Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers: #3 Deanna Spingola and C.W. Wade

by Jim Fetzer

The disinformation campaign against NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), like the "active shooter" drills being conducted around the country (where the latest "false flag" attack has occurred in Paris), continues unabated, where there are signs that the enemies of truth are being defeated, one by one, over the course of time, as more and more students of Sandy Hook stand up for truth, where the occurrence of an elaborate hoax in no one died has been demonstrated in this 425-page volume, loaded with photos, documents and records. Here is a video introduction for those who may have missed it:



A text-book example of disinformation about the book occurred during an interview on RBN by Deanna Spingola of C.D. Wade, Saturday, 14 November 2015, available here. The distinction between "dis-" and "mis-" information is an important one: misinformation only implies that the source has something wrong, while disinformation implies that the source knew what they were asserting was wrong, but asserted it anyway in a deliberate attempt to mislead their audience. It is parallel to saying something that is false (which appears to be an intermittent manifestation of the possession of a mind, as I have else where explained) and lying (which is a practice that is common with devious minds).

Signs of Devious Minds

Having offered courses on logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35-years, it has become second-nature to notice and identify common fallacies when they occur--no matter whether that may be in the context of domestic politics and foreign affairs (which I explore on a regular basis with my co-host, Kevin Barrett, on "False Flag Weekly News") or in the more pedestrian context of internet exchanges and amazon.com reviews. Here are a few of those most widely practiced, which you can test in relation to amazon.com:

(1) The Straw Man: This fallacy is committed by exaggerating the position you attack to make it easier--often, much easier--to debunk. Those who have argued for the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK, for example, might be suppose to be claiming that the conspirators--the SPONSORS, the MECHANICS, and the FACILITATORS--all met at the same time (rather like a rally in Washington Stadium), which is absurd. But it was thrown at me by Robert Artwohl, which I dispatched in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), pp. 85-92.

(2) Special Pleading: This fallacy occurs when you cite only evidence that is favorable to your side and ignore the rest. The new book by David Talbot, THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD (2015), for example, attributes the assassination to Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA, in an audacious attempt to distract attention from LBJ, who forced himself on the ticket in LA to ascend to the presidency when JFK was taken out. Lyndon even sent Cliff Carter, his chief administrative assistant, down to Dallas to make sure all the arrangements were in place.




















(3) The Ad Hominum: This "attack on the man" entails attacking the messenger when you cannot cope with the message. A recent example occurs in the review by Dark Shadow on amazon.com (now removed), where she assailed me as a Holocaust denier and someone who does not believe we landed men on the moon. In this case, she is combing the ad hominem with The Appeal to Popular Sentiments, taking for granted that most people believe the "official" Holocaust narrative and that we did go to the moon, hoping they will never consider the proof to the contrary presented in AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), which demonstrates that neither belief can be sustained.

To test your mastery of these common fallacies, go to 1-STAR reviews of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) on amazon.com. This book shattered the cover-up by publishing proof that the autopsy X-rays had been altered to conceal a massive fist-sized blow-out at the back of the head (in the case of the lateral cranial X-ray) and by adding a 6.5mm metallic slice to implicate the obscure weapon Oswald was alleged to have used (in the case of the anterior-posterior X-ray) and that another brain had been substituted for that of JFK (because once they patched up the hole, there was nowhere for his brains to have gone).

These were not my findings, either, but those of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in the case of the X-ray studies and of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, in the case of the latter. But you would not know that from these 1-STAR reviews, which were calculated to bring down the average rating of the book to suppress reader interest. As in the case of the Sandy Hook book, I brought together multiple experts on different aspects of the case to contribute their specific findings. Indeed, one pseudo-critic of THE WARREN REPORT (1964), Josiah Thompson, even called the book "Assassinated Science"!

The Spingola/Wade Interview










The opening segment includes discussion of Columbine, where the response teams were very circumspect about entering the building, and Sandy Hook, where C.W. Wade praises their courage in rushing into the school. Wade takes for granted that an active shooter, Adam Lanza, was at Sandy Hook and would have killed more students and staff, but for the heroic actions of the first responders. Taking for granted an issue at stake is known as begging the question. It required no "heroism" to simulate confronting a active shooter, when they knew no active shooter present, which appears to have been the case here.

In passing, Wade mentions that the Paris attack had just taken place and that many were assuming that it had been a staged event and then went about "scouring the internet for evidence". But, from the point of view of logic, it doesn't matter which came first: the theory or the evidence. What matters is the strength of the evidence that supports any alternative theories. Logic is atemporal. But a basic condition of scientific reasoning--the requirement of total evidence--that conclusions must be based on all the available, relevant evidence, which means that special pleading violates the scientific reasoning.


According to Wade, nothing is going to affect "the hard core hoaxer", because their minds are made up and they don't want to be bothered with facts. But for a claim to qualify as a "fact", it has to be both true and verifiable, which means there has to be sufficient evidence to prove that that claim is true. He talks about Adam Lanza having killed so many people in about 15 minutes (with around a 96% kill-to-target ratio), which Wade acknowledges is "incredible". But when you look at the circumstances, he claims, it did not require any special skill, training or expertise to do it, which is quite frankly absurd. 


Joyce Riley, "The Power Hour", for example, interviewed firearms expert, Mike Powers, on her show, who explained that this shooting was simply preposterous, even for someone with an extensive background and training. Sofia Smallstorm, in "Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 Dimensions", begins with a monologue by another expert, who similarly explains that this was an incredible--literally, unbelievable--performance, which I can personally confirm on the basis of my experience as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps. I served as a Series Commander at the Recruit Depot in San Diego (1964-65), where I had 300 recruits and 15 DIs under my command, including marksmanship training.





Listening to Wade casually dismiss the suggestion that a 112-lb., six-foot-tall young man--said to suffer from Asperger's Syndrome, which entails poor motor coordination--could not possibly have done the shooting provides convincing proof that, if someone has their mind made up and is impervious to facts, it would be C.W. Wade. This is a striking example of the violation of the requirement of total evidence: multiple experts have affirmed that he could not have done it, where Wade substitutes his ignorance for their expertise. 


How could he not know?

As it happens, I have engaged in public debates with several of the most notorious apologists for the Sandy Hook hoax, including Keith Johnson. Because he had contended that registration signs and name tags on lanyards were “standard police procedures” at crime scenes, I contacted Jim Rothstein, a Gold Shield Detective from New York City, whom I know from JFK research, and asked him if that was indeed a common practice or if he had ever heard of it being done.  His response was plain and simple: “No.” He thought that this was a ridiculous claim to make. And so did I, because of which I make that point in the second round of our debate.
During the third round of the first debate, I also observed that, although the “official narrative” would have you believe that Adam Lanza was a firearms fanatic, ATF Special Assistant Agent Gene Marquez said that his agency “has not been able to uncover any evidence that the mother and the son were actively engaged in going to the gun ranges, practicing marksmanship, or anything of that nature.” I published this in "Wolfgang Halbig heads to Newtown for the truth about Sandy Hook" (originally published on 24 March 2014). Could C.D. Wade have missed it?
During the second hour of her interview with Mike Power, Joyce Riley mentions a Wall Street Journal article that stated they couldn’t find any evidence of Nancy or Adam Lanza going to any of the shooting ranges in that local area.  In a video, “No Gun Permit Under Nancy Lanza’s Name in public records, says TIME Magazine”, at 57 sec mark, there is a screen shot from TIME, saying that in a public records search, they could find no firearms or weapons permits under Nancy’s name. Could C.W. Wade, a self-declared Sandy Hook expert, have missed this, too?
 
Video description:  Published on Jan 11, 2013- So gun permit records are public knowledge, and major news outlets are unable to find any for Nancy Lanza. Not even for the AR-15 rifle? The police are saying that those guns were registered to her and she had permits for them, but apparently the public records themselves are not supporting their theories.

It is possible that C.W. Wade has remained ignorant of the evidence supporting the conclusion that Adam Lanza could not have performed the feat of shooting attributed to him? Could he have missed Mike Powers on "The Power Hour"? Could he have missed the intro monologue to "Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 Dimensions"? Could have missed my public debate with Keith Johnson, one of his staunchest allies in the battle against "the Sandy Hook hoaxers"? None of that strikes me as remotely plausible, which means that C.W. has to know much better.



The drill and the manual

The most interesting portion of their discussion was about the nature of FEMA drills and whether we have "the FEMA manual" for the event. Wade talks about the difference between a drill and an an actual emergency, where they would not have used emergency vehicles and sirens to rush to the site in the case of a drill, which means (to him) that it had to be real. Spingola talks about the fact that a FEMA drill would not be conducted in an elementary school in the first place. But they are begging the question and ignoring that this was NOT "an ordinary FEMA drill": 








To create the impression of a real emergency, they had to feign that it WAS a real emergency, which seems to be an obvious observation that lies beyond the imagination of the parties to this conversation. But they did not do a good job of it, because the proof that it was not a bona fide emergency was surprisingly apparent from the beginning: no surge of EMTS into the building; no Med-Evac helicopter was called; no string of ambulances to the school; no evacuation of 469 other students; no bodies placed on the triage tarps. The road was so clogged that no emergency vehicles could have reached the school (apart from a token fire truck), had they wanted to:













Paul Preston, a Los Angeles area school safety expert, found the reports from Sandy Hook so peculiar that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, each of whom confirmed that it had been a drill, that no children had died and that it was to promote gun-control, which is found in Chapter 6--but not a peep from Spingola or Wade. The manual explains why we had so many oddities at the time: the sign, "Everyone must check in!", boxes of bottled water and pizza at the Firehouse; Port-a-Potties present from scratch; many present wearing name tags on lanyards; parents bringing children to the scene! It was a two-day drill, with the rehearsal on the 13th and going LIVE on the 14th, which explains otherwise inexplicable oddities like these.

Three Classic Fallacies 

During his interview with Deanna Spingola, C.W. Wade committed other fallacies, where the violation of the requirement of total evidence qualifies as special pleading, citing only the evidence favorable to your side and omitting the rest. Here are other examples, where those who review the entire conversation are bound to discover many more:

(1) He and Deanna talked about "the Fetzer/Tracy book", as though James F. Tracy and I were the only authors. But there are a dozen contributors, whose names are listed on the back cover of the book and where the Contributors pages provide fairly nice bio-sketches about each of them. Is that something of which either Spingola or Wade could possibly have been unaware? Anyone can find their names by going to amazon.com and looking at the back cover there:
















Or were they concealing the truth because admitting that there were a dozen or more  contributors--thirteen, including series editor, Mike Palecek. who is not an expert on Sandy Hook--six of whom are (current or retired college professors) with Ph.D.s--Vivian Lee, Ph.D.; Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D.; Dr. Eowyn, Ph.D.; Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D.; James F. Tracy, Ph.D.; and Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.--would have made them look absurd. So they simply left it out.

(2) They talked about debunking the morning photo, which appears as Exhibit 26 on page 148; but they ignore the proof that this photo was taken before the event had even taken place, which is the point: the windows of Classroom 10 are unbroken in Exhibit 26, which can easily be ascertained by comparing Exhibit 26 with Exhibit 30 on page 149. where they are broken, and with Exhibit 42 on page 154, where they are not. And Wayne Carver, M.E., is already there before the shooting has officially taken place! Q.E.D.
















Notice they do not discuss the Nancy Lanza bedroom, which shows a red smear (which does not look like blood) on the bed and where (in their haste to furnish the room) they left a moving pad beneath the left-front leg. Their willingness to ignore even the most blatant proof of fraud and fakery reveals the role they are playing in relation to Sandy Hook:

 











Spingola and Wade make their case against Exhibit 26 because the caption says that it was taken on the morning of 14 December 2012. Allan William Powell, who contributed that chapter, has acknowledged mistaking a sunset for a sunrise, which we will correct in a future printing. But what could be more convincing proof (a) that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax than to have Dr. Carver and the SWAT team present with crime scene tape already up before the crime has been committed and (b) that Spingola and Wade are not honest brokers but are willing deceive and mislead the public about the truth?


Shannon Hick's "iconic" photograph


(3) Wade also attempted to discount the proof that Shannon Hick's "iconic" photograph of a police woman leading a string of around 15 kids away from the school had been staged, which we have proven based upon at least three considerations:

(a) there was frost on the ground in Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012, when the ground temperature was 28*F; but there is no frost on the ground in Shannon Hick's photograph, which means that it was not taken on 14 December 2012 and is therefore not authentic;

(b) a second photo Shannon has acknowledged having taken shows the kids in a different sequence, where one is led by a little girl in a pink sweater, the other by a (much larger) little boy in a dark shit and blue jeans, which means they arranged the kids to get "the best shot"; and,

(c) there are parents present with their arms folded or hands in their pockets, but how could they possible have been present at the time? Did someone at the school decide to call parents as Adam Lanza was shooting it up and urge them to rush down for photographs?















Taking a closer look, we find more parents "lounging at the massacre":
















Wade trades on an equivocation, claiming that we were basing our conclusions on "fuzzy photographs". But while the photos published in the book, especially in black-and-white, could be claimed to be "fuzzy", the original articles on which this research was based are not "fuzzy" at all. And Spengola knows better, because she has a copy of the pdf of the book, which I send to Dave Gahary and he forwarded to her for a forthcoming debate.

C.W. Wade repeatedly describes us as "liars", as though we had asserted something false while knowing it was false in a deliberate attempt to deceive our intended audience. Allan made a simple mistake about the time of day; but that was an innocuous mistake, which we are going to correct. Exhibit 26 was taken before the shooting had occurred. The case is less simple for Wade and Spingola. Lies are abounding here, but not from us.