phemohilia wrote:

Hey, it chucked me out when I hadn't submitted the post then & I had to log back in!

I was going to add that the officials having advised the press on 19/1 that there were specifically just 4 hand guns & no rifles found in the school is a bit mystifying. (They mention the "AR15 type" rifle in the car).

www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e3_1358636169

Gilly wrote:
You know what I thought was crazy from the get-go? That line he rattled off at the press conference "... you can control the situation depending on your photographer, and I have very good photographers...." He not only said this but with the word "very" he also rolled his eyes and head. And not much has ever been made of that. Is it just me or does that scream "problem" to anyone else??

How out of place to say something like that. As though "controlling a situation" (manipulating, more like!!) with photographers (trick photography, photo-doctoring??) is an act of forthrightness and honesty. I can't believe there hasn't been more said about this very red-flag-raising one-liner!!

At least I haven't seen or heard anything said about it. Although I'm somewhat forgetful at times.

Here's the clip:



0:50 - 0:58

I made a lot of it, Phem! 'Cause I agree with you - it's almost like he was trying to ring bells.

I don't know if I'm being silly, but the possibility did occur to me that his freakish performance may have been because he was coerced into partaking in a charade, and he was extremely uncomfortable with that.

And again - there's so much stuff out there that it's very easy to miss / forget things, but - I've yet to see anyone attempt to address the discrepancy of his telling everyone that the kids had been shot 'all over', when a reporter asked if they'd been targeted in a particular area of the body, and that the identifications were done by 'facial' photographs; yet the teacher, Rousseau's father had been upset, according to a report, at not having been allowed by officials to see his daughter's body, on the premis that 'like all the other victims' (or it could have been 'most of' the other victims, she'd been shot 'in the face at close range'.

These are not trivial contradictions.

I'm with y'all on that. The statement regarding the photographer is the one thing that really stood out from that interview. Him laughing inappropriately is one thing; but making a statement about manipulated perception using photography is extremely suspicious.

He reminds me of someone but I can't put my finger on it...

Gilly wrote:
But as far as other forums online and YouTube video analyses, doesn't seem to prick the ears of many folks. I'm sure I saw and heard a few things about it early on but it would seem that a line like that would be a more major talking point, in a wider audience, than it has been. And You, my good woman, are as sharp and attentive as ever!!

I edited my last post, but it took an eon to do it, cause my bloody machine froze again.

K-Bone wrote:
Especially when the situation played out to the reality of parents only being able to ID their childrens bodies by PHOTOGRAPHS!!! Really?? People accepted this why?? Did I miss something??

"Oh yeah, I'm a creepy fucker and say crazy shit like you can control a situation via photographers, then go on to brag about my lapdog-photo-jockeys and THEN it's rolled out that parents are dissuaded from physically identifying their dead childrens bodies and here, check out these photos, they're just all kinds of swell...."

Sure, sounds totally legit.

Gilly wrote:
Boom!

Gilly wrote:
No, no they are not.

Sooner or later their facade of politically-correct word-twisting and bullshit is gonna fall flat on its ill-intentioned ass!! I do believe this time has already come and gone. I can only guess that silence on the matter will be their main way of dealing with this whole thing in the future. That and having the right mouth-piece idiots continuing to push the official tagline while keeping that guilt trip over questioning ANY of their minced words propped up. Fuckers.

Agreed - that's why I'm glad of people like the Powers character in the vid I posted earlier intend to keep pushing. And with some considerable expertise in weaponry and 1st emergency response etc, he isn't so easy to fob off with BS as many of us might be.

But then again, they're planning to demolish the school - no doubt there's some evidence to be gleaned from there that they don't wish to be seen - maybe gun-shot damage that contradicts the tale.

K-Bone wrote:
He reminds me of Michael Moore for some obscure reason

Gilly wrote:
The media were either told one thing and said another, or they got told the wrong thing or they just made shit up.
Either way, I deffo saw a shotgun in the back of that car and I deffo saw the cop handle it with no gloves.
How the media can get it so wrong despite the video showing it is truly amazing....but this is america.

Yeah the video of it's in this thread!

psketti wrote:
Perhaps a Michael Moore/ Dom Delouise hybrid?

Gilly,

What you said about him being coerced...I think that's a really good point. Look at him standing there, surrounded by cops...saying "um" a lot. And his "laughter", sounds like nervous laughter. In fact, he seems very nervous. Really good point.

Probably one of those people who will fess up on their death bed.

Just watched the entire press conference with Carver. I couldn't stop observing the cops to his side; especially the stoney faced one with glasses who looks like a Nazi villian from Raiders of the Lost Ark. He makes me uncomfortable and I'm not standing next to him! He's got shifty eyed and when Carver makes the comment about the photography, his mouth opens just a bit. I can just imagine the cop thinking,"Oh no he didn't!"

But I'm know body language expert; just speculating.

Gilly wrote:
I wonder if they'll throw all the debris *cough* tampered-with evidence *cough* onto a boat and sail it off to China?

K-Bone wrote:
With a bebe-daddeh touch of Rob Reiner.

K-Bone wrote:
Another thing. When he said something about giving away too much info about weapons and/or damage caused from gunshots, he said something like "And then the lawyers get mad at me and don't make me answer" Make?? Wouldn't that be let me answer?? Nerves or not, that seems like a bit of a garble too large to have just been, well, a garble.

Up until now I've written it off as maybe that's how they roll in that region, dialect-wise. Like how some people in New York/New Jersey would say "bring" instead of "take". Ex.: "Hey, Pauly, bring this duffle bag out to the car..." Whereas I, being from the south would say, "Hey, Pauly, take this duffle bag out to the car...." (I noticed this a LOT on The Sopranos.)

Either way, it's strange. And I'm thinking it's not "strange" in the way of differing dialects/word/phrase usages.

Remember the interview between CNN anchor man Anderson Cooper and the ever so plausible & delightful 'Mrs Pozner' (sarcasm) that Pheony & myself commented on a couple of days back? Well now we have the mystery of ...



Apparently this is indication that it was a 'green-room' interview - i.e. it took place in a TV studio, and was superimposed over the location's background image to give the illusion of having taken place there.

(If any technical whizz-kids know different, please speak up).

That may not be such a big deal in & of itself , but - if this is accurate - why the deliberate deceit?

The only answer I can think of is that it's part of the ongoing false image being woven by officialdom. These piteous victims and their message (which, if Pozner is anything to go by, just happens to be the urgency of tightening of gun laws) might look more obviously contrived if it's recognised that instead of grieving at home for the loss of a beloved child (or not - see previous vid referred to earlier) they're quite happy to make the trip to a television studio to perform for the cameras.

And here's another item which is odd. I commented early on in this thread on reading Gene Rosen's story that it seemed like utter BS for quite a few reasons. This vid clip isn't, to my mind. conclusive proof of anything at all, but I'm posting it for people to make their own minds up about his closing comment.

The reason it's caused a stir, is because some people believe the comment to have been a form of of explanation / direction supplied to him with his script, which he was never supposed to say - I suppose it suggests a strategy as opposed to someone simply relating events which is what he's meant to be doing...



There's more - there's been documentation turned up suggesting that there never were 2 Lanza boys, but only one - Adam - who, it's speculated, changed his name to Ryan in 2009 when his parents divorced. But I don't have time to show links etc right now, so I'll come back to it later.