© Miri WTPOTUS January 8, 2013
We’re not the only citizens who have questioned the stories coming out of Connecticut, regarding the Sandy Hook massacre. Now there’s a Florida professor who has a lot of questions, too.
Florida Atlantic University (FAU) communications professor James Tracy teaches a class called “Culture of Conspiracy”. From this story, which quotes Tracy’s blog: [emphasis added to quotes]
“As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends,” writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader.
In another post, he says, “While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.”
In an article at another site, Tracy lays out many problems that he sees with this troubling incident. In particular, he questions the behavior of well-known CT Medical Examiner (ME) H. Wayne Carver II:
An especially important yet greatly underreported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.
H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. … In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel he oversaw.
Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. … One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.
Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.
The article includes video of the press conference with Carver and analysis of certain excerpts. An example, to illustrate the type of “discrepancies”:
Reporter #2: Doctor can you tell us about the nature of the wounds. Were they at very close range? Were the children shot at from across the room?
Carver: Uhm, I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from three to eleven wounds apiece and I only saw two of them with close range shooting. Uh, but that’s, uh y’know, a sample. Uh, I really don’t have detailed information on the rest of the injuries.
[Given that Carver is Connecticut’s top coroner and in charge of the entire postmortem this is a startling admission.-JT]
In several spots, Carver seems to telegraph that he’s been muzzled by forces unknown.
I shouldn’t be saying this …
he complains at one point. His comments about the bullet fragments seem to contradict an assertion by State Police Lieutenant Vance that a Bushmaster 223 was used in the shooting.
Read all the excerpts, and it quickly becomes obvious that Carver is far from professional in detailing what ought to be cut-and-dried medical information, especially for a man who has testified to the same type of information many times at criminal trials. Anybody who’s watched similar news conferences over the years (or the OJ trial) understands immediately that this man seems rather unfamiliar with his material. Professor Tracy has many questions, among them:
When did Lanza arrive?
If Lanza blasted his way into the school by shooting through the glass doors, then why was no alarm sounded throughout the facility, to alert everyone to the intrusion? This was a new security system, after all. Why did nobody claim to hear those intial gunshots, but heard gunshots only after he was inside the building, shooting people?
How did Lanza get off so many rounds in such a short time? Tracy provides a mathematical analysis that certainly calls into question the concept of one deranged person being able to accomplish such a feat.
Why is there NO photographic or video evidence? Why has nobody seen the bodies, other than the police and ME Carver and his staff? Not even the families. They identified their deceased from photographs.
Why were “first responders” from other communities, who arrived quickly, denied access to the wounded? Who made the call that everyone was beyond medical care? These medical personnel were forced to set up camp at a fire station in the area, and they weren’t allowed to help.
Where is photographic evidence that evacuation of 600 students even took place? There’s also controversy over whether or not the well-known photo of children being led out with their eyes closed and hands on each other’s shoulders was taken that day or on another date. Certainly, one might question why the rest of the area around that file of children is not teeming with people.
Tracy ends with this compelling argument:
If recent history is a prelude the likelihood of citizens collectively assessing and questioning Sandy Hook is limited even given the event’s overtly superficial trappings. While the incident is ostensibly being handled by Connecticut law enforcement, early reports indicate how federal authorities were on the scene as the 911 call was received. Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.
The move to railroad this program through with the aid of major media and an irrefutable barrage of children’s portraits, “heartfelt” platitudes and ostensible tears neutralizes a quest for genuine evidence, reasoned observation and in the case of Newtown honest and responsible law enforcement. Moreover, to suggest that Obama is not capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to similarly place ones faith in image and interpretation above substance and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought America to such an impasse.
On his personal blog, memoryholeblog.com, Tracy provides a timeline of events. (This story is now on Drudge. It remains to be seen whether this tenured professor will be forced out of his job by the tolerant, First-Amendment-loving left.)
It’s of note that, today, a victim of another questionable shooting incident is being used in a cynical attempt to further inflame the issue of gun control.
Gabrielle Giffords and her husband have launched a website to lobby for gun control. It’s basically the “anti-NRA” lobby. How long before we learn that George Soros, or any of his many organizations, is pouring millions, if not billions, into this transparent attempt by global forces to disarm the American people?
Ironically, Giffords, herself a potential victim of what Tracy suggests may have happened at Sandy Hook, is being used to further the ends of those who may be responsible for her predicament.
Note that if you disagree with Giffords and her husband, and the wealthy global interests behind this crusade, then you’re not for “responsible” gun ownership. Responsible. That’s an interesting word, especially when you consider that millions of responsible gun owners in this country are the ones being held responsible for the multiple murders taking place throughout this country, perpetrated by IRRESPONSIBLE gun owning criminals and/or psychopaths.
When a drunk driver kills someone, we don’t take away everyone’s car.
Why are the consequences falling upon those who are law abiding citizens? Why are their rights being infringed upon, instead of the rights of those who illegally and irresponsibly use guns? Giffords’s op-ed states:
The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve fellow citizens and leaders who have the will to prevent gun violence in the future.
How can our government prevent gun violence in the future?
Instead of disarming responsible gun owners, punishing the owners and thousands of employees of gun-focused businesses, or infringing upon the constitutional rights of all citizens, perhaps the government should begin by enforcing current laws, by quaranteeing the insane, by posting armed guards at schools, by locking classroom doors, and by not running guns to Mexico.
01/09/13 — I noticed a something disturbing. Before It’s News picks up some of our posts and republishes them. Their version of this story has a different photograph and someone has added a sentence at the very end that I did not write, even though the personal pronoun “I” is used in the last sentence of their copy, making it appear as if I called this incident “one of the biggest hoaxes I have ever seen.” I did not write that. I would not write that. I simply don’t know what’s going on. I (and many, many others) have the same unanswered questions, and they do deserve answers.