Sandy Hook and Christopher Rodia – Most ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Can’t Think

JoeQuinn.com ^ | January 11, 2013 | Joe Quinn

[Uncle Chip]

Apparently many alternative news pundits and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are still fixated on the idea that a man named Christopher Rodia was the REAL owner of the black Honda Civic that has been identified as the car of Adam Lanza’s mother and which was found outside the Sandy Hook elementary school.

The basis for this erroneous belief is police scanner audio that was picked up from the morning of Dec. 14th and details Connecticut State Police response to the massacre.

I obtained the original audio files from Radioreference.com. I had to pay a small sum for the full files. I have listened to them, and it is pretty clear that it is rather unlikely that the aforementioned Christopher Rodia had anything to do with the Sandy Hook massacre, even if his name and DOB is mentioned in the audio. This doesn’t seem to dissuade the conspiracy nuts though. In fact, it just makes them even nuttier.

What so many of these nutty people have apparently missed is the fact that the audio files clearly contain police communications about MORE than just the Sandy Hook event.

In the audio streams there are several communications from Connecticut State police who are clearly not involved in the response to Sandy Hook and are just out there doing their ‘normal’ jobs of stopping people for no reason and catching speeding drivers.

The Connecticut State police scanner audio from the morning of Dec. 14th 2012, as provided by Radioreference.com, begins at 9.34am and lasts for one hour until 10.34am i.e. it begins at about the time Lanza is said to have entered the school and lasts for one hour.

[Boogieman]

“3-5 minutes wouldn’t have been enough time to kill 25 people, with an average of 6 wounds per victim, in multiple locations, plus himself.”

What is your expertise that qualifies you to make that assessment? Have you ever tried to kill 25 people in a confined space with a semiautomatic rifle to see how quickly it could be done? Are there other similar cases that you know of that show how this wouldn’t be possible? Have you attempted to construct a reenactment to see if the timing is feasible?

[servantoftheservant]

Only someone who has never fired an AR-15 rifle in a tactical situation can believe this guy got off 45 accurate shots per minute, on the move, with little or no training, while changing mags.

It’s simply ludicrous. I am a very experienced rifleman who has taken mutliple tactical training courses, and I very much doubt I could do it. But because you are ignorant and have no experience with weapons, you believe it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Oh, yes, the dreaded “photoshop”.

I remember the most recent, where some idiot “right winger” claimed that Obama photo-shopped a picture of him and his wife on an airplane stairway.

That got big media play, people even posted it here. Then, when the damage was done, we got to see an entire STRING of pictures from the same shoot, and it was clear that what was seen as “photoshop” was just an unfortunate juxtaposition of body parts. The “fake hand” was actually another person’s hand.

Anyway, I’ll also tell you, whether it matters or not, that digital camera photography, especially consumer cameras, are not actually taking pictures, they are capturing light levels on a CCD, and then they have extensive processing software which attempts to build those pixels into a realistic photograph.

Sometimes, they mess up. I have a lovely picture of a woman with her leg morphing into a ladder, because the software couldn’t distinguish between the two.

In this particular case of the kids with legs, you can see their legs.

But I have to ask, because it’s not enough just to say “look there is an inconsistency” — what is the POINT of the inconsistency? For it to be a sign of a conspiracy, there needs to be a point.

So, what is the point? Are you saying this family doesn’t actually have that many kids, so they had to photo-shop strangers into their picture? If so, why do we see all but the dead kid in post-shooting pictures?

Are you saying the dead kid wasn’t part of the family? Then why have so many people mistakenly said that her sister was her, because of the family resemblance?

Suppose they simply photo-shopped three pictures together for their family christmas photo, like they do in that commercial about how the new cool cameras can take several pictures and build a composite?

I would guess such a picture might have some anomalies, but what would that prove as far as a conspiracy goes?

What is the point of arguing the kids don’t have legs, unless you are actually telling us they are cripples? What is the point of saying the kids are making “devil signs”, if you aren’t arguing that the family is in a devil worshipping cult?

What is there about that picture that in any way matters to the supposed “conspiracy”, whatever that conspiracy is. Heck, what exactly IS YOUR CONSPIRACY, because there are so many.

Are you saying Adam didn’t do the shooting? What does that have to do with this picture or the family? Are you saying he did the shooting, but used a handgun? What does that have to do with this picture?

Are you saying the shooting was a hoax? Why the argument about not seeing the evacuation — do you think the kids were NOT in the school?

Let’s start with a simple question: Do you believe 20 kids were murdered at the school?

[wolfman23601]

You are also assuming the single shooter had 100% accuracy. No misses, which is pretty impressive in hitting small targets in multiple locations at the weapon’s capacity rate of fire. The official account is simply unbelievable.

[Longbow1969]

I’m beginning to think it’s true that some don’t want their questions answered.

They want to believe in the conspiracy because the conspiracy fits their world view better. Any answers you provide just cause them to make increasingly bizarre assertions in order to explain away or incorporate said answers into the conspiracy.

We conservatives are going to have to deal with a lot of this stuff on our side for a few years - and we need to be ready to call it out and make sure kook conspiracies are not associated with conservatism by the general public. Our side has suffered some bad election cycles of late and public opinion seems to be shifting left on many issues. A lot of otherwise well meaning folks will look to conspiracies to make sense of it. It's just easier than accepting that we aren't winning at the moment.

[Boogieman]

“So then why is it a “conspiracy” theory if there is evidence to suggest that it is a possibility.”

I didn’t say there was evidence to suggest it. I said that they could be investigating that possibility, because I think it’s reasonable to assume they would investigate, if only to rule it out. What makes it a “conspiracy theory” is when you suggest that there must have been multiple shooters on the basis of flimsy, misinterpreted or just non-existent evidence.

My point was, people are saying “there were multiple shooters”, “they’re covering it up”, etc. However, you can’t say they are covering something up before the “cover story” has even been released. How do you know the investigation won’t declare there were multiple shooters? Or conversely, how do you know they won’t debunk the idea of multiple shooters to everyone’s satisfaction? There is no possible way to know that at this point, but that will not stop the nuts from spinning their conspiracy yarns.

[RummyChick]

Once again, I said the most likely story with the highest degree of probability is that the incident occurred. I have no idea if 100 children were killed or 10.

What I do know is that the Firehouse Chief said they were set up for triage and only got a couple of adults. Don’t remember how many. No children. So I guess everyone else was dead or not injured. I did see helicopter footage that the entry to the school has been blocked off . Ambulances wouldn’t have even been able to get in.

You also scream NUTTER because someone questions oddities.

Oddities should be questioned. They can have “typical” resolution or they can be filed away as an atypical resolution awaiting more clues.

It is entirely possible in your Obama story that it was disinformation ploy.

I think many of you on this site have no idea how prevalent disinformation is from various factions.

There is nothing “NUTTER” about the idea that a photo can be photoshopped to intentionally create a disinformation campaign.

Disinformation campaigns are actually quite effective.

So I guess I will await your posting of the footage or photo that shows a huge group of children .

456 children are going to require hundreds of parents, and hundreds of cars, too.

If you can’t provide that footage then you should be asking why.

Not because the incident didn’t happen. Assume it did.

Why aren’t we seeing what we would typically see -Especially when Obama’s central theme to get rid of guns is based on Sandy Hook.

You should be looking for what should be there but isn’t.

Instead of screaming “nutter”

[Valpal1]

Using the weapon that is popular with target sports BECAUSE of its ease of accuracy because of it’s low recoil and shooting into a non moving huddle of children in the first classroom (one survivor at the bottom of the huddle) and in the 2nd classroom of moving targets only 4 of the 10 children who bolted from their hiding places were killed, all of which was well within the AR-15’s recommended capacity which is not anywhere near its demonstrated maximum capacity.

What was your point again?

[Valpal1]

If I was a member of the liberal agenda driven MSM, I most certainly would not publish the pictures and videos that the SH truthers are demanding.

Denying them answers to their questions feeds their frenzy and makes them look even dumber and crazier.

Which serves MSM agenda.

Jump off this bandwagon, it’s being driven by the MSM.

[Boogieman]

"If the story that the authorities are pushing is true then why investigate? Lone shooter, he’s dead."

I already answered that question in the post you are quoting from, didn't I? Maybe if I answer it bold print people will read the answer:

Every homicide is investigated, even if the suspected murderer is already dead.

"So, first you say that if anybody says there was more than one shooter then they are Conspiracy theorists."

Where did I say that?

"Then you say “that may be one of the things they are investigating.”

I mean, which is it? Are you a conspiracy theorist?"

No, I'm not, and I never said that anyone who investigates the possibility of multiple shooters is a conspiracy theorist. So I don't see any conflict there. The police would routinely investigate if there were more than one perpetrator for a crime like this, if only to rule out the possibility.

"How can you say you’re a nutter for suggesting that there maybe more than one shooter"

Again, where did I say that?

"and then say that maybe the reason they are not releasing much, if any info may be because they are investigating more than one shooter?"

I didn't say that a investigation of multiple shooters was the reason why they are not releasing info. I explained that, in any investigation, the investigating body decides how much info it will release, and it is not abnormal for them to decide not to release much info at all.

My reference to the possibility of them investigating multiple shooters was to illustrate a completely separate point: you can't claim that multiple shooters are being "covered up" if you do not wait to find out what the official verdict of the investigation is. For all you know, they might find that there were multiple shooters, in which case, you would have been accusing them of a cover-up falsely, or at lease prematurely.

[CharlesWayneCT]

They were led out in groups.

Here are two pictures, showing two of the groups:

You can tell they are different groups, because they are shot in about the same location (notice the green van in the immediate background) but the children are different (the police woman in front appears to be the same person in both pictures).

Why haven't we seen MORE pictures of this? Probably because they are boring. After you take two or three pictures of kids being led in small groups, you'll find something more interesting to take pictures of.

It appears there may have only been one reporter at this scene, with the rest out by the fire house. They sealed off the approach to the school, so nobody could get in or out. The kids were walked down to the firehouse, through the back, and then the parents came to get them.

There are very few pictures from the helicopter. Don't know why. There is a video, and most of the pictures match parts of the video. SO it could be the helicopter came, did a little filming, and was ordered to move away.

I haven't found any helicopter video or pictures that clearly show kids, but I've seen at least one part of one video where it looks like a group is moving toward the firehouse, down the road, which is partly obscured by trees. Can't say it is a group of kids.

So, why the question? Do you think there weren't kids in the school? Do you think they weren't evacuated? If not, what do you think happened to the kids?

DO you think the community got together, decided they wanted gun control, randomly chose two classes of kids, forced them to go to school while keeping the rest home, and then shot them all dead, kidnapped Adam, killed his mother, killed Adam, staged his "suicide scene", and then called the police?

[GunRunner]

I didn’t accuse her family of being Satanists.

I asked why was the girl giving that sign. She does it in multiple pictures.

Maybe her Dad is a heavy metal rocker. He doesn’t look like it. But he could be. Just like he could be a Satanist.

Who...effing...cares?!

Emilie's parents could be Swinger Satanists who sponsor bake sales for the Church of Baal. No one gives a crap. It's completely immaterial to Sandy Hook, and your obsession with a little girl's silly hand signals borders on mental illness. You obviously have no experience with children, and keep recycling the same conspiracy theorist diversions that your 9/11 Truther buddies use.

Any time I'd offer a reasonable explanation for one of their crackpot theories, they'd bring up Operation Northwoods or Operation Gladio. With you, whenever you are presented with the likely explanation for one of your silly assertions, you wander off and start talking about the Unabomber and MKUltra.

You are the most paranoid kook Freeper I have ever seen in over a dozen years here.

[Valpal1]

A toddler sucking on two fingers is not making a devil sign. Perceiving it that way is seriously crazy.

[Uncle Chip]

Perhaps someone could tell us just what is ejected from a Bushmaster when a 223 is fired.

[Mad Dawgg]

How to hide a conspiracy.

1. Step One: Take the conspiracy and release memes throughout social media only jack it up ten notches.

Example One: The government knew the the Benghazi Consulate would be hit and did nothing to prevent it. Jack it up to the government hired hitmen to take out the Ambassador and burn the consulate.

Example Two: Sandy Hook was the result of Gun Free Zones wherein the Government knew eventually some nut would gun down a bunch of kids allowing them to finally get the guns. Jack it up to the government hired hitmen to do the job and setup a nutjob patsy to take the fall.

Step Two: Then ridicule anyone who questions what exactly happened in these incidents citing proof that since they are questioning the official story then they are part of the conspiracy nutjob brigade.

Step Three: Laugh as the sheeple eat it all up and you get to engineer any initiative you wish.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Why do you think? Do you think it is because he is an actor? Or that his kid wasn’t really killed?

Because we know who he is, and we know which kid was his, and we have pictures, and the kid was buried.

So, what point are you trying to make by putting “quotes” around the word “father”? What point are you making by referencing his demeanor?

What conclusion do you reach based on that? And how do you ignore the facts, and replace them with your opinion of human nature based on a video?

We aren’t going to be able to tell you why the father was smiling. Maybe he heard a good joke. Maybe he was momentarily distracted by a conversation, and was able to forget his grief. Maybe he is one of those unfeeling males who rarely shows negative emotions. The point is, we don’t KNOW why someone does what they do.

But that isn’t really the point. Those who bring it up — what is THEIR point? What is the conspiracy for which this is evidence?

If you don’t really think the guy is an actor (we know he isn’t), if you really admit that his daughter is dead (she is), then what possible difference can it make what his demeanor is now?

[Boogieman]

Like I said, there is no indication on the radio logs that "building has been cleared" means what you think that it means. So I don't have to justify how they searched every nook and cranny of the building in such a short time frame. It's more reasonable to assume that "building has been cleared" means they found a dead gunman and made a more cursory search of the premises and found no evidence of another gunman. I wouldn't assume it to mean something that was impossible to accomplish in the timeframe, that would not be reasonable.

[GunRunner]

Can you enlighten me as to where the kooks are going with this Parker family legless spawn of Satan theory? What is the point here? What are they trying to insinuate?

I can't ask the person bringing it up on this thread because I get nothing but mentally unbalanced misdirection. This is crazier than anything I ever read in 9/11 Trutherdom, even the claim that Flight 93 never crashed and instead landed in Cleveland.

[wtc911]

The father’s behavior is classic “inappropriate affect”, a clinical term that describes behavior of those diagnosed with narcissism as a personality disorder. It is a text book example. Nothing more.

[Boogieman]

“Only someone who has never fired an AR-15 rifle in a tactical situation can believe this guy got off 45 accurate shots per minute, on the move, with little or no training, while changing mags.”

How do you arrive at 45 shots per minute? If he was alive and shooting for at least 10 minutes, and fired about 150 rounds, then that is 15 shots per minute, not 45. Seems pretty reasonable to me.