Sandy Hook phony documents – Open Thread

Rate this post


This thread is a continuation of my Jan. 16, 2013 post, “Guide on how to talk to children about Sandy Hook 4 days BEFORE massacre,” because the discussion on that thread is very long and unwieldy.
The purpose of this thread is to enable those readers with the technical expertise to uncover document fraud — Peter, here, David Bourde, Derrick Smithers, et al — to write comments without scrolling through, at last count, 163 comments.
I will keep this thread on FOTM’s front page, for easier access, until the discussion has exhausted itself.
Here’s a screenshot of the Arlington Red Devils page from Google cache:




Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Sandy Hook phony documents – Open Thread

  1. The reason I see what is going on with propaganda here has to do with my past. While very young I realized the mass media was destroying our culture. That bothered me greatly and I attempted to do something about it by introducing more positive content in to the media.
    Before creating myself a career in computers I started and ran a recording studio and live sound company. I spent 14 years in the industry as an independent operation. I won’t go into details here but will say I was successful enough to attract the attention of the elite club that controls the mass media.
    They offered me a position in their midst which I declined. To join the club would have put me into the billionaire rat pack that controls the world.
    It was made obvious to me that to accept such wealth meant to give up my independence completely. I saw it as signing away my soul to the devil and ran in the opposite direction as fast as I could. My access to the media was then cut off. Since then I have had many years to assess how they operate.

  2. UPDATE TO ALL. AS you know Peter and I have crossed paths but we are on basically different paths to prove/disprove and the data that was available and at what time.
    I am going to write up a somewhat non-technical paper and also create a video to show you what evidence was credible and non-credible.
    It is going to take some time to show you what was found and what it means.
    I’m planning on presenting my findings by Tuesday Jan 29th.

  3. this is just to make sure I am not altering anything or anything is altered before I present my facts in evidence.
    All files were hashed with securetray util v3.95.00
    Many hashes are used together as hash collisions in fact DO exist.
    A collision that exists where every hash could be the same does NOT exist , AFAIK.
    If anybody has any evidence that my above statement is false may they please come forward and present evidence where they can make an md5 hash collison and in that same file that was created to make that collision will make all of the other hashes appear to be the same as the original file.
    SHA:F75F549D BD201685 FA9D2E44 D41196AE 631BD72E
    SHA-1:C26FB8E9 65D1A694 A0DCA2AF 97799608 1119A5FF
    SHA-512: 057CF5EB921ABE7C F1CBCE7CA86598E0 A1812D814E0F77CC 1D4326A2552143E5 1AA0253A69FC38D0 59D0EB1BD0EB8796 65C6A72B677CD548 EB1F46849A6D1860
    RIPEMD -320:B6A263B27F263E22C3BE6D412186F1472099919C915EF028F2C0F2B6C14F44BE2A3C470D1EC8F942
    GOST R 34.11-94:A89DA0E9 1D432AA4 3D844258 CBD53162 A3C6F7BE C9C76193 58165C1B 9F881BD7
    SHA:842C0A27 1A8A94CA DDA4C205 F5F382E3 83340CAA
    SHA-1:DCDAF521 721443D8 4D241C5C B3D52E6D 218B1A16
    SHA-512: 4A4DCA7B2C8428A9 48593FCFDBEDD916 28E32BB66DACA277 1036BD1DFE42151F B92012F8C6193C0C 59EBD3296F84EA8B B98A5757710CD9F3 C7073DCF4427E3BB
    RIPEMD -320:A5987DF6B2E033023A0ABDBB59B40A334801DCB9105D2294A02640425854B4275BC713E38145B4BD
    GOST R 34.11-94:5C1B26DD 6910DCEB 03661182 11680895 AF71BFFE B78D7536 F2A1A8E3 FF53DEE0
    File #3:
    SHA:5FD3CA59 E0B3AF1B D5B82CAA 67C4B44F 64CBA27B
    SHA-1:753F535E E2A74698 08EC66E8 E1F42E86 FEFF4077
    SHA-512: 40DB310A1DDF57A7 4417B981967C985F C8CE93B5DBAD81A0 C0CBE818EAE83E53 AFEB09794939FD16 B360E3D9A183FC36 4661FF53D9527DE3 2E0FEB60D1E383AC
    RIPEMD -320:B52B556CCC67384A81D9AB7D70F3A6A4CBFE04589634B4A0533E26799BC13E086993310A67041D80
    GOST R 34.11-94:A3B8B35E 52859CBB 5B78F851 415A2DBD 9ADC0227 10E61CE8 782F130B 1F156EB2
    File #4:
    SHA:14274AAC 3DA6B650 E54AEFB8 6357A8C0 9DC42CAD
    SHA-1:41B9FAA4 7A3D693E 08F251CE F13EED33 A9BC14A9
    SHA-512: 69C22774DED2BD6B DB4D26A53ACAD3B1 177DF80342BD5A9B 981364A97A4E9B27 D896A6833B66FEF2 0EE08F287926B7E6 71225C4B4117CEAF A7B47D91911D1E1A
    RIPEMD -320:CE29188E6F199A450752F2B0DD62F5B3FB00F416E6DED87EF0D8CC10A65E78181CCBEBA923C3A9B8
    GOST R 34.11-94:868D7841 92790953 186D8A01 76C67E78 34731EAE 7A4D033F 1DF0B500 7E088395
    File #5:
    SHA:721C504C 9BC025BF A57F7FBA 726C054C 929411A9
    SHA-1:991C61E5 91294BC3 FFE08FE8 B0354230 9CB9EE7D
    SHA-512: F24544F1A0DEBA9A A7B88720999BC65A 4AD67808F9686F63 13DD8797952A28A4 CD407ADDF2EFF831 F146ECECFBE6F914 579F240E2C8131AB 94F02771E7C391C1
    RIPEMD -320:CB24C83CA69567B64462FBEF27890007D9819032DEC9A7CBB297ACD73ABB0A47DB7B2E2C095F8E16
    GOST R 34.11-94:45F028E8 597A5790 5D8F55D5 221E78EB 633EE758 A9336356 B297B65F E1361A5D
    File #6:
    SHA:8A3DA0E5 8F5F286F D84ED327 4E8098E7 D7629404
    SHA-1:BCD466C1 4E67F8B9 B814D80B C995FEE4 E0461468
    SHA-512: BB7B5F4B4F9A354E E018B9444BB80B67 7170AB585991247E 8F4D30413E3BD7D1 F8D155A7425279FB 7A4E8B7118FEF100 4CBD600ACEDDEE75 1F6776CFDBC2C09D
    GOST R 34.11-94: F89DD7CC C06410D2 70C29EFC 0EF058A0 B82AB8F0 636EDBE2 E715A996 EBE04A7C
    File #7
    SHA:7F9554E5 3A49A0E4 052E8274 F90E74DA D8F42FDC
    SHA-1:44A01A1C D6430B3C 096B7216 B22141FE AB9CD199
    SHA-512: 1980269D79C39789 4F9D61B042081EE4 2F39F2BC3FE5FCFF 38C7A68B17822E22 72D8DF5E5E4F1A71 266BE12095FBD830 D7A42D7AF0B0412A 3FA01CC4556644BA
    RIPEMD -320:85BA2103F5FAFBD1BF2F4790B252BCE0B7D21AD117E2D27F7519FAE1AE5A748445B5417879E4232C
    GOST R 34.11-94: 6EFADC1B DCEDAE54 DA447C56 ED292D8D D6D37978 E31178C3 255E5AB1 EDFE9F1C

  4. Wow! Your original email to me suggesting this post as a repository for this topic was stuck in my spam folder for a couple weeks. And, look at what has become of us! Well, you guys really. Kidding.
    OK. I admit to skipping the last third of the comments above. But, I remember now Peter’s eagerness to dig in and figure this out and hopefully provide conclusive evidence. Here’s the problem with seeing things as “still in need of investigation.” We had it all done in the first couple hours. I even made this quick graphic to post somewhere (can’t recall at the moment) that gives it to ya in 1, 2, 3…
    Seriously, look at these 3 text bubbles. Having not seen this image in a couple weeks+, I can see it should make sense to the lay-person. By that, I’m speaking of those who aren’t familiar with Google-bot. That’s what this boils down to as far as evidence goes.
    Only 2 things needed to be connected…(There was a page on Google on December 13th that had the phrase “…tragedy at Sandy Hook…” on it.)
    All the other evidence might be worth looking at if I was tweaking on meth. But, right away it was determined only the Google cache entry was a public record. I really loved how weirdly interesting the CMS software guy’s explanation of the “back-dating” hack though! How ironic that there isn’t any need to excuse anything on that site at all, yet even then there was one produced! I don’t think he was covering for anyone, but he could make decent money doing just that for Google about now.
    I intend to come back and read about this and other topics. Keep up the good work.
    P.S. – Does the link structure of my image above reveal the secret structure of my WordPress blog?! Kidding.

    • Hi Derrick… I’m finally close to the point of taking apart the 2 cache records, the dec 10th, and dec 13th versions.
      The only thing left to do before that is to take apart Jeremy’s explanation about how the records came into existence. That will take most of today.
      In the background I am conducting tests of material I will present here a day or two in the future.
      Until yesterday I would have agreed that the comments on your image were accurate.
      Surprisingly to me they are not.
      I will demonstrate that clearly, probably tomorrow.
      If I had not done all the background checking I have done over the last number of days I would now probably just give up and say, “it can’t be proven when the documents came into existence”.
      That may still be the case but there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence, and misleading information from parties involved, that the events surrounding these documents are not innocent.
      Because of my continuing doubt that our understanding of these events is complete, I will continue to plod on step by step and finish examining every piece of information we have about the events to the full extent possible in our circumstances.
      If at all possible I want to have 100% clarity about the events at Sandy Hook because any doubt about them is very disquieting.
      I still hope this process will produce 100% proof, but I am now not sure of that. I am still confident we can achieve something like 95%.

      • Thanks for the reply. I stand by the simple assertions in the graphic I created.
        Someone in a previous comment claimed that Google both indexes and dates their entries based on what the site’s sitemap or “feed” directs. That just can’t be true. If it were, it would allow manipulation.
        Think about how you would design an automated indexing system for Google. You would likely allow a site to provide a sitemap-like feed, but each item on it would still be scraped by Googlebot for verification.
        The claim that Google allows external parties to dictate its content is akin to claiming Google allows me to provide my own PageRank for my site. Companies in competitive markets spend millions on SEO services. I’ve seen how Google had to evolve in order to thwart fraud. Backdating web content is fraud, as the date Google provides has been used in copyright disputes.
        The bottom line is, the date of indexing shown with each search result provided by Google is determined by Googlebot. That appears to me to be the “only” verifiable data in all of this. I’m curious how you will “demonstrate that clearly” how I am wrong tomorrow.

        • I will get to that part of my investigation tomorrow. At that point I will tell you how to demonstrate to yourself with 100% assurance that what you surmise is wrong.
          I was as surprised as you will be, when I first discovered this fact. What actually happens in virtually all CMS based websites creates a lot of headaches and inefficiencies for search engines and archives.
          What you describe is much more logical and efficient and I also assumed that’s how things were done. However, what I will explain shortly again points out that in the real world things often aren’t done in the most efficient way.

  5. Hi Peter, Hi Dr. Eowyn,
    don’t leave in the lurch or curtail the investigation here. This is fascinating and important.
    George (via DDiner)

    • Hi George…. Thanks for letting us know about your concerns. I apologize for dropping this investigation for a period. I needed to get caught up on things I had dropped in order to focus on this material.
      I have also been in a quandary on how to proceed. My initial intent was to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how these documents originated. Where I am now is a place where most likely the best I can do is give you my informed opinion, not definitive proof.
      Unfortunately to get definitive proof we need the cooperation, either voluntary or forced, of the institutions involved in the events we are investigating.
      Although Jeremy of SpireCMS, which developed the Arlington Local Schools Site and Brant of Crisis Management Institute have been involved somewhat here they have not volunteered the level of information needed for us to understand clearly what happened. There is no way we can force them to provide more information than they have.
      In the background during this investigation I was asked to check out several other similar documents. Two were easy to explain as being the result of valid circumstances that only made them to appear to be pre-dated. It only took about an hour of research to explain how they came into being.
      After spending upwards of 2 weeks, of pretty much full-time research, on the ALS documents I have not found out anything that rules out that they pre-dated the actual events. Rather: at virtually all the points where clarity might have been added there have been actions by those involved that are suspicious.
      The most glaring of these events is moving the hosting of the ALS website from servers in San Antonio to Severs in New York just as the documents first became public. By far the easiest way to prove when the documents originated would have been to get copies of the daily backups, which the hosting company automatically does for all websites, for the ALS site database for dates ranging from Dec 10th thru Dec 17th. The day the backup showed the document appearing would prove what date it was created. When examining these backups it wouldn’t take more than an hour or so to know definitively when the documents were created.
      We probably couldn’t have got copies of those backups but someone authorized could have. That the possibility of this proof becoming public was destroyed by the conveniently timed move to NY is suspicious.
      I’ve been putting off continuing until I no longer thought definitive proof was possible. I’m pretty much at that point.
      Later today I will continue my investigation at
      It appears that Jeremy and Brandt have declined to explain how a news item could have a different date than the published date. I will start by explaining again why understanding this is very important.
      Without a valid reason showing otherwise, the logical assumption is that the date embedded in the URL is the actual creation date not the published date.
      I will then continue on and explain in more detail what RSS feeds do and how the RSS feed on the ALS site is likely responsible for exposing these documents to search engines and archive bots before the event occurred, which the author assumed were held privately until after the event occurred.

  6. Somewhere I thought I read that Jeremy was offering to make a copy of the faulty software available to install on your own server, which might help ?
    Have you already seen this purported Bing search engine episode ? :
    Have you heard this interview ? where former US Naval Law Enforcement Veteran and US Army Infantry/Reconnaissance Military Veteran MIKE POWERS has found glaring inconsistencies regarding the Sandy Hook shooting and will be breaking it down. (breakdown: Sandy Hook = FAKE)

    And of course there are the pre-announcements of the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook in Batman, The Dark Knight Rises:
    I know that the boundaries to disinformation are becoming ever more skillfully blurred, and a lot of distraction get generated to siphon people off the real trails…, and so apologies in advance if any of these fall into those categories. I’m trying to filter the best leads I have for you though!
    Can the waybackmachine help find prematurely published docs?
    Can a webbot, or even Clif High’s software, search for webpages that were created before 14th Dec that discuss the “Sandy Hook incident” etc before the association should have been made ?
    I guess you’re already informed about the crisis management team operating a dry run of the London 7/7 bombings on exactly the same day as it actually happened, with exactly the same Tube stations that were actually hit.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.