Saturday, November 7, 2015

NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK: Further exchange with Michael Flagg

This further exchange with Michel Flagg can be found on amazon.com: click here.
In reply to your post on Nov 6, 2015 8:33:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author 6 hours ago
Michael Flagg says:
I must have hit a nerve for you to make a blog post about me and my review. So, you have no facts to prove nobody died and that it was a FEMA drill, so you resort to attacking Keith Johnson. No, you have 50 photographs from the crime scene. Fifty (50)!!! They look like before and after photographs (before the crime scene was disturbed and after it was for evidence purposes). I wasn't there and you weren't there, so we can only speculate. Sadly, you only care about being right and not actual facts. Why do you say "his" (Keith Johnson's) reply? You quoted me and I am not Keith Johnson. I love how you did not bother to cover any of my debunks to you. I can judge the book but doing so gets me insults and a blog post. Real classy, professor.

You replied with a later post


Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2015 9:22:41 PM PST
Last edited by you 5 hours ago
Phonies, trolls and shills are dime a dozen. Our initial exchange provides a simply classic illustration of what is going on here. If you are not Keith Johnson, then you must have dual personalities. You can't even add. We have 50 from the house (one crime scene) and 50 from the school (another crime scene). 50 + 50 = 100. There is nothing to be said on your behalf. Mediocrity will out.


In reply to your post on Nov 6, 2015 9:31:03 PM PST
Michael Flagg says:
I'm well aware you said 50 from the Lanza house and 50 from the school. I was simply going by your constant use of the number 50. So, you cannot say my debunks are wrong and rather continue resorting to insults. Real classy, professor.

You replied with a later post


Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2015 9:42:09 PM PST
Last edited by you 5 hours ago
You have less than nothing to contribute to the discussion, because (as I have already explained) virtually everything you claim is false. But you are most certainly living up to my conception of you as an "Energizer Bunny". I have added a clause to read, "Keith Johnson (or his clone)." Let's let this end now.


In reply to your post on Nov 6, 2015 10:10:37 PM PST
Michael Flagg says:
I've contributed debunks to inaccurate information presented in the book. All you've done is thrown insults. How does that add anything to the discussion? I'm my own person and not Keith or his clone. I don't find it right for someone to make a profit off of sickening lies about a devastating tragedy.

You replied with a later post


Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2015 10:19:49 PM PST
Last edited by you 4 hours ago
You have demonstrated your irrationality again and again here. I feel I am dealing with a child--certainly not an adult, certainly not a man. You cannot even deal with the evidence on the back cover of the book! Spare me. We have photos of them prepping the school for an event that has yet to take place. GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF. Look at the twelve (12) contributors to this book, including six (6) professors. We are just not that DUMB.


In reply to your post on Nov 6, 2015 11:32:35 PM PST
Michael Flagg says:
I already discussed and debunked the information on the back of the book. There was no prepping; it was a real and tragic event. I don't care about the credentials of the contributors. Being a professor has nothing to do with understanding what occurred and stating factual information. Your book is filled with lies and nothing you can say will change that.

You just replied with a later post


Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2015 2:48:56 AM PST
You edited this post
Michael, you are a complete and total waste of time. You are so ignorant that you do not even grasp the concept of a lie. For someone to lie, they have to be making an assertion that is false, that they know to be false, but that they are asserting with the intention of misleading their target audience. The contributors have put their reputations on the line by speaking out publicly on a complex, controversial issue of great public importance, which none of us would do, if we were not sincere.

That means we BELIEVE what we are asserting. Unlike you, however, our BELIEFS are supported by mountains of readily verifiable evidence. You often say that we were not there, as though that were determinative of what we can and cannot know. But we have subjected the record to intense scrutiny. We have appraised the statements that have been made. We have analyzed the photographs. We have studied the behavior of the players. And we have discovered PROOF UPON PROOF that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax.

You cannot understand the meaning of "factual" when you are making claims that are FALSE. To be factual, a claim must be TRUE and VERIFIABLE. The claims that we make throughout this book are true and verifiable. Let me illustrate with one of the proofs presented on the back cover that you seen not to understand. We have a photograph of around 15 students apparently being led away from the school by a policewoman because of a young man entering the building and shooting a lot of people. It was taken by Newtown Bee photographer, Shannon Hicks, and sent worldwide.

This "iconic" photo was the single most important form of "proof" provided to the public. But we have a SECOND PHOTOGRAPH, also taken by Shannon Hicks, where we can see a row of parents looking on, some with their arms crossed and some with her hands in their pockets. And when we take a closer look, we discover that some of the children are not in the same place in line in both photographs, which means that the sequence of children was rearranged by moving them around in order to get "the best shot".

Now I hope you are following me this far, because you claim to have "discussed and debunked the information on the back of the book". Do you seriously think, under those circumstances, fleeing from a shooter who would reportedly kill 20 children and six adults, any adult, much less a police woman, would stop to rearrange the children to get a better photograph? Do you seriously believe that, if this really were the emergency we are told it represents, that parents of any of those children would be standing around looking on, with their arms crossed or their hands in their pockets?

And how--under these extraordinary circumstances--could they possibly have been notified and have reached the school in time to be present here? Think of what that would have entailed. Someone at the school presumably would have had to have known that there was a shooting and have taken the time, not to eliminate the threat, who was killing their students, but to call some of their parents, who, in turn, would have had to rush down to the school in time to be present for the Newtown Bee photographer--who just happened to be on hand--to take a photo in which they were present? Are you beginning to get the picture?

Not only that, but on the morning of 14 December 2012, the temperature was 28*F and there was frost on the ground. But, in those two photographs, there is no frost on the ground; and the breath of the students is not visible as it would be in 28*F weather. (We have photos of cars near the Firehouse, for example, where their exhaust is clearly visible.) There are also too many leaves on the trees for this to be 14 December 2012. That means these photos were not taken on 14 December 2012. I ask you, what is the alternative interpretation? We aren't making this up.

William Shanley, a film maker who resides in Connecticut, wrote to Shannon Hicks when I published those photos together and made the points I am making here and now. He asked her about the authenticity of her photographs in light of what I had said about them. At the time, I believed that the woman in the blue jacket WAS Shannon Hicks. But she wrote back to William and explained that I was wrong and that she was not the woman in the blue jacket, because SHE HAD TAKEN BOTH OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.

Now you claim to have read the book. You not only claim to have read the book, you claim to have refuted every proof that Sandy Hook was a fraud. But if these photos were not taken on 14 December 2012, then they were staged; and if they were staged, then Sandy Hook was a fraud. I published a chapter in the book in which all of the evidence I have just described is presented, including the email correspondence between William Shanley and Shannon Hicks. So what exactly am I missing? What is there here that remains to be proven? What leaves any room for doubt?

And how can you possibly claim that you have "already discussed and debunked the information of the back of the book", under these circumstances? I am very reluctant to regard you as a liar, but I am having a hard time resisting. Because among the claims presented ON THE BACK OF THE BOOK are the sentences, "This photo was sent around the world. But there was a second picture. They rearranged the children to get 'a better shot'!" So where have you "discussed and debunked" this information, which is ON THE BACK OF THE BOOK?

I am sorry, Michael, but you are in the classic position of having your mind made up, where you don't want to be bothered with facts. Each of the claims that I have made about these photographs is both true and verifiable. I presented the proof in the book in Chapter 4, "Shannon Hicks denies staging her 'iconic' photograph", which I wrote with Dennis Cimino. You have the book and you claim to have read it. Chapter 4 runs from pages 47 to 53. It is not a long chapter. But it provides conclusive proof that Sandy Hook was a hoax--and that you are either lying or confused.

And that includes what you claim in your most recent reply to me. Egad! We also have a mountain of proof that the school had been closed by 2008. Perhaps you missed that, too. But if the school was closed by 2008, there were no students there. And that means there were no students to be shot or to be evacuated. And when you complain about profiting from lies--royalties from books, by the way, tend to be rather modest--why are you not concerned about the "parents" who are pretending to have lost children at Sandy Hook, yet are pocketing millions? Your beliefs are warped, alas, and your values are misplaced.