Sandy Hook families just want some privacy.

Or so we are told by debunkers frequently as a diversion tactic. The reason we don't have all the evidence is, the families want privacy or it's too painful so we need to protect the families. But is that true?

In addition to the initial interviews that are well known from the days after the incident, we have stuff like this:


Even better one:

"We had to go big or go home" Sure seems that they just want to be left alone and have their privacy. Yup, having people dress up as flamingos for a public 5k run is a good way to stay out of the spotlight.

But that's just one example and seems logical because the teacher loved to laugh right?

How about this one?
Hear father of Sandy Hook victim Monday at Limestone College

Of course, we remember the Dr. Oz show interview:


Of course, even Vance can't turn down a bizarre opportunity to get his mug in the news:
Police officer J. Paul Vance honored as Irish hero following Sandy Hook shooting tragedy

Speaking about being bestowed with the Irish Heroes of New England Award Vance says “I was humbled and honored to be selected as a recipient.

“I accept this award on behalf of all my brother Troopers who worked so very hard to respond to the scene....and investigate this horrible tragedy.”

These are just a couple of examples, how many more can you find of these Newtown/Sandy Hook people trying to keep their privacy by doing interviews and public stunts?

Adding on 60 Minutes interview with families, I think if you are going on tv and doing an interview for 60 Minutes, expectation of privacy is not a factor:
Watch: Powerful 60 Minutes Interview With Newtown Families

Again, it seems to be a contrived lie that they all want privacy. Desire for privacy seems to only apply when it doesn't suit their agenda or somebody points out inconsistency in their claims.

The whole OS is so stinky.

I don't believe it.

If the Official Story of Sandy Hook is true at all, their privacy is a luxury none of us can afford. We the Citizens of the country where the massacre allegedly took place are entitled to full disclosure. Its a matter of saftey and that trumps privacy.

Urantia1111
If the Official Story of Sandy Hook is true at all, their privacy is a luxury none of us can afford. We the Citizens of the country where the massacre allegedly took place are entitled to full disclosure. Its a matter of saftey and that trumps privacy.

Be that as it may ATS is still a privately-owned website who sets the terms and conditions for members to abide by. Sandy Hook has generated a great deal of privacy issues and in the interest of taking the high road have decided to not allow posts concerning the parents of the Sandy Hook children who were reported as dying that day.

I can see both sides of the argument here, really.
Just abide by the rules concerning Sandy Hook if you value being a member here.

Please read this:www.abovetopsecret.com...
and thi: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kaitlin Roig's Non-Profit


Here's a link to the non-profit established by Kaitlin Roig-Debellis. You might remember her as the teacher who saved her classroom by locking everyone in the bathroom. She was interviewed by Diane Sawyer only hours after the tragedy.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Well, hopefully I haven't violated anybody's "privacy" in this post. This topic is not focusing on the few that have tried to remain out of the spotlight from the beginning, but rather on those that continue to use the event to attract attention to themselves or get their 15 minutes of fame riding on the backs of those that may have lost loved ones.

In my book, if somebody wants to keep their privacy, they will not do interviews on camera for the world to see. They will request that the reporters have their names redacted and faces blurred or blacked out. We haven't been seeing that from any of these people as far as can be seen.

Yes, they want it now, when there are so many unanswered questions due to the fact that the reporting and statements in the following days changed each time a story was repeated. They want privacy when people start asking questions about discrepencies. They want privacy when the report was released that basically had no information in it. The father caught laughing and joking before an interview, unaware the cameras were on him. The parents interviewed by Anderson Cooper, who did not seem like grieving parents. The "grandpa" that supposedly saved some kids and kept them at his house. The ones who were left off at the end of his driveway by a busdriver, then at the fire department across the street, and at the end of his driveway unaware of how they got there. Numerous citizens were eager and willing to go on TV and do interviews then, but no one wants to answer questions now. A school security system that didn't record, set up by a shady guy. Besides that, all the unanswered questions. Obama got to tout it for gun control. How about promoting mental health services too many are forced to do without?? Perhaps mental health services Adam Lanza may have benefited from, but then again, he was probably used because of it. Why did the crews demolishing the school have to sign non-disclosure agreements to not speak of what was in the building? Too many unanswered questions and those who want straight answers can't get them and everyone in Newtown is content to just say "believe what you are fed". I guess 50 million to a small town for a new school does more than build a new school, because even a state of the art school doesn't cost 50 million. The entire thing stinks to high heaven.

reply to post by alienbiopsy


You are so full of *snip* No one on any thread about SH has ever said they wanted to see pictures of dead children. NO ONE. There are too many questions and no answers concerning many things, but none that involve having to see pictures of dead children or teachers. For some reason, those who keep defending SH and believe the *snip* they are being told about what happened keep using the "you want to see pictures of dead children" card. YOU are pathetic.

There are many reasons to question the "story" that has been told about what happened. Too many discrepancies.

reply to post by alienbiopsy


The topic of this thread is about persons involved in the Sandy Hook incident that have elected, for whatever reason, to not remain private and out of the media despite "debunkers" using that as an excuse to not investigate their claims.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I'm just curious but what criteria are you using to personally make the determination regarding their thought process and motives where it relates to their maintaining some degree of privacy?

Since that is one of the core T&C issues relating to this overall topic, it seems a fair question to ask, as you're highlighting and defining the very narrow purpose of your thread here.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

THANK YOU!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That's probably a topic for entire thread on it's own. What do the actions look like of a person that wants to keep their privacy? I don't know that there is a real solid answer to that.

However, does somebody going on the news parading around in a pink flamingo costume to run a 5k for a deceased family member fit in that criteria? Are we not supposed to question that?

opal13
reply to post by alienbiopsy

 

You are so full of *snip* No one on any thread about SH has ever said they wanted to see pictures of dead children. NO ONE. There are too many questions and no answers concerning many things, but none that involve having to see pictures of dead children or teachers. For some reason, those who keep defending SH and believe the *snip* they are being told about what happened keep using the "you want to see pictures of dead children" card. YOU are pathetic.

There are many reasons to question the "story" that has been told about what happened. Too many discrepancies.

edit on 11/29/13 by opal13 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I see, so YOU want to see dead children. Just kidding. I should have put "/sarcasm" at the end of my last post. I thought I had lain it on thick enough that it would be clear to anyone. My bad. Nice use of the "*snip*" by the way. You've got that down.

reply to post by alienbiopsy


What can I say? I have kids.

reply to post by Urantia1111


Safety doesn't trump privacy. That's like a motto for the TSA and police.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I'd like to know why anyone feels they have the right to intrude on someone else's life. NO MATTER what they did in the past. Focus on your own life imo. Might be a little need of fixing there.

reply to post by GrantedBail



What stinks even worse is that right now in Conneticut there are trying to enact a law that would keep the evidence and material from the Sandy Hook investigation SECRET forever. Usually this information is available to the public....whether it's children involved or not. Yet, for some reason this so called "crime" is to be exempt from public scrutiny? You are very right...this doesn't pass the smell test at all.

Privacy or not...

The house of cards will fall once the information resulting from the litigation and court cases is made public.

I would imagine besides privacy, some of the parents of the murdered children, want answers.