By [Anonymous]*

As indicated in Dr. Tracy’s earlier post, Mr. Halbig will have a “standing” issue, that will result in the dismissal of any broad-ranging lawsuit he might wish to file, there are much bigger barriers in the way of any lawsuit that would lead to his attorneys getting to ask his questions to authorities under oath (which would typically happen in a deposition). 

I make these observations as a municipal government attorney who specializes in open government issues.  As part of my practice I have litigated numerous cases involving municipal liability and I have addressed issues involving whether plaintiffs have standing to make constitutional claims in cases that were decided by my state’s Supreme Court and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, Mr. Halbig will not be able to take depositions by filing some general claim based on how the authorities responded to the Sandy Hook incident, even if it involves constitutional claims.  This is because Connecticut follows the “public duty doctrine,” which will effectively bar anyone from having standing to bring a claim that would allow for those depositions.  Any lawyer practicing in municipal law would know this.

To have standing, a person filing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) must be able to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff some “duty” and that the defendant has failed to fulfill that duty.  Absent a duty, there is no “harm” that can be remedied in the lawsuit.  In cases such as this, where any potential actions would be based on the failure of the authorities to take some action, a person filing a lawsuit would have to prove that the authorities had some duty to act.

Under the public duty doctrine, however, when the only “duty” an agency owes is the general duty to perform its statutory obligations, which is owned to the general public, the law presumes that the agencies do not owe that duty to anyone.  A duty owed to everyone is a duty owed to no one.  Thus, if the agency fails to fulfill that duty, no one has standing to sue.

The duties typically carried out by first responders such as police departments, fire departments and paramedics are the classic type of public duty that no one can sue government for failing to carry out.

Coley v. City of Hartford, 59 A.3d 811 (Conn. App. 2013) is a typical “public duty doctrine case” that illustrates the barrier this doctrine poses.  The claim was that the police violated a statute that required police to stay with a crime victim for a certain amount of time for the victim’s protection.  In this case, the police failed to comply with the statute and the victim was subsequently killed by the suspect during the period of time the police should have been with the victim.  When the victim’s his estate sued, the case was dismissed because this type of law enforcement response was part of the police’s public duty.

There are exceptions to the public duty doctrine, but they are all rooted in theories where the agencies have made things worse for a particular person or group of people than they would have been had the authorities not acted at all.  Thus, most cases in the news where agencies are being sued and pay out money relate to affirmative harms agencies caused.

If the Sandy Hook response was incompetent and thus failed to save lives, a lawsuit would be barred by the public duty doctrine.  If Sandy Hook was a hoax and no one was hurt, then again there was not actionable harm.  Only if there was evidence that the officers or paramedics affirmatively inflicted the harm, or that “but for” their promise to the victims to help, the victim or someone else would have prevented the harm would someone have standing.

Thus, even if Mr. Halbig and his attorneys were able to identify what look like gross violations and/or incompetent responses, the public duty doctrine would bar Halbig, or anyone (including the victim’s families) from bringing a lawsuit.  And even if there was evidence that the authorities made things worse, Mr. Halbig still would not have standing because his harm would not be different than any member of the general public.

Second, if Mr. Halbig files a lawsuit based on the failure to properly respond to his Freedom of Information requests, he might have standing but he will not force anyone of authority to be questioned under oath.  This is because Connecticut has a very detailed process for challenging FOI responses that greatly limits what discovery is possible, if any discovery is allowed at all.  Thus, if Halbig were to file such a lawsuit, the only persons he might be allowed to question under oath would be the employees directly responsible for responding to his requests and any questions will be limited to issues such as what searches were performed or what facts justify a particular exemption.

All claims based on alleged FOI violations must be brought before the FOI Commission.  Under its ruled, the hearing officer assigned to this administrative claim will have complete discretion over the scope of discovery.  Accordingly even an FOI lawsuit is unlikely to be that useful, and any discovery will be completely at the whim of the presiding officer.

See Connecticut FOIC Citizens Guild VI.4: “4.  If a NECESSARY witness will not testify voluntarily, contact the Commission staff immediately.  If you are able to show why the person’s testimony is necessary and why you believe he or she will not appear voluntarily, the Commission may issue a subpoena which would require the person to appear.”

See also FOIC Regulations Section 1-21j-36 (a)-(c), which grant discretion of subpoenas.

A hearing itself before the FOIC will not allow for any wide-ranging questions or force anyone of real authority to even attend.  These hearing according to the rules are limited to 90 minutes and will focus exclusively on the issue of why records weren’t produced.  Mr. Halbig can only issue subpoenas with the permission of the hearings officer.

Mr. Halbig can only get a cause into the court system by filing an administrative appeal, where there is not any additional discovery or live testimony.  See Sec. 1-206(d).

Mr. Halbig might actually be able to use the FOI process to get some addition documents released and/or unredacted.  The Director of the FOIC, Colleen Murphy, seems to be a true advocate of transparency and made a very principled stand when serving on the Sandy Hook Task Force, after someone tried to slip in the recommendation that someone leaking exempt records could be given a 5-year prison sentence.  But even under the best of circumstances, even Ms. Murphy could not authorize the wide-ranging discovery Mr. Halbig champions. 

Thus, at most Mr. Halbig might be able to employ Connecticut’s open government laws to see a few more documents and to make short speeches, but the law is stacked against anyone using the courts to conduct the type of investigation Mr. Halbig talks about. 

*The author is a recognized practicing attorney who because of ongoing professional endeavors wishes to remain anonymous.

785 thought on “Another Perspective on Wolfgang Halbig’s Legal Gambit”
  1. Terrific article and thank you to the professional who contributed this. It highlights the hearing process I’d previously mentioned – as I’d suspected Halbig / his attorneys had not taken that step.

  2. Thank you for the article. Those who wish to continue to support Halbig in donations and in spirit can continue to do so if they wish, but they should not be blinded by their idealism when this is the reality of the situation. Thanks for keeping it real, anonymous.

    1. And what is the reality of the situation? That there is nothing to be done? Because that’s the impression I’m left with after reading the article.

      Lol…”Thanks for keeping it real…ANONYMOUS”

      1. Glad I could give you a laugh. I admit that I laughed a little just typing that last line .:) I do have my suspicions as to who “anonymous” is.

        This article points out some of the obstacles that will be faced by trying to go through legal channels. I would think that having this information would allow for someone like Halbig and his supporters to tighten up their strategy instead of wasting time and resources going down a road that very well may lead to a brick wall. Is that the same as saying that nothing can be done? No, of course not. If Halbig and his supporters wish to go forward they are most certainly free to do so. I don’t see the plan as being very realistic but who cares what I think? I hope he proves me wrong. I don’t know why this information would be considered offensive to anyone. It is what it is.

        1. “Is that the same as saying nothing can be done?” Imo the “nothing can be done” is implied.

          As I’ve stated, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in a particular avenue of investigation or course of redress…but…here we have a self professed expert on the Ct legal process and this person has not taken one moment…one line of deep breath to tell us what we CAN do. 2 articles on this topic and not one piece of affirmative direction.

          If these people are experts surely they can provide us some direction as to what is possible. Without it I am left to assume that there is none.

  3. Why, you wonder did Halbig and his attorneys not know about this before his quest was put in motion !.. to me as a lay person its complicated, but I can see that if the powers of ‘be’ wanted to pull the wool over peoples eyes.. all this would have been thought through and they would have know from the beginning that no one could get answers through the legal system they have in place. Beth D you were on the right track.

  4. Thank you for describing the difficulties of pursuing FOI documents. Is there any possibility that asking for proof of an existing school could be pursued? If this was not a functioning school, then there was a massive fraud.

    Utility bills, food services, busing contracts, maintenance repairs, required reporting on asbestos, snow removal, garbage pickup, etc. And of course the all important question of which qualified company was used to dispose of the bio-hazard.

    Of course they could refuse, which to me would be proof of a fraud in itself. Many have noticed the school looked decrepit, the roof appears painted in white wash, professionals in the industry have noted the roof does not contain the equipment necessary to make it a functioning building.

    The video provided in the police report, reveal fire hazards, buckets filled with dripping water from the ceiling, boilers that are off, a playground that is a rusted pile of junk. In general, not a place any responsible parent would send their child to.

    1. I agree kathy ,what interested me were the photo’s taken inside the school of the kitchen area… for health and safety reasons this would not pass examination, the dirt alone on the tiles and open shelves are not allowed if cooking meals for children… there would be a prep area, not a lone Pizza on a work bench, and once again I state the ‘ men’ toilet sign would not be realistic in a school for children… If this supposed school was the cream of the crop in education, its laughable… I would like to hear from the kitchen workers.. who were they? and what was their input in all this.- were they interviewed? I may be repeating myself but keeping this topic going is vital to reveal the truth.

    2. From what I have seen in the videos and the overall condition of the building, parking lot, roof, etc. and the surrounding neighborhood, I have come to the conclusion that the SHES was closed prior to 1980. What intrigued me the most was the article concerning the “time capsule” that was buried in 1980. This is very odd to me, usually a time capsule is buried near the cornerstone of a structure at the grand opening (1956 in this case).

      I am searching for a hoarder of hard copy newspapers from the Danbury area from that era (1980) to look for the actual article of the school closing in black and white. I know that particular article is out there somewhere in hard copy.

      1. John Luv, your last line reminds us all how important it is to support our libraries…so text remains in unalterable (for the most part) form vs. digital/internet form.

    3. @Kathy- From the video/photo evidence I’ve gone through, it’s hard to believe that SHES could have been an operational school. There were numerous fire code violations, filth (dirty, moldy tiles), and damaged ceiling tiles. Plus, the school looked like it was being used for storage, with lots of rooms stacked with junk. As others have noted, the parking lot was not ADA compliant, and I even saw a comment from a plumber saying that the restrooms would not have passed inspection. (For those interested, I’ve posted some videos and comments on how SHES looks like a decommissioned school here: (It would be extremely helpful if we could get a fire inspector to look at the video/photo evidence and give his/her professional opinion as to whether SHES would have passed inspection.

    1. And what strategy would that be? Because that’s the part that’s missing from all this critiquing.

      1. How to get standing:

        1. donate to one of the infinite number of Sandy Hook media family “charities”.

        2. after the donation is accepted, request an accounting from the charirty as required by law.

        3. check that the specified purpose of the charity is being fulfilled. It won’t be in 99% of cases since they never thought anyone would check. For example the Emilie Parker art foundation has done everything BUT art so far.

        4. lawyer letter to charity requesting more info, docs, and accounts. CC the letter to the relevant state’s attorney general, SAIC FBI, chief of police, police serious fraud division, FBI cybercrime since all the charities are on the web in a big way. Also publicise the letter on your own blog, website, farcebook, twatter, etc.

        Net cost of activism: 50 buck donation to a fake charity to trigger events.

        If you pay a lawyer to do your letter, whatever the cost of that is. Otherwise get a lawyer to do it for free online or search legal precedents. It’s a better business bureau type letter. You paid a charity for a service- namely whatever charitable purpose they are masquerading under. They didn’t deliver.

        If even ten or let alone fifty armchair gasbags did the above, the entire situation would change in favour of research.

  5. Perhaps the author is unaware of the “Common Law Court” named in the Bill of Rights as a 4th branch of government in order to bring “out of control” government & other issues back in line. Lawyers are not even allowed. National Liberty Alliance ( First state to be fully re-constituted was NY only a mo. ago or so. Now there are 6 states as of last week.

  6. But, there is another angle of attack that has not been mentioned here. If, the millions of dollars collected through Donation Funds, has been spent fraudulently, there is grounds for a Civil Suit against the Fund by the donors.
    Since the money collected needs to be accounted for and is a matter of Public Record, this is something to be considered. What is the legal opinion on this ?

    1. I think you have to look at how the fund itself has been structured. The Boston One Fund, for example, managed in part by the guy who managed both the pedophiles in the Catholic Church funds and the 9/11 funds, has probably covered his “a” very cleverly so that his share is no danger of having to be recovered and so that he has no chance of sharing a jail cell with Bernie Madoff. How would he do it? He’d simply make sure that the doctrine of “cy pres” (“close enough”) is used in dispersing the fund monies. Imagine a scholarship formed to benefit the children of a particular town which ceases to exist because a reservoir is built over it (as happened in Massachusetts to several towns). The person who is trustee could apply the doctrine and disperse the monies to nearby town in the same county with similar problems (or could argue to a court that he should). But I think the Boston One Fund anticipated this from the start. They knew that millions of people would contribute tens of millions of dollars. What to do? Design the fund to be one which disperses all kinds of charity money, becomes a long term charity like the United Way. Then, if you give to it, you do so knowing (or you should know) that your money will go somewhere else when its original purpose has been served (prosthetics for amputees).

      They don’t plan this stuff (when money is involved) in a way which might lead to prosecution.

      On the other hand, can you make a civil case out of these things? I think they tend to be treated with “prosecutorial discretion” as criminal cases of fraud, not a private civil action or even a class action. But cite some cases if you think it would fly.

    2. IMO a better angle would be that the funds were solicited fraudulently, not that they were spent fraudulently. I’m very surprised that the article didn’t address this. If you perpetrate a hoax and a lie for the purpose of soliciting donations isn’t that outright financial fraud? And wouldn’t anyone donating to such a fund have legal standing to sue?

      1. But SW, how does one prove it is a lie? Your complaint then alleges that the event never happened and as plaintiff, you have the burden of proof. So, I think that takes us back to square 1.

        Your train of thought at the start, was good – because suing the charty(ies) for how funds may have been spent might be do-able and if you win (because they may be given monies away improperly), you are still left with little…but, maybe it gives you a nugget…that will lead to the next nugget…

        I dunno. It’s late and I’m rambling.

      2. There have been notable cases where a person has claimed to have medical needs – due to cancer for instance – and solicited co-workers and maybe the general public, then found to have taken the money on false premises. But in those cases, you look closely at the language used to solicit funds. Researching the original solicitations (some done on news stations in Boston for BMB “survivors”) I remember their saying right from the get-go that the Boston One Fund would also be used for other purposes (even though the trigger was this event).Those purposes could include funding hospitals which participated.

  7. I am really surprised to hear that a parent of one of the ‘slain’ children would not have legal standing to sue the first responders for not following medical/legal procedure when declaring that student dead. So the victim can be declared dead at the scene by a police officer with a nurse’s license and left in a heap on the floor, and there is no legal recourse for any parent? I thought only emergency room doctors could pronounce a person dead.

  8. Wolfgang should proceed with the case. Where there is a will, there is a way. Eventually a crack in the case will be found. Justice will eventually rule the day.

    1. I agree Rick, I don’t think there was ever a case for a legal lawsuit, but it he keeps going it will raise awareness of this subject. If I were him, I would still head up there to check out the town, and continue to do the on-air interviews. That is what started this wave of interest.

  9. Why is Dr. Tracy trying so hard to discredit Mr. Halbig? He has opened his blog to be the wild wild west of attacks on Mr. Halbig. Dr. Tracy is one of the people who helped bring Halbig to the public eye. Now his blog is filled with attacks on him.

    I see Halbig taking three angles – court, FOI and going in front of the school board. If his endeavors in court have no future, let him go. Stop trying to squash him. Any publicity about this event is good publicity. Sandy Hook will fade away like OKC and Waco, unless we keep fighting. Taking it to court may be a losing battle, but we need the public to wake up.

    All of you ‘truthers’ who sit on these message boards spewing your opinion about this and that need to get off your lazy butts and hit the streets – talk to your friends and family, bring it up in casual conversation, make your own flyers to hand out in the streets, etc. Posting on these message boards is only preaching to the choir. You are not doing any good. At least Halbig is doing something to bring more attention to the public eye.

    All of you naysayers are pathetic and I’m losing a lot of faith in Dr. Tracy taking this position.

    1. I truly don’t understand how one can see this as an attack on Halbig. If anything I would think that Halbig and his supporters would use this type of information to formulate a better strategy. I would think that they would be thankful for this information as it could save them time, money and effort. I’m surprised that this information is being construed as an “attack” on Halbig by some.

      1. The attacks have been on previous posts, and generally speaking in the truth community. Dr Tracy has not attacked Halbig, but he is allowing his blog to be a gathering place for it.

        1. “Dr Tracy has not attacked Halbig, but he is allowing his blog to be a gathering place for it.”-so you think a blog used for the expressed purpose of exploring avenues not offered in the mainstream should be censored?

        2. Did I ask for censorship? Dr. Tracy has been quiet as a mouse while the attacks keep rolling in. I think he should address this.

          I’m so glad Frederick chimed in so you can see the perfect example of the unwarranted attacks that occur on this blog.

          “..hack and fraud..”

        3. I hope you are also going after the candidate for CT Governor who called Halbig and Huckster and a liar.

          Interestingly, your hero was forced to admit he lied about having a phone conversations and her claims of support.

          What kind of person tells a whopper like that one on their FBook page and thinks it is okay? Just saying…

        4. Whatever phrases or “hurtful” words commenters here use are the results of human emotions and understandable frustration.While it is admirable(I guess)for you to want to come to his aid by asking Dr. Tracy to step in and “save” him the question remains-why? This comment section is the very definition of somewhere for people to express…wait for it…OPINIONS.

        5. Maybe many of us are not seeing how this hack and a fraud could possibly bring any positive attention to this hoax…..and no, not any attention is good attention.
          It seems to me in order to be a good ” truth seeker” that you have to be truthful yourself and about yourself. Plenty of evidence has been presented here that proves Halbig has not been truthful about his past…some evidence like listing dead people on your business website knowing they were already dead is not very truthful……..asking for 100k for another business venture is not very above board and tasteless…the list goes on and has been presented here.. Maybe many of you still backing this guy in light of the evidence that has been presented here about him and his past should be asking yourselves the question as to why you continue to back a guy that has been proven to be a fraud and still has not shown himself ??? Huh?

        6. I just have to chime in to point out that there is a difference between having suspicions about aspects of someone’s past, and that person having been “proven to be a fraud.”

        7. Right said Fred (sorry, had to say that). Or…as today – when Halbig was forced (I suspect via a written letter from the attorney-candidate for governor) to admit he LIED about talking to her and relaying a statement of support to him that NEVER happened. That is just creepy conduct.

          Notice the man’s fundraising has stalled out…could it be that people are starting to wonder about him?

        8. Dr. Tracy is reporting on facts that come to his attention and may be of interest to the readers of his blogs. He is acting as university professor would do to present facts as known and encourage the students to form their own opinions, not as a high school teacher that disperses the official version of “truth” as it was carved in stone and therefore has to be real. Dr. Tracy has analysed many of the discrepancies of the official Sandy Hook incident, and has presented views of alternate versions. Mr. Halbig is one of the people that has expressed opinions relating the incident, as have Carver, Newtown officials and CT politicians. Dr. Tracy is presenting all relevant facts as they become known, and it is up to you to evaluate their merits, not to just swallow whatever is being said.

        9. I agree, I like Dr. Tracy’s point of view and miss that. Not a fan of the guest commentators. His blog was excellent when it was truly his.

      2. Zem, just so. Obviously some have trouble with the truth, warts and all. No one here is “inventing” the legal position. It is what it is. This is not about Wolfgang Halbig.

        No one advertised this site as the Wolfgang Halbig official fan club. It seems he’s doing a fine job of that on his own. I fail to see an obligation to support him because we are exploring Sandy Hook.

        I’ve said about all I plan to say about this development. He is still free to go to Newtown, or anywhere else he so chooses, with or without the blessing of everyone here.

        What he has is no viable strategy. He has no “case”. No one is going to ride in on a white stallion and blow the lid off this thing. The authorities are NEVER going to admit guilt and no one is going to bring an indictment.

        We would all be wise to put such thoughts out of our minds and concentrate on more exposure. This is the reality we live in, we have to learn to deal with it.

        If anyone wants to go with him or send him their paycheck, by all means, do so.

    2. Bill,

      You said, “All of you naysayers are pathetic and I’m losing a lot of faith in Dr. Tracy taking this position.”

      I’d appreciate if you would clarify what the position is that you think Dr. Tracy is taking that you’ve lost faith in.


      1. Dr. Tracy has posted some interesting articles about Dr. Halbig. Dr. Tracy is very intelligent and well-chosen with his words. It is why he his appealing and why the cockroaches are afraid of him. He appeals to anyone who will take a minute to listen.

        On the other hand, his followers are taking the opportunity to seriously attack Mr. Halbig’s character. Frederick, the unaware troll, just used “hack and fraud” to describe Halbig.

        My problem is that Dr. Tracy is not taking a position. The jury is still out on Halbig, but many have already convicted this guy. I have asked Dr. Tracy to address the attacks but I’ve seen nothing.

        1. The articles in toto are not intended as an attack. Nor are they intended to provide the basis for such. The above legal opinion, for example, in addition to the previous articles and accompanying commentaries, harsh as some may be, can also be immensely useful to any curious researcher who chooses to set aside their ego and recognize their worth.

        2. So in your world Bill, pointing out that someone is being less than truthful is an attack? I guess Vance, Malloy, Llodra could make the same statements huh? I love how you are jumping on anyone who dares point a finger at your hero Halbig. Yes, Frederick called him a hack and fraud – what is untrue about those descriptions? And it’s funny while you point that Frederick calls Halbig a hack & fraud you call him an unaware troll. The irony is priceless!

          And who are you to tell anyone what to say or think as you did so not too long ago on this post:

          “All of you ‘truthers’ who sit on these message boards spewing your opinion about this and that need to get off your lazy butts and hit the streets – talk to your friends and family, bring it up in casual conversation, make your own flyers to hand out in the streets, etc. Posting on these message boards is only preaching to the choir. You are not doing any good. At least Halbig is doing something to bring more attention to the public eye.

          All of you naysayers are pathetic and I’m losing a lot of faith in Dr. Tracy taking this position.”

          Get off this board if you don’t like what you’re reading. People like you who tell ME what to think or do because I don’t think or believe the way you do is the first hint of a troll.

          Halbig started off ordering his researchers to stay focused on 16 questions – then he starts asking how to deal with a Comcast Email – or how a 501(c)3 works? Really? He starts posting random (photoshopped) pictures of himself without any explanation. Then he begins to attack and call his researchers names for questioning him.

          Tell me Bil, if showing his face just once would erase alot of skepticism why doesn’t he? Because he is a distraction – nothing more. I checked out alot of his supporters on FB and interestingly they all joined around the same time in 2009. Also, why when I do a Google archive search of this guy from 1960 thru 2012 I get ONE result? Let’s see- what other results are skewed when I search – Sandy Hook, Barack Obama, 9/11….seeing a pattern here.

        3. Ok, let me see here…. Halbig has not shown his face, many of his FB supporters joined around the same time, and he is not showing up on a Google search…..

          OMG, how did I miss all the warning signs? You should be a lawyer with your keen ability to analyze evidence and paint a rock solid picture of someone.

          I’ll keep saying my point over and over again until knuckleheads like you get it – Research and vetting of Halbig are important, but attacking him personally must be stopped until we get to the bottom of the questions that surround him.

          iseelies, you are new here. I’ve been posting here for over a year. I am a big admirer of Dr. Tracy, but when I disagree with him, I have the right to express my opinions. “Getting off the message board” is a form of censorship in my opinion.

          Its obvious with you calling me a troll, that you have no idea what a troll is. Please do some studying on internet terminology.

          And yes I will continue to push people to hit the streets. All these messages on truther website aren’t doing much good if we are not appealing to the mass brainwashed public. Surely us truthers still only represent a small portion of the population. Please tell me, what have you done to spread the good word outside of staring at your computer?

          Run along now and don’t forget to drink your milk.

        4. So researching and vetting Halbig is okay but attacking him is not.
          Unfortunately it seems as though the sharing of negative and questionable info about Halbig is viewed by his followers as an attack. Not all, but some. That is just silly.

          If you choose to be a supporter, that is all well and good. It is not mandatory for others to do so and it is their freedom to report (here) those things about Halbig which they find troubling or downright disturbing..

        5. Iseelies,

          I owe you a cocktail (or bev. of choice). That was a stellar response!

          Isn’t it interesting how some people want the freedom to believe what they want – they get upset when others don’t believe what they what while at the same time attempt to deny others of their own beliefs.

        6. BillFred…I am certainly no troll……my first and last name is been posted on here so you can see I have been posting about Sandyhook on Facebook pages for a very long time…For the record I believe Sandyhook was a total hoax…no kids died.

          My issues with Halbig are many…evidence presented on this page has shown in my opinion that he lacks integrity and I believe it is hard to travel to a city ( Newtown ) and call people out on issues involving fraud and integrity when you have none yourself. Why wouldnt they just point the finger back at him and bring up all the Shady stuff about him that has been presented here…. Can no one else see how easliy he can be discredited?

          My last name was posted( no big deal) in a comment I made on Wolfies Justice page regarding him referring to Bob Woodruff and Carl Bernstein….Yes Bob Woodruff!! Whats really scary is that I was the only one to correct him !I was thinking is everyone else on this page really that uninformed?
          And this is the man that they are banking on to expose this hoax? .

        7. Frederick –

          Regarding funny “Woodruff” note (Halbig post) and the failure of the followers to notice– a prime example of low info. followers. Scary. Hopefully some were just feeling too polite to correct him.

          Some Halbig followers are so rabid in defense of this fellow – they’re so interesting to me. I think many have latched on to him out of desperation – because he’s the first solider to “go over the fence”. They’ve attached their hopes to him and ignored the fact that this fellow is “sketchy”, at best.

          A company, a cause, a political entity – they all understand the importance of their spokespersons. Regular folks on the street? Not so much – they just care that someone is willing to act in some way. Whether they want to admit that Halbig is their spokesperson is irrelevant – they should consider that in the eyes of the other side (those who believe SHook happened as was told in the news) – Halbig WILL be seen as a spokesperson of the non-believers. It is in this light, that I fear he will cause damage.

          The serious Halbig supporters chime in with the same retaliatory question over and over: “Well, what have YOU done, couch-sitting commenter?” Well,that is a valid question.

          I believe my contribution (as with SO MANY people here on this blog) has been: 1) Hours upon hours upon hours of research (police reports, etc.); 2) Hours upon hours of comparing notes with other researchers and those with inside knowledge; 3) the many hours spent engaging in conversation with people who have been “asleep” who are now waking up as the result of thoughtful and educated conversations.

          I think an amazing number of people now believe that something is very wrong with the SHook story and many are those who initially ate the story hook, line and sinker. I find this fascinating and encouraging.

          The aforementioned efforts of the couch/desk-sitting researchers out there who have an insatiable curiosity and are willing to engage in discussion with anyone who is willing to engage have been the key in slowly but carefully turning the tide. Intelligent, educated conversations and debates have been happening for the past year or more and some ideas are taking hold.

          I believe the most successful revolutions are the result of slow-moving events that occur below the surface. We have to continue efforts to gently wake those who are sleeping through the changes that have occurred in our nation. This is not usually accomplished by some nutty banshee going wildly and half-cocked over the wall in the name of the cause. It is the large wave that brings down that wall. That wave has to start with a ripple. Consider that Rosa Parks ignited a revolution with just one word, “No.”

        8. federicomarco – maybe he was thinking of Judy Woodruff. Was this posted by Wolfgang himself or one of his assistants? Perhaps it came from ‘dude’?

      2. John, I think that Bill is referring to his Dr. Tracy’s “sudden” change of attitude in this case….Dr. Tracy has officially taken a back seat on this topic. Bill sees clearly the fact that Dr. Tracy has been “talked to”. Not that it is necessarily “right or wrong”, but one can see he no longer has the “fire in his belly” for this cause.

        1. I find this preposterous. James has been courageous from the start, in objectively reporting the strangeness of the press coverage, and he has continued to do so even more strenuously when it draws withering attack on him personally. Across the world he became “the nutty professor” who denied that kids were killed that day–even though he never said that. What did he do? He calmly pointed out that there are inconsistencies in the reporting, so that the emerging picture is contradictory: it cannot have happened the way the press says it happened.

          What did he do next? He kept on doing the same, as the story developed. He has never stated what he believes happened, only what is wrong with the official story. Even when he has been on the radio with Barrett and Fetzer, both of whom are openly advocating a position, and chummily call him “Jim” (which is in fact what he goes by in life), as if they are all colleagues and on the same page, even in that environment he never falls in with them; note that. He always is cautious not to damage the carefully built credibility based on academic objectivity. This might madden us, because certain of the elements of the story are entirely preposterous, and we’d like him to come out and say so, but he’d lose more than he’d gain if he did that.

          As for the assertion: “clearly the fact that Dr. Tracy has been “talked to”,” ti is in no way “clearly” a “fact” that James Tracy is under pressure to shut up. And if you think: “one can see he no longer has the “fire in his belly” for this cause” then you have not been paying attention. As he said in his reply to me in the article “Cognitive Infiltration for the Masses”: ” In establishing this blog I never sought to be a rabble-rouser, and regret being regarded as such.” Why would he say this if it isn’t true?

          I came here to learn about the “nutty professor’s” crazy blog, and it has been a central part of my daily internet adventures ever since–because of the reality of the integrity you deny that James Tracy has.

          There is something strange going on when a scrupulously objective observer is repeatedly called an advocate, and when it’s clear he’s not, the lament is that he’s lost some “fire in his belly” he never evidenced.

        2. I agree that Dr. Tracy has not been compromised or “gotten to.” Although I’m upset that his blog has become a whipping post for Halbig haters, Dr. Tracy is still solid. I think the fire is still in his belly.

    3. Bill Fred – hope you’re out there doing all that too.

      I think what the post was getting at was the difficulty involved…the lack of standing. Mr. Tracy didn’t write the article but posted an attorney’s unsolicited opinion – and that has value, at least to some of us.

      I’m hoping the very first step Halbig does is file for the FOIA hearing. That should’ve been his next step, providing the FOIA requests were in order. I know what you’re going to say – I feel the same – that the hearing is probably a lot of b.s. – but it is part of the procedure…the next rung on the ladder. Anyway, hopefully Halbig has some good legal brains on this one.

      1. Beth, I have handed out about 2,000 flyers about how corrupt our government is – covering 9/11, Waco, JFK, OKC, etc.

        Every family member I have knows where I stand on ‘conspiracy theories.’

        I have lost friends because of my public opinions, and my neighbor won’t ever look at me anymore because I have brought up 9/11 to her so many times.

        1. I’m so sorry about that. I hear you. Some think I’m 1/2 nuts because it is like a tickle in my brain that won’t stop…the hours of research have become a hobby.

          “They” win just obey without questioning.

      2. Beth
        How do you know “Mr. Tracy didn’t write the article but posted an attorney’s unsolicited opinion ?”

        He does not state this was unsolicited and we are well aware he necessarily had to engage attorneys.

        Those with open minds consider all angles.

        1. Kathy,

          What makes you think he wrote it?

          Yes, I agree with you that he has access to attorneys. So…that could mean an attorney wrote it? Fed it to him to write? OK, so that means Prof. Tracy didn’t still didn’t whip this little number up.

          Did you read the article? The author gave a very explicit description of his background, qualifications and work experience. I feel fairly certain that Prof Tracy is not in the business of ghost writing legal opinions and lying about the identity of the author. That’s a pretty bold accusation based on what proof?

          If you think Prof Tracy is a liar – perhaps this is not a place for you.

        2. Beth was simply inquiring how you knew it was an unsolicited.

          Given all that he has invested into the topic, it would make sense to me that he engaged attorneys himself long ago.

          Thought you would be willing to share you insider information, but instead you attack me.

        3. The “insider” accusation is so silly. Let’s see if we can’t put a stop to the accusations: First, I was the supposed author of the post, according to you and another poster. Now I’m an insider. Well, to that I say:

          I don’t know the professor, I do not work for him, I have never met him and I am not related to him. To my knowledge, I have not even passed him on the street. I have not engaged in the receipt of monetary benefit or the payment of the same in connection with this blog or any of the Professor’s endeavors. I have no direct or indirect affiliations with the Professor.

          I do, however: Respect his efforts to get people to wake up and question what they are being fed…and to discuss it. I support his blog via participation. Hopefully that clears up your questions and will put a stop to the incessant need to try to undermine mine (and others’) attempts to engage in meaningful conversation.

          You have a curious and suspicious mind and I respect that. Prof. Tracy often invites authors and contributions. Why not submit one of your own ideas and ask that it might be considered inclusion in a blog topic or better yet – submit your own work and ask that it be considered for publication?

        4. Hi Kathy,

          You commented, “How do you know ‘Mr. Tracy didn’t write the article but posted an attorney’s unsolicited opinion ?’ ”

          Your implication, simply stated, is that Dr. Tracy did, in fact, write, post and credit the article to “Anonymous.”

          A comparison of the syntax of the piece in question and Dr. Tracy’s writing style evident in his many articles and comments on this blog reasonably suggests that the authors in question are two different people.


  10. While I am appreciative of the insight into any legal machinations that may face this investigation…I am deeply disappointed that Mr Tracy and his advisors are choosing to focus on the negative.

    Instead of spending all this time telling us why a particular course of action will not work…how about providing us with some direction as to what could work.

    1. Dr. Tracy “and his advisors” are not choosing to focus on the negative. He/they are choosing to focus on the facts. And on finding the best strategies to deal with this situation by eliminating those that won’t work.

      1. That’s the point. they are not “finding the best strategies”. They are poo-pooing other people’s ideas….which is fine if they are bad ideas…but where is one original strategy offered by Mr Tracy and his team?

      2. Vivian, are you a white-faced zombie with no intellectual thought for yourself? We are fighting a very powerful and evil force. We need all hands on deck and all eyes on the prize – exposing the cockroaches hiding in the shadows.

        If Halbig spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on this court case that “won’t work,” and it exposes this case to say — 100,000 new people — it will be worth it.

        There is no such thing as “eliminating those that won’t work.” Its a marketing discussion now about how to get to the people who are brainwashed by their TV’s.

        1. “There is no such thing as “eliminating those that won’t work.” Its a marketing discussion now about how to get to the people who are brainwashed by their TV’s.”

          I think this is a very important point, and I totally agree. Also, the amount of time spent trying to prove Halbig is a “fraud,” and pointing out the flaws in his plans might be better spent coming up with some alternate plans, and some ideas for putting those plans into action. Or at least do both instead of only criticizing. Just my opinion.

        2. “If Halbig spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on this court case that “won’t work…”

          I feel your passion and that would perhaps be the case if the attorneys can write spotless briefs and get it and keep in court – but the case may not see the light of day if it is thrown out via the opposition’s briefs. Case closed to do lack of standing or what have you. I don’t know that it would be the best way to spend all that money (I hate when the lawyers get all the money…which always seems to be the case).

        3. Wow Bill Fred – don’t call Hero Halbig any names but attack Vivian with that derogatory statement? Are you trying to get people to leave the board Bill Fred because of your rudeness?

          “If Halbig spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on this court case that “won’t work,” and it exposes this case to say — 100,000 new people — it will be worth it.”

          Disagree – this guy is beginning to hurt the truth movement with all the in-fighting he is causing. All it will do is awaken more people to the fact that their new truther rep is a liar who can’t put a cogent sentence together. I don’t need a leader – I talk with people on boards to spark new thoughts and ideas and when someone starts telling me how to act, think, speak I suspect they are not with us but against us.

          Now start slinging your mud at me…….

        4. The infighting is being caused by irrational people. There are a lot of people taking the exact same stand as me – stop with the attacks.

          Let me explain again and again. Dr. Tracy has posted articles questioning Mr. Halbig, but has not once used derogatory words. That is because Dr. Tracy is intelligent.

          On the other hand, all the people currently attacking Halbig are fools.

          I will continue to call out irrational people who attack Halbig, like Frederick. If I use the wrong words, sorry for you. And sorry you think I want to control what you think. Thats just weird.

        5. Nice work Isee.

          Halbig is revealing more of his true self. He pokes holes in his own puffed up resume. It still bugs the beans out of me that he plays himself as if he was a long-time state trooper with all of this experience – when i fact he was an officer for just an extremely short time and 40 years ago

          Just recently, he posted that his waistline was impacted from all of the donuts (like he was recently a police officer) – He is a walking misrepresentation.

          He’s been let go from many of his jobs – but indicates that these partings were caused because he spoke out for some cause. If true, why didn’t he sue? He has even lied about being “fired” from a business in which he was a partner. The other partner didn’t like what Halbig was up to and rumor was he was uncomfortable with the plan to raise money from people. But, Halbig likes the drama – so again uses the, “I was fired for” (this time it was “asking too many questions about Sandy Hook”). What a crock.

          He further proves his character by fibbing about a conversation and support given from a candidate for governor. Looks like she chopped him off at the knees pretty quickly – wish I could see what that certified letter looked like (read “cease and desist”) …because clearly she forced him to publicly admit he lied.

          What a train wreck. He will hurt the cause – not draw positive attention to it.

    2. I consider that a much greater task, requiring perhaps certain skills which most people don’t have. On the other hand, just as we have often declared something to be a hoax, because of a key element in it that doesn’t work in the real world, rendering it fictional, I think that knowing what the courts will throw out is essential in helping to avoid blind alleys and worthless endeavors.

      The critic does not have to create a new work, but is on solid ground in criticizing what has been presented or what is proposed to be done.

      1. This is my exact point – “blind alleys and worthless endeavors.” And being constructive is a “much greater task?”

        We are not going to win this in court. I think most people know that already. The system is stacked against us regardless of the legal jargon used by the “anonymous” author.

        Its all about publicity and getting the word out. The sick bastards who run this country use any means they can to push us back into our holes. We also need to use all means possible to get the word out to the brainwashed public. And if that means a failed court case, go for it.

      2. So you’re saying Mr Tracy isn’t an advocate…he’s a critic?

        Mr Tracy clearly has the ear of those with knowledge of the legal system and what may or may not work. Why are we only hearing what won’t work…and nothing about might work?

        1. I view the MemoryHoleBlog as not a place to read news or find solutions to what we see in the news that is wrong/troubling —

          It is a place to analyze what is given to us in the news and to discuss these issues with fellow posters. On occasion, guest posters have been given the opportunity to weigh in on issues.

          Maybe I’m just seeing things differently.

        2. Beth – I completely agree with you on the reason you go on blogs. Example – the post I made that sparked a thought you had one day. I love it when things like that open up. I love hearing a new idea from a poster that coincides with something I thought about and I can now expand on.

          This is why I have no interest in leaders. I appreciate Dr. Tracy having this board for us to bounce ideas off of. I know I’m fairly new here, but I have been on other boards (some private) for over a year now and it’s been an amazing journey with complete strangers. It’s pretty easy to pick out the people who are like-minded and just as easy to identify the trolls and $hit-starters.

    3. By the way, when people want to dismiss everyone who doubts the authority of the MSM or government, they often point out what are proposed as alternate theories, far more outlandish than even the original hoax, by way of explanation.

      The temptation to find motive and shadowy puppeteers behind these events creates the opportunity for those in power to avoid being held responsible. It tends to allow the hoax to remain firmly in place – perhaps to apply the final coating of glue that allows it to persist, as rational people stop paying attention to the inconsistencies and instead cling to the official explanation because it does not invoke as much magical thinking (but it certainly may!). What has been created is an “either/or” situation, and sometimes this is a planned outcome. It certainly was with UFOs in the Nevada Desert during the testing of early stealth aircraft.

      1. As much as it may appear a side-issue– i’d be concentrating all my support to the on-going Florida case regards why gypsum etc hazardous waste– isnt radioactive.

        This case is stalling upon the technicality that the litigants did not define ‘the scrubber process’ correctly–despite that it is the waste product –regardless of how it is processed–that is the defined hazardous and radioactive material.

        We certainly will be able to resolve ‘the UFOs in the Nevada Desert during the testing of early stealth aircraft” because these guys are merely the tip of the iceberg regards nuclear is safe and clean.

        That we are trying to emulate the unclean might require we also assume breathing hazardous materials isnt recommended [??].

  11. Beth D.- Thanks for that document.
    According to those guidelines, it looks to me like a traumatic cardiac arrest patient must be at least 18 years of age for resuscitation to be terminated by EMS arriving at the scene. The only exceptions are decapitation or transection of the torso, neither of which was ever mentioned in connection with these ‘victims’.
    The guidelines also state that “the person at the scene with the highest level of currently valid EMS certification and… who is affiliated with an EMS organization present at the scene will be responsible for resuscitation activities.” It doesn’t sound like an officer with a nurses license should have been in charge when there would have been highly trained and certified EMS available.
    It still seems to me that proper procedure was not followed, and that parents should have leal standing to sue. That they choose not to is highly suspect. What does our legal expert think?

    1. Christo – you’re welcome (the EMS-DOA link). That is 4 years old and I didn’t have time today to search for a newer model. Maybe they changed it before the event. I talked to an EMS person about this a while back and it was a head shaker but we’re in a different state.

      Maybe “Adam” was such a crack shot that he got each and every target in the head such that it was so devastating as to justify no attempts. It goes along with the story of how many shots he took that hit their mark in such a short period of time…(right…) As if any of us believe the tale of his sniper abilities.

      1. Christo/Beth- I’ve been in EMS for 15 years- it’s not a question of what someone is “allowed” to do- (regardless of training)- For example – all Police officers are “first responders” which means they can initiate CPR… as can lay people- The way it works in most states is that the next highest level of EMS care than takes over and starts “triaging” and making “Some” decisions- (not all since only a licenced MD can prounce death in most states)- So next let’s say the EMTs arrive- they have more training that first reponders -so they might leave some victims who are obviously mortally wounded- Once a Paramedic (or nurse in some cases) is on scene- they then take over- My issue as a parent would be- “were the victims (if there were any) attented to” and triaged in a timely manner in order to try and save as many as possible”- If paramedics were not allowed in after say 5- 10 minutes (which could make difference between life and death)-that’s an issue. If police inside were stalling/etc- that would bt my issue- If that is the case- delaying medics entry in any way is ground for a lawsuit. You do not have to have an MD on scene to prounce- Medics on scene work with an MD on line (usually transmitting an EKG strip) in order to make it official. in most cases- medics are the highest level of EMS care on site. Nurses are also based on training but many nurses (especially school) are not exposed to the amount ot “street” injuries out in the field that medics are exposed to

  12. I love all of the naysayers including “anonymous” who give their self-aggrandizing opinions on the job that Wolfgang is doing. Yet I’ll bet NONE of you have made any effort on uncovering this conspiracy other than bloviating. I would hope that the lawyers Wolfgang has contracted with would have informed him of the possible problems in going forward. Wolfgang Halbig has spent a lot of his own time and has put his life and name out there for all to see(and criticize, obviously) unlike the “anonymous” legal advice purveyor. Who amongst you can say you have done a fraction of the work to bring this conspiracy to light than Wolfgang Halbig?

    1. I would venture to guess that there are a few someones here who are slightly obsessed, have done hours upon hours of studying of the police reports, videos and pictures – and have spent hours researching, spent time collaborating with others and spouting off to others – starting educated conversations, pointed out discrepancies. The revolution often rises quietly from within…

  13. Beth D. thanks for this “anonymous” article and also for being the first to “comment” on it. Classy

    1. You are thanking Beth for this “anonymous”, article, that implies to me you know she is the author of it.

      If that is the case should we not investigate her credentials and past business dealings? The fact that she goes on and on with known trolls sends up the red flags to me.

      Nothing to see here, move along, the classy chick has declared there is no legal recourse to justice.

      1. Kathy,
        I didn’t write the article but flattered you thought of me.

        If you and your chucklehead cronies have any doubts – please feel free to send an email to the good professor and will can confirm that I was not the author.

        Then perhaps you and DMhennen can be mature enough to apologize for your very misguided rant.

    2. ??
      Nice try blamethrower.
      Get your facts straight. You and Halbig have some things in common.
      I did not write this article but appreciate that you thought of me.

  14. The people are harmed by the press reporting the Sandy Hook drill as an actual event, it is just that the law allows it to happen. I would say the standing is with the people who are harmed by the dynamic between the press reporting the drill as live and the result leading to legislation that restricts civil rights. Maybe the key is to find someone who has been a victim of libel or slander for being called a conspiracy theorist for doubting the official story of Sandy Hook that is willing to sue based on the grounds that the story is actually fake. The standing is: harm from libel or slander in being called a conspiracy theorist on grounds that the story is actually a lie. A good attorney with all the evidence contained on this site and others convincing a jury that the harmful accusation was based on false reporting and was damaging to the plaintiff could lead to an interesting precedent. Boy, I am really reaching as I know practically nothing regarding law….

    1. Rick, your last line gave me a chuckle. I feel your passion – been there, done that a few times in my life.

      Then you get these lawyers that look at us and say, “Well, point to the law that was violated” and “OK, calculate and give the basis for your damages”.

      They make us want to slap ’em say, “You went to law school – you figure it out and let me know what you come up with.” The law seems to make it easy for some and impossible for others, if you know what I mean. In situations like these, the biggest problem can be finding an attorney who will take on a weak or precarious case because they don’t want to look like a fool in front of the judge. It’s just maddening. You sit there and say, “But there must be a way – this is all wrong.” This is how most of these shysters get away with the things they do.

    2. I wonder if anyone has lost a job for talking smack about the follies at Sandy Hook – preferably someone living and working in Connecticut. The US (unlike Britain) has erred on the side of free speech, so that libel and slander don’t fly too well here. But if you were actually harmed for doubting the official story, and saying it on the job, might you sue for wrongful termination and be able to bring out information and subject it to the test of the court? Even settling such a case would raise issues.

  15. Mr. Halbig intends to scoop up as much cash from the public as possible, then abandom his claims to sue, depose, fight, etc., then claim he will use all the money to go in a different direction; such as writing a book, but he still needs more cash. In other words, he’s just a scammer seeking to rip off truthers on a popular topic i.e. Sandy Hoax.

    1. Halbig owns multiple homes. I don’t think becoming a Sandy Hook truther is the pathway to becoming rich.

      I can’t believe people actually think this is a possible scenario.

  16. Below is an example of an active law suit used with discovery to obtain public records. Potential harm to a community comes with the distress of falsely being told there’s a mass shooting in your neighborhood. I suppose it’s up to the courts to decide whether this is enough to weigh against the “public duty doctrine”. It would be good to examine state statutes to determine if records created by public officials (barring attorney/client privilege) belong to the public.

    El Rio vs COT Lawsuit over public documents request for GCU deal wraps up in court.KOLD TV: 4.01.14

    Closing arguments of Attorney Bill Risner in El Rio public documents trial:

    1. Unfortunately you can’t necessarily look how a case would be handled in one state as an example of how the case would be handled in another state. Connecticut provides an administrative process, which allows for quicker and cheaper resolutions of disputes, but also greatly limits the scope of what can be litigated. The court only plays an appellate role reviewing the administrative record. Arizona allows FOI challenges to be brought directly in court. This will allow for much broader rights for discovery and over the scope of the case. It is also a lot slower and more expensive.

      If you are interested, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press provides a great tool for comparing each state’s FOI law.

      So the point is that Halbig can bring his FOI lawsuit but that wont allow him to put the right people under oath.

  17. ————————————-

    Has anyone else noted the schizophrenic quality embedded in the hoax
    issues? “If” anyone died; ( no one died); parents of victimized children could sue with standing. (But no one has; because no one died?) EM responders did not function on a professional level; there was no reason to respond as there were no victims. It was all theater and no one can be brought to justice, etc., etc., etc.

    Small wonder no one has ideas on how to approach SH or BMB frauds legally. We can’t get a handle on it in real time.

    I listened to a discussion today on the SCOTUS decision regard the “McCutcheon” suit. A very wealthy man brought legal action against the cap on election donations. Now the SCOTUS deigned that this issue was well worth its valuable time.

    In a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, it was decided that there would be no restrications on the amount of money a donor can give to a political candidate. I bring this up because it is an example of how far down the road our vaunted high court has gone to protect special interests–i.e., the vested interests of the elite class, aka billionaires who buy access to the halls of congress and to the White House.

    I listened to the verbal gymnastics of Justice Scalia as he explained why he could not justify denying the Koch Brothers or Warren Buffet types their constitutional rights to use money to impose their will in matters of government. The GOP candidates were summoned to Nevada recently where they were vetted by another billionaire with money to burn and a desire to invest it in his various ventures expecting a payback. These men will choose who will run and who will win.

    Business as usual…

    Then I follow here on MHB our sincere wish to bring justice to outrageously unjust scenarios. And I wonder: would the SCOTUS take Mr. Halbig’s case under consideration? Connecticut won’t even allow him to present his case within the usual framework of legal process using legal machinations. When the inmates write the laws, the asylum goes berserk.

    The defense rests, your honor…..

    1. “We can’t get a handle on it in real time. ” Exactly what TPTB are counting on.Consider the possibility of Halbig being brought in to “tackle” the case only to prove just how hopeless an endeavour it is….

    2. Yes, there are no victims, hence, no lawsuits. That in itself is an obvious clue. Does anyone really think that, with that many “victims” NONE of them would have sued?

      Secondly, WHAT case? In my understanding he has “questions”. Questions doth not a “case” make. We know its a hoax, they are not admitting it. How would we prove anything with no ability to examine witnesses or acquire documents?

      Connecticut may have laws that fall into the “just-Us” category, but so do other states. It may be a travesty, but it isn’t illegal.

      This is just a small example of how the legal system works. Most think it is about purity and light and getting to the “truth”. It isn’t. It “can” work, somewhat, for those who have the resources to access it.

      These laws in question were put there for precisely this reason, to protect the guilty. For states that do not have these laws they simply lie and say they don’t have the documents you want. If you appeal your clothes could go out of style and they’ll bleed you dry in the process.

    3. I do believe that the Sandy Hook incident was a government authorized hoax with CT complicity to carry it out and the Newtown authorities being convinced or bribed to go along with it, it is still premature to state definitely that “no one died”. We still do not know what actually happened, and maybe never will. Wee cannot argue about “if anyone died or no one died”. The government does not care how many people die as long as their objectives are achieved. And who knows how many more may meet mysterious deaths if they break the code of silence?

  18. A “Spingola Saga Update” lol:

    Kaminski was guest on Nick’s “Circus Maximus” podcast last night; find MP3 & (censored) Mami’s comments at:

    ^ It’s 2 hours, and beginning at 30 minutes, Mami’s mod “zapopper” calls in, mostly to inquire about the S.Hoax situation & Deanna. This discussion continues for 17 minutes. Kaminski makes his disillusionment with Spingola clear. Well worth the listen.

    Spingola has posted a couple of, err, ‘interesting comments’ at mami’s blog entry for her most recent AFP show with guest “Wade”. You have to read them to believe them:

    First DS comment is [April 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM], which I would describe as a textbook ‘Flip the Script and Project’ gambit… same MO which has characterized DS’s entire anti-SHoax-skepticism campaign which began with her Jan 15 show, where she preemptively ‘suggested’ that SHoax-skepticism may itself be… drumroll… a Sunstein cognitive-infiltration psy-op!!… lol.

    Next DS comment in that same thread is [April 3, 2014 at 12:52 PM], which picks knits over Dr. Fetzer’s grammar in his angry Sofia/Halbig email, and questions whether the email came from Fetzer?

    lol, where to even begin on that one?!?

    1. John Kamimski used to be a frequent guest on Deanna Spingola’s ‘Spingola Speaks’ program. Guess he won’t be guesting anymore. Deanna should hang up a Gone Fishing shingle. In one sentence she writes that public officials often deserve our distrust. In the next she writes that we should trust formal reports from the same bunch.


      “They (change agents) ask questions, not because they want information but to generate a lack of confidence in public officials who admittedly often deserve our distrust.

      If people ask public officials for specific information that those officials have already provided in the formal reports, then there is no need for further queries if answers are the real objective.”

    2. Darren Weeks, who has a morning Saturday program on RBN where Deanna Spingola has a Sunday program now, said this morning that it took a long time to come to this conclusion, but he now firmly believes that Sandy Hook was a staged event with crisis actors. He added that from now on he’ll have a hard time believing official stories about any hyped shooting incidents.

  19. From Wolfgang Halbig’s gofundme site:

    We are traveling to Newtown on May 5th for an evening planning session with CT parents.
    On the morning of May 6th we will visit two of the non-profits such as United Way Western Ct and the Newtown non-profit that have collected $24 million dollars and inspect their records as to who contributed and how the funds were allocated.
    May 6th at 7:30 pm we will attend the Newtown Public Schools School Board Meeting and providing them through our Attorney Paul Spinella our CT FOIA request in person.
    We will also visit the Newtown Police Department to introduce myself and get them to provide us with our CT FOIA requests through our Attorney.
    THey came to my house so now I am going to their house.
    Thanks for having faith in me.

    There is an attorney by the name of A. Paul Spinella with an office in Hartford. If this is the same Spinella Mr. Halbig is referring to, his reviews are less than stellar. But hopefully they may surprise all of us and bring some encouraging news.

    1. Anne, this will end badly. No “non-profit” is going to hand over records to W.H., attorney or no attorney. The police don’t have his FOIA records. He may be “going to their home”, but he may not be leaving.

    2. Anne B – Halbig seems to reference two attorneys (who are charging a $5,000 retainer…just to be called a client + $200/hr). This particular fellow you name – he doesn’t seem to fit the areas of expertise needed here.

      1. Yes, there was a lawyer in Carson City, Nevada and now one in Connecticut. There is only one attorney by the name of Paul Spinella in CT, actually Agostino Paul Spinella, aka A. Paul Spinella. In addition to handling hip replacement claims and nursing home abuse, according to his website he also represents clients who had their rights violated by law enforcement, municipalities, government agencies and officials. Halbig’s case would fall in there somewhere. Perhaps the visits to his home by LE will qualify if nothing else.

        Excerpt from attorney Spinella’s website:

        “A particular area of Attorney Spinella’s practice is the area of criminal trial and appellate practice. He is the author of Connecticut Criminal Procedure, a 1,000-page textbook that examines the history, development, and existing state of the law of criminal procedure. First published in 1985, this text was the result of four years of labor—it has recently been supplemented two times and is presently undergoing additional revisions. As a result of his zealous defense of the citizen accused, Attorney Spinella has developed a substantial practice prosecuting claims on behalf of citizens who have had their rights violated by law enforcement, municipalities, government agencies and officials, and powerful corporate interests.”

        As overwhelming as all this is, it’s also a look into a future world run by tyrants. A world where police and military drills, false flags, psychological warfare and empire building become the new normal in people’s lives. Throw in Common Core for good measure and the word freedom becomes a relic. That is until the empire falls as all empires must.

        1. Hi Anne B!

          You crack me up! Well, speaking of wingnuts.. Halbig posted that he has three attorneys (in CT- that guy); NV (oh boy…Day Williams) and someone in MD.

          Did you see the whacko letter Day sent to Prof. Tracy? Most of the regulars remember Mr. Day from his posts here in MHB…or his creepy YouTubeVideos, his blog and excerpts from his book.

          What kind of practicing attorney writes something like this?

          In follow-up, Halbig posts this letter from his attorney on his Fbook like he’s just somehow threatened the good Prof with a statement, “….we’re ready to start the game”. Yeah, Wolfie, sure.

          Wolfiemay be off his meds. His posts (or his cohorts’) are getting more desperate. Today, someone he was chatting with on-line had their FBook hacked / closed so he announces that one of his people with “boots on the ground in CT has been attacked.” Well, guess one has to resort to such efforts when their fundraising has stalled so much. Drama, drama, drama.

          The man doesn’t even write 1/2 of his posts. One today starts out with, “Dude…” — so, what – now he’s paying neighorhood kids to write them or something? Yet, I can’t look away — in light of the entertainment value.

        2. Beth D – no, I was not aware of that letter. Just a couple of days ago I started checking out Sandy Hook Justice, Wolfgang’s site. I saw the “dude” remark and reasoned it would be more at home on a biker site. I also learned of the snafu with a lawyer running for governor. Friends in high places are hard to come by and harder to keep.

          I am sure Newtown will put out all the stops on May 5th and 6th. Nuttin’s gonna rain on their parade. There is also an image on Wolfgang’s site from the recent video chat. He does look a bit older than in the one picture we’ve seen most often. To quote Dr. Carver “I hope this doesn’t all come crashing down on Newtown’s head.” Let’s hope he is wrong and it all does come crashing down.

        3. I pray people who are left with no options because the law is stacked against them don’t take the law into their own hands.

    3. A prediction: Halbig is shown something that “changes his mind” and “convinces” him the shooting took place as the official story says.

      1. Quite possibly.
        As I’d mentioned earlier – it would not at all surprise me if this big kinda dumb lug is a “hired” hand.

        1. Of course he is-he’s only useful as a tool(pun intended)to show how futile fighting the system is….

  20. The article is accurate and, like some of us have been saying, any lawyer worth their salt would have told him that. I appreciate the information. I tried in my own way to say the same thing.

    There is a difference between WANTING to do something and BEING ABLE to accomplish it. This is often an unpleasant, even unfair reality. However, as adults we have to be able to look realistically at our options.

    As I said, and the article confirms, the courts are not a viable option. That doesn’t mean “you don’t like Wolfgang”. It means what it means.

    I personally believe that about all one can realistically expect to accomplish here is to raise public awareness of the lying. The hope would be that more and more people would simply quit listening to anything they said. They can continue to make movies, it just isn’t effective if nobody watches them.

    1. Hi Lophatt…Hope you are well. I know, I know…it’s the way the legal system is set up…and it stinks.

      I agree w/what you say about refusing to watch the show – but I’m not entirely convinced that lives are not taken in some of the “events”…maybe “they” think it is a sacrifice for the “republic”. I believe they do it.

      Like I said to someone today, “If someone told me 10 years ago that our gubbermint was involved in [Fast & Furious], I would’ve said they were nuts.” I think they will do whatever it takes to control/take/etc.

    2. Very well said. Even in real disasters like OSO, OSO Strong? …it makes me wonder if this was not a pre-meditated disaster? and makes me sick that I have to wonder about that, there are players there trying to pull the heartstrings, collect the money, have us buy the T-shirt. A few days prior, the local news helicopter and helicopter pilot for Channel 4 that would have, could have provided local overhead coverage, mysteriously crashed and the pilot dies.

      1. Bewise…your comment on the helicopter crash reminded me of the lady in HA who released Obama’s supposed long-form birth certificate.

        The small plane she was in had crash-landed in the water – but everyone was fine, floating/hanging and talking while waiting for rescue. She is seen on video – looking just fine. Sure, could’ve had an internal is possible. Next thing anyone knew she was gone (slipped underwater). Suspicious…seriously. Autopsy? Hmmm, perhaps someone on board had hypodermic to finish her off? Just saying – it was so odd and the story buried. Move along, nothing to see here.

        Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit down and tally up the number of folks who met their demise while being in a position to know very damaging info, was involved in nasty conduct or otherwise? Like all of the Clinton associates – like an epidemic of death in that circle.

        Between your post today and the story today of the CIA agent who supposedly “jumped” out a window of the CIA building…it got me thinking about that sort of a “project”. Did a Benghazi file (or some other) go missing with him?

      2. Bewise..

        In follow-up to my note of a few mins ago – I found a story of Loretta Fuddy’s autopsy results. Hmm, same as Andrew Breitbart, perhaps?

        To me – it smells of a hypodermic but sure, a plane accident can cause a person a wee bit of stress, even though it was a fairly gentle dip into the water compared to what it could have been. The brother said she had no known heart issues.

        I don’t mean to stray off topic…but this one just picks at my brain at times (as does the list of deaths).

  21. How to get standing:

    1. donate to one of the infinite number of Sandy Hook media family “charities”.

    2. after the donation is accepted, request an accounting from the charirty as required by law.

    3. check that the specified purpose of the charity is being fulfilled. It won’t be in 99% of cases since they never thought anyone would check. For example the Emilie Parker art foundation has done everything BUT art so far.

    4. lawyer letter to charity requesting more info, docs, and accounts. CC the letter to the relevant state’s attorney general, SAIC FBI, chief of police, police serious fraud division, FBI cybercrime since all the charities are on the web in a big way. Also publicise the letter on your own blog, website, farcebook, twatter, etc.

    Net cost of activism: 50 buck donation to a fake charity to trigger events.

    If you pay a lawyer to do your letter, whatever the cost of that is. Otherwise get a lawyer to do it for free online or search legal precedents. It’s a better business bureau type letter. You paid a charity for a service- namely whatever charitable purpose they are masquerading under. They didn’t deliver.

    If even ten or let alone fifty armchair gasbags did the above, the entire situation would change in favour of research.

  22. So what is the authors point writing this article? Trying to help or what? Why don’t you pick up the phone get with Mr. Halbig to assist? I dont care if he is succesful in a lawsuit or not, he is rocking the boat and we are going to help the man all we can.

    1. Yes, why not ask Halbig himself? Let him try and defend himself. Meanwhile everyone is ignoring the sleeping giant – Boston, which had a lot more taxpayers’ dollars poured into it than SH. Lots of news the past few weeks including Dzhokhar’s lawyers want his brother’s records to show he had little to do with the smoke bombs and thus get him life instead of the chair.

      Question to Anonymous, Esq. isn’t there both prosecution and defense misconduct in Dzhokhar’s case? After all, he went back to classes and didn’t flee because he didn’t know he’d be fingered for a patsy. It seems both sides of the bench are right out of a film noir corrupt judiciary.

    1. That is a strange site – all kinds of stories on the blog section about various school incidents, SH, bomb threats at other schools. Why would a crisis actor site be blogging about school troubles – unless they were part of the cast for each story.

      Thanks for the link Tammie.

      1. I had visited this site before it was beefed up. I had to peak again and found their new blog interesting. But – I had to go back and look at this one, particular photo tonight.

        Check the list of crisis actors for the young lady with the long blonde hair. Her resemblance to a SHook child was a bit jaw-dropping (at least to me).

      1. funny – their disclaimer. Seems they felt it was “necessary to clarify”. Sorry, Crisis Actors – we’re not buying it!!

    2. Tammie – that is an interesting site! Did you catch this page?

      Story-driven simulation. Hmmm, sounds very interesting. Look out because their going to be doing it for the military now, too. I wonder which of our neighborhoods will be selected for this.

      Thanks for posting this – I had to bookmark it to watch their blogs.

  23. And this all could be cleared up in a MINUTE by Thousands of different sources.
    ONE verifiable crime scene picture,
    Answer a few simple questions.
    And MILLIONS of Americans are questioning the VERY STRANGE acts that took place in Sandy Hook can get on with their lives.
    There is absolutely no doubt in any independently thinking persons mind, that this was defiantly a horrible evil staged HOAX on AMERICANS.
    Why not CLEAR IT UP TOTALLY, so we do not have to be at odds with each other ?? ————— THEY CAN”T !!!!!

    1. You wouldn’t believe the pictures if produced, just like you swat down You Tube videos, pictures, interviews, so whats the point?

      Secondly, they don’t need to answer to you. Nor must everyone defend actionable event to based on circumstantial evidence. The “truth seekers” must understand that the truth must be rooted out (if it need be done) with hard evidence. If not, you have built an elaborate house of cards.

      Research the scientific method and its practice. Conclusion does not drive the process. Hence the purpose for blind and double blind studies.


      1. Here we go again with the little codes at the bottom of the comments. What was your name last go around, “Wilson?” Mike, was it? I can’t remember. In any case, you might want to switch up the language a little if people are going to believe you’re a different person, and you might consider a different marking process than the obvious code markers at the bottom of your comments. 🙂

        1. Michelle, What are code markers at the bottom? I am not familiar with. Just curious – thanks!

        2. Beth: See the little A at the end of his comment? There was another person posting here a couple months back–can’t recall the name–but they typed with the exact same style, wording, etc as “Wilson,” and they also put random letters or numbers at the end of their comments. I’m presuming it’s some sort of code system used to track their comments, possibly to show their employers they’re meeting quota? Or maybe trolls just like putting random letters at the end of their comments, lol. Just found it bizarre.

        3. Hi Michelle!

          Thank you for that – I had never heard of that before. I really appreciate your taking the time to reply. That’s one I’m going to look for in the future — especially when I read comments on other sites. Thanks again!

        4. Beth: No problem! I haven’t heard of it either, I just noticed the weird random letters and numbers at the end of the comments, and they only appeared on comments from this person now going by “Wilson.” I never saw anything like that anywhere else on any other forums or from different posters, so I can’t say for sure that is definitely what is going on, but that was the conclusion I drew. Makes sense, right? Unless, like I said, those pushing the official narrative of SH just like to put little letters at the end of their posts haha. Maybe “Wilson” will respond and clear it up for us;)

      2. Wilson,You are such an obvious Troll;nothing you say can be taken seriously…troll on out of here!(don’t forget to collect your check marked “A”)

  24. This legal opinion regarding Halbig’s standing to sue is confusing because it conflates Halbig’s standing with that of the parents, the most injured party other than the ‘victims’. It implies that the parents would not have standing to sue. This is nonsense. Anonymous states: ” The duties typically carried out by first responders such as police dept. fire dept. and paramedics are the classic type of public duty that no one can sue the government for failing to carry out.” An again: “If the Sandy Hook response was incompetent and thus failed to save lives, a lawsuit would be barred by the public duty doctrine.” So the paramedics can stand around doing nothing while all the injured children lie in a heap on the floor, ignoring all guidelines for terminating resuscitation efforts, and the parents are barred from suing by the public duty doctrine? So the paramedics could stop off on the way to the hospital and have a pizza and no one would have any legal recourse? This can’t be true.
    Halbig may have problems with his standing to sue, but the parents most certainly do have standing. This is important because their failure to sue anyone is a glaringly improbable flaw in this whole narrative. I don’t understand why this legal author is implying otherwise.

    1. I think you have made a very important point about the parents having standing to sue. In fact, the question of standing would come up first thing when an agency tried to defend itself and also claim that the parent failed to go through an administrative process first, to decide if some duty by the agencies were breached.

      But until that case was filed, the parent would not know that the outcome would be having it thrown out. There would be plenty of attorneys who would take such a case, and use it to publicize how badly the school, city and state let down the parents.

      So why hasn’t this happened at least once? A parent does not have to be a fanatic to bring such a case. Was there already a settlement to bar lawsuits? When did it happen?

      The movie script breaks down at just these edges, Halbig or not. So being overly broad about standing, basically saying everyone lacks it – may actually obscure the absence of normality in parental behavior which is perhaps a hallmark of any school shooting hoax.

      1. I meant to say – “until the case that was filed came before a judge” standing would not be an issue. You could still file the case.

    2. The public officers likely aren’t shielded if they stop off and get that pizza – as that’s willful malfeasance…but I do get what you mean. This CT form of government is scary – and they’re not the only state – much to my recent shock (thanks to a poster who informed us about this type of state government).

  25. Let me just interject something here after reading the comments that accuse people of attacking Halbig when all that is being done is simply showing how the legal system can be used to stymie people. Take the case of the current occupant of the WH who has not to this day been able to provide untampered and verifiable documentation that he was eligible to even run for president let alone prove he is a natural born citizen as required by Article II section I clause V of the constitution (which he isn’t). He may not even be a mere US citizen either.

    Countless cases have been presented to the courts by a wide variety of both lawyers and average citizens for the last 5 years asking that Obama and lawyers present evidence of a true copy of a birth certificate. Virtually all cases are thrown out due to standing! That means that we, the true citizens of the US and registered voters have no interest or claim (so says the courts) to KNOW that a person running for POTUS and ELECTED can be relied upon to be constitutionally eligible and we have no right to know! If that is true – that we have no right to know the candidate or POTUS IS eligible – then we are truly screwed, our vote is useless and we are not a nation of laws but of men and no one cares. We are corrupted beyond hope.

    And you expect Halbig to succeed in this with thuggish governance? It reminds me of Orly Taitz who being a lawyer herself has pursued the eligibility issue… but in a buffoonish and clownish way full of legal bumbling and mistakes with her filings. It has made many of us wonder if she is controlled opposition to make us “birthers” seem stupid. Just sayin’.

    The standing issue is real and they use it as a weapon.

    1. It was interesting that the video chat failed and they had to move the chat to an audio only site. One of the participants on the video chat made a comment that Wolf was having trouble keeping his eyes open.

      One of the people on the chat by the name of Jackie Truetown had her FB account erased while on the chat and now apparently has disappeared. She supposedly had new info about SH due to dating some guy from Newtown. I caught this comment over on Youtube where they posted 10 minutes of the chat. I only mention this comment being made because it’s along the same lines used by some posters as to why we need to trust Halbig – credentials (past gov’t employment and ex LE)

      The comment:

      Brent Devlin

      Hmm Jackie truth town. … what’s a k turn
      3 hours ago (edited)

      Is that your insult/implication that she is a teenager? She is a parent, worked in a government office, and a former police officer. She’s very astute and articulate. Some of us mothers are actually intelligent and good-looking. Get used to it.

      namesnotmary chimes in as well with her thoughts about Jackie’s research and disappearance.

      1. From the information here in regards to residents on Crestwood Drive, asking about the last time they heard children at the school prior to 12/14/12 will be dangerous to one’s health.

        1. True Anne B, one surely has to be careful…or they might end up in the same cell/cave/grave as the missing real estate appraiser who worked in a certain attorney’s office.

          It would seem logical there are certain real dangers there – if not the result of the powerful, one might encounter some passionate residents…with tire irons, etc.

  26. I am a retired educator like Wolfgang. I was also a medical corpsman in the military. What we need is to choose a “blue ribbon” panel of lawyers, educators, police officers and medical staff to put a plan together. A major problem like this requires a major plan.

    1. I share everyone’s general angst that Halbig’s plan is not robust. He’s like a little league ballplayer going into the World Serious.

      But, hey, he’s playing in a game that no one else has gotten into. We, the lonely blogging faithful, comprise a group of very few arm chair QBs and stat keepers passionate over micro managing a truth-destined strategy. But no one else is out there swinging. Nobody else is pitching. No one else is sweating. For now.

      Yes I wish Wolf would plan smarter. Maybe he is. And if all he musters is one hit in nine Newtown innings, then the scammers who have cheated our collective integrity will know we want to play another game.

      They cannot rule us just because they have more money. We want accountability. We want truth.

      I remain committed to justice and our children’s future.

      1. Old man, considering an odd connection in Halbig’s past that didn’t appear to lead anywhere on the surface…what if I were to propose to you the possibility that Halbig has bee engaged for the most interesting consulting project yet…by the gubbermint…rather, a certain facet of it. What if he were being paid to put on this show – and then fall on the sword? I’m not saying I firmly believe this – just throwing it out as one of the few possibilities…

        1. Beth D, of course this may all be a set-up. Clearly, the regulars here including our top notch academic mavericks will be all over the proceedings. I have confidence that you especially will not be fooled.

        2. OldMan…I’m sorry, of course you – as one of our regulars, have your radar up. Thanks for that.

  27. Here’s the kind of chance truth has today: Opening Day at Fenway Park, the “survivors” of the BMB appear as celebrities in Red Sox gear, and they greet and are greeted by their colleagues, the Red Sox, while players get the Sox ring with its new “proud” legend “Boston Strong.”

    I think I now understand that old phrase, “See you in the funny papers.”

      1. I thought you were joking. There’s cheap and there’s Scots’ cheap. They wouldn’t put out the money for Miley Cyrus and her wrecking ball, either.

        1. Anne B and Musings…OMG, great spot Anne B. I clicked on your story link and have to tell you it was the source of some serious chuckling around here. What in the heck?

          I picture some Scots yucking it up around the table and coming up with this idea. One maybe even remarks that it is a comical way to also send a message (to the U.S.)


          It seems to me like an event you’d see in a “Hunger Games” installment.

          Maybe it’s just me but after the chuckle we had here about “cheap” and “weird” – I can’t help but think it is in very bad taste – and can only imagine all of the folks who actually have lost a loved one in a building collapse watching that one with some horror.

        2. I know there is a hatred in the UK for “tower blocks”, and that they have some kind of relation to the welfare state which Thatcherism set out to demolish decades ago. But pray tell, where did all those people go to live? Were they all white Scots or immigrants? What’s the back-story, I wonder.

      2. ————————————-
        Anne B, I am trying to think of a phrase that best describes the demolition-as pagaentry in Glasgow. As usual, the glowing remarks of officialdom thinly veil the violent respone. Why do they think people wish to watch history being dismantled. When history has so little impact, can the future be far behind?

        The more the hype, the more tnt will be necessary for the next
        explosive entertainment event. Just ponder how this exercise
        plays out in movies/tee vee…The escalation of FX (special effects) and you don’t need a plotline, just ear-splitting booms and debris falling out of the sky. Our culture is being hijacked and totaled by those who must keep it interesting. And we comply with our dollars.

        Just my take….

        1. Marilyn Jay – The line you wrote, “When history has so little impact…”
          I’m going to borrow that one for my homeschoolers. Brilliant and so true.

  28. When I first heard Halbig being interviewed, I found he very inspired and thought “who could be better than a school safety expert to look into this.” But I also saw that his plan had serious flaws. We have seen this happen time and again where someone with a name takes up a cause then becomes “satisfied.” They then turn into irrefutable truth the the “legitimate” version of the events were true because 1. they have some credibility and they were “convinced.”

    Some of you may be familiar with “Charlie Veitch” — the only person who has ever been the convinced the government’s version if 911 is true after first studying the 911 evidence and embraced the truther cause. BBC recorded his “conversion” and he is now held up as the best “proof” that those of us who are skeptic irrational. See eg

    Halbig has some good questions, and he may be above board but he also has some not-so-good questions. Moreover his idea to just get people under oath seems unrealistic and a waste of energy and resources. Any good lawyer will see these flaws. At least how they are phrased, they aren’t even good FOI questions, because under FOI, you need to ask for records, not information

    But they are not questions he will be able to force someone important to answer by filing a lawsuit. And if he doesn’t see this, even with legal advice, that makes me suspicious.

    Halbig could be totally above board and just uneducated about a fairly obscure legal doctrine — so I hope he reads this post and focuses his energies on other ways to make a difference. But if he just continues on the same path (and he is working with the folks Dr. Tracy identified in his earlier post), we should not all “get behind” or else we may end up helping create another tool to dismiss our concerns.

    1. Well said.

      Just to add a wee thought: I’m still not entirely convinced the guy hasn’t been “positioned” by certain someones to help to discredit the non-believers. He seems like the perfect pigeon.

    2. Ramer, I agree. I’m not sure that’s what is happening with Halbig, but, not matter who it was, or how “credible” they were, they would portray him or her in an extremely negative way.

      After all, it’s hard to find an example of media complicity worse than this one. Whether he’s a “plant” or not really wouldn’t make much difference although I agree it would tend to strengthen their position.

      I have a hard time understanding how people believe that going to the perpetrators of a lie and demanding a confession is going to work. They don’t work for us. I know, they’re SUPPOSED to, but they don’t.

      Any relief, or “salvation” will not come from the perpetrators. This is a totally contrived event, just like so many others. No one is going to embarrass them into confessing. No one is going to bring charges.

      Look at all the 9-11 evidence, and JFK evidence. See any confessions? Both of those eventually brought us “monkey trials” and white-washed “reports”. Case closed, “nothing to see here, move along”.

      In the case of JFK the “jury” actually found a conspiracy. Great! So what was the consequence? In a psychological sense, they actually like it when we know. It helps with the overall helplessness they wish to engender.

      Personally, any public interaction with authorities on a matter like this should be done for “modeling” purposes as well. Laughing at them publicly would be good. The goal is to have others question them as well and not to take them seriously. They would have a lot more difficult time with these things if nobody believed them and everyone laughed at them.

      “Authority” can’t stand not to be taken seriously. In truth they like our anger. It makes them feel even more powerful.

      So, yes I agree with what you said. They could easily use him (if he isn’t already being groomed for this purpose), and yes, they would use a broad brush to paint us all with the “nutter” label. But, who cares? Getting “official” action is never going to happen anyway. Embarrassing them publicly could be done with the right information.

  29. The mistake you are making James Tracy (with all due respect reserved) is that you are now distracting from real Sandy Hook research and facts and are instead focusing this event on a particular personality.. There have been now a number of articles on this blog about Mr. Halbig.

    This is EXACTLY the method which was used to derail the 9/11 truth movement, where it became more about Steven Jones, Alex Jones, David Icke and other gatekeepers- whether or not Mark Dice was telling the truth etc. instead of focusing on the facts, the research, the evidence and moving forward from there.

    I hope this is not an intentional attempt to derail the great strides in research being made by SH researchers.

    By focusing on what ONE PERSON is doing, and their exploits, we lose our focus and the event becomes about them, instead of the subject at hand. Ultimately SH becomes tabloidicized, and people stop paying attention facts and evidence and now becomes about what Woflgang Halbig did, and whether he is legitimate, what HE is saying is correct, and whether nor not he telling the truth etc.

    Personalities are a distraction, and quite frankly, Mr. Tracy, I am very surprised you are still even mentioning this character with his extremely sketchy background of “fund raising 100,000 dollars for gender inequality” etc.

    Instead of article after article talking about Halbig- How about an article talking bout how PREPOSTOROUS the notion that a boy who “refused to touch metal objects such as door knobs” would touch multiple metal objects- over and over again- the metal trigger on a gun, and the guns themselves!

    Instead of yet another article on Halbig- How about an article going into how RIDICULOUS it is that a kid who won’t even talk to his own mother in person, and instead talks to her via E-mail not only has NO digital record, but also goes to college 2 years early!!!.. Every college I know of will not accept a bizarre mute kid with a learning disorder who won’t speak to their classmates or teacher- especially after their Sophomore year in high school! Let’s focus on THAT not Halbig!

    Please Tracy, stick to the evidence, and don’t make this about yet another cult-of-celebrity “leader” detracting from the actual research and instead making this a gossip magazine about one person who mark my words will ultimately burn us.

    1. Agree with you 100%. When a known troll arose from his silence initiating endless debates on the subject, it was very clear this is a planned attack against the truthers.

      1. Better yet, we should have known when we read his emails.

        Even better, we should have known on April 1st when he didn’t go to Sandy Hook in March as he had said he would.

        Or how about when he said he was going to the April school board meeting on the 5th or 6th(?), but the school board meeting was earlier in the week, the 1st or 2nd. Dates aren’t that important because he didn’t go then, either!

    2. History has proven that there is no “right” way to get to truth. Sometimes we bleed. Sometimes we get lucky.

      Doubt Halbig all you want. He clearly can’t type and he probably has been weak at general accounting principles his entire life (no IPOs in his career, for sure).

      But everyone has heard him on the radio. He speaks with clarity and purpose. If you think he’s a salesman, great, you’re right.

      He’s going into Newtown and will probably rely on his ready, fire, aim approach to problem solving. In the process, he will face another defining moment in his life. Maybe he will get lucky.

      I, for one, look forward to keeping up with Wolf via this blog.

      1. You’re probably the kind of person who followed Charlie Veitch’s every move with great anticipation, and Alex Jones’ every move with great anticipation… It’s working out great so far.. They “lead us” absolutely nowhere.. let’s pay close attention to the the next cult of personality with a shady background who came out of nowhere!.

        It doesn’t concern you that Wolf Halbig was attempting to raise 100,000 dollars for a different cause shortly before Sandy Hook?? Haha.. are you kidding?

        1. Like many, I have experienced great disappointment in people. It’s called living among human beings.

          How many times do you have to flip a coin to have it land on its side?
          That’s what we all desire and I think it will take a miracle, no matter how pure our collective intent.

          To me, any toss still represents hope. You want some cash Paulstal? Get us something akin to a miracle re: the truth at SH. I will reimburse you no less than $5,000.00 for your efforts.

          The same goes for anyone else flipping coins here.

        2. You can pay me my $5,000 now- I have already exposed pretty much every aspect of this hoax on my YouTube account, including the woman who was playing Nancy Lanza being Annie Haddad at 27 Cobbler’s Mill road.. and was one of the first to point out Adam was Ryan. Looking forward to the 5 grand, very generous of you. Thanks.

          I guarantee ultimately I will have done more to advance Sandy Hook research than Halbig will ever do leading everyone down a dark hole (please look at the Sandy Hook videos on my account, and the views they have gotten and understand how many people I have reached).. I have spent hundreds, if not at least a thousand of hours of my free time researching and putting together videos on this hoax, yet notice how I’m not asking for donations to do so?

          Again, I will ask you a question you ignored above: Does it concern you that Wolf Halbig was attempting to raise 100,000 dollars for a different cause shortly before Sandy Hook?

        3. The Paulstal –
          Have you ever heard from Hadid or her legal counsel as a result of your theories? Just curious as one would expect to receive a cease and desist if the accusation is false and causing angst. If you have not received any sort of warnings from that camp…I’d find it interesting. Thanks!

        4. @ Beth…

          I have not received any sort of cease and desist notice. One would have expected one by now if what I was saying was bothering someone actually not related to this event.

          If I was wrong about my assertions regarding her being the woman playing Nancy Lanza, I’m sure I would have been sued, or attempted to have been sued by now, but that has not happened, which to me says something.

          Of course, if she did attempt to sue me, she would have to have her own background open to discovery in a court of law in order to prove what I was saying was factually incorrect. This she will of course never do though because it would just prove me right and she would likely be arrested and charged with- ironically conspiracy.

          After attempting to sue me, she would have to prove me wrong. The media circus this would create (probably only on alternative media at first) would also shed too much light on her, and the cat would be out of the bag completely- with a living “Nancy Lanza” alive and kicking of course entire SH narrative would be completely destroyed.

          Of course, she would have to also prove that I was lying when suing me. None of what I have said is false- She has 7 aliases, she worked at a Sandy Hook school, she attended monthly mom’s night out meet ups, her nickname is Nancy, She lived less than a mile away from Yoganada street, she is unemployed (just like Nancy)- She was on the Sandy Hook PTA with Dawn Hochsprung and others and she is married to a Peter and has taught children with learning disabilities..

          She can’t sue me for telling the truth and she hasn’t attempted to do so.

        5. Hi ThePaulSal,

          Thanks for your reply! I didn’t think you had any push-back as your videos remain up but had to ask. Most interesting. Very telling indeed.

        6. To postal Paulstal – I feel your passion, and also your anger. 100 grand is chump change in this arena. Kudos to your dedication and quality research. But the truth is not just your sandbox to participate in. Keep tossing. I’m paying attention to everyone and looking for results that impact long-overdue physical change in our society.

    3. I think the attorney’s view on the lack of standing was most timely – and is pertinent to all to consider, not in only the Halbig case.

      Issues relating to forcing FOIA compliance are at the heart of trying to get written data relating to many types of investigations. Certainly this should be pertinent knowledge for you as well. For example: Someday you may wish to FOIA public records data to support your believe that a Ms. Haddad is actually Nancy Lanza (per your videos and posts).

      I think the Halbig situation – while a bit of a train wreck of a distraction is interesting to watch unfold. Therefore, I enjoy seeing posts that are related to it. Part of my interest involves some self-study in human nature as it is incredible how rabid some the pro-Halbig folks are towards the unbelieving / skeptical.

      You obviously don’t feel the same and I think most here would respect that. Some people might think your videos are not relevant or off track -and I wouldn’t necessarily agree (I’ve not seen most..yet). But the owner of a blog enjoys the same personal freedom to post as they wish (as you do) and the visitor has the freedom to visit, read and exchange ideas, if they’d like…or not.

    4. Supplying cognitive dissonance for the alternative media crowd.

      “In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. Wikipedia”

      “Cognitive dissonance is central to many forms of persuasion to change beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors.”

    5. While I agree that tangent can waste a lot of energy, I think in light of who Dr. Tracy is and what he does, his blog (which is not dedicated to Sandy Hook) is the perfect place for those who are interested to debate some issues.

      Moreover, Halbig isn’t just some bit player – he has gotten more attention amongst truthers than anyone else looking into Sandy Hook. It he succeeds in drawing any attention for the general public, and then is “force” to admit the government version is “true” because all of his “questions” are answered, it could have devastating effects.

      Think of how many times someone says to you “they looked at that at Snopes and found it was untrue.” Or how many times have you heard “that was debunked by Popular Mechanics”? All it takes if some memorable “debunking” to permanently shut people’s eyes.

      In light of the law on standing, a prudent investigator seeking the truth would re-calibrate his plan. If he doesn’t, he’s either not prudent or not seek the truth. Either way, we should be ready for that fact.

      1. This is exactly the scenario I’m concerned about that may play out: Halbig has his questions answered and therefore is “forced” to admit that the shooting did indeed occur. Your example of Charlie Veitch is a very apt one.

        1. There are many more astute minds involved in this investigation, beyond Mr Halbig. By the time he does his thing in Newtown, I would hope he and his team would have streamlined their approach. There are several questions that have no answers. The inconsistencies in the report alone are glaring. It’s not about him. If he is willing to receive the help that is available, and not be railroaded into the position you describe, there is a chance for some progress.

        2. Mr. Wicket – That scenario is entirely possible as I don’t know if he’s brilliant enough to see through a canned response and know to delve further.

          Today on WH’s FBook page he has posted his FEMA certifications (ex. from 2006) with a note that says “this is who I am”. Of course, you and I could go get FEMA certifications as there are self-study courses on-line….same with the instructor-level courses. Hopefully he has refreshed himself on things other than hazardous materials.

          At least two of his supposed three attorneys do not appear to have the guns this one would take…

    6. I think all the sandy hook stuff has been rehashed a thousand times by now. considering the last wolfschmuck article got a whopping 588 comments to date it seems that there is some interest expressed in wolfies butt-bumbling exploits. I think the wolfplug coverage will be dying down quite a bit but there is still the showdown that never was. after that he can fade into obscurity.

      1. It started out somewhat interesting but has turned into a bit of reality TV…and I’m sad to admit that I find him a little entertaining…but more in terms of his impact on people who want so badly to believe in him.

        1. I find it interesting that Wolfgang has posted these pictures of certificates of completion on his FB page today:

          Some more arbitrary pictures with no explanation, except to imply that he is who he says he is.

          The wording in the FEMA one is interesting: “has reaffirmed a dedication to serve in times of crisis”…. through con’t professional development…. If you look closely at the signature of Richard Callas, Acting Superintendent, who signed (stamped) the certificate – the dark spot background behind the signature is exactly how it looks when you cover up something with a small piece of paper and then copy it onto an original.

          I also find it odd that he would put up certificates for handling hazardous materials, etc. What I do think the point of putting those up is the subliminal reference to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) but innocently put up as CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

          For a man who orders his researchers to stay focused he certainly is all over the place at times without any explanation.

        2. My son had to take some of FEMA course. I have sat through a few just because I was curious. Anyone can.

          Speaking of his background – Wolfgang made some comment recently about the donuts he had as a state police officer impacted his waist-line (making reference to his current appearance). I was so disgusted – he’s trying to make it seem like he just retired after all of these years as an officer. The fact is, he was an officer for less than 3 years or less than 1 year, depending upon which resume you look at — and it was 40 darn years ago. I will bet you he was “let go” from that position (like so many others). But…he still wants to be a cop.

          I feel uncomfortable when this cop wanna-be discusses police procedure like he has with Sandy Hook. He lambasted some guy for not knowing how police procedure works – he hasn’t been a cop for 4 decades – I don’t think he is reliable to assess police efforts and police reporting as if he were an expert.

          This good ol’ boy act: “I don’t understand why (people attack me) when all they have to do is pick up the phone….” wears thin with me. Every time he gives out his phone number and address, I just cringe. This is the same guy who says, “My life is in danger”. Really? What kind of former cop(even if it was 4 decades ago) would put that info out there for their wife and/or family to be put in danger of harassment or worse?

          Then there’s the story about the police. He loves to use this one. I’m sorry, but I do not believe for a second that police detectives showed up at his door because he was “asking questions” – despite this being Wolfie’s story. I believe he was viewed as threatening and harassing. He apparently submitted what he felt were compliant FOIA requests and when he didn’t get his responses, he didn’t follow proper procedure, he stomped his feet and whined and threatened and acted inappropriately. But Wolfie doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

        3. I don’t believe that police visit happened at all. It sounded like total bull from the beginning but I wasn’t positive that wolf was a narc. now i am 100% in my mind convinced he is an operative. every move he makes smells like some sweaty gentleman in the white house. those fema certs may be easy as hell to get but the ones he posted look to be intentional forgery’s. the stuff he is doing isn’t that of an opportunist, there is really no opportunity here, it all stuff to represent us in others minds as fringe lunatics. he is doing a good job. I just feel bad that the old ladies on his FB page believe in him. well at least those old fogies can see that SH was a hoax.

        4. True, fishandroaches. Very true. Some folks have swallowed his line hook and sinker.

        5. Hello Isee,

          I thought those certs were funny, too. They are easy to obtain – take a look at the self-study FEMA certifications available on-line. My son had to take a few before he entered fire college. You and I can take them and get certifications. You and I can easily get instructor certifications as well.

          Not sure if you heard this recent Halbig debate-

          WH’s fundraising has stalled out. So, I see he has recently posted a story in which he said some church asked their members to give a $1 each to his cause. Interesting – I don’t think a nonprofit religious organization would normally want to do that as it might damage their status (political supports, etc.). Maybe it was the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (amazingly a real organization).

        6. OK, Isee, Fish, Beth and all, it is hard to say what needs to be said without being misunderstood. Trust me, I have a “sixth sense” for b.s.. I’m “methane intolerant”.

          I work at a professional job. I have for forty + years. I don’t say that to “impress” anyone, I say that by way of saying that I can generally spot a “professional” type from their writing and communication skills.

          Does anyone believe this guy was a vice principal? I could believe he was a cop. Even that seems to have been a rather abbreviated “career”.

          Let’s call that “Problem Number 1”. “Problem Number 2” is that the world does not work the way some seem to wish it did. It is a great fantasy to believe that you can march into town, ask a few questions, and the villagers will rise, light their torches, and rush to city hall.

          In order to affect any meaningful outcome from this attempt one would need an extremely good plan. I haven’t heard it yet. My beliefs about this hoax have not changed. The problem is that they are just my beliefs. Beliefs are not “proof”.

          Even with genuine “proof”, who would take that for action? If the Attorney General of the United States makes visits and talks of “brainwashing” people into gun confiscation, does anybody really believe that charges are going to be brought?

          So, given that things don’t work that way, and nothing is going to come of this, why are we obsessing over W.H.? If he showed up dragging a coffin full of rocks he wouldn’t get any notice in “the media”.

          I have had the displeasure of meeting many self-promoting opportunists in my time. In some ways it is like the pack of jackals that are involved with the SHE production. There is the smell of money in the air and, just like a jackal on a fresh kill, he’s there.

          I will literally eat my keyboard if this results in anything positive (gladly). I think there really are “smoking guns” out there. Even with those no legal action will be forthcoming. We should concentrate on investigation and awareness. We will not prevent more of the same in any other way.

          When people stop falling for this garbage they will have no choice but to stop. It is clear that at least some here have the required discernment to see that the messenger has holes in his armor. This is positively “cringe-worthy”.

        7. Referring to Lophatt’s comment about Holder wishing he could brainwash the public about guns, and about the feasibility of causing change in another direction – convincing the locals to revolt – after the proof is given that it was a hoax:

          I have just had a thought about the purpose of the event. We’ve imagined it was about disarming the public, after getting them to believe in this event. But all of a sudden, interested in the quote from Holder, I’ve begun to see a possible Wag the Dog following closely the earlier part of the film script. There was a very embarrassing event for the administration to deflect.

          What if it’s pettier than gun control? What if the event was “Fast and Furious” and the White House needed to be seen, to have its image polished, as one which decried the weapons being all over the place, even in the hands of psychotic youth? Then the President could do photo-ops with bereaved families, so he did not have to be seen as someone who armed drug gangs in Mexico who hanged and decapitated people? That ambitious scheme was aimed (they said) at going for big drug gangs, but it backfired. It was about getting that image out of peoples’ minds, and putting in a new image, Comforter-in-Chief.

          Yes, it’s a sleazy plot. But ask yourselves – how long since the press dwelt on Fast and Furious? In June 2012, Eric Holder was the first sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress. He’s still serving, even though he embarrassed the administration. Must be he is in some way indispensable. “There have been ‘gun walking’ allegations in 12 US cities” according to Wikipedia. The dates work, don’t they? And before the contempt citation by Congress, POTUS invoked “executive privilege” to hold back papers.

          So maybe the long-term goal about Sandy Hook should be congressional hearings involving the executive, and I say this as someone who has voted Democrat most of the time. Is there a connection between Sandy Hook and Fast and Furious? If so, why hasn’t it been exposed? The other party has backed down, and maybe this is because the Wag the Dog was effective.

        8. Yes Musings, I’ve had that thought myself. I have never said this was ABOUT gun confiscation. I agree with Smallstorm that the “modeling” aspect is more important. The “bang, bang, shootemup” part was just attention getting.

          My experience leads me to believe that they never have just one or two desired outcomes. They usually have several. They create these events as pretexts to push legislation and advance their boss’ cause.

          They couldn’t care less about “crime” or “injury”, etc., it is merely an excuse to take the necessary steps to usher in their global controlled agenda. Gun confiscation is necessary. Modeling is necessary.

          In SHES they trotted it ALL out there. The global universal religion angle as well as the “national security” angle. They modeled lies sold as “news” and demonized inquiry. They made “heroes” of “victims”. Just like they did in Boston.

          I keep bringing up that toady of Sparky Bush’ who said (to paraphrase); “We create realities. While you’re figuring out what that reality means we’ll create another….”. That’s the game. “Fast and Furious” alright. They are manufacturing memes and images for the eaters to chase.

        9. I find it interesting that mr halbig has the same initials as White House, so every time we see his initials we have a subliminal connection to WH and we should therefore be frightened. I don’t believe in coincidences with these beings.

        10. Lophatt,

          Sorry my post is under another one of mine, but there is no reply button on your post.

          I appreciate your comments on the Wolf postings. I agree – however, at the same time I tend to go with the old saying: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

          I am continuously looking at other things, but I do like to keep up with the in-your-face attempts to sabotage the truth by tptb.It’s kind of like driving past a wreck – just can’t help taking a peek!

        11. Isse, sure. I don’t know how I come off. I just see what I see. I admit to being suspicious. I know there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell of this working, but, sure. If he wants to go shout at them, have at it.

          I wouldn’t do anything to stop him if I could. If he were a friend I would advise him against it. Not because I don’t want to do anything about it. It would be because nothing good will come of it. I frankly don’t believe that demanding justice from the perpetrators will work.

          If there is a better approach it should be tried. It probably won’t result in “justice”, but it may result in a diminution of their ability to control. That would be very good.

          There are MANY things in life that I’m not happy about. I change the ones I have power to change. The others I have to learn to live with. We have an “idea” of justice. That’s all it is. If our idea of justice is someone going to jail or paying a fine, it isn’t going to happen related to this (at least not on the perpetrator’s side).

        12. As terrible as it may sound to some, it’s too bad we can’t bring back the guillotine…you know, as incentive.

  30. Halbig is right to focus on FOI requests. But there is a lot more that could be done. Everything has a paper trail. The problem of course is that Connecticut’s law does not include a great disincentive for agencies who wrongfully deny requests. Therefore, to be effective, you need to be ready to seek review of any denial.

    But there are other aspects of the law that are very good. First, you can ask for records in electronic format, and they must be provided in that format if possible. Hartford Courant Co. v. FOIC, 261 Conn. 86, 93-94, 801 A.2d 759 (2002). Second, agencies cannot charge for inspecting records and can only charge the “actual cost” for copies – no other costs (such as the cost for searching for the records and making redactions) allowed. See Pearl v. Town of Newington, Do. #FIC 83-57 (Aug. 26, 1983).

    This means if someone is in a position to follow through, they can figure out a lot of information.

    You want to find out if SH was a real school – here are a couple of requests that would likely show this:
    • Sampling of emails form Sandy Hook administrative staff for the last 5 years (you will need to be more specific, but for example pick out a topic that the school would have to contact the Connecticut State Department of Education about every year and ask for those emails form the school and DoE. If it’s a real school, you will get emails. If not, then there is something worth digging further).
    • Salary information for the last five years for the teachers at Sandy Hook (at least according to my limited research this is subject to disclosure – see Cooper v. Town of Darien FIC 1978-004 ruling teach salaries are subject to disclosure — )

    Other requests that might yield interesting results:
    • Emails between the governor/governor’s office and the cleanup company.
    • Any bills or invoices regarding the bio-waste clean up
    • The contract for that clean up
    • The contract for the security camera install (Halbig mentions this)
    • The invoice for the Christmas trees behind the fire house
    • Contracts / Invoices for the toilets, water etc. that were at the fire house Dec. 14.

    To avoid prohibitive costs (they can charge 0.50 per page) ask for copies in electronic format, or to inspect rather than get copies, which is always free. And then be ready to seek review within 30 days if the request is denied. This takes someone who lives in the area or who is able to spend a lot of time there, unfortunately.

    If Halbig wants to pursue something, a barrage of requests rather than just his 16 questions would be more fruitful. He still won’t get anyone under oath, but as the disclosures in JFK have proven, incriminating records are more likely that confessions. And if they are willing to lie about this, don’t think they wont lie under oath. Records, especially electronic records, however, are hard to get rid of.

    1. ————————————–

      Ramer, you’ve been doing some homework. On top of pictorial evidence and skewed official statements, some traction for reeling in some very big fish in your comment.

      And where is Nancy Lanza, really?????

    2. @Ramer- Thanks for your informative post. I’m fairly certain that Wolfgang is also attempting to obtain documents that will prove whether SHES was an operational school (though the video/photo evidence alone seems to provide enough evidence that it was not a functioning school).

  31. The story of Catherine Engelbrecht is a clear picture of just how far the government will go to stifle citizens, all the while our leader declares there is not one smidgeon of corruption to be found.

    After applying for tax exempt status for a True the Vote organization, she has been audited twice by the IRS, visiting multiple times by Osha, the ATF, the FBI and Rep. Elihah Cummings, D – MD!

    Most citizens would of just backed down, but she has brought this harassment front and center.

    1. Dr. Tracy

      Would be very interested in the results your media research computer program would report on this unduly prosecuted woman, Catherine Engelbrecht and her business.

      Was surprised startpage resulted in limited results, going to Foxnews directly resulted in more, but not the current report broadcast today.

      Thank you for all you do.

  32. So, off topic but because Adam Lanza is mentioned, I thought I’d being this up.

    Did anyone get an eye twitch when the news hit that there was another shooter at Fort Hood?

    How about when it was reported that the exact same female officer who confronted the first one and shot him – was the very same to confront this second shooter?.

    How about when the people who knew him (Ivan Lopez) said there is no way he would be capable of such an event (immediate family, etc). Maybe a little more when it was reported he was receiving some sort of treatment for a mental condition (allegedly) — and did you then wonder what meds he was put on? I sure did.

    Lopez was apparently put on more than one medication – including Ambien. Why would anyone who is at all unstable be put on Ambien? That stuff has been known to make some stable people do some wild things.

    Well, if you were accepting of the story as it was told up until now – please share what in the heck to make of this latest news: CNN supposedly got a hold of Mr. Lopez’ FBook posts and he was apparently critical of Lanza’s mass shooting and suicide. Here’s a post from one source that is reporting this info:

    Was this event the result of a bad mix of prescriptions? Just the Ambien? I tied Ambien for a few days and quit (years ago) when my husband advised that I had watched an entire movie while in bed -had a detailed conversation about it…only to sit down 2 nights later to watch it and claim that I was excited to see it as I’d not seen it before. Whaaaat? Holy! Years later, I had to help a friend who tried Ambien time-released and he experienced some serious anxiety – he had never, ever had any experience like that and he was understandably terrified. Bad stuff.

    Did Mr. Lopez create the FBook post or did someone else? How convenient that the anti-gun politicians have a killer publicly advocating for gun control – particularly in cases of past mental illness is documented – who then becomes another poster child. Was Mr. Lopez somehow set up? It just smells “off”, very off.

    1. “the exact same female officer who confronted the first one and shot him – was the very same to confront this second shooter?.”

      Wow Beth! I haven’t had time to look into this second Ft. Hood shooting thing at all yet, but if that is in fact the case (and I’m sure you’re right) that is completely unbelievable! Great info… Will have to look into this more.

      Thanks Beth.

      1. Whoops! Hold the phone. With regard to the second Ft. Hood shooing – It was originally reported that it was the same female copy. Interestingly, the reports now call her “unidentified”.

        My apologies.

    2. Beth- could you provide the source to the article claiming it was the same female MP who confronted this guy as the last alleged Muslim shooter at ft. Hood?

      All I could find was that the gun was purchased at the same gun store: Guns Galore in Killeen, Texas.. But can’t find any articles naming the “female MP who stopped him”. Thanks.

    3. Yes, the Ft. hood is obviously a hoax. I like how fast they moved from the PTSD storyline after they realized it was a slap in the face to any soldier that ever had PTSD. I love the way they ‘figure out” the motive in a day. Yes, it was because “he” was denied leave. Did anyone else catch that as soon as it happened FoxNews identified one of the people shot as “LANZAney”? on their front page? I took a screen shot of it just for good measure.

      On yet another note – anyone else think Jeff Bauman is really starting to act differently? I can’t tell what is different about him (aside from the obvious weight gain) but he has to be on some kind of antidepressants or drugs because he seems so out of it. I think he is starting to unravel. In fact, I think we will start to see a lot of these actors/fakers start to unravel. We just need them one by one to come to the light – and leave the dark side. Once the money leaves they will be bankrupt financially and morally and start to defect. They need to see a reason to do it and believe that it is best to come clean rather than live a life of shame and deceit.

        1. I saw that O’Reilly interview + the Fox & Friends interview. He seems to follow the same sort of script – not much varying or when asked a different question he looks like a deer in the headlight – as if searching for a response in case it had been asked before. If he does enough book tour interviews, I think he’ll get tripped up before long.

        2. It seems he is already tripping up. I can’t believe I used to like O’Reilly, felt he always asked the good hard questions. The things is all of the media has to treat these people with kid gloves – you don’t want to be the one grilling Jeff Bauman or people from Sandy Hook. I think that is part of the thought that went into the prep of theses hoaxes. O’Reilly starts off calling the Tsarneav brothers “Two thugs” and says “They’re never getting out!” – – c’mon, there was no trial yet! I cannot understand how no one sees this! And then Bill has the gall to say “You look good to me…your eyes are clear, you have a good book”…what???? “Your eyes are clear?” He looks like a zombie! He says “(Tsarneav looked suspicious, I knew it was a bomb”. When? Before? After? C’mon Bill get a backbone and start questioning these stock cockamamie responses!!

          After viewing the video again I do have to say I found myself feeling sorry for “Jeff”. He is in deep – now they had him right a book and there is no turning back. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was drinking and self-medicating, the pressure must be unbearable.

          Here’s another good one – Raisch Studios, there was a CNN article a few days ago about photographers that started looking through their old pictures and found pictures of the missing Malaysian plane before it went missing. So this guy happens to have a picture of the plane? Oh, and he also is involved in 9/11 photography and was quoted in the CNN article talking about another high profile hoax that he had a part in. Unreal. This guys is supposed to be a sports photographer! These hoaxes are the gift that keeps giving!

          As another poster says…ho ho ho!

        3. Hey Glen,
          I have to agree…something is really “off” with that fella. You are right that no one can “attack” him and question why he looks so different from the day of the “event” as if to insinuate it is not him.

          I can’t even imagine what must be going on in his head. He surely has to know he’s going to go straight to Hell if what I think he has done / is going….he and those who hired him.

          Thanks for sharing the link to the Raisch Studios photo tribute! That was weird…but guess people who love planes…alot…would be happy to contribute pictures. Maybe it’s just me….and you. But, so odd there are so many pics from fans. Just…odd.

        4. “why he looks so different from the day of the “event””

          Not only is he obviously a different guy Beth, the two don’t even have the same injuries. Ted Baxter said his amputations were above the knee, but the guy in the pictures had them BELOW the knee. O’Bloviator is reprehensible, but he’s not dumb. He knows perfectly well that the guy in the pictures is a completely different person than the one parading around. Anyone can see that. The amputations are painful evidence of how the media is complicit.

        5. Agree on all counts.
          The O’Reilly interview was just face-time for the book tour.

          Betcha Fox Corp.’s affiliated entity that publishes the Fox personalities’ books is doing this book as well.

          Just scary to me that the powers that be can push pretty much anything they want into the news and the majority of people either ignore it or swallow it. They have learned they can pretty much get away with anything. We’re in such trouble.

        6. That Malaysian plane tribute seems phony to me. I read a comment on a story recently about the “missing” plane and it said that the way some of the stories are written it seems like they are trying to humanize the plane, as if it being missing is comparable to the people on board. The tribute shows all the “beautiful” angles of the plane – the one showing the front looking at the cockpit almost gives it facial-like features. I think they are trying to get us to feel emotions about inanimate objects – softly transitioning us into accepting trans-humanism by making it seem normal to grieve for a piece of metal.

          Comment by the photographer Riccardo Galassi:

          “That picture had a really strong impact on me. I have a kind of friendship relation with the aircrafts I photograph, so it was like I was missing a friend. Moreover, all those lives lost on it made it all way more sad.”

          So, it was already sad that the plane itself was missing, but add in hundreds of people and it made it all way more sad.

          The September 11th Photography tribute was strange. All the photos were of the new ONE tower and pictures of memorial plaques of downed airline flights, pictures of planes at airports in New Jersey? – not one picture of damage of Sept. 11 – as if it’s just a rosy, shiny memory in everyones mind. Resilience!

        7. A comment for Iseelies about the Malaysian plane as an idol. I actually saw something like this in November 2013 at Reagan National Airport, while waiting for a plane. They told us the plane was delayed for mechanical reasons, then it showed up. Not only was it a lie, our plane was special and getting some kind of star treatment. It was decked out in the livery of the New York City Fire Department, and the airport fire company took part in a ceremony and photo-op for it, while passengers trying to get home did a slow burn. The honor, over the loudspeaker, told us that this was in memory of 9/11’s First Responders and their sacrifices. I turned to someone and said this was idolatry, and this looked like a new state religion. All the tributes went on and on. I still fly Jet Blue, but I think differently of all of them now. Of course they always run in the red and need inputs of federal cash, so there is no such thing as independence if you are an airline. We arrived back in Boston, from DC, somewhat late as you may imagine and people missed meetings and dinners they had scheduled, because we were about an hour late. I’m sure the books read “mechanical problems caused delay”.

        8. Musings – that story was crazy! Imagine all of those who had connections to make…and of course those who surely did not appreciate being put an hour behind for an unscheduled tribute.
          That is just unreal.

      1. The Jeff Bauman issue just mystifies me. How can anyone believe that the person on the “scene” and this other fellow are the same individual?

        I have a son w/hair like the person at the scene – and there is no way in heck that you can straighten his hair like the fellow doing the talk shows. Our actor fellow has quite the donation fund. He and the person who was actually at the scene must have to split the proceeds – unless one of them is getting their paycheck directly from the powers that be.

        1. Beth,

          I believe this “new” Jeff Bauman is just a continuation of the BM hoax. I think they are testing people to see if they will just blindly accept this new jeff because the TV says so. They are trying to get people to ignore their gut feelings, logic, etc. I’m surprised they didn’t put a black guy in and just have Billie Boy say “wow what a nice tan you have!”

          People didn’t question a guy who just had 2 legs blown off being pushed in a wheelchair who was conscience and not leaving a trail of blood. Different hair, different face – no problem!

        2. I agree. They seem to have proven beyond a doubt that except for a few outliers (you, me and our crew here), they can pull the wool over the sheep eyes.

        3. ha,ha, I agree they are doing that. reading your comment made me think of gary coleman with his legs under the covers of a hospital bed posing as an amputee. “whuch you talkin about willis?”
          they would probably get away with it too.

      2. Bauman, in speaking to O’Reilly, let drop a Canadian accent (“ou” sound). He is clearly an amputee, working to learn to use better prosthetics than what he had.

        The two centers for developing this technology are MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science (funny, isn’t it, that Sean Collier is parked in his police car at the entrance, on the sidewalk, to this Gehry building when he is “shot”) and the other is the MIT Media Lab nearby, which prior to the Boston Bombing seems to have run the 150th anniversary of the Institute, with many graphic designs along the bridge across the Charles nearby and on the shore, in close proximity to the Back Bay “bombing”. It’s like a stage set, which could have been readied under cover of the earlier festivities. Add to it the Belfer Center at Harvard, with the papers coming out of it about mass casualty event happening at the Marathon.

        The kid is not that out of it. I pity him. I can tell you he is getting some kind of care he otherwise would not be able to obtain, with experimental prostheses. He may even have signed up for lifelong bionic experimentation, like a NASA astronaut who walked on the moon. He’s a symbol of determination.

        You have to ask yourself – why in the bloody h was a lie necessary about this? Why is the Ministry of Truth doing this kind of thing? It’s very perverse and unnecessary, unless of course, we are part of the experimentation.

        Need I add that he is younger than the guy in the filmed spectacle? I would also urge as many people as possible to familiarize themselves with the alleged bombing site and compare photos of it. The scale is quite different than represented, but it has to be bigger to claim that many injuries.

        On another note, an auditor of the famous Big Dig of Boston has just died and been lauded by the mayor of Newton (Heartbreak Hill). You have to wonder that when this crooked operation that squeezed so much money out of the Feds shut down, where the rest of the dough for Boston to keep building things was going to come from. Perhaps we have our answer in the fact that Boston Strong (“Ignorance is Strength”) will generate funds for protection and who knows for what else – perhaps centers of excellence in prosthetics, and becoming the Silicon Valley thereof. If not that, then just make it another Atlantic City. The point is to take over and run it with an iron fist.

        1. Musings – thanks for that post! You really put together some connections that I’d not previously made.

          I have to tell you I honestly waived off anything to do w/the Boston event and focused on SHook. But, now that I’ve digested that ol’ SH report, I’ve started to look back at Boston. Thank you for sharing this most excellent data and your speculation…very, very interesting.

        2. Not quite sure where this version of Jeff Bauman is from, but he does not have a Boston accent. I too detected the Canadian ‘ou’.

        3. If one only had access to the DNA of these people — a strand of hair would do — one could build a catalog of them and have definitive proof.

        4. Yet, I read that he is a native of Chelmsford. A native, imagine that! Yet, he sounds Minnesotan or ?

          In one story, I read that his ear drums were damaged but he refused more surgeries – which could help the ears. Really? Well, unless he’s wearing hearing aids or submitted to the surgery (and no press or mention), he is doing pretty well in interviews now whereas before he supposedly struggled to hear people speaking to him. I don’t see that now.

          Interesting fellow and his fiance in terms of being relatively obscure kids in their late 20s and not in great jobs. Not unusual in this economy, I know. But no history, really.

          I had to chuckle about the lack of background on them — a story from early 2013 had a picture of his fiance, Erin – it was her high school picture…showing her as captain of the track team. Seriously, she’s 27 at the time and you have to get a pic from the yearbook? Of course since his book is out – she’s got a bunch of pics on the web.

          Just curious to me. Think how easy it would be to take this invisible, struggling couple with little background and set them up with this offer — such that now they are sitting comfortably with a couple of million + dollars and a brief time in the spotlight to spin their tale. Nice work if you can get it, eh?

        5. Well, his eyes are clear according to O’Reilly. Strange comment since we have seen a lot of strange eyes lately.

          I’ve tried to envision myself in a situation where I was offered a lifetime of financial security for a few moments in the global spotlight. All for national security, king and country, the children and world peace. No, I would not do it, have been into and onto conspiracies for too long and know the consequences. Seldom does it end well. Not that I would be asked.

        6. Anne B, you are too smart, too good and too freedom & independent-minded to ever be considered for that kind of work. Plus, I would imagine if the stress of living a lie doesn’t get these people, a slip-up would result in an unfortunate “accident”.

          We need you among us 🙂

        7. But is his nose wet? I worry about these things. I suspect O’Reilly is incapable of anything BUT strange comments. I rather think the DNA would be absent a few chromosomes.

        8. It was painfully obvious in each of the recent interviews that the interviewer was handed a list of prepared questions. O’Reilly chose to improvise w/the “your eyes look clear” comment. What an odd thing to say. Maybe that was O’Reilly’s way of intimating the interview was entirely controlled. Just a thought.

        9. That comment struck me too, Beth. Very strange. What I find most strange about O’Reilly is that so many conservatives trust him. How can’t they see through the facade? Some years ago a boy knocked on my door at dinner time, selling ATT Uverse. I had never had cable, but it was free for a little while, and the internet speed would be WAY faster than DSL. So I tried it, and watched O’Reilly for a year or so, until I found that there were a few months of shows backed up in the DVR; I could not be bothered to watch that stupid show any more. (I also watched the Daily Show, thinking it was somewhat honest. Silly me.)

          I stopped the cable, which I found myself never watching, but that brief moment in time when I forced myself to watch O’Reilly taught me a lot about the nature of televised propaganda. It is all fake. The sincerity is entirely fake. Check out this article about a new book about the Duke boys whose lives the NYT ruined:

          The truth can come out, and then the system reverts to the official story, and the MSM praises the renewed lies, and the truth–which briefly saw the light of day–is sent down the Memory Hole.

          When Ted Baxter says “your eyes are clear” he’s sending the same message that that “star reporter” and the NYT are sending: we lie, and we always get away with it–even when it is obvious we are lying, and even when everyone temporarily knows the truth. The lie will win in the end. Resistance is futile.

          How many times, in that experimental period, when I watched O’Reilly every day, I watched him act as if a given lie is true (because he ALWAYS goes with the official story), and tried to figure out if he’s actually that stupid. It was a constant thing. He has people on who will point this out to him, but nobody is more haughty and superior than the great Ted Baxter, and he certainly has the gesticulations of dismissiveness down pat. The truth can’t penetrate, because he already knows he’s lying, and can’t be persuaded to defy the system. He loves his status. The president grants him interviews, and the half-hearted insults the pretender-in-chief lobs at him are part of the brand he carries. He pretends to be “tough,” and accepts criticism that his interruptions of the emperor are impertinent–but he’s got to do it because Obama likes to run out the clock, and the “folks” need Bill to force real info out of the stallmeister. What a crock.

          So when that fake “Jeff” is sitting there, and the cameras are turned off, I wonder if they chat about the scam they are playing on the “folks.” We’ll never know.

        10. “The weasels howl at midnight”. It’s probably a “code” to tell others that he’s one of the “kool-kidz”. Whenever I hear a strange phrase in a conversation like this, that is what I think of.

          Just like the “secret handshakes” and symbols, they like that sort of thing. So, “your eyes are clear” could mean “the usual payment arrangements have been made”, or “meet me at the cauldron at midnight” or something

        11. Eureka!

          Just a postscript that occurred to me about the story of the bomb only taking legs (not arms or heads or torsos): it makes perfect sense if you are doing these LEG prosthetics – working on gait with computers for instance – creating a normal walking gait – that you might only want people who are leg amputees. People have other issues with the loss of an arm, but this is about the walking and running FUNCTIONALITY of the legs. An arm does not have a gait that can be worked on in the same way with computers – maybe if one played the piano, but they aren’t there yet.

  33. A little off topic, but here is another good example of how FOI laws, even extremely weak ones like the federal law, have the potential of yielding interesting results.

    This relates to the Saudi family that was in contact with Atta and disappeared two weeks before 9/11. The FBI was trying to keep secrets by not looking hard enough, but the judge was not having it.
    It also shows one of the other strengths – the requirement to identify the documents that are withheld.

    Here, they turned over 35 redacted pages and withheld 1500 pages. That is informative in itself.

    1. Ramer, that’s a joke. 2014 and a judge calls out the FBI for not researching a family, whose name they don’t even know, that disappeared in 2001! Do you believe 9/11 was a Saudi thing? It’s just another distraction. Or maybe a better word for it is “a joke”.

      1. If they are working so hard to keep something secrect, there is something incriminating in those records. I do believe Atta played some role in the matter but certainly not the role he is assigned in the official story. But my point is that records are morelikely to come closer to revealing the truth than putting (liars) under oath.

      2. The bin Laden’s had an apartment in Cambridge, MA, as a matter of fact. When other Americans were grounded, a plane took them back to Saudi Arabia for their safety. Or maybe it took them the week before, but TPTB rubbed our noses in it, showing us even then that while we might have wanted to fly after 9/11, only carefully protected VIPs could do it. Maybe a pure story, but maybe not. Again, kind of like a lockdown to send us all a message. After that, many nervous flyers had people in headscarves and Arabs ejected from their planes (it was said) out of sheer panic that the government wasn’t protecting them. Quite an involved story. Maybe just, as violeta says, a joke.

  34. I just listened to the AFP Radio debate between CW Wade and Wolfgang Halbig (available here: ) and I cannot stress enough that Wolfgang Halbig revealed himself to be a complete embarrassment who is nothing more than a scam artist trolling tragedies for donations and having no interest in discovering the truth about Sandy Hook.

    I am embarrassed for Wolfgang Halbig and feel sorry for anyone who gave a penny to this complete fraud who has no knowledge of anything related to Sandy Hook.

    Wolfgang Halbig may have singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of those of us who have questions about Sandy Hook.

    I’m disgusted by Halbig and I encourage anyone reading this to listen to the debate to understand that Wolfgang Halbig is using his visibility to grow his bank account and nothing more.

    1. I for kicks clicked on a glenn beck debunking sandy hook video and read the comments. they are totally using wolfschnapps to make us look like morons.

      1. That is not surprising.
        What is surprising is the overwhelming number of people who claim to be yearning for and investigating the truth who cannot see or refuse to see the complete fraud that is Wolfgang Halbig.

        1. Bewise-I just made a post about that this morning! I had thought that for a while but hesitated posting it. These people do everything for a purpose and when I see posts on the FB page and see WH that is EXACTLY what you are supposed to think.

          What’s the old saying…..great minds think alike!

        2. Soliciting donations for a cause is not fraud. Do you know what fraud is? Fraud is accepting a free house is exchange for an oath of secrecy for an illegal agenda. Did you get a house, Nick202? That would explain your attitude towards Halbig perfectly.

      2. FishandRoaches, thanks for the post – I knew it. I just knew it. Just wait until Wolfie’s visit…it’s going to look worse for us.

      3. Thanks to Nick202 for the post. I didn’t know about the interview.

        Listened to it and actually was surprised at how well Wolf did. His plan is coming along.

        Will it work? Don’t know. But the allegations written above do not represent how I view things right now.

        1. Wow, defensive!

          The anger and determination with which you attempt to discredit Wolfgang Halbig or anyone who supports his efforts ( or even those who merely think he’s doing a pretty good job), is bizarre to me. You’re putting in a great deal of effort in proclaiming your “disgust” for him, trying to persuade people to think negatively of him, and insulting anybody who disagrees with you. I don’t have a particularly strong stance on Wolfgang either way, but I don’t believe he’s a fraud, and I do believe his intentions are genuine. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion on it thus far. You on the other hand, clearly have very strong feelings on the matter, but I’m left wondering exactly WHY it is that you feel this strongly. Whether you realize it or not, your intensity and insistence comes across as desperate, and it makes you look like you have an agenda, and not a genuine one. Just my opinion. Please commence with the inevitable name-calling, insults, etc. 😉

    2. I listed to another show with Wade yesterday that results in the same thing – it was Spingola show with Wade and Keith Johnson.

      It confirmed my worst fears because they start off with Halbig’s statement saying if they can answer all 16 of his questions, then he will agree the shooting took place as promoted by the powers that be. Wade and Keith Johnson then go through the questions one by one and convincingly answer each one – most by simply referring to the report. Wade apparently has some website with the backup for his answers but he also gives the cites to the official report.

      Now Brenden Hunt and ReviewManify among others had already pointed out how lame the 16 questions were, but to hear how the reports answer most of these question was quite powerful. The worst part, however, was they did exactly what we were concerned of — they kept saying “if this is the best they can come up with” putting every skeptic in the same bucket as Halbig. For those who think we are being unfair to Halbig, you need to listen to this show. It seems like Halbig selected questions that had clear answers but were obscure enough that they sounded good at first.

      1. Thanks for sharing the Spingola interview Ramer! I’m going to give it a listen.

        I still am baffled by how condescending and foolish Wolfgang Halbig acted in the American Free Press debate. As much as AFP and Halbig made sure to stack the deck against CW Wade, I thought that Wade clearly gave the better presentation and demonstrated an amazing amount of patience when attacked by Halbig and the listeners.

        Wolfgang Halbig did nothing but embarrass anyone who has questions about Sandy Hook; if you choose Halbig as your voice in the quest to get questions about this event answered you’ve just lost all credibility.

      2. Ramer, really wish you would stick to your excellent research. I just listened to the AFP interview again and your comments here are unjustified. i am shattered.

        1. i am curious which of the 16 questions you thought went unanswered?

          I am not saying I was convinced Wade was right on the big picture, only that he made it glaringly obvious that one should not use those 16 questions to draw a line in the sand.

        2. The “16 Questions” is a tag-line. Marketing blurb. Something simple to get people thinking and draw attention to this “event”.

          Halbig rebuffs the officially released report and even CT callers who claim they were told by “close” friends that events really happened as stated and that any who challenge it are horrible people. That’s a radical line in the sand for a lifelong bureaucrat and public servant.

          Think about all your Wolf-bashing and the effect it has on those newly initiated to seeking truth. They open their eyes and ears, search for info, find your well-written comments and, having gotten a lucid counter argument, go back to being the sheeple they were before. They sigh, feel alone, and vote Tea Party or the like. Thank you very much say the 1%.

          It is OK that you don’t trust Halbig. And if you predict that he will sell the truth out, then by all means, use all your skills to document future events. Better yet, implement real action that complements the current action.

          We need as many people as possible to understand what has occurred in America since the late 50’s. The more the better as far as I am concerned. If you think that only certain folks “qualify”, then you’re a hypocrite.

        3. Great post, OldMan! I agree with you 100%. I also have been dismayed at the numerous attempts to discredit Halbig recently and to call him a fraud. To me, he comes across as sincere and courageous in his interviews, and the people who try to paint him as a fraud have absolutely nothing to say. He’s a fraud because he is asking for donations? He’s a fraud because he’s laid out a clear plan with specific questions? Nonsense.I tried to listen to that Spingola video where they try to answer all of the 16 questions, but I know there is no way that the answers they give would satisfy Halbig. There are simply too many glaring discrepancies in what happened, and Halbig is no idiot. So much of this backlash against Halbig appears to be about ego. It seems like a lot of people are jealous of Halbig’s sudden rise to stardom, and are dying to prove they are more clever than he is.

        4. For what it’s worth, I think we may be talking about two different podcasts. I was referring to an interview of “Wade” where he went one by one through Halbig’s 16 questions. It was not the debate that was on American Free Press. Thus, what I was referring to was a one-sided presentation. I am listening to debate now so I will see how it stands with both sides of the story.

          If Halbig were to move off the 16 questions and look at real issues, that would give me comfort. That being said, I will listen to the debate to see if it changes my opinion. But I also recommend listing to the interview that I linked on my first post.

        5. OldMan, pbutterfly2000 and Dan Hennen posts are as unbelievable as Jim Fetzer promising that he hasn’t had a drink at 10am.

          Do the three of you get a cut of the funds by acting as Halbig’s carnies trying to swindle the rubes out of money as his scam carnival travels from tragedy to tragedy with phony promises of a magical device to eliminate teen suicide and to use his Mr Magoo-like vision to solve all of Sandy Hook’s mysteries?

        6. I have now listened to the debate. It certainly made it clear that Wade is either a shill or a fool but I don’t think Halbig comes across any better. I like the professional wrestling analogy. I learned more from the callers. Anyway, I still recommend people listen to the Wade interview, if only so you can see how Halbig will be used against all of us.

          Does anyone know the name of his CT attorney? I can find the attorney from Navada but not his new one. Thanks.

    3. Hi Nick,

      I have been listening to the debate this evening.

      Guess that brief experience as a copper 40 years ago didn’t help much there, eh? I love the pushing for donations (even to Mr. Wade). Those donations have stalled so he’s gotta push…which I guess anyone would do, legit or not, where they are dependent upon donated funds. But, it all goes back to a really expensive visit (with those attorneys in tow) which will accomplish nothing at all except p.r. for Wolfie.

    4. Nick202, a “complete embarrassment”, a “scam artist” and “trolling tragedies for donations?”….. I think you need to listen to the audio again. Mr. Wade was an embarrassment and Mr. Halbig wasted two hours of his time with this interview/debate. You keep bringing up the donations topic. I ask you this, what amount should Halbig used when he set up his GoFundMe Account. $20K? $50K, $300K? What would be the appropriate amount to set as a goal? I don’t think this has ever been answered. (keep in mind, it has to be set as something, and cannot be an open-ended goal.)

      1. Dan Hennen :

        In that “debate” Wolfgang Halbig portrayed himself as being less knowledgeable about Sandy Hook than someone who suffered amnesia while recovering from a lobotomy and more desperate to raise money than a $20 hooker who has 5 hours to make $500 to pay the rent.

        Your comments about Halbig beg the question: What percentage of the donations Wolfgang Halbig raises do you get for luring more rubes to Halbig’s latest scam?

        Does everyone who worships at the alter of Halbig wear black long-sleeved shirts and black sweat pants, with new black-and-white Nike tennis shoes? Or just you?


        1. In connection with the recent post of DMHennen’s writings in which he uses the MemoryHoleBlog posts of some of us to support his Halbig religion…

          I have to say, that is pretty shameful to steal MemoryHole Blog content to liven up that writing. I guess some of us should be flattered to think he has to use our comments.

          It would seem, however that MemoryHole Blog content is just that and shouldn’t be stolen and used without the site owner’s permission.

        2. For someone that contributes content to a site called, Dan Hennen’s grammar and punctuation skills are dreadful.

          Hopefully Dan Hennen will use his percentage of Halbig’s fundraising scam to pay for a writing tutor.

        3. Hahahaha! True. Plus, pretty shameful to lift blog content – akin to stealing and people get sued for that.

          In this case, Dr. Tracy posts a brief story for interest and to put it out for conversation. The conversation (blog comments) are what keeps people coming back each particular story/post over and over again. So, we become a significant part of this blog. Then, DmHennen steals the content from here and other locations.

          Classy. Not.

        4. What most of you fail to understand about Halbig is that he is not coming into this situation as a Sandy Hook researcher. He is coming at it from the perspective of his job, part of which is to prepare questions so that he can make out reports. In his long career asking questions and filing reports, it was apparently all business as usual until it came to Sandy Hook. So Halbig became indignant and is now trying to force the issue and get his questions asked. The reason his 16 questions are so simple is because these are the same 16 questions he asked from the beginning and could not get answers to. He is an ex-cop and school safety expert who is shocked that the American system does not work the way he thought it did. Every single thing he says points to this reality. To me he merely seems like a citizen trying to do his job. And this is all he claims to be.

          You all are blowing this way out of proportion. Imagining that Halbig is a scam artist and that I am paid by him is beyond ludicrous. This kind of thing gives “truthers’ a bad name and makes us all look like paranoid nutcases. No one is worshipping at the altar of Halbig. What I do is listen to people, and that includes listening not only to their words but their inflections and the sorts of things they get excited about or riled up about, and I use my gut as to whether someone is speaking sincerely. It’s not that hard to do. I just don’t listen to this guy and get any craftiness from him. Maybe time will tell differently but I have a hard time understanding that this amount of distrust can come from an honest and unbiased assessment of the man himself. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Without a long political career lying his head off or extensive acting lessons no one could act like this guy and not be sincere. Whether or not he has been co-opted and is now being handled and deceived by his advisers is another matter.

        5. You’re right pbutterfly2000, why would anyone who is raising funds to lead an investigation about Sandy Hook need to have any knowledge of the source material?

          Yes, there is no better way to investigate an event than to be ignorant of the content of both the report released by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and the report released by the Danbury State’s Attorney office. I think we can all agree that there is no better way to uncover anomalies and document changing narratives than to be painfully ignorant of the content of these documents.

          I find the best investigations resemble an elephant in a china shop as opposed to a thoughtful dissection of the officials story by someone with a deep understanding of the source material.

          In the “debate” it was crystal clear that Halbig has not thoughtfully studied either report to attain the ability to ask the right questions in an informed manner. The answers to almost all of Halbig’s questions are found in the two reports yet instead of being informed and challenging the answers, Halbig is ignorant and uses his poor grammar skills to ask questions that the state of Connecticut has answered.

          If Halbig allocated 20% of the time he spends trolling for money to studying the source material, his alleged investigation would be much more viable.

        6. Nothing you’ve stated here negates anything that I said. Halbig didn’t come into this to lead a complicated investigation that started before he took part in it. There is a lot of material to digest, a lot of evidence to sort through, and he is not trying to do this alone, which is why he is soliciting funds: to get some help. He does not claim to be some stellar investigator. He just wants his questions answered. Halbig was present at Columbine and thinks that was legitimate. He thinks the Boston Marathon was legitimate. He is new to thinking that there is anything wrong with the system. These ideas take a long time to digest. Most people with his background would never go into any of this to begin with. He is making an effort. It is so mean-spirited to keep calling him all of these names when he is putting forth his best effort, even though all of you armchair researchers think it’s not good enough.

          But the real problem I have with people calling out Halbig as a fraud is that there isn’t any evidence. It’s just not good research. He is human, he is flawed like all of us, but no one has been able to find any evidence of fraud. Brendan Hunt’s video which was called “Wolfgang Halbig is a Fraud” or some such title, rambled on and on, and was not about proving that anyone was a fraud. It was only about Mr. Hunt saying he thought Halbig’s questions were stupid. That is not evidence of fraud. Same with the Spingola piece. If you find any evidence that someone has engaged in fraud, then by all means present it. But this is just ego, envy, and baseless name-calling. And above all it’s bad research.

        7. I’ve listened to the debate now, and all I can say is, wow. You have so misrepresented the interview that I was really shocked to hear what it was really all about. Wade came off really badly, like a liar and like someone who was doing damage control. All he kept saying was “it’s in the report.” Halbig said that you can’t look at only the report, you have to look at other things such as the police dispatch. And if course he is right. If the police dispatch does not match the report, then there is cause for a deeper investigation. And there are too many other things which don’t add up, which he also pointed out.

          Wade comes across like those people hired by the government to explain that 911 happened the way the news said it did. How can you believe anything someone says after they insist that Adam Lanza shot his way into the school and murdered those kids? Those kids may have been murdered, and even if Lanza had killed some of them, he couldn’t have killed all of them. Dozens of firearms experts have insisted on that. If kids were killed, they were killed by multiple shooters. And in any legitimate investigation, one of the first things that would have been investigated is why the school didn’t have a camera installed. Wolf’s questions and responses were great actually, and if answered they will lead to the perpetrators of this fraud. Wade kept trying to stop the important questions from being asked, and when something sticky came up that he couldn’t answer, he said, “how could so many people be involved in a hoax?” Or, “you can’t refute the sworn testimony of X amount of people.” So he had NO legitimate points. He had other transparent tactics as well, like interrupting Halbig when he was revealing a damaging point to say things like, “Wolf, if you were here right now, I’d shake your hand.” He came off so much like a spook that I would deeply suspect anyone who supports him after hearing that interview of being a shill.

          And I’m not the only one who felt this way about the interview. Most of the callers sided with Halbig, and the host also mentioned that 90% of the people of the chat board were talking about Wade being a paid shill. In fact, it was pretty hard to listen to that debate and have any other conclusion.

        8. that stuff about someone being unable to shoot all those kids by themselves is total disinfo. anyone that can shoot at all could do that easily, especially since the pigs allowed no medical attention. I haven’t heard the debate, but if they were wasting time talking about the fake report and the fake dispatch then I suspect it was a pro wrestling match like the commenters here that bring up adam lanza being shot in the back of the head. trying to create some sort of paradox when the whole thing was a fiction.
          it’s kinda like the shill susan lindaur and 911. she claims to have been a cia backchannel to Iraq and blah blah blah I can’t remember her bullshit story but the essence was that terrorism is real and done by muslims, and the us government let it happen on purpose.

          were there any highlights of significance in the debate? I don’t have time to sit and listen to the whole thing but if you thought there were any salient points and you knew the approximate timestamp I’d love to hear them

        9. Fishandroaches,

          I respectfully disagree with your assessment that “anyone who can shoot at all could do that easily.” I am going not just by the statements of professional soldiers, which I think need to be taken seriously, but also by statistical probability, in which the percentages of alleged dead and wounded in this shooting are markedly different than other shootings.

          I also think you may be wrong about the “fake report” and the “fake dispatch.” It seems pretty clear that not everyone was in on this. This is the way these drills seem to work. Both the police report and the dispatch are going to contain some truth and some fiction, but the dispatch will usually be more accurate than the report, because it is created in real time partly by officers who are not in on the plan. Wolfgang is focusing on the dispatch, and for good reason. If the dispatch is accurate, then the shooting would have been impossible in this time it was supposed to have taken. The report can’t be taken seriously partly because it is largely redacted. This suggests that there were eyewitness cops on the scene who saw and reported things the authorities don’t want the public to know (therefore it suggests that at least parts of the report are real, because incriminating). If the report were merely fake, it wouldn’t be heavily redacted.

          Also, you and I don’t know (at least I hope you don’t know) whether or not Adam Lanza was indeed shot by policemen in the back of the head. He could easily have been taken there and shot by a squad, in the car that was found with four doors open. In fact, he was probably taken there dead already, having been shot through the head previously (hence the death certificate from the day before), and placed there as a scapegoat. And there could have been other shooters, the ones escaping through the woods and in a purple van, who did murder adults and children inside of that school. Maybe that’s the reason we can’t see photos; because they would reveal multiple shooters.

          That’s only one possibility. There are others of course, such as that the whole thing was a drill and everyone was in on it, and everything was fake. I don’t think we can prove anything either way at this point, but an investigation could start to prove if there were any real deaths. I think at least Adam Lanza and his mother were murdered. Possibly others too. If the perpetrators and parents are part of a death cult in which they believe that sacrificing children brings them closer to their god and that the children become blessed and special through dying, then you could have children killed and no tears. The parents could also be mind-controlled to be happy in the face of tragedy. Using clearly non-grieving parents on camera could be a way of steering the truth community to the notion that the whole thing was a hoax, to cover up real murders. A mix of real deaths and fake deaths is a perfect cover. But again, it’s impossible to know anything at this point.

          Part of the reason I’m interested in Halbig’s investigation is that I feel that it was more than a drill, and that horrors beyond our wildest imaginings may be uncovered if anything is found out. I am thinking about how the parents at Columbine knew their children would be killed, and were somehow in on it and had agreed to it. I am also thinking of the Franklin cover-up, and the McMartin preschool trial. I’m thinking of the tunnels underneath the McMartin school, and the tunnels underneath the Fairfield Hills State Hospital, of the mind control experiments at Fairfield, the nightmare horror stories that are told by people who experienced it. I’m thinking of the population of Newtown growing mostly because of the hospital, and of Prescott Bush’s connection to Connecticut with his eugenics agendas. I’m thinking of Andrew Solomon and his big pharma connections, and about the larger agendas of medicating the “behaviorally ill.” I”m not connecting any of this to Obama; I don’t see how he’s connected. I think it connects back to the Nazi criminals of the 1960s and their eugenics agendas. In fact it seems to be all of the same people.

          Halbig’s mission, while brave, is unlikely to yield any information, because there is so much money and power against him. But that does not make him a fraud or a shill. It makes him naive perhaps, and maybe even a little foolishly optimistic. But that’s what I find wonderful about him. He is willing to get out there and make a real effort. He is willing to sacrifice himself for the truth. I just hope he doesn’t have to. And of course discrediting him is better than murdering him if it that’s the choice.

          The way I got interested in this to begin with was when I heard on the news that the children were spirited away in the middle of the night, never taken to a hospital, and supposedly taken directly to the morgue. That was enough to give me nightmares. If there was no violence that happened, I don’t think you get gunmen and armed nuns in drag fleeing the scene. The smiling parents are only a small part of the puzzle.

        10. pbutterfly,
          Cool post. I can’t help but lean in your direction and back again. I have since it happened. There are just so many things that make no sense.

          In the conversations I’ve engaged in with others, we drift from it being a complete hoax to a scene where carnage occurred but not in the way it was reported to the public. I lean toward planned carnage or at least partial carnage because it would be easier to create some serious collateral damage than it would be to try to get an entire school population + parents + emergency personnel to go along with a pretend drama. I firmly believe that the powers that be (in front of and behind the scenes) will stop at nothing for control. Just my two cents.

          I also think the truth will never be revealed (or perhaps it will be 50 years from now). If it were – between this event, the other events + gun control + IRS targeting + Benghazi + Fast & Furious + what is happening in Nevada…it would seriously push a good deal of us over the edge and we could be looking at a revolution…or at the very least, a serious upheaval.


        11. Beth D.,

          I don’t lean either way. What I’m saying is that we just don’t know. And I don’t agree that “it would be easier to create some serious collateral damage than it would be to try to get an entire school population + parents + emergency personnel to go along with a pretend drama.” For one thing, there does not appear to be an entire school population. For another thing, I think it might be easier to get people to go along with a pretend drama, as it would be easier on their consciences.

          The reason I think there may have been real carnage is that some of these events are created partially to cover up real crimes for which real people have to be murdered to shut them up. What if Adam Lanza had gathered damning research and had told his mother about it? What better way to scare the living shit out of people who know about a cover-up than to sacrifice Adam Lanza and his mother that way? That would be an even better way to silence people than to give away houses.

          We have to look a the modus operandi of these people. Listen to William Zabel’s interviews. There was evidence that most of the kids and teachers at Columbine knew about that event beforehand, and they were laughing about it afterwards, just like the Sandy Hook parents. Some people think that Columbine was a clean-up operation to silence people who knew about a child porn/ trafficking ring. If the parents were Satanists, then killing their children who are breaking an oath of loyalty to the cult would be reason for them to rejoice. Was there a child porn ring in Sandy Hook? Were those kids a bunch of victims like the McMartin school kids, spirited away through those tunnels under the hospital for meeting with celebrities and politicians? Were they getting old enough to talk, like JonBenet Ramsey? She was also sacrificially killed at age six, on a satanic holiday. Was their mind-control slipping? Was Adam Lanza’s programming slipping because he refused to take the drugs? Was the school destroyed to hide the bodies of kids blown away by a group of military operatives?

          And you have to the look at the town. Full of military and CIA assets. Full of freemasons. Old Masonic lodge. Satanic Church there. History of satanic abuse in the area. Namesnotmary on YouTube has some really interesting videos about Satanists and Freemasons in Newtown, and in Connecticut at large.

          I would love to think that it was all fake.The only way we will ever know is if someone breaks down and talks, or if the redacted parts of the report are revealed. Like, those six kids on Gene Rosen’s lawn. Did they somehow escape the military machine guns? Why don’t we ever see them on the news? The Gene Rosen story interests me because it seems like something that didn’t go off as planned. What was in the juice he gave them? Were those stuffed animals programming tools? Was his repeated use of the phrases “blood was coming out of her mouth” and “her face was like stone” a mind-control code to remind other victims out there not to speak? And that teacher who hid in the closet: was that just a story, or was she really hiding? Do you think those people will ever dare or be allowed to talk, if they indeed escaped? Are they drugged half to death right now guarded by machine guns, or are they moving about freely? Trying to find those people and talk to them seems like it would be a great key to figuring out what really went on.

          What troubles me about the flood of opinions about the event being fake is that that seems to be what they want us to think. When this event first happened, before people were aware of how fake it all looked, there were lots of leads about satanism and child sacrifice. Then they all stopped. Was the internet flooded with agents spreading the rumors of it all being fake to throw us off? Some people at least seem to have been murdered (Adam Lanza and his mother). They went to the trouble of shipping items to fake a crime scene at the Lanza’s house. The crime scene being faked I think was to pin the murder on Adam Lanza. This was months ahead of time, in the summer.

          The authorities seem fine with incessant websites and forums proclaiming this was all fake. But when Halbig says he’s going there, then they start shitting bricks and bringing out the operatives like Wade. Maybe they’re just hiding fraud and media fakery. I really really really hope so.

        12. My opinion, butterfly, is that it really doesn’t matter if people died that day or not–although I’m inclined to think that thte school building had not been in use for something like three decades, and there was never any person “Adam Lanza.”

          It is extremely easy for the secret government to order one of their MKUltra mind controlled slaves to murder people. In Delta programming, they then kill themselves. Other programming intends for the slave to remain a living example for propaganda purposes. In the case of Robert Kennedy, the supposed murderer didn’t even do it, and although he has rotted in a cage ever since, he can’t remember anything about the event.

          All the scenarios are disturbing, but for my money, the scariest is a completely made up tragedy that everyone is made to believe, that traumatizes hundreds of millions of people. We are legitimately traumatized when thousands die (911) or a believed figure (pick a Kennedy) dies, because humans react that way to the loss of human life (except in the case of abortion, interestingly–the desensitization there is at such an advanced stage that many people think of it as a wonderfully good thing). This is an easy enough manipulation. Monarch mind control forces children to kill beloved pets, things like that, to shatter their minds so as to rebuild them. This works because the horror is a natural human response to a real atrocity.

          But what if the controllers have become so advanced that they can accomplish the same thing without actually producing any horrifying thing at all? The movie Wag the Dog comes to mind; the entire world is engrossed in a completely fictitious war. If they have that kind of power we are in the deepest kind of trouble.

        13. Patrick,

          I think this is an incredibly callous statement:

          “My opinion, butterfly, is that it really doesn’t matter if people died that day or not.”

          Otherwise I mostly agree with you.

          And I know this is a dumb question, but how do you quote someone else’s post in italics like that? I can’t figure out how to do it.

        14. Patrick:

          What I do not and cannot agree with is that the degree of torture we collectively experience through the media is similar to the degree of torture that mind-controlled, raped, programmed, drugged, victims are subject to. People are always saying these kinds of things, but there is a reality to the experience of actual tortured persons that most of us can’t even begin to imagine.

        15. pbutterfly2000, you are correct when you say, Halbig is a citizen trying to do his job. The stuff he has asked for directly relates to the questions he gets asked regarding Sandy Hook from his conferences and workshops about school safety. He is merely pointing out the failures of protocol that day and the fact that no one will answer the questions begs the larger question…What is there to cover up?

        16. Sorry if I sound callous, much less “incredibly” so. Obviously it matters to the dead people and those who love them. But it strikes me that you are missing my point when I say that it does not matter.

          The meaning I intended to convey is that, for the purposes of our work here at MHB, it is irrelevant. We should not be married to any theory (lophatt is very good on that aspect, incidentally; you are new around here, and if you can find the time you should go back to old articles and scan for his avatar and get a feel for the was he thinks on the subject), because there are some investigations we will never complete with 100% certainty.

          Speaking of lophatt, in this regard, while he sees the vastness of the evidence the school was not in use, he always cautions that we cannot know that. Yet. Or maybe ever. He is a very good investigator, unlike myself, tending towards recess talk that makes me sound “callous.”

          What I try to do is stand well back from these things, and try to capture the feel of the entire landscape. Individual deaths are incidental when you do that, because you are stripping away the emotion. But the emotion is only there because the controllers PUT IT THERE TO MANIPULATE US. It may seem callous to stand aside and refuse to be emotionally manipulated, but I think it is the correct way to handle things like this.

          Which is why I said what I said. If we refuse to be emotionally manipulated, and focus on the big picture, we see that fake deaths are worse than real deaths– because if our perceptions are completely under their control, to the point we react the same way to imaginary murders as we do to the real thing, we truly are living inside the Matrix. Which is much scarier than real murder.

          Hope that helps.

          You also said:
          “What I do not and cannot agree with is that the degree of torture we collectively experience through the media is similar to the degree of torture that mind-controlled, raped, programmed, drugged, victims are subject to. People are always saying these kinds of things, but there is a reality to the experience of actual tortured persons that most of us can’t even begin to imagine.”

          You are certainly entitled to your opinion. For me, what was done to the people of Cuba, of Russia, of Cambodia, in the 20th century, collectively, was far worse than the torment individuals faced. Perhaps I’m callous.

          But a wonderfully flourishing culture filled with art, and markets, and free thought, and a lovely shared history, to be intentionally destroyed by a handful of avaricious monsters, well, it’s up to you to decide if that’s worse than the torment individuals face on the path to that destruction.

          Perhaps it’s the big landscape problem again: I see what is being done to us, and see the loss of an entire civilization (I wrote a book about it, after all), and also see the individual victims on the way to that loss, and conclude that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you focus on one dead tree and don’t notice the death of the entire forest you are missing the big picture.

        17. Patrick,

          I agree with everything you’ve said on a theoretical and a philosophical level. I do think that the sum is larger than its parts. I think it was your language that I objected to. I did understand what you meant the first time around, but I objected to the shorthand of “it doesn’t matter if people died or not.” Of course it matters.

          As researchers and investigators of course we shouldn’t be tied to any one theory, and I myself am not tied to any theory. But I see a problem in that people mostly seem to be tied to the theory that no one died, and in order to stick to that theory you have to ignore mountains of evidence, including stuff in the police report. What I am saying is that the theory that no one died is not the only or the best theory. Fishandroaches stated as fact that it was all a hoax. I think it is dangerous to draw absolute conclusions about anything at this point.

          With Boston on the other hand, I think there is solid proof that no one died except for Tsarnaevs, Todashev, some FBI agents, and maybe other odds and end of people who might blow the official story. We have photo evidence to prove that there were no real victims in Boston, whereas we don’t have evidence of any kind at Sandy Hook. I think they’ve mostly moved from individual mind control to mass mind control. That’s one reason I don’t go to see movies anymore. So in that sense I agree with you 100% about mass trauma.

          But my interest in whether anyone died is tied to a larger interest I have in child trafficking and mind control networks, which I’ve been studying for several years. Maybe it’s just me, but I do think that the individual mind control is worse, because it involves abuse of the body as well as the mind, and because it’s possible to escape the culture but not your controllers, especially if you’re a child. I’m speaking as someone who has been at the bottom of society, and had things happen to me that don’t happen to people with money and connections. Therefore I have a special empathy for people that are born merely to be tortured and discarded.

        18. We share that concern in common, butterfly. It is of intense interest to me. If you don’t know about Doug Riggs, look him up (I won’t link to him because I have another link to give, and two sends the post to moderation).

          Every day I go to Vigilent Citizen’s site ( Whoever this person is, the chronicling of the subject done there is incredibly valuable. If you don’t know about it, make it a daily trip, and look at old articles.

          The horrors inflicted on children to create mind controlled slaves are beyond comprehension.

          Another good resource is the new book by Dave McGowan (it will be available at the end of this month). It was a wonderful series of articles about the music scene in Laurel Canyon, which is a part of Los Angeles. Since it is now a book, you can’t read the articles any more on the web site, but I urge anyone interested to pay attention to Dave–and definitely buy the book. That “hippy generation” that shaped out musical tastes was mostly mind controlled slaves. Sounds crazy, but you have to look into it to have a valid opinion.

          Our culture has been shaped, molded, and there’s nothing we can do about it. We can only wake up, and clean up our own minds and souls and spirits.

        19. Hi Patrick,

          Thanks for the link. I will check that site out.

          I have read Dave MacGowan’s Laurel Canyon series, and I am looking forward to reading the book, which supposedly contains more information. I also really liked his book “Programmed to Kill.” MacGowan has had a big influence on my thinking. I wish he would write about Sandy Hook!

          Dave’s Laurel Canyon series is the one that caused a big red flag to be raised for me when someone on this blog said that there is a snob element in Newtown, in which you have to prove a pedigree going back to the Mayflower. I then remembered that chapter where Macgowan talks about the CIA agents in Laurel Canyon all having these families going back to those first ships that landed, and thought, Holy Cow! It’s the same families!

          Namesnotmary on Youtube just did a video about how nearly everyone on a certain street in Newtown is blood-related or marriage-related. It really does make one wonder whether these elite families participate in these hoaxes not just for free houses, but in exchange for a space underneath the Denver Airport!

        20. I love the reference to the Denver airport.

          Glad you read the L.C. series. I must admit that I never finished Programmed to Kill. I heard an interview he did where he talked about how those things life in one’s mind, and you can’t get them to go away. It’s horrible.

        21. Yes, MacGowan’s books are great, as are all of his articles. One thing that’s very valuable about his research, including the research in PROGRAMMED TO KILL, is that all of it comes from mainstream news media. He puts all of these sources together so one can see how preposterous the official stories are, and so one can draw one’s own conclusions about what really happened. It’s a similar type of research to what’s covered on this blog, but covering an exhaustive amount of material, and vey well condensed and summarized. Yes it’s horrifying to read, but invaluable and I would say essential reading for anyone who is serious about understanding postwar politics and history. The first chapter alone of PROGRAMMED TO KILL will change one’s life forever. The book is a free PDF on the internet if anyone is interested, and I think everyone should be.

        22. “Fishandroaches stated as fact that it was all a hoax.”

          I don’t believe I have ever stated that. I think that but I am usually quite careful about stating that. Perhaps it was the fictitious police report and dispatch calls you are confusing with whether or not this event was real. those are fake for sure.

          I don’t mean to jump ahead, I still plan on responding to your earlier, well thought out comments but I got very busy and haven’t been able to address them yet.

        23. Also, I really do think people should go back and listen to William Zabel’s interviews on Binnall of America. It shows that Columbine sets a precedent for parents laughing and smiling at children being killed, with foreknowledge of those children being killed. No one ever seems to reference this when trying to analyze the laughing parents of Sandy Hook. Most people, Halbig included, are too innocent to imagine that anyone could be so demonic. But I believe the people at Columbine are connected to the Sandy Hook people – same satanic networks. I don’t have time to research this in depth, but other people at least are making some headway. It’s that whole CIA/ satanic connection.

        24. Nick, what would be the amount appropriate to use at the “GoFundMe” site for Halbig?

        25. dm and pbutter: stop wasting your time here and wait for the next news release. 202 is like my kids when they were in their teens. No win situation. The spirit of (fill in) compels him…

        26. Your post reminded me of what it is like almost every day in my house o’ teens. That was pretty funny!

          I can’t blame Nick on this one, however. I’m still waiting for DMHennen to apologize for announcing I wrote the anonymous legal opinion then calling me “classy” for being the “first to post on” my “own article”…which it most certainly was not. Anyway, he has it coming once in a while, IMHO.

        27. dmhennen :

          Love the new picture, looks much more like you…

          The way you try to shine the turd called Wolfgang Halbig raises an important question: Is Halbig compensating you on a percentage-of-donations-raised basis?

          To respond to your question: $0.

          Here’s Why:
          In every media appearance Halbig can be heard boasting about his impressive career journey, the unique skill set he built along his career journey and his far reaching connections to major events (and, one might assume, individuals associated with those events).

          While Halbig will drone on and on about himself in a manner that is both convincing and impressive, he seems to lack the ability to build a foundation or tap into his networks of resources in order to engage these individuals or groups to join with him. With that in mind, it is most surprising that Halbig cannot engage individuals from his network with the legal, technological, forensic and educational expertise who would work with him on a pro-bono basis to strategize and formulate a plan and develop a framework to properly approach an investigation into the Sandy Hook tragedy. By doing this, Halbig would have an understanding of exactly what needs to be done, how it needs to be done and how much money it will take to get it done.

          Instead, Halbig went with his favorite number: $100,000. Yes the same amount he needed to create his magic device to prevent teen suicides that he so desperately wanted to create for parents.

          Halbig is quite convincing when he’s telling you about the amazing Wolfgang Halbig; the way he talks about himself I often wonder “Why hasn’t Wolfgang Halbig been honored with a stamp?” and “When will Mariah Carey dedicate her performance of Hero to Wolfgang Halbig?”

          There are a lot of great talkers in the world; Bernie Madoff must have had a great elevator pitch too… Let us not forget that actions speak far louder than the words Wolfgang Halbig boasts about himself and Halbig’s actions do not resemble the expert go-getter he claims to be.

        28. If I can put in my two cents, Nick…Good argument. Particularly the point about Halbig seemingly not having any sort of network to go to. I suspect from his resume that he has burned quite a few bridges and has been “let go” many times.

          It is telling when he posts appeals on his FB page for information.

          This morning’s post began, “Good Morning Sandy Hook financial contributors who believe in our mission for the truth.” He attaches his same old picture from 40 years ago to remind his followers that he was a trooper for less than 36 months, or a year, depending on which resume you look at. He’s about as slick as a used car salesman in downtown Detroit (no offense Detroit).

          God love him, he keeps plugging along and I admit I am compelled to watch him. It’s like rubbernecking at a train wreck…or sometimes pausing the remote at “The Real Housewives of….” or “The Kardashians”…. I know I should keep going but sometimes I peek in on ’em.

        29. Nick is too funny to be a teen. Pro stand-up cynic. (Still chuckling… )

          Anyway, sorry I stepped in Nick’s area and anyone else’s. I’ll find another part of the sandbox to play in. Over out.

        30. OldMan, I would be beyond disappointed if you didn’t stick around this sandbox to play with all of us. Goodness your last comment about me absolutely nailed it! You get me; stick around por favor.

        31. Nick, you can’t begin a “GoFundMe” account with a goal of $0. So once again, what would be the appropriate amount to fill in as a “goal”. Also, keep in mind he never wanted it. A friend suggested he use it as an alternative to sending checks in the mail. It sounds to me that it isn’t the AMOUNT you are concerned with, but rather the fact he’s raising funds. Is that the issue? Alex Jones, Wayne Madsen and Dr. Tracy all have donation buttons on their sites allowing people to donate, but I haven’t heard a peep from the comments section regarding that. What would Dr. Tracy need funds for? Wolfgang created a trust fund, so even HE can’t get at it without the use of an attorney. Because the rest of us here already know this it leaves yourself painted into the corner because of your unwillingness to understand this.

        32. Still waiting – weeks now –

          What state is trust one set up? It is not FL, DE, NV. Another poster checked other states – no luck.

          Maybe it’s an IOLA account at the attorney’s office? No, that’s not write because just the other day Halbig posted a communication from his attorney that confirmed the receipt of Halbig’s retainer check.

          So, where is the “trust” established? You seem to know about the account but you have not responded for weeks as to the MOST BASIC question. So, either you don’t know about the account and/or you don’t know Jack (or Halbig), which is what I suspect.

        33. Oh Dan and your multiple accounts [dmhennen and
          Dan Hennen(@dmhennen)] both with different photos of you as your avatar….

          I’m not sure if it’s a reading comprehension issue or if every evening you punish your liver by doing your best Jim Fetzer impression but my comment was much more thorough than simply answering $0.

          The refusal, demonstrated by you and countless others, to acknowledge that Wolfgang Halbig isn’t infallible is concerning because:
          * There have been several important questions raised regarding Halbig’s past fundraising efforts in conjunction with promises he made to people yearning for what he was offering; yet none of these questions have been answered or even acknowledged.

          * Halbig’s self proclaimed vast experience and expertise in school safety sound amazing when Halbig boasts about himself but thus far his approach and actions do not resemble those of a expert in school safety or experienced investigator and therefore raise several red flags.

          * With that in mind, Halbig either doesn’t have or refuses to engage the vast network of connections he claims to have. If Halbig’s words were genuine he would utilize all of his resources in order to bring them together to formulate and tweak a comprehensive strategy for his investigation and have it in place when he made his intentions public.

          * In his interviews Halbig reveals himself to lack a thorough understanding of the incident at Sandy Hook; he seems to kind of know the basics. An expert investigating any subject would have or work to develop a deep understanding of the official story(s), for example every skilled researcher of the JFK assassination conspiracy maintains a vast knowledge of the Warren Commission Report because by disproving it’s claims they add credence to their own claims and concurrently gain traction with the public.

          The issue is not Halbig raising money, the issue is Halbig’s credibility and his claims. For Halbig, it’s all about the money and his ability to convince you he’s great and give you hope that he’ll get your questions answered are nothing more than a way to achieve the object of his affection: money.

        34. A well-crafted response, Nick. DmHennen will still not get it, however. He still believes in fairies and unicorns…it’s all covered with glitter in his world.

        35. [quote]The refusal, demonstrated by you and countless others, to acknowledge that Wolfgang Halbig isn’t infallible is concerning [/quote]

          No one is infallible. No one is talking about fallibility or infallibility except you. People follow Halbig because they are interested in finding out the truth and he has a plan.

          [quote]* There have been several important questions raised regarding Halbig’s past fundraising efforts in conjunction with promises he made to people yearning for what he was offering; yet none of these questions have been answered or even acknowledged.[/quote]

          Halbig stated in the AFP interview that he never raised any prior funds. He did start a fundraising campaign, but didn’t follow through on it and never collected a penny. If you live 67 years and you are a crook, there is going to be some sort of trail of fraud going back through the years. Halbig doesn’t leave such a trail.

          [quote]* Halbig’s self proclaimed vast experience and expertise in school safety sound amazing when Halbig boasts about himself but thus far his approach and actions do not resemble those of a expert in school safety or experienced investigator and therefore raise several red flags.[/quote]

          What do you actually know about what the correct actions would be of a school safety expert would be? Do you have any experience in this area? He doesn’t know all the facts, but I don’t see anything inconsistent with a career in school safety and law enforcement. In fact, he continually refers to this experience as the reason that he knows Sandy Hook was wrong.

          [quote]* With that in mind, Halbig either doesn’t have or refuses to engage the vast network of connections he claims to have. If Halbig’s words were genuine he would utilize all of his resources in order to bring them together to formulate and tweak a comprehensive strategy for his investigation and have it in place when he made his intentions public.[/quote]

          Halbig probably doesn’t have a vast network of connections, any more than anyone else. Most of us only know a few work colleagues that we are really close to, past and present. And he has publicly stated that he has burned most of those bridges by starting this investigation. He obviously IS trying to utilize all of his resources, and that is why he is soliciting funds to try to hire people to help him. But you don’t allow that, because to you that is evidence of fraud.

          [quote]* In his interviews Halbig reveals himself to lack a thorough understanding of the incident at Sandy Hook; he seems to kind of know the basics. An expert investigating any subject would have or work to develop a deep understanding of the official story(s), for example every skilled researcher of the JFK assassination conspiracy maintains a vast knowledge of the Warren Commission Report because by disproving it’s claims they add credence to their own claims and concurrently gain traction with the public.[/quote]

          Again, Halbig is not a conspiracy theory researcher. He is an official trying to get answers that are crucial to the performance of his job. That said, his interviews in my opinion have been excellent. This is why he exploded on the scene in the way that he did – because he is clear, articulate, passionate, clearly actively seeking answers, and willing to sacrifice his own comfort and safety to do so. He aced that AFP debate with flying colors. He clearly knows a great deal about Sandy Hook, and he wasn’t tripped up once by that snake C.W. Wade, who has to hide under a pseudonym. Halbig has put his real name on the line because he has nothing to hide. What would be really interesting would be to look into this guy Wade, and find out about HIS past. Now, I have a feeling THAT would be shady.

          [quote]The issue is not Halbig raising money, the issue is Halbig’s credibility and his claims. For Halbig, it’s all about the money and his ability to convince you he’s great and give you hope that he’ll get your questions answered are nothing more than a way to achieve the object of his affection: money.[/quote]

          You keep trying to smear Halbig’s credibility, but you so far haven’t been able to. You complain about his boastful list of achievements and his numerous photos, but he only posts those to get rid of claims that he is not a real person, that he didn’t really have those jobs, etc. Where do you get the impression that it’s all about the money? What he has raised so far is a pitifully small amount for the time and energy he has already donated to this investigation. It’s not enough to pay his lawyers and his travel, let alone line his pockets. That “it’s all about the money” is an absurd claim. The attempts that you and others have made to smear his character I’m sure have made a large dent in his ability to gain funds, and that, I believe, is precisely your agenda. Because you clearly are afraid of what will come out if there is a real investigation. There can be no other explanation for the kinds of remarks you have made here.

        36. Nick, because 85% of your posts relating to Halbig have the word money/donation/sham/scam in them, how is it that you can say this:

          “The issue is not Halbig raising money, the issue is Halbig’s credibility and his claims.”

          So which is it, his credibility/claims or his fund raising…or both? You obviously have an issue with this man who has done nothing wrong….why all the hate?

          reminder: I am not a Halbig friend/associate/family member, I simply like the courage he has displayed in doing something real in this case where no one else has.

        37. While 85% of my posts relating to Halbig do include the word(s) money and/or donation, 100% of the time Wolfgang Halbig has been interviewed or posted comments online his focus is shilling for donations. Therefore I apologize for not living up to the old scam artist’s standards and promise that whenever I comment about Wolfgang Halbig I will include the words money and donation 100% of the time.

          Thanks Dan, I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.

        38. Nick202, Looks like my log in from home and from the office are from two separate accounts….I’ve have problems posting today and found that out in the meantime.

        39. I’ve noticed in many of your comments that you accuse people who don’t agree with you about Wolfgang Halbig as being hired to “lure unsuspecting rubes” and I am left wondering if you are projecting your own involvement in some kind of paid arrangement. Your comments are far more numerous, and far more over the top than Dan Hennen’s or anyone else that disagrees with your stance. If anyone comes across as someone who is so eager to persuade that one might assume they are being paid to do so, it’s you.

        40. It is amazing to me that just when operation halbig is slowly fizzling out, people that have never posted before keep posting in favor of halbig to keep this charade going. I am not too swift, but I get the hint that people are growing tired of this wolfgang personality and all of his inaction and money gathering.
          I think we have all made up our minds by now so the discussion about (*) is a waste of electricity. Halbig can either piss or get off the pot, I don’t think we need to hear about it unless he actually does something.

        41. I don’t know Nick and therefore cannot speak for him – but just wanted to mention that DmHennen may not have a ton of posts on this section (but does cumulatively) — however, he is very active in other boards w/the very pro-Halbig stance, Fbook, etc. That’s fine – no issues there.

          I think perhaps all of the other commentary is what was being referenced in Nick’s comments. Also, DmHennen has swiped content from here and re-posted it elsewhere without proper credit/permission and used it to spin the hyena remarks in support of Halbig. Just wanted to make note. Thanks.

        42. Nick: It wasn’t a pseudo question, just an observation, but thanks for the answer. So are you saying that you honestly believe that people who disagree with your beliefs and feelings about Wolfgang Halbig being a fraud are being financially compensated by him, or is it just something you say to make a point? I only ask because you said it more than twice. I just found it odd to genuinely conclude that someone cannot possibly disagree with you, and the fact that they do must mean they are being paid to do so, which is part of why I thought maybe you were projecting.

        43. Michelle, I don’t think Nick202 and Beth D. are paid shills, but it is obvious in reading the comments that they have an agenda here. I’m not sure what it is, but if you don’t like someone, like Halbig, why go out of your way, to be condescending and leave put-down comments regarding a man who is 67 years old and retired?

        44. Yep, we’re picking on an old man (Mr. Halbig) with absolutely no basis for questioning his conduct or his intelligence. You are once again taking space up on an otherwise worthwhile blog.

          Tell us about Halbig’s other attempts to raise $100k for another “venture”.

          Tell us about Halbig’s raising funds for his school and work safety business – what happened to the investor’s funds, DM? Eh?

          Oh, and have you stopped lifting content from this blog? Must be from the Halbig School of Journalism as he was “busted” for doing the very same thing.

        45. “why go out of your way, to be condescending and leave put-down comments regarding a man who is 67 years old and retired?”
          don’t forget career paper pusher and head instructor at the school for kids who don’t read good.

        46. Fishandroaches —

          I nearly sprayed water over my keyboard when I read your Zoolander comment. Too, too funny!

          The Wolfgang Halbig School 4 Kids that Don’t Read Good.

          Age and employment status do not exempt anyone from sarcasm, criticism, etc. His training/instructor status was no great shakes other than a salesperson job. I actually looked into FEMA instructor certification myself, just for “beans”. It seems that if you don’t have a tag on your toe, you are pretty much qualified to be contracted out for these instructor services.

  35. Here’s an idea, instead of dwelling on how we got hoodwinked in the past, with no logical or feasible path to justice, why don’t we focus on what is happening now?

    Here is a down to earth American, who the feds are trying to run off his land and are actually stealing his herd of cows as we type and read now!

    Can not we stand behind his, (our). rights and stare the hundreds of snipers with guns aimed at him with the purported purpose of saving the lame turtle that just so happens to eat cow poop?

    1. I like that idea. I have nothing further to say on Mr. Halbig. I’ve said everything (and more) about him. Anyone wishing to follow their “messiah”. I hear there’s land available in Guyana. I’d stay away from the Kool-Aide.

      I suppose we are at a point where we either continue to attempt to unmask the SHES fraud or join the glee club. Me? I’m going to keep digging. I’ll pass on the donation envelops just now.

      1. Lophatt I am with you on this…..besides what can you expect from the guy who posts “Bob Woodruff and Carl Bernstein on his facebook page…

        1. Ha, ha! He seems a bit like “Cliff Claven on “Cheers”. Buy Cliff a beer Norm, let’s move on.

        2. There’s a chuckle. Clif Claven and Norm. Too funny. There were two bartenders in the Biltmore in Los Angeles that could do a scary-good imitation of those two…long ago.

  36. Has anyone ever noticed that one of the problems with identifying and dismissing one of these events as a total hoax (if the evidence points in that direction) is the usefulness to the political party not in office to pretend it is a false flag by the monsters in the other political party?

    This means that both political parties promote the act as real, though they each give a different cause to it, through columnists and the people they sometimes feature with articles on the topic.

    Thus, one can see that partisan politics in and of itself leads away from truthfulness no matter the provocation, which is a sad commentary on the system we have developed, apart from the fact that these acts are often accomplished using the authority of our own government whoever we voted for, and our own money (mortgaging our futures that is), though in a hoax they have drawn the line at actual injury because of their ability to manipulate such vast resources. Once something is seen to be a hoax, it cannot be something else, yet even those who see the fact need have trouble with this cognitive dissonance.

    The abuse which comes to call one paranoid and a tin-foil hat is actually saying that the realization that you are suspending disbelief when you turn on news, just as you would if instead you turned the tv to a drama, is a sign of mental imbalance. Those who engage in such rhetoric have many different motives, but one of them may be that they need the event to have been received as real. Thus, if you deny that anyone was killed in a particular event because the party in power contrived it so that their own team would be held harmless in the event anyone found the true cause, you are likely to be said to be accusing someone (say Bush) of a heinous crime and a giant conspiracy that people could never keep secret because they are not all sociopaths. But if you have a job to perform which brings you close to the center of the event (demolishing buildings), knowing you are not doing it with people inside of them is key to your personal sense of innocence and integrity. You are part of a hoax, that’s all, and life is still good. So it goes in all of these events, even if they do provoke war in distant places or possibly take in as would-be criminals the operatives you have already used and abandoned in foreign countries (al Qaeda, Chechens), and know to be already dead.

    Does this argue for the idea that we are still the “good guys”? Maybe so, maybe not.

    1. Your remarks me mind me of how powerful the movie The matrix is modeling our current condition. Until you escape the construct (rare), you believe its real; people are motivated to uphold the political realities they inherit, because the political context is the substance of life. In times of revolution, choosing sides becomes an existential question: to throw off the king is to abandon the cocoon. A great many Americans left the colonies for Canada, and became the elite class there. Those who chose to fight knew that, should they lose, their lives were forfeit. The rest basically sat back, flipping a coin, and wishing the stable reality was not being upended.

      America is kind of unique in this regard. Communist revolutions, which is pretty much all the rest, provide a different scenario. The revolutionaries would be killed, should they lose, but when they win they kill those who remained loyal to the old regime. France, Cuba, China, Russia, the list is long.

      The point is, fundamentally changing the context within the Matrix is a terrifying thing, even though the Matrix is not real–it FEELS real to those who are within it. Politics is fake, in other words, by definition, but the prospect of fundamentally altering it is just as scary for most people as accepting the notion that the Matrix itself is fake.

      That’s why people go along with these hoaxes, even when they know they are large scale lies. Maintaining the continuity of the current paradigm is paramount; facing squarely the fictitiousness of the thing is simply to troubling to contemplate, so people rationalize, and wait out the storm. When the MSM and both sides of the political “debate” all agree that the hoax was real, and the historians treat it as such in subsequent decades, the poor, weak, sap who helped perpetrate it feels vindicated in his decision not to rock the boat. Cowardice is rewarded by the simple fact that the substance of life, the political context, survives in tact.

      The exception to this is O’Brian in 1984. The architects of the Matrix, who devise the pageants everyone is expected to participate in, have no existential choices to make, because they have created those artificial choices, and can’t enter the play. As happened to Winston Smith, when he chose to see that it is indeed a play, and attempted to break out of the production, O’Brian had to pull Winston off the stage, and take him down into the bowels of the theater where the props are stored and the playwrights construct the pageant. There, he is reeducated, by torture. No one is allowed to leave the Matrix, and no one is allowed to remain in it and also know it is fake–they all have to love Big Brother.

      Finally, note Winston’s job, before he wakes up to the nature of the world he inhabits: rewriting old newspaper copy and sending the originals down the Memory Hole. He actively participates in the hoax, as a procession, in a building filled with people just like him, none of whom have any trouble with the paradoxical (doublethink) nature of their jobs. Orwell understood this situation perfectly.

      1. Patrick,
        Around our house – we always talk about the similarities between happenings and The Matrix. So, your post struck a big chord.
        Orwell was indeed brilliant. Must-read material for our homeschooling crowds…doubt many public schools have his books on reading book anymore.

      2. I really need to proofread. Re-reading it is painful. “mind” should be “remind”; “its” should be “it’s”; “to” should be “too”; “procession” should be “profession.”

        1. I, for one, had not yet had enough coffee to notice.
          Don’t worry – the regulars here don’t mind such things.

      3. Thank you Patrick. I like your interesting take on the American Revolution and its unique character, because when I have bored a little more deeply into the way the actors behaved, I see their interesting relationship with both Canada and Britain remaining quite solid over the centuries. You have only to look at elite marriages afterwards to see that the bonds remained, and that money rather than just sentiment played a big role. Blood was thicker than water, but it was backed up by cash. I suppose the unique feature may have been the alliance with France, but even so, it never became really important. The Bourbon monarchies always had some interest in North America, but when they fell completely (temporarily) the importance of Britain reasserted itself. The language of statecraft, English, strengthened those bonds as well.

        The French Revolution and the one in Haiti did little to encourage people to Jefferson’s position that regular revolutions, even once a generation, are necessary to liberty. He was concerned that the dead hand of the past, including in the form of debt, would hang over younger generations and that revolutions were required to reset the game board. But he never spelled out how this should come about, and perhaps he was overly idealistic about the privileged children who inherited more than simply debts (as his did).

        Your reference to 1984 will send me back to the novel, and of course this website’s name references it.

        Typo’s? I didn’t even notice.

  37. I also listened to the Halbig v.s. Wade interview yesterday. It reminded me of a professional wrestling match, all show and no real blows. It is a scripted argument that Wolfgang always loses. He allowed Wade to excuse the absence of trauma helicopters because the active shooter scenario was ongoing until 10:30, long after everyone had been pronounced dead. Why doesn’t Halbig simply point out that according to CT law, all trauma victims under the age of 18 MUST be taken to an appropriate trauma center before resuscitation efforts can be terminated. There are no exceptions for victims under the age of 18.
    It seems to me that Halbig is simply providing a high profile platform for Sandy Hook Truth debunkers to address and dismiss the questions that we have all raised. If he is for real, he needs to sharpen his questions, and be ready with an effective follow up. I am not holding my breath.

    1. I caught that too – it would seem basic that Halbig would understand this protofol, if he is as “up” on things as he proclaims to be.

    1. On the other hand, once the public has swallowed the Sandy Hook story, he could use it as an exemplum (a device with a rich history if you look it up in Wikipedia) in order to call for implementation of his agenda. It’s a parable, if you will, to be cited from the Bully Pulpit, and its truth need only be hypothetical.

    2. Thanks for sharing this link – I had to share it around.
      Prez needs to focus his energies on issues far more pressing (understatement). I can’t wait until he’s gone.

  38. It is very curious, these folks totally focused on anti or not the current character have no concern on the current state of our world. Believe they are hood winked into one of the current distractions, or are trying to keep us consumed in it.

    Has anyone noticed the toxic trails in our skies?

      1. I can report that the greater Los Angeles area had three glorious days with blue skies and not a line in the sky. They came back with a vengeance on Tuesday, huge crosses and tic tac toes that eventually turned into a complete whiteout. People in California may be more aware, but there are also the many who perpetually look down on their mobile devices whether walking or driving. So for three days there were no commercial air traffic to and from LAX – the reason for lines in the sky according to certain entities.

        1. I’ll second that Anne. It was beautiful skies. I Posted this before but I firmly belive they spray here in the west to STOP the rain and move the moisture east to cause floods and huge snow storms for “ClimateChange” or ‘Global Tax Warming”.effects. “They” claim its just atmospheric conditions which cause “persistent contrails”..haha
          I filmed yesterday a real plane flying through their chemtrails and producing a REAL contrail…so much for “atmospheric conditions” Bullcrap…oh well, nobody in congress seems to notice them.

        2. ha,ha. Good point. Yeah I didn’t know about chemtrails until about 2005. I was living in the bay area when I saw a chemtrails sticker on a telephone pole in Berkeley. I still didn’t even notice them that summer until I moved back to oregon that winter. I was cresting the cascades going towards eugene and I saw a trail that had these massive upside down mushroom clouds billowing out from the trail and it was impossible to neglect it’s reality. I bought a camera and spent hundreds of hours filming and watching the patterns. It was weird that in the willamette valley you can only see them on clear days but as you cross the mountains into central oregon you can see above the low lying funk and see them every day. the cloud cover you see in the valley seems to be made in the pacific, probably from ships I would guess and I think it serves the purpose of condensation nuclei. as it crosses the mountains it seems to lose the moisture it had from the ocean and it appears as a fine brown dust, if you look closely. The billowing white trails are always above, way, way above but it appears they work in conjunction. anyway, I guess I can see why people in the valley may not notice them, there are only certain days that you can see above the canopy. it’s still crazy that I never noticed, I used to spend hours as a child watching planes and clouds. I think its been going on forever, I saw some small chemtrails in the first red dawn movie and that is old.

      1. You’re welcome, Dane Wigington sure does give an amazing presentation. Joined a facebook site on the subject and this post gets deleted within minutes.

        Judging by the troll attacks, am hopeful there are enough folks realizing we are under attack, the younger generations do not even know what a normal sky should look like.

        1. I love henrik! I cant’t listen to the new age pyramids and alien stuff he often has but when interviews serious people(I think) the para political stuff, he does a better job as a host than probably anyone. asks the right questions, lets others speak….

  39. Hi Beth: Again, it won’t let me reply to you directly on your post, so I’m just posting in the main spot. Anyway, I get what you’re saying and I was just basing my observation on what I’ve seen on this forum. While I read the comments on MHB at least a few times a week, I only comment every once in a while, and I can’t recall if Nick is a regular poster or not. I just happened to notice numerous recent comments, and found them to be hypocritical, and a bit rude. For example, when OldMan simply disagreed with Nick’s assessment that Halbig is a disgusting fraud, and said he thought he did pretty well in the debate, Nick countered with a rude comment that he must be deaf. So when I then read some more of his comments on this blog post, I saw him trying very hard to persuade, and playing on people’s emotions and using insults and shaming in the process. I just felt the need to call it out. Thanks for the response:)

    1. Hi Michelle, I hear you and sure understand. They were pretty rough messages. Normally Nick is not quite so…mean. At least, not since I’ve been here.

      I wish you’d post more – it has been nice to read what you’ve shared in the past. It is good to have regular readers post – and to keep the rest of us in line once in a while 🙂 I’m so glad you’re here.

    2. Michelle:

      My apologies if you felt the “deaf” comment was rude; it was meant to be more amusing than rude but I probably do owe you and anyone in the hearing impaired community an apology.

      I find accuracy to be of great importance and must correct your claim that it is my assessment that “Halbig is a disgusting fraud.” I never insinuated that Wolfgang Halbig is “disgusting” but please note the part about Halbig being a fraud; that’s spot-on. I look forward to your apology for falsely claiming that I find Halbig “disgusting”… sure the man could think about a salad but I think disgusting is a pretty harsh term to use to describe him.

      Look forward to hearing from you Michelle!


      PS: Hi Beth D. I always love reading your posts because your deep knowledge of many issues that have been discussed in this thread always enlightens me and your logic-based approach is best-in-class.

      1. Hi Nick. I believe the exact phrasing you used was that you are “disgusted by” Halbig. I would think that it’s not unfair to say that if one proclaims to be disgusted by someone, that they find them disgusting.

        1. Here is the exact quote:

          “I’m disgusted by Halbig and I encourage anyone reading this to listen to the debate to understand that Wolfgang Halbig is using his visibility to grow his bank account and nothing more.”

          I will await your apology for incorrectly asking for an apology;)

        2. My apologies Michelle; you were right and I was wrong.

          Btw I’d encourage you and everyone to read most of my comments with a touch of snark and sarcasm; while my point will stand out, the flowery language surrounding it can be quite amusing…allegedly.


      2. Hey Nick,
        I appreciate what I assume is your youth and your candor in your remarks. You get a little hot-headed like I do at times…it’s the passion 🙂

        Thank you for such a kind comment – you made my week. That was such a kind note – “thank you” seems inadequate. You’ve been kind to come to my aid when I’ve been put through the wringer on this blog.

        It is good to have like-minded folks here to toss it all around with – even if we don’t always agree. But I have gained so much knowledge and insight from sharing info and thoughts with you and the regulars here.
        Thanks for sticking around here!

        1. You’re a fair individual Beth D who, from what I can tell is rooted in logic and not emotion. You present yourself in a way that merits respect.

          As far as the hot-headed at times, I’d encourage you to read my comments as snarky, sarcastic, amusing, some examples:
          – When I asked Michelle for an apology for absolutely no reason; that is funny if you read it that way.
          – When I comment about Jim Fetzer being a drunk that’s both true and funny.
          – When I wrote to Michelle “I look forward to your apology for falsely claiming that I find Halbig “disgusting”… sure the man could think about a salad but I think disgusting is a pretty harsh term to use to describe him.” That is hilarious.

          If you see my posts and know to expect a good point surrounded by outrageously bizarre, silly, odd content then “hot headed” won’t come to mind but “silly goose” who makes a good point hopefully will.


        2. Hi Nick, I personally think you’re pretty darn funny. Every time I read the drunk line, it cracks me up. My bad.

          I’m a Libra – guess we’re supposed to be fair-minded people – if one were to believe in that sort of stuff. I don’t think I’ve been overly fair to WH – but have tried. I’ve tried harder to analyze him – with a critical eye (my “squint eye”). I am going with the gut on this one.

          I’m also intrigued by the people who so passionately believe in WH. I sincerely hope that their belief in this fellow is not as misguided as I think it is. I hope they all prove me wrong.

          I am a bit of an emotional sort (kind of Type A) so I do spout off at times. Guess that’s because I was born in the year of the Tiger (if one alternatively believed in that stuff). I am often too worried that humor will not carry off well in a blog post…at least my biting humor, so I try not to type one-half of what I’m thinking sometimes 🙂

          Thanks for hanging out with us here.

        3. I for one don’t find smear campaigns and public shaming, especially with a political agenda, amusing.

          And it’s rich that someone who openly calls their own remarks “hilarious” is one to criticize others for being boastful.

          SIlly goose? I don’t think so. Dangerous. Flame-Throwing. Manipulative. Disingenuous.

        4. Nick may have been a little over the top from the beginning, but perhaps he just saw what a phony halbig was before some of the rest of us. once you are sure the guy is working against us it is hard not to be slightly disrespectful and mocking the power structure is a great pastime. nick’s comments about fetzer’s alcoholism are hillarious regardless of what you think of fetzer.

        5. We have running jokes around at our house and among peers that is somewhat similar and we all chuckle. It is probably very poor etiquette to joke about alcohol abuse or addiction but we would never say it to anyone with such a challenge unless they wanted to engage about their drinking habits (and many do – amazingly – and they’re pretty darn funny).

          Otherwise – sometimes we just have to laugh. Sometimes it is at someone else’s expense. Sometimes…I’m sorry about that (sometimes).

        6. Thank you for your kind words fishandroaches.

          Helpful Hint:
          When listening to Jim Fetzer’s Real Deal podcast and you find yourself having to lower the volume whenever Fetzer laughs, this means that he’s been testing the limits of his liver and all sorts of crazy is going to fly out of his mouth for the next few hours. Some might remember the episode where he passionately declared that JFK wasn’t murdered, JFK committed suicide.

        7. That was funny 🙂

          Well, maybe Kennedy did commit suicide…indirectly. I doubt that is what he meant.

          I love the line, “…testing the limits of his liver.” That kills me. I did that a lot in college but for me…that was going over 5 drinks. Now? It’s like 3. Sad, but true.

  40. Thanks, Beth! This blog and it’s comment section is one of my favorites. I really enjoy your posts, too. I will definitely try to comment more often 🙂

  41. GE generosity:
    NEWTOWN — The town has accepted General Electric’s offer of $15 million for a new community center, which could accommodate the Senior Center and Parks and Recreation Department.

    Recent school news:
    NEWTOWN — Enrollment in the Newtown Public School District dropped by almost 250 students in the year following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. At Sandy Hook elementary alone, 55 fewer students enrolled in 2013 than had the previous year. School officials have commissioned an enrollment study to determine if the drop in students is part of a larger demographic shift that is being felt in many suburban school districts or if it is yet another lingering effect of the school shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and six educators in December 2012.

    “In my opinion, we can’t answer that without an enrollment study,” Newtown Legislative Council Chairman Mary Ann Jacob said. The Board of Education budgeted about $17,000 to conduct a demographic study beginning in July. The results are expected to be available by fall.
    The October 2013 enrollment report for the district showed 4,951 students or 249 fewer than the 5,200 that were enrolled in October 2012. During the same time period, the Sandy Hook elementary enrollment dropped from 454 students to 395. The state Department of Education requires each school district to provide enrollment figures in October, although officials emphasize the figures are fluid and can fluctuate throughout the school year.

    Connecticut legal news:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The attorney for the family of a Connecticut woman killed by police on Capitol Hill six months ago says her autopsy found she was shot multiple times from behind, including a shot to the back of the head. Attorney Eric Sanders said on his law firm’s website that the autopsy found Miriam Carey was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Carey was shot to death after a car chase that went from the White House to near the U.S. Capitol in October of last year. The report from Sanders said the “Carey family is understandably upset.”

    The Hartford Courant April 10, 2014—Former governor John G. Rowland was indicted Thursday for conspiracy and other crimes associated with two federal election campaigns, one of them involving a sham contract written to conceal $35,000 he was paid for political advice to congressional candidate Lisa Wilson-Foley. Rowland is accused of trying – but failing – to pitch a similar phony consulting deal to candidate Mark Greenberg in the other campaign, Greenberg’s unsuccessful 2010 race for Congress. Greenberg is identified in the indictment only as “Candidate 2.” But he has acknowledged in interviews that he testified about Rowland’s consulting proposal to the federal grand jury that was dismissed Thursday after spending two years investigating campaign reporting violations.

    In both the Greenberg and Foley campaigns, Rowland is accused of approaching the candidates and offering to act as a secret, paid political consultant. The 7-count indictment charges that Rowland proposed that the campaigns sign consulting contracts that hid his role as political adviser. What’s more, the indictment charges that Rowland wanted his consulting fees channeled through businesses or institutions not affiliated with the campaigns. Rowland would be judged more harshly in federal court than the Foleys because of his prior criminal record. The former three-term governor was forced from office in 2004 and served 10 months in prison as the result of an earlier political corruption case. The sentencing guidelines in federal court are weighted against defendants with prior convictions.

    1. Thanks Anne B! Great news updates!

      Interesting about SHook’s enrollment. Guess having that exact replica school was too much to take, eh?

      So, guess they won’t be needing that big new school they were planning on perhaps, eh? The overall district drop in students is pretty huge. Depending upon the geographics, they might have to consider consolidation if the numbers don’t improve — like, “Everyone now needs to report to our brand new, multi-million elementary school.” Afterall, isn’t the entire state paying for that new school? Better make good use of it.

      In the story on the – a poster wrote, “Lanza turned this town into a corrupt political mess, and the people who live in Newtown should be ashamed of themselves.” Another coined the name, “Sandy Crook”. Now that’s catchy. I like it.

      Thanks again, Anne B!

      1. There is a concern about declining enrollments in public schools in and around Newtown. In neighboring New Milford a petition was just started to save John Pettibone School, pre-K to 3rd grade with 458 students. Consolidation is the goal by officials. This school is much like SHES, built in the fifties in a town about the same size as Newtown. I see no obstructions in the windows from the photos in the link below.

        In other neighboring towns such as Roxbury, Bridgewater and Washington, all belonging to Region 12, there is also an effort to close elementary schools and relocate the students to a consolidated campus. Parents have voiced strong opposition, see excerpt below. So this makes me wonder if the new mega prison school in Sandy Hook might be for a future consolidation purpose. Perhaps this is a statewide situation and people are leaving the state due to increased tax burdens in recent years.

        But here we are again, with another consolidation plan being floated for a new K-5 school on the Shepaug Valley campus, a proposal out there to amend the regional plan to allow for consolidation, and another district-wide referendum coming up on a date soon to be determined by the Region 12 board.
        To be fair, Region 12 faces serious challenges, with rapidly declining student enrollment and spiraling per-pupil expenditures casting doubt about the future of the district. And enlightened solutions have to be found.
        But the residents of the Region 12 community need to be asking themselves a number of important questions before going to the polls on referendum day:
        Do they really want to close the top two schools (Burnham and Booth Free) in their 39-school District Resource Group and a third highly rated school (Washington Primary) where kids are getting excellent educations?
        Do they really want to shut down schools in great, close-knit towns like Bridgewater and Roxbury where the schools are such an important part of the fabric of the community?
        Do they really want Bridgewater and Roxbury to be the only towns in the state without a school — and face the virtually inevitable threat to property values and almost-certain dramatic changes in demographics?
        Do they really want to spend tens of millions of dollars on a new consolidated elementary school when the projected student population is so alarmingly low?
        I guess residents will provide answers to those questions with their votes on referendum day, and the chips will fall where they may, with the future direction of the Region 12 school district hanging in the balance.
        Art Cummings is editor emeritus of The News-Times. He can be contacted at 203-731-3351 or at

    2. Anne, maybe they could import students to their new prison, sort of like they do the “for hire” prisons they build everywhere. It looks like EVERYTHING revolves around money in Connecticut, illicit or otherwise.

      It looks like the Carey woman was assassinated. Make an illegal turn in D.C. and you’re dead. The place is starting to look like Albuquerque.

      I wonder if our “Greenberg” is any relation to the famous head of our favorite actor’s guild? Rowland and Connecticut look like they were made for each other. Norman Rockwell meets La Kosher Nostra.

      That’s what we’ve been missing with all the Wolfie distraction. We’re looking at petty crime when we have “pros” to study. This place must be the “Botany Bay” of New England.

      1. I just posted about a very wealthy town in CT where a former TV executive has been making news for taking on city hall, board of education and the police. The posting is under moderation, but the details are made for Corrupticut.

      2. Certainly it looks, from the official story, like assassination, but I thought she was supposedly still in the driver’s seat when she was murdered. And her baby right behind her. That must have been some pretty fancy shooting to shoot her “from behind” multiple times, while somehow missing the kid. I’d like to see the back of the seat she was sitting in, find where the bullet holes are.

        1. Anything’s possible in “Hollywood”. If you believe the autopsy (who knows?), they didn’t say they shot her “on film”. Maybe they shot her earlier and had a “stand in” do a chase scene.

          It’s all lies upon lies. The only question is what parts or is the whole thing a lie? That whole production was over the top.

  42. A lawsuit is a good idea, perhaps a lawsuit initiated by one of the many actors of Sandy Hoax Elementary School against MHB or a similar venue. This can be achieved by harassing the beejeekas out of any one of them, to the point that it is intolerable. Instead of suing them, make them sue us. Does anyone think that they would sue for level 10 harassment? I will bet the farm that none of them would open up a case for any reason whatsoever.

    It is much easier to lead the fox to your hunting ground and then attack then it is to seek out the fox in many acres of forest. Halbig may be a plant, but any kind of publicity at all, whether negative or positive, would be good for the cause. If everyone can wake up just two people this weekend, it would make a difference!

    1. Mr. Luv 🙂
      I love the way you think (in terms of getting one of them to sue). Interesting idea….very, very interesting. I don’t want to harass anyone…but wonder what avenues one could open.

  43. On Thurs 4/10, Pro-Official-S.Hoax-Story campaigners Keith Johnson, Deanna Spingola, and the anonymous “Wade” did an AFP podcast together. A few observations re this two hour, 3-way Shill-A-Thon:

    I think Deanna said it all to Pete Santilli on Mar 31, ref:

    2:20 PS: So, you’ve said you read the reports, and, I’m not even going by the conspiracy theories. How do we know that we’re to trust those reports? Can we?

    2:33 DS: I think that, yes, I think you can.

  44. IMO One of Halbigs questions regarding the SH Hoax should simply be asking for the security camera video from the school and why we cannot see it? I am posting a link from a school shooting from a poor neighborhood in Brazil that clearly depicts the panic in the kids fleeing from the gunmen and clearly depicts the injured in the aftermath and the real life emotion and anguish of the parents that had kids in the school. I dont believe these parents are going to be forgiving the gunmen for shooting their kids anytime soon and highlights the absurdity of the SH parents behavior after the shooting( non). Why not ask how in an poor neighborhood in Brazil you can have such clear footage from cameras inside the school and footage outside the school of the aftermath…but in an affluent community in the US we have no security camera video from the shooting?… short…just show us the video and that would answer almost all questions right? Why not drive that point home. The Principal of SH was quoted in an article in 2011 I believe about how the security system at SH had been updated so if TPTB say there is no video than point to the article quoting the principal. In addtition, in Brazil there is video of the injured outside the school( possibly cell phone) yet in SH there is not one cell phone video of the event.or aftermath..not one.

    1. Agreed, I have often wondered why one of the 16 questions didn’t include the security video footage. Is it because all photos of the kids are withheld? I honestly don’t know why it would otherwise be left off the “hot” list.

      1. Halbig mentions in his debate with Wade that one of the first things he’s gong to do in Newtown is to find out who installed the security system.

        1. Ah, that’s right. I am presuming he’s attacking it from the angle of “it didn’t exist…” .

        2. I suppose that is a good lead in question but it’s pointless unless he follows it up. perhaps his foia lawyer can get them to produce the footage minus the bloodshed of course. ha ha.

    2. I posted to Fetzer’s blog these 2 items which aren’t on the 16 Q’s list:

      “Dr. Fetzer, shouldn’t 2 items be in “Wolfgang’s Questions”, which are not there? These 2 don’t ask why such & such didn’t happen which can be dismissed under the catch-all “human error” banner. Rather, these two irregularities are backed by hard forensic evidence that they DID happen, question being WHY?

      1. The “free houses” recorded on Christmas Day ’09. I heard these all trace to “victim families”, and that they all went up for sale after the event sometime. A personal visit to the SH Clerk/Recorder’s office for hard copies of these records– and some questions of them about the “normalcy” of title transfer recordings on Christmas Day with *ZERO* sale prices, would be in order, yes?

      2. The complete cessation of all internet traffic to/from SHES since the end of the ’08 Spring semester. This was only discovered by a researcher about a month ago.

      The 2nd item suggesting that SHES was closed since Summer ’08, is corroborated by numerous videos showing the school’s decrepit, unmaintained condition.

      Again, the above 2 items are forensically evidenced, unlike several of Wolfgang’s “why DIDN’T xyz happen” questions. “

      Fetzer responded, “Good thoughts. Thanks for mentioning both. Important.”

      1. I have not found any evidence at all that SHES has ever been open and operational going all the way back to 1956. Not one potential single alumnae from 1956 to 2012 has ever come forward, either pro or con, regarding Sandy Hook Elementary School. Nada. Not one. That would include a random sample of people who range in age from 18 to 69. There is nobody home.

        1. Interesting how Bruce Jenner called himself a alum of Sandy Hook High School and “grew up 2 miles from Sandy Hook Elementary”. So, wonder where he went to elementary school?

        2. Another is listed as “Enuf Alrdy”. That building, place, et al is a complete sham. There never was a Sandy Hook Elementary School in real life.

        3. There’s “Alex Israel” too, remember her? She is the one they interviewed about “Adam” and she said “apparently his mother was a kindergarten teacher”. omg. Good find.

        4. I think someone has been having a little joke w/that site. I was tempted to add a few names myself 🙂

        5. I ran across a piece the other day where some of the neighbors behind the school were saying “that place hasn’t been open for years”. I thought that was rather “special”.

          The article said that they had done an assessment for repairs and asbestos abatement and the cost was prohibitive. Now, before everyone goes nuts about that, having asbestos doesn’t make a place “unsafe”. It is when it is disturbed, and becomes friable, that it is dangerous.

          They said that the roof had problems as well. They had asked for grant money to rebuild or replace it. Given the declining enrollment for that age group and the costs it was shut down. Then, low and behold, a “miracle”.

          I had mentioned previously that I watched Brendan Hunt’s videos mainly to get a “lay of the land” view. There were obviously houses abutting the property. I wondered why we never heard from those people. After all, if anybody would know, they would.

          Then the comments surfaced, related to the grant request. That was a year or two before the event. It lends support for the school being closed. It also shows that, even with outspoken people living in the area you don’t hear from them. If they made a fuss about the grant due to the school being closed and, therefore, unnecessary, imagine what they must think now.

          If you saw Hunt’s videos, it is obvious that you can walk straight from the houses to the fence surrounding the school. He did not encounter anybody in broad daylight. If he could simply drive down the street to the houses and walk right in, what was the point of the armed guards at the other entrance?

          It would really be worthwhile to speak with the residents of those houses.

  45. I was just listening to William Zabel’s interview again on the Columbine shootings:

    and he states that all of the video surveillance footage from that event went straight to the FBI and was never seen (probably destroyed). There was however some “fake” footage in the cafeteria that was released (green screen effects). I would assume that the Sandy Hook footage was either destroyed or that the camera was disabled ahead of time. I would be good to hear how they explain that away, but they might just say it exists but is classified as they did with Columbine.

  46. Interesting — that California highway Fed-Ex accident – – An update:

    Now saying the Fed Ex truck was already on fire before the accident.

    I don’t know about you – but I’m more suspicious about that truck. What the heck was the cargo? Did it incinerate prematurely? Who keeps driving a truck that’s on fire (clearly smoking up a storm)?

  47. Breaking News:
    In Wolfgang Halbig’s latest appearance on AFP Radio (, it is revealed that the worst nightmare of every bar with an all you can drink special, none other than Jim Fetzer will be accompanying Halbig on his trip to Newtown, Connecticut.

    Which brings us to the Question of the Day:

    While in Newtown, CT will Wolfgang Halbig be more successful at:
    (a) Getting his 16 questions answered at the Newtown School Board Meeting
    (b) Keeping everyone’s favorite liver batterer sober

    Only one vote per person.

    1. He is not going to go to Newtown, CT. Why? Take a trip there yourself like I did and you will see that it is a very small town with nada there. There is no school board in Newtown, or building to house it. Danbury, Yes. Newtown, No. There are no bars in town limits of Newtown. I passed by a closed Dunkin Donuts. The Police Station had a State Police cruiser in the parking lot, and no other vehicles. Only 1 out of 3 gas stations were open for business. He might as well go to Love Canal, NY or Dry Gulch, Nevada.

    2. Nick…you crack me up.

      Halbig must read off cards…his schtick is always the same.
      Talk about a scripted, controlled interview.

      He’s good at the “I never took a penny” of raised money. That’s fundraising.

      The last time he asked for $100k – he didn’t take any money because he failed at trying to raise capital.

      How about the capital for the prior entity he had…which failed. Wish I could tack down those investors. Would like to see how much he took in salary w/that company. Sorry, it wasn’t a non-profit Halbig…so, answer those questions.

      “If they don’t give us the info…we’re going to inspect the records at the School Board”. Hahahahahaha….that’s funny, WH. It’ll be interesting to see if they allow public comment during that meeting….and how much he’ll be able to spout out before his 5 mins are over.

      This cop visit from Lake Cty cops…wish someone would put it out there that they went out to Halbig’s house to tell him to tone down the harassment vs. allowing him to spin this, “…because I was asking questions.” He clearly is into harassment – call, write, call, write — everyone do what I’m doing…

      Oh and pushing those FL cops to answer questions (his “16 questions”) on a CT issue…that’s pretty funny and hopelessly naive.

      1. Well Halbig’s family didn’t come over on the Mayflower, so clearly he doesn’t deserve any money.

      2. Yeah, the real question will be; “will it be baton first, or taser”? “I’m here to inspect the records!” “What records?” “WHY DIDN’T YOU CALL THE HELICOPTERS? Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! (twitch)

        He’d better hope Fetzer can drag him outta there before Llorda shows up with a backhoe.

        1. Don’t taz him bro…hahaha.
          The guy already has a history of harassment. So, with this in mind, I would suspect there will be at least one cop who would like to remind him that they’ve had about enough of him. Bzzzzzzzzzt.

          Unfortunately, WH will look at it as a badge of honor…”Look what they did to me – just because I asked some questions….donate more so I can go back….”.

          His SHJ site reminds us all that it isn’t too late to donate before his trip to Newtown. You know, in case you were gonna 🙂 Maybe he wants some cushion for bail money…

        2. It’s really sad that so few people have donated, given the millions of people who watch the videos and seem obsessed with the idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax and a fraud. What a bunch of pathetic losers. I guess they just want to gawk at the spectacle and do nothing. People complain and rage about all of the deception, yet they can’t seem to distinguish fantasy from reality, and don’t know a plan of action when they see one. Worse, others are purposely trying to ruin Halbig’s reputation for what I’m sure are nefarious reasons.

          This continuous harping about Halbig raising money is getting really old, especially considering that the sharks seem to have won: if Halbig wants to really pursue this, he is going to have to spend his own money. People are stupid enough to be led by mainstream media, but they are also clearly stupid enough to be led by internet skeptics. Americans get what they deserve.

        3. Interestingly, your Mr. Halbig is already starting to back down.

          See his most recent FB post (at this writing) about the Newtown Bee editor and photog he has been beating up and over.

          Now he wonders how she can account for 23 mins of her time after 9:45 a.m. 12/14. He then says:

          “I give her the benefit of the doubt.”

          Well, I guess he has “scratched” that lead off of his list.

        4. Beth D., we already know that you are going to take each and every one of Halbig’s statements and movements as a huge embarrassment and failure, no matter what it “actually” means. This last post of yours is case in point. It doesn’t actually prove anything about anything, yet to you it is some sort of salacious tidbit.

        5. Then, pray tell, what does it mean to you?

          He’s been badgering the editor for months on end – the paper has informed him recently he is not welcome there. The photag has apparently said she is ready to testify under oath that she was there to take pictures when she said she was — and suddenly posts that “accepted” message?

          Please share with the group how it should be interpreted, please.

          Should he not go on to get her statement that the event was real? Why is he letting it go?

          Can’t wait to hear –

        6. Beth D., I’ve now read Halbig’s post. It seems that in your zeal to discredit him, you misread his statement. “I give her the benefit of the doubt” was clearly meant as sarcasm!!

        7. “I will give her the benefit of the doubt.”

          Not a sarcastic statement. He is saying at the start he doesn’t believe her or the paper’s position. He cannot prove that anything they say is wrong because he doesn’t have the means. So, he must give the benefit of the doubt.

        8. It’s so absurd anyway. What about the 100 million dollars raised by the fraudsters, and all of their fake businesses and banks and houses that they get free and taxes they don’t pay? So we’re talking millions and millions of fraudulent dollars being played with by criminals of Sandy Hook. And your concern is with Halbig’s $15,000 – money that he’s raised to investigate these crimes? Unbelievable.

        9. Well, there is a difference, actually. The difference between the charities and Halbig is:

          CHARITIES ask for money to be donated and the charity decides to divvy the funds up to those it believes need help. Yes, the Shook charities could be fraudulent. But, people give and hope their funds will be used wisely and expect nothing in return but a tax receipt.

          Halbig asks for money to be donated to pay legal fees and expenses and has promised performance in the form of results (to provide SH was a fraudulent event).

          He’s pretending to be some sort of mercenary but he’s unarmed for a battle of wits and has his hands tied behind his back. Good Lord, he has even suggest exhuming the bodies – is this a normal suggestion from a professional dealing in a high-profile, sensitive matter? I don’t know if you donated any money to him but if you did – Did YOU expecte your funds would be used to rent backhoes if Halbig had his way?

          Ironically, the $100k he asks for his Sandy Hook initiative is the exact same amount it would take him to stop bullying in schools via another company he wanted to start (and would maybe even pay back anyone willing to pony up the start-up funds). OK, that has been pounded enough.

          Do you know also know that Halbig’s “Real Hero Foundation” started in 2002 was a NON-PROFIT organization?

          Did he hope to get state/grant money to fund the visits to the schools?
          I wonder if he solicited donations for this one as well?

          Riddle me this:

          If Wolfgang Halbig was the supreme school security expert that he is – why didn’t he get involved way back when? He said a YouTube video got him interested. Really? If it was his job – you’d think he’d be all over that….and maybe use this “tragic event” as a tool in which to expand his security consulting business. Well, maybe he was but no one was really buying his services anymore.

          I’m going to set aside his other past fibs and tall stories for a minute to try to focus on what might motivate him. OK… I’m sorry – it keeps going back to money.

          Are you aware that someone had complained because the PayPal receipt for their Sandy Hook Justice Fund showed a personal name vs. a “fund” or “trust” as the recipient. Hmmm…

          Halbig can spin failures as attacks and obstacles set before him and can keep asking for more – like an annuity – a new way for him to try to do this security biz that has not been too great of late!

          Someone can perhaps help me change my mind – Post a note to him on his FBook page that you would like info. on the name of the legal name of the trust holding the donations and the location of the account (city, state). Anyway? Then post the response here and one/all of us can verify that it is properly established.

          Beware of false profits…uh, prophets.

        10. Beth D.,

          The difference is that the Sandy Hook charities were raising money for fraudulent reasons, to be used for self-enrichment and criminal projects. Halbig is raising money for a real cause. Whether or not you think he can accomplish anything with that money, he can’t get legal help without money so that’s why he soliciting funds. The absurd thing is for you to claim that he’s lining his pockets with an amount of money that’s too small to pay his lawyers.

          Part of Halbig’s job used to be to raise funds for projects. Have you heard of grant writers? That’s what they do. They raise money to get things done. To keep harping about Halbig having raised funds before as if it means something sinister is so ridiculous, since you have no proof that there was anything wrong there. All you’re doing is complaining about his method and calling him stupid. It’s either a cruel game of bash the scapegoat, or you have a political agenda. I assume the latter. I also think you may be projecting. People who are themselves mercenary can never understand how others can ask for money for noble reasons and not want to pocket it themselves. They can never grasp how others can do things for selfless reasons.

          And OldMan I appreciate you trying to keep the peace, but this is twice now you have told me to stop arguing with these people, essentially to shut up. Beth D. is not being passionate here; at best she is being snarky and mean-spirited, at worse she is part of the cover-up.

        11. 1. Everyone who has doubts about Halbig is NOT part of some cover-up. That position takes “conspiracy theory” to a new level.

          2. For the hundreth time I have no political agenda.

          3. I have never said Halbig was “stupid”. If anything, he is smart like a fox.

          4. I am not “mercenary”. My job involves ethics, rules, etc. I am a mom and a patriot.

          5. Often people who have a history of asking for large sums of money for business purposes – especially via strange comments left on on-line news articles and who seem to have no real plan in place for use of the funds OR a legal/compliant way to disperse the funds, are often questionable personalities.

          6. Halbig has a career history that suggests he has not done well at regular jobs, consulting, working with partners and school administrators.

          7. Halbig has thus far spent $5,000 in donations on a retainer (just to be called a client) of some attorney in addition to hourly fees incurred thus far. I would guess a portion of this will be paid to D.Williams for the referral. Halbig is being billed for the attorney to draft a compliant FOIA request. This was something Halbig said he did…and could’ve done for free. Since it was just done for him, I guess he never made a formal FOIA request or his attempt was not compliant (like his follow-up whacky emails and phone calls). But, I still have not called him stupid.

          Still Halbig is a hero to some. Goodness, some are so rabid if the guy announced he was the Second Coming…I think they might just believe it.

          Today, WHalbig is focusing on the suspicions name plates (or lack thereof) on the SHooks classroom doors. I was thinking there might be bigger topics to dissect right now…but I still have not called him “stupid”.

        12. Beth D.,

          You don’t just “have suspicions of Halbig;” you are openly accusing him of fraud with no basis.

          What you and others are conducting against Halbig is what’s known as a SMEAR CAMPAIGN. I didn’t say that being part of the cover-up was the only possibility for you. I said you could also just be snarky and mean-spirited. You also repeatedly have snorted and laughed about Halbig being stupid. You roar with laughter for instance when someone points out his spelling errors (the school for kids who don’t spell so good).

          But your obsession with discrediting him and the level of your suspiciousness and hatred are so out of proportion that it does look to me like you have an agenda.

          You said:

          “I am not “mercenary”. My job involves ethics, rules, etc. I am a mom and a patriot.”

          Whose job doesn’t involve ethics and rules? And what does being a mom have to do with anything? Very strange statement.

        13. If you suspect that children were killed, that a school was involved – I would also suspect being a Mom has quite a lot to do with my interest. You really can’t relate? Well, it is something you might want to consider.

          Yes, my job involves a huge focus on laws and ethics just a smidge more than some…perhaps many – so don’t rant on about things you do not know of. Some of us view things from different angles – especially in terms of those charged with duties to the public. Not everyone sees things as you do.

          I’ve “snorted, laughed and roared…” Wow, you’ve “mic’d” me? Well, even if I am rolling on the floor laughing at him – I am just as entitled to my opinions about Halbig as you are. Don’t read mine, Nick’s or whoever else’s posts where a belief is expressed that Halbig is a bit of a fool if you find them so troubling.

        14. Of course you’re entitled to your opinions. But if you’re going to be mean-spirited, just don’t be surprised if some of that spirit comes back to you.

        15. Please just don’t confuse “mean spirited” with facts and circumstances. Thanks though – appreciate the note.

        16. Hi pbutter – The common denominator, thus far, at this blog, is that everyone is passionate. And more aware. We should all be tolerant of each other’s opinions.

          You seem miffed. Please cheer up. You are not alone. See you on the next thread.

        17. The urge to “do something, even if its wrong” is largely responsible for where we are today. That is precisely the tool that the manipulators use to enact laws to control us.

          “Think of the CHILDREN (sigh!), I know, we’ll pass a law”. The intelligent thing to do is the one that has a likelihood of success. Even doing nothing is better than storming into an impossible situation and expecting some miracle.

          Being mad is sometimes healthy and understandable. Others merely like the “rush” they get from being mad. I can’t think of one problem that being mad ever solved. It may have provided the motivation, but if the action was successful it was because the mad one calmed down and thought the issue through.

          Given the choice between doing “something” impulsively or nothing, I’ll go with nothing. The race goes to the tortoise.

          There is no question that something should be done about this. The reality is that it is a rigged game. There are no “reserve troops” ready to ride to the rescue once the gate is breached. That is pure fantasy.

          As awful as this episode is, and it is, there are countless others every bit as horrendous that have gone unpunished for decades. Getting even is not what this should be about. Not because it wouldn’t be right, but because it will never happen.

          The best anyone can hope for in this situation is to awaken as many as possible to the manipulation so that they quit paying attention to it. If the psyops are not effective any longer they’ll have to find another way.

        18. Lophatt – you are often the voice of reason.

          Speaking for myself, getting mad has solved a few problems – but just those that aggravate me personally. Getting mad usually can stop someone from doing something that I find irritating, illegal, unethical, etc. (no always). Getting mad has allowed me (this very short person) to be heard in situations where I might be ignored (in business, in civil meetings, boards, etc….esp. in some male-dominated situations). Every so often a good mad, when done in a controlled, classy fashion is a good thing.

          I have a suspicion WHalbig will be suspending his trip to Newtown. It looks like his CT attorney has re-written his FOIA request and resubmitted it. Looks like a do-over. Well, suspending the trip would be the prudent thing to do to save donors funds at this time since this more compliant version has been submitted. Hopefully his attorney will advise him to sit home and sit out the time period on this request. Just a thought.

        19. PButterfly2000, just to clarify, the fraudulent PayPal account that was/is going into the personal pockets of someone named “Erik Pearson” was uncovered by myself. That account has nothing to do with Wolfgang Halbig. Don’t let Beth D. steer you down that “Halbig is a fraud” road with her mis-info.

        20. Thanks dmhennen, it’s good to know that this is what she is referring to. Good work uncovering the real fraudster.

          In the meantime I’ve found an interesting link:

          I keep trying to find connections between Sandy Hook and Columbine, and here is one, plain as day!

          William Zabel said that he has evidence that the kids and parents had foreknowledge of the shooting at Columbine. Lots of kids didn’t go to school that day The kids that were killed were on a list to be killed. The parents accepted their deaths, and the kids cheered the deaths afterwards. They were doing death training at Columbine. There was mind control going on. Cops who went in to stop the shooters lost their memory and couldn’t remember the layout of the hallways even though they knew the school. Lots of people had their memories erased about anything that happened on that day.

          Parents celebrate the date of the Columbine shooting every year with a celebration. It’s supposed to be a memorial, but it’s more like a party. Rock bands, ecstatic joy, etc. One parent was quoted at one of those events as saying “Thank God for April 20th!” What are they really celebrating? Hitler’s birthday? Beltaine? Over 50 people who were witnesses to multiple shooters have been picked off and killed over the years. Littleton was a CIA military safe town, like Newtown.

          These people have now banded together to start their own organization called SANDY HOOK COLUMBINE. They have started a Facebook page as well. The Posey family who run this organization just “happened” to be moving to Colorado from Newtown on Dec. 14th when the tragedy at Newtown struck. You can see Carly Posey on YouTube giving a very dubious speech about what her child saw that day which doesn’t match with the official story, but clearly contains changes that they are trying to make to the official story. These are definitely people to watch.

        21. Wrong. The person who donated money to Sandy Hook Justice Fund says the receipt shows the money was deposited into an account with the name on it of: Halbig’s wife.

        22. Oops…wrong one, Mr. Hennen.

          The complainant indicated that the PayPal receipt was returned to him showing his money was deposited in the name of HALBIG’S WIFE!

        23. To Beth, re the exhumation idea: I think someone on this blog suggested it, as to Alison Wyatt, only. (The reason, as I know you know, is that all we ever saw of any of the dead kids was their photo. In Alison Wyatt’s case, a mother came forward asserting that the photo claimed to be that of the dead child was, in fact, that of her daughter, Lily Gaubert, who was alive and well. The photo was stolen from their Facebook page. So who–or what–is in Alison Wyatt’s grave? As I remember, too, Alison Wyatt’s parents never materialized.)

        24. Dino-

          I am familiar with the suggestion of the one per MHBlog. I was just referring to Halbig’s suggested that they all be exhumed.

        25. You should be able to search for it – it was someone posting a question about the receipt they received. It may have been early on. I don’t have time to help you today.

          If I run across it again (may have bookmarked it), I will post the link here.

        26. Beth, I wasn’t all that clear in my comments about anger. It is normal and “right” to get angry over injustice. I do too. What I’m saying is, once you get angry, a person is unwise to throw caution to the wind as if they will solve problems by the simple force of their wills.

          There are those who use anger as a tool. They use it to intimidate others into subservience. When they are successful it reinforces them. I’m one of those who categorically refuses to be intimidated by someone’s “I’m irate” ploy. I say, “that’s nice, you’re irate. But you’re still wrong”.

          In all this talk about what should be done I find one important item missing. That is that things are not the way some apparently believe that they are. That doesn’t mean that I “like” that fact. But it is a fact.

          Some seem to believe that all that’s needed is to expose this and the forces of good will do the rest. There are no forces of good, at least not in government. Those in power are there because they are hired to control.

          With every passing day we are shown repeatedly that the media lies and is a propaganda arm of a global communitarian regime. We are shown that the cops are another arm of control. The courts are the same thing and I won’t even mention the political parasites.

          That may sound pretty glum, and it is. But, as adults that should be the basis of any planning we do with regard toward corrective measures. We are not going to see any of these mutts heading to jail. Forget about it.

          So the choice seems to be (1) waste time on futile efforts that are certain to lead nowhere, or (2) take stock in what we CAN accomplish and pursue that.

          I know that I and many others have devoted countless hours to investigating, thinking about and studying this hoax. I have done the same for others. I don’t need any further convincing.

          There are things I’d like to be able to do to “show the world” but I know that would not succeed. That doesn’t mean “nothing can be done”. I personally believe that the key to this, as well as some of the others, is exposure. Every time someone makes a good video about how ridiculous this is several more awaken from their dreams.

          The hope is that, one day, a significant number of people will simply stop paying attention or believing anything they say. An even better outcome would be laughter and open ridicule.

          I know that much of this is seriously unfunny. That isn’t what I’m saying. Humor is very powerful. It is much more effective than anger. So my advice is to let your anger spur you toward ridicule. People like to join others who obviously find something amusing.

          After all, when you consider the ridiculous sums of money they pay the likes of the enormously weird A. Cooper and his ilk to stand there in front of the green screen and lie their collective asses off on a daily basis, it really is amusing. Picture yourself eye to eye with this tool. Would you rather be filmed being dragged away by armed goons shouting incoherently or laughing in his pasty face?

        27. Lophatt,

          I like your angle of ridicule and laughter in response to what we’re seeing. Anger gets us labeled as “terrorists” these days (H. Reid).
          Beautifully said.

        28. Anger is what mobilized the civil rights movement. It’s what got women the vote. It’s what liberates countries. People die for causes. People go to jail and sacrifice themselves to bullets. It’s what’s called courage. Going to Newtown is an act of courage, and it ALSO generates publicity. If even one person gets prosecuted for dereliction of duty in this case, it will be harder in future to get people to go along with these plots.

        29. Pfly, I think there may be more to the womens lib movement(and every other) than what is seen on the surface. check out this clip from an interview with aaron russo as he was dying with cancer, if you haven’t seen it I’d watch the whole interview-its great. Aaron was befriended by nick rockefeller when aaron was running for govenor of nevada and invited to join the cfr. he tells the whole story in this interview if I remember right.

        30. Dinophile’s idea of exhumation (or whoever’s idea it was) would certainly provide evidence. I suspect it would also be highly illegal. I had even thought that an investigator with an endoscope might discover some amazing things with the right approach.

          Certainly getting permission to do this would be unlikely. Finding rocks instead of bodies would possibly even place them in a position whereby they couldn’t refuse cooperation. That is why they would never let that happen.

          At one time the story was that Veronique was going to move “Noah” from Connecticut to Seattle. I don’t know if that allegedly happened. Some of the others were supposedly buried in other locations.

          One thing for certain is that it would provide real hard evidence. You can dummy up a document but you can’t dummy up a body.

        31. Except in the one person’s case, a demand / suggestion from Halbig that the bodies be exhumed will hopefully not be brought up again (until perhaps the end) because I would imagine the mere suggestion would bring the wrath down on his shoulders and that of other truthers.

          But…if it were done. There is a part of me that wonders if…if, all bodies could be proven to exist in graves would we be satisfied? Even if there were genetic matches? Who is to say that people weren’t murdered…maybe they were deemed expendable for some greater evil. This is an administration who had started “Fast & Furious” and turned their back on their own in Benghazi, after all.

          Off topic, I wonder how many were supposedly cremated? Interesting how the lab only had enough genetic material from the Lanzas to perform their tests and then ran out. Perfect. No evidence left. With cremation…all would of course be lost.

        32. Well look who decided to post here again following his vicious attack on a sweet woman– none other than Dan Hennen… We missed you sweetie! The consensus was that you had either checked into a detox/rehab program or you went to happy hour with your pal Jim Fetzer and after that night ended with you in an ambulance with alcohol poisoning, some thought that you finally got a new liver. In transplant circles this is known as the Fetzer rule… The Fetzer rule is a program of the National Liver Foundation which allows anyone who can go drink for drink with Jim Fetzer for 3 hours to be immediately moved to the top of the transplant list.

          Hoping that you’ll behave following your time out and refrain from doing your Ike Turner impression to the female commenters on this site.

          Love ya miss ya Danny.

  48. fish, I have to be honest about this. I have bought his books and not read them. The serial killer book starts out with chapters that are reprints of his articles about those events, and they are horrible, so much so that I stopped reading. If you have looked into the Franklin Coverup, you know how horrible these things are.

    So, I assume that the books are all good. Certainly, the one about the LC, which will finally be available in a week or so, will be a joy to read.

  49. (2001) HEATHROW, Fla., Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ — Escalating gun sales since The September 11th terrorist attacks threaten the safety and security of schools across the United States, according to Wolfgang W. Halbig, Executive Director of the National Institute for School and Workplace Safety.

    Looks like the keystone cop made quite a leap between these two subjects.

    Of course he failed to take his own advice about securing weapons – how embarrassing.

    1. “Student silence is our worst enemy,” Halbig said

      wait a minute… I thought translesbully suicide was our worst enemy!

      Introducing wolfgang H halbig’s new $100,000 school for the functionally mute! for a small fee, your child can learn to roar like the lion king! with the wisdom of a cop… and the agility of a career paper pusher, wolf will soon have your deaf, mute child howlin at the wind! please see the go fund me site for further details.

      1. Fish&Roaches…that was pretty funny. Yes, imagine that – he got all “anti-gun” with this platform…(despite being a gun owner who didn’t secure his weapon properly and thus got it stolen).

        So, if he used 9/11 to try to prop his school safety biz, wonder why didn’t use the Sandy Hook incident to whip up some fear-based business in 2012-13? He admitted he had no real interest in the matter until he saw a video about it in late 2013.

        I found it quite interesting that Mr. Halbig had formed a non-profit organization in the past. He seems to have spent quite a few years chasing money after his school employments ended. Just an observation…a guy has to make a living.

  50. I just started reading the Sandy Hook final report (Book 6 specifically), and I am now of the opinion that children and adults really died there (very likely not the ones in the news). I think the kids and adults who were killed had to be silenced because of a child trafficking cover-up. My opinion is that the officers are telling the truth about what they saw, and that when they have revealed incriminating evidence that does not support the official story, those statements have been redacted. Some of the inconsistent information, however, has remained: for instance, Vanghele’s description of the suspect (a 19-year-old boy with a pronounced jawline, long blonde wispy hair, and a body the size of a 12-year-old). This obviously does not fit the description and photos of Adam Lanza, who was brunette and 6 feet tall. I think that they can’t release the photos because we will see different children than the ones on the news, and a different suspect. We will also see that the scene was a professional execution performed by multiple shooters.

    There are other, more grisly discrepancies as well: the description of the bodies piled up in the bathroom, stacked in twos and threes. This would be impossible for Lanza to have done himself, especially in the short amount of time between the beginning of shots fired and when the firing stopped. This sounds like a professional execution, and reminds me of the bodies piled up in the Jonestown massacre. No way that scenario matches up with a single shooter, and not likely that the officer would invent such a bizarre configuration of bodies. Also, the custodian said to Vanghele when he entered that the shots stopped “awhile ago.” This points to a rogue team going in and executing these children and teacher far before 9:30, so that they had time to pile the bodies on top of one another. (Just as the Columbine shooting started many hours before there news media said it did).

    The Newtown officers don’t seem to have been in on it. The commander who ordered the emergency vehicles to stay away, the editor of the Newtown Bee, and certain fake parents were clearly in on it, but there is no indication that most of the officers knew. They may just be under a gag order, like most people in the town. Halbig is thus correct to want to know the names of the people in charge, the people who were controlling who got to be near the scene, who ordered the porta-potties, who disabled the security system, etc.

    One really interesting thing is that in the sworn statements I’ve read so far, the officers stated at the end “this case remains open.” So, the news media declares it a closed case, but not the police. It might be the case that in fact that Halbig will be welcomed by the cops who are haunted by what happened that day. Halbig, as a former cop, may be able to gain the confidence of some of the officers there and get some statements. It will be interesting to see if anyone talks to him.

    The rogue authorities who planned this must be thrilled that the alternative researchers think it “never happened.” I wonder how much of the idea that it “never happened” has been planted.

    1. After reading what you wrote here, butterfly, I now understand why I have had a vague sense of suspicion about your comments ever since you showed up here. You have shown your hand. You will not get the benefit of the doubt from me, at least, ever again. No serious, honest, person could have written this.

      1. Patrick,

        You’re entitled to your opinion about me, but I am serious. I’m going by the idea that Sofia Smallstorm put out in her video about Sandy Hook: that there’s a pyramid. The people at the very top of the pyramid are the only ones who really know what’s going on. Others only know fragments. Most people only do what they’re told and don’t know why.

        My guess is that the only people who actually would know if children were killed are the people way at the very top who ordered it, and the executioners who were commanded to do it. The fake parents wouldn’t know, the Newtown Bee wouldn’t know, the people who got free houses wouldn’t know. The would all think it was fake, that it was about getting money to build a new school for their community or for gun control or for other “good” reasons.

        I’m going by how the police statements read. Maybe I’m naive, maybe the whole report was made up and everyone was in on it and it’s all a hoax, but it doesn’t read like that to me And it’s a huge red flag that the case is considered “open.” If they were faking the whole report, wouldn’t they just call the case closed?

        I know my theory is a radical one, but if you study past school shootings such as Columbine, it’s a very similar scenario. Lots of conflicting statements, lots of confusion, unidentified shooters fleeing the scene.

        Tell me this: if it was all fake, why would they bother to stage fake shooters fleeing the scene?

        1. “I’m going by how the police statements read. Maybe I’m naive, maybe the whole report was made up and everyone was in on it and it’s all a hoax, but it doesn’t read like that to me”

          This reminds me of what Everett Koop told Ali G (the whole thing is fantastic, but the money quote is at 2:10–“I could give you a quick answer and say you’re stupid”):

          But you give the game away when you say this:

          “Tell me this: if it was all fake, why would they bother to stage fake shooters fleeing the scene?”

          Because that’s how false flags are done: fake, planted, evidence; rabbit trials created intentionally to get serious people to waste their hours of investigation; and footage filmed at some other time that the press releases as “breaking, on the scene, coverage.”

          I doubt I will bother with you again, silly girl. You can’t fool me.

        2. Yes I know that’s how false flags are done. But what everyone picked up on was the fake parents. Giving us fake parents could also be a way of misleading us to think that it was all a hoax. We have conflicting accounts here. But the police statements are still really bizarre. I think that’s one way to go – study those reports. There’s absolutely no way of knowing what’s true and what’s false yet, so all avenues should be considered open at this point.

          My theory makes sense if you consider that it could be an event that mostly everyone involved in thought was a drill – hence the casual demeanor of people and parents milling around the school afterwards – but in which stuff happened inside of that building that only the cops saw and knew about (the stuff in the reports). We already know that there are mass shooter/ bombing drills in which people get killed, and mass shooter/ bombing drills in which no one is killed. Can you really conclusively say that you know which type of event this was? But then you have already stated that “it doesn’t matter” if people were killed.

        3. All right, butterfly,” as much as it pains me to feed the troll, once I’ve called it out, I will give it this, for the sake of those watching the show. You say:

          “But then you have already stated that “it doesn’t matter” if people were killed.”

          When you say this, out of context, you make yourself a liar. This is because I explained my meaning, in a very understandable way, and it does not at all mean what you are trying to imply it means. Which only solidifies your status as a troll. BE GONE!

        4. Patrick, you did in fact say that. I am not taking you out of context. You said that you are mainly concerned with larger issues, like about how these false flags affect us as a people, and not about little petty issues like who was killed or not killed. I disagreed with you, and I still do.

        1. That reply, Beth, was “all over the place” in the sense of incoherent, indeed. Because all trolls break down at a certain point. I used to engage “Carl,” annoying git, (I told him I was a paraplegic lesbian with leprosy–that made lophatt laugh, which made my day), and predicted he’s be gone soon. He lingered for a few days. I challenged “John Wayne,” and “Aaron” and a few others who went POOF! shortly thereafter. I can’t say I’m a troll-slayer, only that by the time I lose patience with them, it’s clear that they can’t keep the fakery together–so I call it. Then, I guess, they are assigned a new web site to muck up.

          By-bye, “butterfly”! I hope your pay check is worth selling your soul for!

        2. Patrick,

          I really can’t understand your attitude. Who would be paying me here? What I am saying is that the event is possibly MORE criminal than people generally give it credit for. How does that make me a troll?

        3. Plus, I was following up on a comment Beth D. made: that it doesn’t matter if bodies are found in the graves, because kids could have been murdered. So why is Beth D. not being called a troll? Because her position is, please don’t dig up the bodies because it would be no use. And my position is, let’s dig up the bodies, we might find different children in there than the ones that were supposed to be killed. So are people here afraid of what we might find if we exhume bodies? Why? Wouldn’t that just get us closer to the truth?

        4. Fishcakes…I just about spit my soda out on my keyboard. Thanks for that chuckle…I needed that one today!

        5. Excuse me, but I NEVER said, “Don’t dig up the bodies because it will be of no use.” (So, DMHennen-like of you).

          What I said was, a demand from Halbig (he has elluded to this several times) that the bodies be exhumed to satisfy him…would bring the wrath down upon him and all other truthers.

          Save for one…there is one child who was identified via a false FBook page photo and while I’m unsure of the source of such a horrific error…it brings that particular one into question for further research.

          Now…if you’re going to put words in my mouth…at least speak the truth and be smart about it.

        6. Beth D>,

          My apologies. I was referring to this statement that you made:

          “There is a part of me that wonders if…if, all bodies could be proven to exist in graves would we be satisfied? Even if there were genetic matches? Who is to say that people weren’t murdered…maybe they were deemed expendable for some greater evil.”

          So no, you didn’t say that we shouldn’t dig up the bodies. I remembered what you wrote wrong. But the reason I brought it up is that Patrick D. called me a troll, presumably because I thought that there may be bodies in those graves. But you suggested the same thing and he didn’t call you a troll. So I was wondering why.

        7. No wait, my mistake. if I was hired by Cass Sunstein, that would mean that I was hired to point out that YOU are feeding disinformation. Well I wasn’t really thinking about misinformation so much as being interested in the police report. The part about misinformation was added as an afterthought. But thinking I was hired is pretty paranoid on your part. Sounds like projection to me.

          In fact before all of the hysteria came out about my comment I was just musing. Now after all the attempts to silence me, I am seriously thinking that someone should exhume those bodies…

        8. II had to google Cass Sunstein to know who you were talking about. But after skimming an article about him, I would say that that’s the pot calling the kettle black!

        9. Well done, Sir.
          I always make the mistake of trying to reason with them until I lose patience. Silly me.

        10. “Them.” “That one.” “Zzzzzz.” “Off your meds.” Dehumanizing tactics. Interesting.

          By the way I don’t know this dmhennen fellow other than the comments I’ve read on this blog. This is another tactic I’ve seen before: insist that two people who share similar opinions are the same person, to discredit the position they take. So transparent.

        11. Yeah, OK. It’s us. I don’t think we were the ones that came out swinging…at least I sure didn’t. All done now.

        12. Beth…..the people that rabidly follow and support the guy who:

          1. Listed people as references on his CSI website he knew were already dead.

          2. Makes reference to ” Bob Woodruff” and Carl Bernstein on his SH justice webpage and it goes unnoticed and uncorrected by his followers.

          3. Publicly asks for a cool 100k from the school bus monitor who was bullied and promises to pay it back..

          says more about them than it does about Halbig…..

        13. Frederick,

          I have no idea what you’re talking about. Then again I don’t follow Halbig’s every move like some people. All I know is that I tried to sit through several interviews and monologues that promised to expose Halbig as a major fraud, and there was a whole lot of nothing there (nor here).

        14. You have no idea what Frederick is talking about?
          You might want to do some due diligence on your man before you go off half-cocked at people who have serious doubts about him. There are some issues there.

        15. Hey Frederick!
          True. That was a gut-buster.

          Today, Mr. Halbig writes on the SHJF FB Page:

          “I took an oath when I became a United States Citizen, I took another Oath when I served in the Military, I took another Oath when working as a Florida State Trooper, I took another Oath when working as a United States Customs Agent and finally I took another Oath as a Teacher in defending my country against all domestic and foreign enemies.”

          Now, as a former trustee, I will say that we expected a lot from our teachers. But, our state’s teacher oath (and I believe that of all other states) stopped at a promise to defend the[enter state] constitution and the US Constitution.

          We drew the line at requiring teachers to take an oath to defend our country against all domestic and foreign enemies. We were pretty much happy if they’d do a great job teaching math, science, social studies, etc.

          This guy can be so full of himself…and horse feathers.

          Oh, and the FOIA letter supposedly directed to the First Selectwoman (Ms. Pat)…by the Sandy Hook Justice League, I mean Fund? Her name was spelled wrong.

      2. Well Patrick,

        All I can say is that you’ve shown your hand too. No one bothers to argue specific points with me; all people can do is call me crazy and call me “that one” (veiled reference to racial slurring of Obama by McCain)? Seems like I might be getting uncomfortably close to the truth here.

        1. You wrote – “…..all people can do is call me crazy and call me “that one” (veiled reference to racial slurring of Obama by McCain)? Seems like I might be getting uncomfortably close to the truth here.”


        2. McCain referred to Obama as “that one” in one one the Presidential debates, a remark that became notorious and that McCain never lived down, because it was so impolite and disrespectful, a remark that many thought was so egregious as to suggest racial prejudice. Now when I hear someone referred to as “that one,” I am reminded of that incident and wonder if it is a reference to that event. But maybe you and McCain simply think alike.

        3. apparently you think that was real too. do you really think that the republican party committed massive election fraud against Ron Paul to put in Mccain because they wanted to win? no they put him in because he most resembled GWBush and the establishment was using everyone’s hatred of bush to put in obama. to dance upon every word that was scripted in that wrestling match is tantamount to wondering about the minutia of the police report or focusing on the black sweatshirt left by the stage prop car or focusing on bathroom signs like wolfgang likes to do.
          I do find the signs interesting but focusing on the weakest points makes a strawman of yourself which is what wolfstuck appears to be doing.

        4. No I don’t believe any of that about the election. What I do remember is watching the debate and news coverage afterwards. I remembered it because it seemed outrageous to me at the time. I don’t think it was scripted; I think McCain was just expressing his true disdain of Obama. It was interesting to me because the mask slipped off and that’s unusual to see in politics at that level.

        5. I don’t take any meds by the way, but I would never accuse someone of being on meds because they differed with me. And I would also never refer to another human being as “that one.”

          Attempts to make me out as crazy here are very troubling. I haven’t said anything crazy. I’ve just said that we might look at the police report more closely, and that if we do, it points to real children being killed. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that sounds crazy.

        6. Beth,

          How did she think that “that one” referred to a person, and not, obviously, the comment? There are three possibilities. 1) she is not a native speaker of English, and it is thus an innocent mistake; 2) she is a weirdo who has some crazy hang-up normal people can’t imagine or understand even if it were described to them; 3) she is a troll, intentionally mucking up things around here.

          I’m solidly voting for door number 3.

        7. Here is Beth’s comment:

          “That one (to whom that was directed)”…

          Clearly referring to a person (me) to whom “that” (your comment) was directed.

          The more you call me crazy and a troll, the more tactical you seem.

          I really was not out to upset anyone. I just thought people might take a look at the police report. The case is still OPEN. Different description of suspect than description of Adam Lanza. Bodies piled execution-style two or three deep. When officer arrived, custodian said shooting stopped “awhile ago.” If that’s crazy, then the police who wrote it are crazy or else they’re lying. I’m not making this stuff up.

        8. I meant nothing by calling you “the one” other than referring to the comment and who is was directed to. I did not mean it in a John McCain sort of way…can’t stand that man. Obama is not on my “happy” list either – far, far, far from it. Anyway, if you were offended because I called you “the one” to whom Patrick was talking about, I’m sorry but your offense is your own…I wasn’t sending any.

          With all due respect and because I realize not everyone has the time, I read through the police reports, forensic reports, ballistic reports, etc., etc., already. I went thru them right after they were available – because I can be an obsessive-compulsive-investigator-nerd.

        9. Hey Patrick,

          I absolutely don’t have any idea.

          That comment and a few others threw me for a loop…hence the “off your meds” comments which was perhaps out of line. She said she hasn’t been on meds. Well, maybe it’s time. Better living through chemistry…well, only sometimes. Sometimes those on meds find themselves shooting up places or appearing to.

          No disrespect intended to anyone who is on psych meds….I could be on them myself for a chronic pain condition (decades) but will take the pain vs. psych meds to shut down the pain. I prefer to leave my brain chemistry alone but realize not all are so lucky to have that choice. So, I do apologize for the remark.

          The McCain-Obama thing was out of nowhere. You definitely used “that one” to point out a comment. Yikes. That one was a jaw dropper and made no sense.

          The sad thing I see is that WHalbig may have some grandiose intentions of being the Sandy Hook Super Hero but I’m afraid he is preying on people who want so badly to believe this ex-cop (of 1 year or 3 years – depending on which resume you get) who hasn’t been a copy for 40 years…is their Messiah. (That was a huge run-on sentence). Like a lot of things he seems to have done in his past – he’s full of beans. Big hat, no cattle.

          He calls his followers his investors, friends. In interviews he asks for money about every 13 mins. He asks followers’ input on what they see in pictures. Today it was an parking lot shot from a chopper – “there are a hundred questions” here. So, then he gets his followers to comment.

          I find his used-car salesman/ShamWow/SlapChop “schtick” just too crazy. For you slapchop fans: I’m waiting for him to refer to his followers with, “Hey Newtown, you’re gonna love my nuts!”

          But, it’s OK…if PButterfly and others want to believe…that’s cool. Own it and love it. Just don’t make me do it too. I am free to point out what smells wrong, etc. You are too!

        10. The truth is just this – every person is entitled to be treated respectfully, even in a fierce debate. No one should make another person feel unvalidated as a person, even if they suspect someone is way off the mark. So point taken. You deserve to be debated fair and square, without ad hominem-isms.

          I say this out of empathy, because I know most of us have encountered scorn at MSM comments sites, where the mob usually attacks with the “tinfoil hat” label because they want to agree with power and authority rather than discovered truth.

        11. Musings – Your posts, throughout this blog, help me stay focused. If I felt alone, I would choose ignorance as bliss.

          But I have to agree with the “snarkers” today. Too many “off-point” and “pillowy” comments after points A, B, and C were already made.

          Let’s all agree to save some electricity and move on. There will be more to debate when Wolf takes the next step. imho.

        12. Hi Oldman,

          I respect what you guys are saying. But the blog post here is “Another Perspective on WH’s Legal Gambit”. It is a less than positive viewpoint in the form of an unofficial legal opinion.

          My viewpoints and those of most others’ here have been less than legal but still valid. I understand your tired of the Halbig debate but the blog title invites it.

          Maybe we can nudge Prof. Tracy to create a newer blog post so other discussions can ensue.

          I’m so glad you decided to stick around MHBlog.

          Respectfully yours,


    2. when I did my first moon walk I had similar recollections as those officers. I thought the moon was uninhabited but was ghastly proven wrong as I saw the piles of spacesuits filled with the corpses of astronauts. these weren’t astronauts like you would expect buzz aldrich, neil armstrong etc., no, these astronauts were very dark skinned. I can only fathom that a sinister group of space traveling luciferians were behind the grisly scene. I was in a state of shock and panic – I wanted to run but the moon gravity gave me such poor traction. when I returned to the craft I expected to find some similar mood on the ship as what I was feeling about the bodies but was amazed to find everyone jubilant with not a care in the world. the other astronauts were wandering about in two’s and threes like they were at disneyland. they were taking orders from some plainclothes tourists who I had never seen before. it was wierd, it was like the whole thing was scripted and never happened. it’s a good thing I took notes.

      1. Fishandroaches,

        Do you edit Wikipedia by any chance? Your tactics are very similar to the editors there who police the official version of events such as 911.

      2. Fish, but did you take an oath? That’s very important. Many years ago, after becoming a citizen, of Earth of course, I decided to enter politics. It took many attempts to decide where my loyalties laid, (they all look alike to a visitor), but, over time, I came to realize that it mattered not what “party” I represented, they were all from outer space as well.

        Then I took another oath. This enabled me to dress funny and tromp around in jack boots beating up teenagers. After several…., er a year or so, of exemplary service, I left my chosen field to become an edumacator.

        Edumacators don’t usually take oaths, but they swear a lot. After a meteoric rise through the ranks of teaching I decided to learn English so that I could concentrate on my “non-profit” enterprises.

        I can tell you, its been a rocky ride. Fund raisers don’t take oaths either, generally. They promise a lot though. I’ve been looking into the excavation business lately. I do some of my best work in the moonlight. I think its due to my childhood on Limdu. By the way, do you know of anyone who would like to donate a quiet excavator? I’ll pay you back in no time, I PROMISE.

        1. I ran across a couple of funnies..not funny “haha” but funny odd.

          If you are a Halbig supporter, bless you and I wish you the best but you should move on. This post will just make you angry.

          If you are bothered by Halbig and smell a bad deal…please read on for some additional info. I’ve found on our story stretcher..if you’re short on time – cut to the end – “Excel” school info.

          Halbig’s resume says his Air Force career involved “training pilots”. This article says the AForce was “sending him around the country playing power volleyball”.

          In 2012 he lamented on-line about his being let go by the Lake County School District – that he had “never been fired before”. This is not true since he was fired by a district as their football coach. I can provide a link to the article, if desired. He said he was fired to asking someone about a job (not calling) in another district but the school said was not the case (obviously they just wanted him out.

          I also ran across a quote of him responding to criticism and being made to feel unwelcome at other schools in his role as security director…said he was “overzealous” and over dramatic. Interesting. I can provide a link if desired. .

          Curiously, in an article about his business NISWS (dated 2012) Halbig infers he retired from Seminole Cty Schools as security director..not exactly true.

          As we all know, he sobbed that he was “fired” from a business he owned…well, really his partners just bailed on him – he said because he was asking questions about Sandy Hook. Hmmm, makes for great press when asking for donations. Again, he was a victim…fired..but it was still the first time, I suppose.

          Halbig said he was “Principal of” and “had started” the Excel School in Florida. Please see this link and his post at the end (his old, “call me ad we can talk about it” shtick when the questions get hard). If he actually “wrote the entire program” as he says here- that couldn’t bee the problem, eh? Oops, guess he lied again, as his resume said he “co-wrote”. Apparently loads of mismanagement in the FL school –

          Now, a free cocktail/coffee to anyone who can point to a legitimate news source than Halbig was an expert who helped with the Columbine investigation. I can’t find anyone who has found anything other than his communication/advocacy for the young man injured in the event.

        2. Nick, Nick, Nick,
          What a hoot!!!! Homoerotica.
          This Halbig material is so funny it practically writes itself. But, you put it right over the top.

          I can’t help but picture him playing v-ball in present day — in boxers and brown socks, however.

        3. Nick, that was the “gayest” video I’ve seen in years. A gaggle of losers sweating all over each other. Not a woman in sight. Phew!

        4. ha,ha! all they need is a couple of cases of keystone light to set the mood!

          funny, I always thought halbig was taller in his other movies. I guess you can’t wear platform shoes when playing strip volleyball.

        5. Wow.
          It is interesting how people fish around for cash vs. the usual ways to raise funds for projects.

          I have some filmmakers in my family who have self-funded (and parent-funded) projects…some which have been shown at events (art museums, etc.). They’ve also received grants.

          I just can’t taken anyone seriously who goes to fund-raising sites try to raise cash for ill-defined, unprofessional projects. The wording on this one left me a little scared.

    3. I don’t always agree with everything you’ve posted butterfly but I do think you are onto something with this post. I’ve long thought that these false flags have been a way to “launder” bodies of people/kids that have been killed in other ways. There is a lot more evil out there that what people want to believe. It’s far fetched but I think the idea of this site is to keep an open mind.

      On another note, I can’t believe so many people are behind this Halbig guy! Seriously, a $15,000 retainer donation on the internet and a Facebook page and he is going to bring it all down? Discrediting him is going to be a slam dunk. We don’t need CT saying it was all a hoax (seriously, is his intent for someone along the way to go “oops, our bad…you got us”)?

      We need the players to start defecting and coming clean with what they know and what they were told. The house of cards topples at the bottom rung. Let’s call Gene Rosen or Kaitlyn Roig and start there. Play them interviews where they change their versions 6 or 7 times and make them squirm!

      1. Gene Rosen has not been heard of, heard from or seen anywhere since Brandon Hunt briefly mentioned him during his travels to SH in March, 2013. I believe that we will never hear of him again. Kaitlyn Roig has been making the circuit on school safety symposiums. I am surprised that she is still alive after her 20/20 interview where she claimed to have read “The Nutcracker” to her students while “Adam Lanza” was executing characters “Rambo” style in the adjoining classroom.

        I will not be surprised if she is involved in a tragic accident. What these actors have to learn is that people do in fact die at the hands of Government employees when the order is given, because they are all expendable. The truth will set you free and a life of lies will get you 20 sheckles and much closer to death.

        1. Indeed! Or one wonders if their character dies and they are given a new one to work with in another location. As nuts as this sounds – it has crossed my mind a few times.

        2. I have always been careful to say that I wouldn’t put anything past these people. If it is more expedient to kill, they will, without hesitation or concern.

          If they didn’t at SHES, it is because they deemed it less problematic for some reason, not because of any qualms. As you point out, working with this bunch can be dangerous once your assignment is finished.

          People sometimes get “depressed” after these things. Some of them get so depressed they shoot themselves in unusual place multiple times. Of course, as we all know, coroners are above reproach and if they say it is “suicide”, it can’t be argued otherwise.

        3. True Lophatt,

          How about the Barth’s? Maybe these two “talked” or needed to be kept in line (?)

          Peter Barth, son of Audra and Hans had insisted the bullets came INTO the classroom from the outside. Apparently, Peter’s teacher thought the same. Peter Barth was a first-grader in teacher Kaitlin Roig’s classroom – –

          “Parent Audra Barth, who was walking away from the school with her first-grade son and third-grade daughter, said a teacher took first-graders into the restroom after bullets came through the window.”

          Audra Barth also was vocal about not tearing down the school.

          March 2013:

          Well, it was a tiny house..maybe didn’t qualify for the mysterious “gifting”. Good thing Mr. Barth started a general contractor LLC biz.

        4. Yes John, that’s a shame. I’m sure our Gene saw this as his ticket to Broadway. I always wonder about “Mrs. Gene”. Where was she when the grief-stricken bus driver abandoned the kids at Gene’s? Maybe she was outside taping towels to the broken car window.

          I can visualize that. “Once upon a time, boom, boom, boom, there lived…..”. How do they find audiences that will sit there an listen to stuff like this? “Teacher, why don’t you tell us the story about the brave teacher who grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed the assailant in the face?”.

          No, the lesson here is that good global citizens act like Korean ferry captains and abandon ship at the first sign of danger. It’s the new “heroic”.

        5. Maybe Gene…uh, well, I’m thinking there is a reason that Mrs. Rosen and Gene Rosen have never seen together….

          (a Norman Bates kind of fellow).

  51. It appears the most frequent commenter has finally admitted she always makes the mistake of trying to reason with the trolls, well let us take you at your word, and trust you do not further engage them in bizarre conversations.

    Here is the guidance from the administrator of this blog, just in case any one missed it –

    Civility Code Reply

    This blog is intended as a means to disseminate ideas and foster debate on overlooked, under-reported and often controversial issues and events, hence the title Memory Hole. There is typically a high caliber of discussion maintained by readers/commenters for which I am quite proud. With this in mind, and in the spirit of free speech, remarks are not removed simply because I may disagree with or otherwise find offensive an individual’s expressed views.

    However, under no circumstances will profanity or insulting behavior be tolerated here. While I have many responsibilities and cannot realistically monitor each comment post, I will remove those that seek to abuse their access and “poison the well” for other discussants.

    Because of the nature of much of the content, there will be trolls present from time to time in the comments sections. Readers and comment participants are encouraged to politely overlook or bring to my attention (memoryholeblog [at] the persistent activity of such entities where appropriate.

    -James F. Tracy

      1. whatever –
        used for saying something does not matter. used for saying that what happens or what is true is not important, because it makes no difference to the situation.

        I respect this blog and would hope those participating in this forum would do so also, lest you will be called out to the netherland of trolldum and no doubt assume a new name..

        1. Kathy,
          You have no clue so I had nothing to say in reply. PButterfly drew first blood. I was just defending.

          I appreciate honestly which is why I’m going to share with you, in the most gentle and polite ways, that I have tired of you. It happened quite a long time ago. You have not brought anything meaningful to the discussion in this site in all of your time here. You have only tried to insult, nitpick and be generally unpleasant. You have as much right to be here as I do. But, please don’t direct any further communications to me. Your attentions are not wanted. Thank you kindly. Respectfully, B

    1. Kathy, thanks for posting that. I’m sure you posted it due to some abrasiveness between you two but I found benefit from reading it and I’m sure others did as well. It ought to be posted somewhere visible IMHO. as for beth, regardless of your relationship, one must admit she has energetically put forth a plenitude of work unmasking wolfgang for what he is. for that I am grateful. I finally listened to wolfgang on infowars last night and I must say that the man is not stupid like he portrays himself in writing. If it wasn’t for people going out of their way to research his past discrepancies I might actually fall for his act. it is only due to much attention from people on this blog that I can see that he is something other than what he enacts.

        1. Looks like my posts from Sat/Sun were blocked or something, as nothing got posted here over the weekend. Maybe I’m blocked from my home PC?

        2. Oh Danny Boy, your liver your liver’s dying
          From drink to drink with Jim Fetzer by your side
          The jig is up, and Halbig’s scam is failing
          It’s you, it’s you must go and I must bide.

          But come ye back when you’re not drunk by amaretto,
          Or when that fraud Halbig’s jailed by the po-po,
          And I’ll be here in sunshine or in shadow,
          Oh, Danny Boy, oh Danny Boy, lay off the blow!

        3. I’d hoped he had been banned for stealing MHB comment and other issues. But alas…

      1. Thanks Fish…I appreciate your research and thoughtful input as well. I am so glad you are here. Your humor also is so very much appreciated.

        1. I was responding to Fishes, Troll.
          It was so nice when you weren’t able to post.

          You and WH should get a room. Probably your first-ever relationship. Too bad it’s Internet-based.

          Say, I hear Wolfgang is looking for a volleyball partner. I’m sure perfect.

  52. DMHennen called me out as a liar the other day when I noted that people had raised a concern that the Sandy Hook Justice Fund receipts from PayPal showed Halbig’s wife’s name.

    I found where I had read this – right on his SHJF FBook page. The comments are around March 9-11 on the FBook page.

    Looks like the original poster of the request for info (“Tonya”) had her comment removed but others pick it up and concur that their receipt should Halbig’s wife name on their receipt.

    So, there was no fund or entity name (e.g., a trust name) – money was and probably still is – going into a personal Paypal account.

    Others ask if it is a 501(c)(3) but Halbig and handlers do not respond.

    1. Beth, yes, you are a liar….stop all your hating and focus on the case. Halbig’s wife’s name wasn’t on anything…..Halbig has a trust fund, but hasn’t created a new 501c3 corp…..nothing can be pulled out of the trust fund without the use of an attorney. Now pull your head out. I still think you should create your own blog (and that’s not a shot)….you like to comment on everything, and most of it is meaningless, but you obviously have a lot of time on your hands and it would be fun because you can steer the discussion in any way you like, much like you do here. Now, I gotta get going, Fetzer and I are heading to the bar.

      1. You are the liar Dan and such a predictable troll. You guys all love to use the “kill the messenger tactic”.

        My findings have bothered you deeply. I can understand why. Wallow in it.

        All one has to do is locate the archive in the Sandy Hook Justice Facebook Page archive from March. ANYONE can see them.

        It’s documented by SHJF/Halbig donors themselves – via comments about wondering why the receipts don’t show a trust or a fund name.

        Receipts were showing in first Halbig’s wife’s name then Halbig’s name. Personal name…not an entity.

        Take your own advice for use of time. Most people here know that if I, or Nick or Fishes or the rest of the regulars were to start a blog – you’d be all over them, too – and stealing content like you do here….until our attorneys gutted you. Why not get a few independent thoughts of your own and start your own blog instead of stealing?

        You are an offensive little (very little) man. You’ve added nothing here at all – ever. Your big excitement in life is trolling the Internet for human contact (I’ve seen you in too many placed). Very sad.

        You also come here to practically beg people to respond to your idiotic and childish insults. I’m sorry you don’t get any other attention. You were probably beaten up a lot as a school boy and now are shunned as an adult. You only wish Mr. Fetzer (or anyone at all) would go out for a drink with you.

        Why not try a different tact on all of those sites you’re on? Actually try being pleasant, intelligent and add to the discussions (with actual research) in a positive manner once in a while.

      2. Dan:

        Are you such a misogynist because of all your mommy issues; still angry because your Mom’s work on behalf of the pro-choice movement is the most cited reason the Supreme Court hasn’t overturned Roe v. Wade? Look at yourself in the mirror Dan, you have the sex appeal of a school bus fire; it’s no wonder that your Mom’s presentation of photos and stories about you are all that is necessary to convince the justices to keep abortion legal.

        Still that is no excuse for you bullying the lady folk on this site. I know it is a lot to ask but is it possible that, for once in your life, you can act like a gentleman?

        Until then I’d suggest you continue working on writing your upcoming memoir “Dreams I’ve Shattered by Driving Drunk.”

        Love ya miss ya Danny!


        1. Have you noticed that so many realturds are such angry people these days? I’m sorry, realtors. To bad this site forgot to block his other IP address (“test”, “test”, “test”).

        2. Beth:

          I would suggest all of us completely ignore Dan Hennen. All anyone needs to know about Dan Hennen is that he only attacks and tries to bully women but is terrified to use the same tactics on a man.

          So let’s all just completely ignore Dan, it’s really a win-win situation: we can once again focus on noted scam artist and volleyball aficionado Wolfgang Halbig and Dan can concentrate on writing his two part autobiography: Part one titled “Dreams I’ve Shattered by Driving Drunk” and part two titled “Neighborhoods I’ve been Chased Out of Due to Megan’s Law.”

          Love ya miss ya Danny.


        3. I think that’s a fine idea. He tries so hard to divert attentions away from the facts. What’s scary is he seems to be an ardent believer in his own lies. You know what those types are called….

      3. Beth is not lying. I saw the same post on the Sandy Hook Justice Facebook page when it was first posted and I remember it because I thought it was really shady.

        1. Thanks Zem.
          Now DHennen will do as he always does and change his story.
          It’s what trolls do. DHennen knows all about shady…

          I sincerely appreciate your input, Zem.

      4. Hey Dan,
        Just because someone has a trust fund doesn’t mean nothing can be pulled out “without the use of an attorney”. Where did you get that from? An attorney creates the trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Trustees control the trust and unless it’s an irrevocable trust, any trustee can withdraw funds, use funds, etc. Do you have either a copy of the trust or other information?

        1. Hi Glen,

          All good points. Dan “supposes” things without actually knowing things.
          I believe his posts, to date, have been proof of that 🙂

          He has spread this rumor far and wide (about a trust fund). However, there are no entities (such as the Sandy Hook Justice Fund) in FL or any of the other obvious states. Dan can’t answer any questions because he doesn’t have any info. Don’t be fooled…he’s a rabid Halbig pusher on multiple sites. He attacks and rants but he’s a low to no-info poster.

          So, Halbig is/was collecting the funds in his name (wife’s name).

          If funds were thereafter being held in any kind of “trust” at all, Halbig perhaps is using his attorney buddy (D.Williams) to use an “Interest on Lawyer Trust Account” (IOLTA) – in which an attorney holds the funds).
          I had run across an attorney doing this (non-client legal fees) for fundraising on a pro or anti-gun charity and the state shut him down. So, believe this avenue, if being done, is not appropriate.

          The Sandy Hook Justice “Fund” should be a non-profit. Wouldn’t the IRS love that application? Lois Lerner’s head might spin all the way around. HOWEVER, it would have been and is acceptable to receive contributions while a 501(c)(3) is pending as long as you informed donors of this pending status.

          Halbig states he is going after the Sandy Hook nonprofits…yet is running a sketchy one himself. It just doesn’t lend anything to his credibility. His “call me” responses when donors request info (via posts) on the nonprofit status totally raises the “ick” factor for me.

        2. Glen, you know what else is “off”? Halbig one set up a non-profit entity in FL…so he knows how to do it (or who to get help from).

        3. Beth said: “Glen, you know what else is “off”? Halbig one set up a non-profit entity in FL…so he knows how to do it (or who to get help from).”

          Exactly. On one hand, Halbig supporters laud him for his “experience” yet when he makes glaring errors, this same group jumps up and makes excuses for him. “oh, he’s an older man, he doesn’t understand technology”. It’s a huge contradiction.

  53. Here’s the link for those on FBook (his personal page b4 the start of the Sandy Hook Justice Fund page):

    Facebook Entry: FOR THOSE NOT ON FBOOK. Just to verify that I haven’t lied about what I’ve read from donors

    Wolfgang W Halbig
    March 9 ·


    (Poster: Kelly) Wolfgang, is this website a 501(c)(3)? I know you to be a very honest person, so I am certain you won’t make the same mistake that many of the Newtown charities did by not accounting for the money received and how it was spent.

    (There is no response)

    Original poster (Tonya) – her inquiry as to the name on the PayPal receipt being Kathy Halbig…[HER POST HAS BEEN REMOVED].

    HALBIG (or his handlers) do NOT RESPOND to her.

    But another poster replies to her –

    David W: I got the same thing. They probably share an account.

    (Follow-up post from Kelly): Wolfgang, you need to give a clear response to the question that has been raised here. There will always be people who will question your credibility, and those who are donating via Paypal have a right to ask the question that Tonya asked above. Don’t let the question go unanswered, it would make for bad optics if you do.

    Another post: I can accept that it was in Kathy’s name by mistake if that is the case (appears to have been corrected). He just needs to say this so that everything remains above board.

    Another: A national bank account would be the best way to place the funds under Sandy Hook Justice.

    Dayna: wHAT does it matter if the Paypal account is in his wife’s name or his???? She probably already had a Paypal account for online purchases. Why set up a new one, as it does take time to do that. I don’t understand what the big deal is. Don’t trust him, then don’t donate!!!!

    Another post: Wolfgang replied via an IM to me. He is swamped with messages at the moment. I won’t copy his response here without his permission, but yes, Kathy is his wife and he is willing to take calls at 352-729-2559 mon to fri to answer questions for those that have doubts.

    May I interject here and note that Halbig will not respond to the concerns in writing? This is a HUGE red flag…he has done this before when questions get difficult.

    Beth D.

    1. That is correct, for one day, he had a paypal account before switching over to GoFundMe. I apologize for saying you lied Beth D. for that. I was referring to the new GoFundMe donations. Those can’t get to Wolfgang OR his wife without use of an attorney. Same goes for the original checks that came in the mail after he created the fund. He wasn’t sure how to set up the online stuff, so any donations that came in on that one day, would be suspect to going into his personal pockets. What would be left open to criticism. I was referring to the fraudulent sites that were set up where people are, indeed profiting. I just take offense to people stating that Wolfgang is sham and a scam artist. I don’t agree with Wolfgang on all of his points, but I do certainly support him in what he’s doing. He has also never been involved in fund-raising on a personal level. There are many that say he’s been doing this “for years” based on one comment on an article where he was looking for help with a start up company, that never materialized.

      1. Dan, if you go to his site he has GoFundMe and Contribute by PayPal. Are you saying he no longer has the PayPal account? Your comments about a trust fund do not make much sense either – are you saying he does not have access to any funds in the trust or that he is not a trustee of the trust(?) Even if he is not, that is not even close to saying he does not have access or control over the funds.

        Seriously though – the top of his page says he is “Invested in Seeking the Truth”. We know the truth, it is a matter of applying it in a way that gets results we are looking for. Saying we are “seeking the trust” is kind of a step back. And these are two of his 16 questions:

        • Who ordered those Port-A-Potties from Southbury, Connecticut?

        • When I called the Port-A-Pottie company, after searching for over a week as to who they were and when they were ordered, I was told this information was classified and they are not allowed to share that information with me.

        How you present something makes all the difference. I see those two questions and even as someone who is stone cold sure that the MSM versions of events is bunk, I kind of shake my head. There is no context or information surrounding why the questions are important or why they make a difference. And even if they did have that information – they are very far from the questions that should be asked. I can deflect them from my living room without even knowing any details.

        1. Glen,

          When you say “we know the truth”, what exactly does that mean?

          Regarding the two questions, I think what Halbig is getting at is this….when someone picks up the phone to place an order for port-o-potties during a mass event like this, it begs the question, “why is that is even on someone’s mind.” He wants to know who directed that call and why, when a phone call requesting a trauma helicopter was NEVER made. Even coming from the point of “Who can we thank for ordering the port-o-potties, that was a good decision?” In the form of a compliment, they still won’t say who it was. Why? That person wouldn’t be facing a crime or criminal charges, as they did nothing wrong, so why hide it? The next question is this….why on earth would the info regarding a port-o-potty be classified information? These two simple questions will lead to a deeper, more sinister round of questions. That is why these 16 are pretty good….they are all “lead in” questions. State officials can NOT answer these questions, because if they do, it opens the door to an ugly truth, they will never admit. But, by NOT answering them, only makes it look worse. Either way, Halbig has backed them into a corner. That is why I feel there is no legal action needed here….just get them to answer the questions. By refusing to answer them, has already exposed the fact there is a cover up.

          Not sure about the “Seeking the Trust” question. where is that?

          Personally, I would like to see a question #17 added. “Why were there reports of a body at the Hoboken Apartment?” And who made that up and why? This can’t be “explained away” as a mistake. At least a question like this would lead to where the dis-info was originating.

        2. Hi DM,
          I definitely understand the line of reason about the port-o-potties, my point is that if I were given a limited amount of questions and had them posted on my site, I am not sure this would be one of them!

          I guess when I say “we know the truth” I mean it in a way that says “we know the official story is wrong”. But in order to prove it was wrong, we would have to know what the right story was. If we don’t, then asking questions like “who ordered the port-o-potties?” leaves 100 possible answers that shut the door to further questioning. For example “Port-o-potties are always available and on-site ahead of time when landscapers go to landscape the school”. Go back in your corner, Mr. Conspiracy and don’t pass go!

      2. Dan Hennen said: “He wasn’t sure how to set up the online stuff, so any donations that came in on that one day, would be suspect to going into his personal pockets. “.

        If he wasn’t sure how to set up the “online stuff” then he should have waited. With all of his past experience one would think that he would have some sort of clue as to how to do these types of things correctly or at the very least know to ask someone for help.

        1. Dan would like you to visit his writing room blog for his account of events. Caution.

        2. Excuse me, your “Writing Room”.
          Where you keep your diaries and what have you.
          A thousand pardons.

        3. Additionally how about providing those who did donate a little accounting of the funds and how they have been used and what future donations would be used for?

          Dan Hennan asked the question here of a reader as to what amount should Halbig be shooting for in terms of the funds being raised….That number I believe that number should not just be determined by Halbig alone but by also consulting his attorney. The Attorney should be able to advise Halbig on what the costs are and billable hours needed to bring about the proposed cause of action. This legal plan of action should have been known and been made public prior to solicitation of funds,,. Its almost like 100k seemed like a nice big round number in Halbigs mind.
          Currently his GOFUNDME site shows approx 17k has been donated in one month..but in reality he started accepting donations around March 8 which is really about 45 days ago bringing his average down to about 380 dlls per day…that average is falling with every passing day.

        4. Frederick, Thomas Lapp, the admin, has stated there will be a full accounting of the funds received and spent.

          I’m not sure what a “target” would be for an effort like this, but Halbig or an attorney could certainly arrive at an amount, say, $20,000, but Halbig doesn’t want to “wait” until “X” numbers of $$ comes, he wants to go next month.

          When setting up a GoFundMe page, you are also asked for a goal. In this case, they used $100,000. This is not the same as the amount needed (or “target” amount), but just an amount used to start the fund on the site. This is where I have argued that no matter what amount they selected, it would be scrutinized whether it was $2,000 (people would say it is too low), or $50,000, or $100,000, or $2,000,000. Because this is an ongoing effort, this target amount (not to be confused with the “goal” on the GoFundMe site), will keep changing if it is successful. If it fails, the group will go through the task refunding it back. (Mr. Lapp has also publicly stated that). The mistake, I think, was using GoFundMe, as critics quickly jumped on the $100K number and focused on that. That amount is meaningless for the most part, because action will be taken regardless or not if the goal is met. (GoFundMe also has the option to raise X number of funds and nothing even starts until it is met, and if it isn’t met, the project is scraped and money refunded) They didn’t elect to go that route, but one could argue that it could eliminated all the hate.

          The fact he is even ASKING for donations has a lot of people upset. But, what I say, is if you’re not a fan, don’t donate. Just like on Dr. Tracy’s blog here, there is a donate button, and people can feel free to donate.

        5. Indeed! All good points. Also, the funds collected via PayPal may not be accounted for in that GoFundMe total, since doing so is a voluntary thing.

          Maybe Halbig steered away from his 3rd attempt at setting up a non-profit because of those pesky accounting procedures, eh?

        6. Excellent points Zem!

          To anyone interested — Here is the list of entities he’s filed / cause to file in FL per FL’s SunBiz search by officer method:

          Important note for two of these entities: It shows Halbig has had experience forming non-profits in the past. Why did he not do this before taking money for the Sandy Hook Justice Fund?

          1. The “Break the Code” entity was formed as a Non-Profit in 2000

          2. Bullies-Beware, Inc. was formed as a Non-Profit in 2009 and is not to be confused with Bully Beware Productions, a working operation. Legal Zoom filed the Bullies-Beware Non-Profit paperwork with the State.

          One can still take donations and note that the non-profit application has been filed and is pending. “It takes too long” is not a legitimate excuse.

          Officer/Registered Agent Name List

          Officer/RA Name Entity Name







        7. So, Dan Hennen called me a liar yesterday when presented with the facts about donated funds going first to Halbig’s wife name, then his.

          Dan has now told everyone that poor Mr. Halbig didn’t know how to set up a non-profit. I have submitted evidence otherwise in the form of two non-profit organization filings in FL. Maybe he has others in other states, too.

          I won’t call Dan a liar…(but it is welling up inside of me). I will just say that Dan’s (“he doesn’t know how”) this statement is further evidence that Dan knows nothing about the inner workings of Halbig’s Sandy Hook Justice Fund. Dan’s non-stop trolling efforts are now officially called out for what they are – he will do whatever it takes to lead you from the facts.

        8. Beth D. I have never said the Mr. Halbig doesn’t have experience in non-profit entities. I have stated that this is the first time he has started a fund-raising effort from scratch. You seem to get the two confused.

        9. But he started two different non-profits in the past. He is not new to the concept.

          With all due respect to Mr. Halbig, he probably has never tried collecting money via Paypal and Go Fund Me before…but he cannot claim ignorance as to the ins and outs of a non-profit organization. What he has done is bring a could of healthy skepticism over his efforts in light of the money grab.

        10. The other credibility issue is that he is using GoFundMe which to me will forever be associated with the Boston Bombing Hoax. Change a few words in the search and get him instead of Jeff Bauman.

        11. That’s always WH’s response: I am not up on the new technologies….such a cop out. Well, if you’re gonna play hardball, you’d better learn the game Wolfie. As far as I can tell, WH has not yet released which state he registered his fund raising account or 501c3, has he? Anyone? Beth??