article was clearly intended to explain away why you should not have access to Sandy Hook crime scene photographs.
But even the few crime scene photographs they do include are damning evidence that this was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
That Sandy Hook photographs have been redacted by Connecticut state law since 2013, tells you all you need to know about the state of the state of Connecticut.
From then-Governor Daniel Malloy, to the state legislature, to the Connecticut State Police and beyond, they all played their roles.
Now they are playing the public for suckers and scabs.
With the complicity of the New York Times.
Maybe it's time to do something about it.
At the very least, don't let yourself be played.
The photographs presented here are innocuous on their face.
You probably thought that they supported the official narrative of mass murder at Sandy Hook, because you did not know enough about it.
But the facts appear to show it was an illusion and not a reality, which has encouraged them to run this scam again and again and again.
So if you want to know why there are so many school shootings, now you have an explanation.
Of course, there are Dr. Fetzer's books.
The ones with the chains on them are the ones that have been banned by Amazon, correct?
Well, actually, that's a part of the cover for all, but six, yes.
Second, from the left at the bottom, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, the Moon Landing, Orlando, and now a switch up above it to political theater in Charlottesville, then far left, the Parkland Puzzle.
Those six have all been banned.
I've been pioneering collaborative research on conspiracy theories, David, to take apart claims made by the government when they don't seem to end up with great success, such success they've had to ban six, six of my books.
Unbelievable.
Well, again, you know what's interesting?
One of the easiest ways for them to have shut you up, if that's what they wanted to do, Dr. Fetzer, would simply have been for them to, even if they don't release the photographs of the crime scene to the general public, they probably could have been used in court as evidence to show that the massacre really did occur and to Completely shoot down your case.
Why didn't they why didn't they present at least have them available for the court?
Well, they've removed the metadata, David, because I think they were taken at different times and dates.
And without the metadata, they're not normally courtroom admissible.
Though I would offer them as proof that Connecticut police were complicit in the whole business.
Indeed, I've concluded they were running the scam behind the scene.
You mentioned WhatBlood.
It was that Kelly Watt where I offered you a video.
She presented during my 2020 False Facts and Conspiracies Conference.
Where she has her own home and a professional cleaning service.
Right.
That blood is a biohazard that has to be documented from source to ultimate disposition.
I mean, it's a very elaborate process.
So she began calling up the state and Connecticut agencies, and no one could answer, explain her question, who cleaned up the blood.
Eventually, she was directed to the Connecticut State Police Lieutenant, who had been in charge that day, and she asked him, who cleaned up the blood?
And he said, what blood?
Which was appropriate, because it wasn't any blood, but he forgot the official narrative, according to which there was blood all over the place.
Now, since Penny's here, I'd love for her critique of what she thinks are the strongest and the weakest element of either the Times argument or Mike or Ron's critique thereof.
Penny, your thoughts?
Well, I would have to say that Ron's critique is pretty pristine.
What are your thoughts on that?
Oh, yeah, I agree.
I think he's spot on.
You know, calling it out, he tracked down that the author Is in fact a teacher of creative writing, and he views this as an example of creative writing, and I think he's got it exactly right.
And he's gratuitous about claiming kids running out of school, no more kids running out of school than in Nashville, where you notice this school would seem to be completely empty, not only with No teachers, students, secretaries, custodians running out of the building, but even when the SWAT team came in, they couldn't find a single soul, except for the alleged perp.
At the end, it winds up wearing sneakers of a different make and color than the sneakers he or she was wearing when she came into the building.
I mean, they inadvertently provide evidence that refutes their own narrative, David, here again.
The photographs of the inside of the school that you showed in your presentation with the little, what appeared to be a little spot of blood on the floor or something.
Were those, those are from the Sheriff's Department?
State Police, Connecticut State Police.
Okay, forgive me, State Police.
Now, would they also have the remaining photographs that the New York Times Magazine is saying have not and should not be released to the public?
Oh yeah.
They claim to have taken, Ron had the number, 1,450 photographs they claim they took.
But I'm telling you, none of them are going to substantiate a mass murder because it was a FEMA drill presented that way.
It's really embarrassing.
The ones that they did release only opened the door to questioning whether or not this took place at all.
What they should have done is withheld all of them.
You're right, David.
That was much my point.
Even these photographs that you'd think are innocuous photographs actually are damning, if you know enough.
See, if you don't know a little bit about the background, which is what I was filling in, then you might think they actually support the official narrative.
But just to take a classic example, look at that photograph of the blown-out window at the front door.
The furniture isn't moved an inch, not an iota.
Yeah, things came storming in There would have been some disarray there.
Oh, my goodness.
You could have 10 state police come in that way and it not.
And as Wolfgang said, they would break out all the glass to make sure there was no way they were going to get caught.
People who wear uniforms for a living are very meticulous about maintaining their uniforms.
They wouldn't want to risk their cut.
So, as I suggest, the three stooges would have done better.
Because Curly would have come in and turned around and opened the door for Joe and Mo.
I mean, he's got 10 sworn affidavits by Connecticut State Police for doing something they manifestly did not do to enter the building through that blown-out window.
You know, Jim, I was married to a retired Carlsbad PD.
He was also a detective.
And given the malfeasance and the evilness that I found out about him, in our governmental agencies such as the FBI, I would absolutely believe that one of the crafts that they had to have is creative writing.
Is what?
Creative writing.
Creative writing!
You have to be creative writers.
I went to school for that as a creative writer, and I'm gonna say these guys, they have to have creative writing skills.
The whole scenario in Sandy Hook was creative writing, Penny.
The whole damn thing.
And they tried to figure out a way to make it maximal emotional impact.
Because this was an act of pro-terrorism.
It was fake.
But the objective of an act of terrorism is to instill fear into a target population, to make it more amenable to political manipulation, and that's exactly what happened.
Instilling fear into American parents by thinking, oh my God, our little kid could go off to school and wind up dead.
Which is supposed to induce them to, you know, support the gun control agenda.
But you know, David, Penny, the more shootings go on, the more people think, man, I'm glad I got guns to defend myself.
Because if you got shootings going on all over the place, who the hell is going to defend you?
You know, it can take 10 or 12 minutes for the cops to show up from a 9-1-1.
And then in that one alleged shooting in We just had an intercession in Dallas regarding a cyber hack of the 9-1-1 systems yesterday.
The cops stood out and were smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee before they had.
I know.
We just had an intercession in Dallas regarding a cyber hack of the 911 systems yesterday.
Yeah, I'm interested in all those sorts of things.
Brian, by the way, has done not only this great work on Sandy Hook, which was actually the appendix E to my petition for reconsideration to the United States Supreme Court, which, surprise, surprise, the Supreme Court buried... surprise, the Supreme Court buried...
You go on to the Supreme Court, normally you could obtain the documents, the petitions, the motions, whatever, before the court, plus the supporting appendices in mine.
You go to my petition for reconsideration and there's a note at the end saying further documents are available from the Kirk of the Court, because they did not want to include my appendices A through E, where I included the FEMA drill for the two-day exercise.
I also included what you saw there from Connecticut FEMA.
I mean, already These are official government documents, proof that this was a fraud.
And of course, we also have the FBI Insolidate Crime Report for 2012, showing zero murders or non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown, of which Sandy Hook is a part.
That's an FBI.
Those are three official government documents substantiating this was a fraud, right there on the face.
Even the Supreme Court, David, buried them so the American people couldn't access.
Two other quick things that we didn't mention in today's presentation, but you've mentioned in previous visits.
Number one, they called the hospital and there was no evidence that anyone had been taken to a hospital, right?
Uh, well, they claimed there had been somebody, but there was no string of ambulance, no medevac chopper was called, no surge of EMTs into the building.
They put up triage tarps, but no bodies of dead or wounded were placed on them.
I mean, of further evidence.
Normally, they don't pronounce people dead at the scene of the crime.
They transport the bodies to the hospital to be pronounced dead, too.
That's right.
Doctors do it.
EMTs are not qualified to do that.
The head is actually separated from the body.
It's embarrassing how many standard procedures were violated here.
Didn't I recall in one of your previous visits, Dr. Fetzer, either you or one of the guests that you brought with you, Zoomed in on the photographs of the classroom or the hallway and the dates on the calendar were not right.
They were like 2008 or something was the last way back when you're right.
You got it.
You got a nice point by the way.
From the contacts I have in the community that you were asking about at the beginning of the show, I've learned that actually the school was closed by 2006.
It wasn't an elementary school, it was a special needs school.
And that's why you do not have That's why you do not have the kind of horseshoe shape for drivers coming in with the buses, why you don't have any bicycle racks, you don't have any unloading platforms and all that.
It wasn't even an elementary school.
Yeah.
And it turns out, by the way, there's a separate school no one is aware of called the Adventure Center, halfway between the fire department and the Sandy Hook School.
Where, according to my sources, they actually took those photographs of the strings of kids with the policewoman rearranging them, which I have published so many times in so many places.
In other words, every aspect of this whole bloody thing was fraudulent.
And Eric Holder came down to Newtown in 2006.
I have been informed by people in a position to know And offer the community $140 million to participate in this claiming, it would benefit America because it would show what could happen if we don't take guns away from the American people.
What could happen?
And that there were families in Newtown who moved out of the community because they didn't want to have anything to do be associated with a scam.
Also they added they had auditions for the role, they had the script, and the participants not only were well paid, but they signed non-disclosure agreements, and they do not pay taxes, and they can get free college tuition coverage.
Actually, it's not a bloody thing, it's a lack of bloody thing, because there was no blood.
I know, I know, I know.
I mean, what a simple question to ask, and what a devastating answer that's Lieutenant Paul Vance Jr., who is in charge.
And you know, if you go back and look at, say, the Wayne Carver press interview, some of these cops are just about burst out laughing.
It's like what we had down in Nashville.
They got a couple of professional crisis actors down there claiming they lost a kid in one case at the Waffle House shooting, also fake, another at Highland Park shooting, another fake case, and they're showing up again.
I learned that Vicky said, now this wasn't to me directly, but through Steve, my dear friend, that in fact she had been paid $210,000 to reprise her role at Uvalde, where many pointed out that a Sandy Hook teacher, Vicky Soto, had been resurrected to die again as Eva Morales in Uvalde.
She said she was paid $210,000 to do that, and observing some of the crisis actors in Nashville had been trained in Connecticut.
And that they'd upped the ante and they were getting $310,000.
No wonder they're so eager to get on the television screen so they can pick up their big check from the U.S.
government paid for by you and me and Banny.
And another thing, too, is the evidence you provided in another video, obviously the one with the young man that you morphed into an adult, but also... Oh yeah, that was Noah Posner, right?
And the one little girl that had two different fathers.
Yeah, that's right.
That was down in there.
That was at Uvalde, but you're absolutely right.
Which is why they're being so severe with me, you know?
I mean, they don't want anyone to read my books.
They want anyone to know the truth.
It's so embarrassing.
It's so shocking.
David, it continues to this day.
If you want to contribute to Dr. James Fetzer, and you should, for his legal fund, please go to GiveSendGo.com forward slash funding Fetzer.
GiveSendGo.com forward slash funding Fetzer.
And please follow Dr. Fetzer on his website, his blog, JamesHFetzer.org.
Yes, and I just wanted to add one thing.
Even though I'm not here, Jim, I'm listening to you and I'm laughing my A off.
You're just hysterical, and I just love you.
Well, it's wonderful, Penny.
I'm delighted you're here today for us to converse.
Yeah, Penny's going to stay with us from now on when we do this, because she absolutely loves your presentation.
I call it my Fetzer time!
And she loves your laugh, too.
She loves your laugh.
Much appreciated.
All right, Dr. Fetzer, talk to you next week.
Take care.
You got it.
▲
Export Selection