Sandy Hook Fraud- Certainty Principle

– How we can be certain, at long last, that we have been played for fools –

Nearly three years later, the great debate still rages.  In the comment section below nearly any blog article or You Tube video regarding any of the many flaws in the Sandy Hook narrative, we find people who attest to being “the friend of an aunt of a man who lives next door to a Sandy Hook  family that lost a child…. and how dare all of you say these shameful, hurtful things!”

The comment usually ends with something like “you f_ing idiots!”  For good measure, they like to point out that “all these stupid points have been debunked”.  Indeed, all of the stupid points have been debunked, and rightly so. There were many, many “straw dog” arguments  planted along the way and many YouTubers and bloggers fell for them, which is why we find ourselves three years later not quite convinced either way. Everybody knows that there is something very, very wrong with Sandy Hook.

Here are two important definitions from the Urban Dictionary website:

straw dog

“In business, something (an idea, or plan, usually) set up to be knocked down. It’s the dangerous philosophy of presenting one mediocre idea, so that the listener will make the choice of the better idea which follows.

The purpose of a straw to create cognitive dissonance.  The purpose in creating cognitive dissonance is to ensure that no meaningful action takes place.

cognitive dissonance
A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one’s beliefs and one’s actions

Therefore, straw dog  is quite a beautiful and effective psychological tool for blunting effective opposition and redirects human energies to swirl like some turd floating aimlessly in a low flush toilet.

Here are some personal Sandy Hook straw dog favorites:

”  and we brought dad’s baseball cap to Grace “


The laughing parents– yes, Robbie Parker (Emilie Parker’s father) and mom and pop McDonnell (parents of Grace McDonnell), confounded and disgusted us all with their ear to ear grins.

The narrative of scribbling on the small, white, occupied casket with Sharpies. of various colors was particularly unsettling.  In this photo, the mother has just told CNN’s Anderson Copper that they brought Grace many things on the day of her funeral, even dad’s baseball cap (Grace loved baseball).  What tremendous composure.  (But start to see it for what it is. It’s a straw dog).


Grieving Sandy Hook Father

Grieving Father, Rob Parker


And who can forget the devastated Rob Parker as he approached the microphone the very evening of the massacre? (It was his second appearance of the evening, having already spoken at his church.)  He graciously informed the viewing public that a friend had set up a Facebook page in Emilie’s honor so that we could donate to little Emilie.

This guy is just another straw dog.



Unfortunately, there is no pot at the end of the rainbow in this laughing parent issue  All that a debunker need point out is that people on anti-depressants can often display wholly inappropriate emotional response (which is why many people stop taking them). Since medical records, including prescriptions, are guarded by strict and heavily consequential HIPPA laws, you will never know if there were anti depressants lurking behind this bizarre behavior.  This issue does not and can not ever prove anything with it.


Everybody Must Check In

Everybody Must Check In

The electronic sign-Sandy Hook was just a drill as evidenced by the Gene Rosen photograph showing him standing in front of a sign at the Firehouse. The sign said “everyone must check in”.  Truthers crowed that this was proof of a drill, neglecting to check as to when the photo was taken.  As it turned out, the photograph was not taken on December 14th, 2012 and is, instead, evidence of an expected measure taken to protect a crime scene which had yet to be fully investigated and photographed.  No gold here.



However, there are many far more solid issues yet remaining, issues about which our truth seekers remain curiously silent. Let’s call these points the “undebunkables”.  Since I have now created a new word, albeit it an awkward one, kindly allow me the liberty to create the definition as well…“that which can not be debunked, that which can withstand all efforts to debunk; syn. gotcha


Back dated fundraising and tribute pages

  • Joseph Ametrano had posted a video titled:  “Sandy Hook Elementary Tribute” on a VIMEO account weeks ahead of the alleged massacre. Ametrano’s video was captured and re-mixed by Dutchsince to expose the Sandy Hook foreknowledge. It really needs to be noted here that Ametrano posts his musical videos under his company’s name. Bacmaster.  The earliest date found for the posting of the SH tribute was in August of 2012, four months before Sandy Hook happened.  Bacmaster, indeed.
  • United Way’s “Our hearts are with Sandy Hook” fundraising page was crawled and added to the Google search engine on December 11, 2012, three days before Sandy Hook happened.
  • Victoria Soto’s Facebook tribute page was also created on December 11, 2012, three days before Sandy Hook happened.
  • The Sandy Hook Elementary victims fund page was created on December 13, 2012, the day before Sandy Hook happened.
  • set up their Sandy Hook fund raising page on December 10th, four days before Sandy Hook happened.

AP-“Advanced Precognitive” news

And last, but not least, the trusted MSM news source, AP, posted an article about the Sandy Hook tragedy on November 18, 2012, one month before Sandy Hook happened.

Timothy Hunter had made this particular find but his YouTube was taken down for copyright infringement.  Luckily, a blogger, dcclothesline,  took a screen capture  of a telling slide from the video

Note that AP scooped all of the big three;  Sandy Hook, the Aurora Batman shooting and the Boston Bombing.  They must have one hell of a psychic working over there.

To quote dcclothesline, “Lest you think the Nov. 18, 2012 Google time stamp for the “Always smiling: Portraits of Conn. victims” AP story was a mere computer glitch, that AP story was reposted by, with a publication date of Nov. 20, 2012 — 24 days before the actual Sandy Hook massacre:”

The time stamp issue has withstood the test of time, not to mention countless troll attacks.  Google must have been having fits behind the scenes as people took the position of “Google glitch” to explain the very off time stamps applied to these critical pages.  And if it were only Google, that explanation might suffice, but it was Vimeo and Facebook as well.  This is not a straw dog, this is gold.

Still not convinced? Let’s return to for the “rest of the story”:

“Hunter had uploaded his video onto YouTube more than a year an 2 months ago on Jan. 5, 2013. He says that since his discovery, as well as a post on this same AP deception on the blog InsaneMedia, the AP changed the dates and deleted content of the incriminating photos.

More troubling still, Insane Media is no longer accessible even via Google Cache. If you click the preceding “Google Cache” link for Insane Media’s AP photos post, you’ll get this message:

NOTICE: This domain name expired on 3/5/2014 and is pending renewal or deletion.

For the links to all the posts FOTM has done on Sandy Hook, go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page.

A big h/t to Dean Garrison of The D.C. Clothesline.


Dr. Eowyn is the Editor of Fellowship of the Minds.”

This comment was left at the end of the article :

“All this elucidates is a complete ignorance on how those “timestamps” are created.

Weak… so very fucking weak.”

Mr. Hunter, the man who had produced the YouTube video regarding these glaring time stamp issues,  replied:

I contest that. I am not “ignorant” of how the timestamps are made – in fact I spent a lot of time studying various timestamps from many sources, as well as creating my own to see how you can manipulate them. There are two dates attached to each photo in the AP database – a “creation date” and an “upload date.” The most logical conclusion about the creation date is that it is the date the photo was taken. This is made very clear in the first pictures from the database shown in the video. It is readily apparent if you browse through the AP database yourself.

If I’m misunderstanding these timestamps, then PLEASE explain to me why both Lily Guabert’s photo, as well as Allison Wyatt’s, contained a creation date of 6/15. If you can’t answer that, you’ve got nothing. You see, Lily Gaubert was not even a victim. She was a random woman’s daughter whose picture just happened to be listed as victim Allison Wyatt for days after the hoax occurred.

So you’re left with these options – was Allison Wyatt’s photo taken on the exact same date as her fake replacements – Gaubert? That is very farfetched to believe, especially considering the Hockley photos contain the same date. Since it would be ludicrous to believe that all of these children (one not being a victim) would have had all of their photos taken on the same day, the only option left to believe is that they were uploaded or edited on the same date.

You can understand this better if you watch the video here,
It is only five minutes, and should help you comprehend if you’re not going to allow your cognitive dissonance to force you to immediately assume we are “hateful” or “weak” as you put it.

This is an educational site, and you are mistaken.

Timothy Hunter’s video is no longer available on YouTube, nor is the website “Insanemedia”.



Lily Gaubert


"Madeleine Hsu"

Madeleine Hsu”

Lily Gaubery

  Lily Gaubert

"Allison Wyatt"

      “Allison Wyatt”


Many are familiar with this very interesting chapter in the seemingly limitless litany of Sandy Hook anomalies.  In brief, Lily’s mother was shocked to see that a photograph of her daughter was being circulated by MSM, identifying her as Sandy Hook victim, Allison Wyatt.

After Mrs. Gaubert posted a public plea for help, the photo was removed by MSM and replaced with the photo to Lily’s right

It remains unclear as to whether or not Mrs. Gaubert realized that her daughter’s picture was being identified as Madeleine Hsu as well.