This image made its way around the world and was published on virtually every front page of every newspaper in print. You might think that I have blundered by overlooking the “iconic” photograph by Shannon Hicks, which appears to show fifteen children being led away from the school by a police woman. Presence of evidence that should be absent And if there was no evacuation, it didn’t happen.
If you go to that location and find no indications of the presence of an elephant, you are entitled to infer there’s no elephant in your living room. An even simpler case is the claim that there is an elephant in your living room. But in this case, we just did: the DASHCAM footage shows that no evacuation was taking place. The claim is often made that you can’t prove a negative. When we look at the footage, we discover they aren’t there! And they aren’t there because no evacuation was taking place: Absence of evidence that should be presentĬonsider the DASHCAM footage of the Sandy Hook parking lot at the times and locations where, according to the official report by Danbury State’s Attorney, Stephen Sedensky, some 469 students (not to mention the 75 staff, teachers, custodians, administrators and such) should have been evacuated. And, for those who want a refresher of the dimensions of the hoax, see “Sandy Hook: Ten more proofs that vitiate the official account”. That is untrue of attempted falsifications, however, since any number of them could turn out to be mistaken as long as others that remain are valid. Given the legal principle, “Fraud vitiates everything”, if it is provably false in even one material respect, the official account has been thereby vitiated. Some cases, as we shall see, are easier to appraise than others. When some evidence is on both sides, the challenge is to assess their respective weight on the basis of scientific principles of reasoning. And the presence of evidence only counts provided it is authentic rather than faked.
I’ve written on this subject before, and it boils down to epistemology, or answering the question: How do we know anything?”īut MacDonald only has it half-right: the absence of evidence counts as evidence only if the evidence that is absent should be present. And it seems to me that if lack of evidence is evidence of a hoax, then the Boston bombing isn’t a hoax. “The claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax”, he continues, “is founded upon the fact that we have no video of the shooter, no photos of the shooter, no video or photos of the victims, and no blood. MacDonald, “Sandy Hook: Hoax or Truth?” He observed that, “The Boston bombing had everything Sandy Hook didn’t: video footage of the bombing, photos of the bombing, photos and videos of the wounded, and lots of blood.” But studies of the Boston bombing reveal the use of actors, fake blood and a staged sequence of events. Proof of fraud and fakery continues to mount, substantiating it was a drill and no children died.Īn interesting article comparing Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing was published by A.J. And the suppression of the new documentary, “We need to talk about Sandy Hook”, appears to be backfiring. The absence of evidence that should be present and the presence of evidence that should be absent are keys to unraveling Sandy Hook. (“Whadda’ mean that 2+2 is not 5? Here, lemme show ya.'”) Josef Stalin would have been so proud to have had this kind of propaganda machine. Here we see more and more of the foolishness we are fed by the CMM (Controlled Mass Media) and supposed to believe.
0 kommentar(er)
