There is a great deal of “noise” surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre. I’ve noticed that when I search on twitter I see people making confident declarations about what happened that were based on earlier media reports of the story that afterward got changed. I had always thought that the internet helps us learn things, but in this case, older versions of events that have been discarded are still alive and well in the search engines.
There are, additionally, some people asserting that the Sandy Hook massacre is some kind of hoax involving actors or even green screen cgi footage. I don’t find any of this credible. I do feel some of the interviews come off as rather artificial, but I think that is because grieving is private and it is being televised to the public in an Oprah-like fashion. Basically, all our “news” agencies (so-called) have become talk shows. In general, the way Sandy Hook has been treated has been to maximize a sense of unreality about the entire event. We are shown no documentary or photographic evidence. We’re just told what happened (for today) and then treated to a shameless campaign for gun control.
With so much “noise,” is there any signal to be detected? I count as “noise” anything I can’t possibly figure out: like the way both Ryan and Adam Lanza were placed at the shooting in an early report, or the school nurse who reportedly said the shooter’s mother was a kindergarten teacher and that she made eye contact with the shooter, but later told a different story. Until the media actually decides to do some investigative reporting, much of the stuff I hear can only be “noise.” I have no way to interpret it.
But what about this interview with Katie Couric? Barbara Sibley is a professional copy writer who is located in Sandy Hook and who seems like a plausible witness. She says that she had to return to the school because her son forgot an item. When she arrived on the campus, she claims she saw the black Honda Civic sitting with all four doors open and black sweatshirts strewn on the ground. Why would a lone gunman need to open all four doors? It is very easy to envision several shooters bursting out of the car, throwing off the sweatshirts they had used to hide weapons. (Here is a version of her story that leaves out the detail about the car doors.)
Note that early on there were several mentions of more than one shooter. Some explanations have been offered in some cases, but nothing definitive has been said, other than the raw assertion by the police that there was only one shooter.
Were other shooters in the vehicle? I have no idea. But it is one of the few pieces of testimony that we get to hear first hand. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that someone as small as Adam shot his way into the school, or dispatched all those people so quickly. Since the gunman was wearing a mask, there is no reason to expect a witness to remember seeing his face.
(By the way, why does a lone gunman on a suicide mission need to cover his face?)
Also, I’ve never understood why, if Adam Lanza had such a great arsenal available to him in his own house, why he attempted to buy his own rifle. Perhaps that story will turn out to be false. Maybe. But as far as we know it is as likely to be true as the story that Nancy Lanza owned all those weapons. Without further investigation, these discrepancies mostly create “noise,” but they open enough doubt to allow for the possibility that other shooters were involved who had their own weapons.
Maybe Adam did open all the doors and leave sweatshirts strewn around all by himself. But maybe not. The government and the media has been pushing gun control on the premise that a kid became a crazed killer using his mother’s guns on his own. We really have no reason to be confident that we know it happened that way. How can we trust people who, when they hear bombshell testimony from a witness, show know curiosity about what she says? Katie Couric here’s about a car with all doors left open and black sweatshirts and she never even shows curiosity? I don’t understand how that is possible. Yet Katie, like all the other journalists, refused to do more than give us human interest stories. All of the “reporting” is obviously aimed at manipulating the audience emotionally in arouse submission to the government as it subverts the Second Amendment.
Journalists should be investigating rather than pushing a political agenda.