Nobody Died at Sandy Hook

Will Rogers

 

 

“It ain’t what we don’t know that hurts us; it’s what we think we know that ain’t so.”—Will Rogers

 American History 101

“Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.

Sirhan Sirhan did not kill Robert F. Kennedy.

James Earl Ray did not kill Martin Luther King, Jr.

Timothy McVeigh did not blow up the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building on his own.

Osama bin Laden was not buried at sea, did not plan, take part in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The U.S. Government burned children alive on purpose at Waco.

Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated in a plane crash in the north woods forest near Eveleth, MN because he opposed the coming war on Iraq.

Adam Lanza did not kill anyone, if he even existed.

Nobody died at Sandy Hook.

Nobody died at Boston.”(1)

If you’ve found your way to this post, then you are probably already aware of most of the statements above.

If you’ve done some serious investigation of these events, then you probably understand that they are all true.

Those who haven’t dug into these realms, and who don’t understand the monumental pack of lies that has been woven throughout U.S. history, may experience some cognitive dissonance when they take a hard look at the Sandy Hook Hoax.

In order to fully grasp the reality that actually occurred at Sandy Hook, it’s important to suspend the beliefs that formed the story that was delivered to you by the Mainstream Media.

It’s also important to be aware that the folks who create these stories realize the key to getting the viewers to buy into the myth they’re spinning is to utilize an emotional hook to real in the fish.

In this case they played one of their favorite cards, the ‘Dead Child’ card. There’s nothing like dead kids to rip at the heart-strings and lead to the abandonment of common sense and logic.

And the viewers took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Did any of these people see ‘Wag the Dog’?

“The Sandy Hook experience has divided Americans, most of whom have been convinced by
media coverage that it was a real event, where a young man massacred 20 children and six
adults before killing himself.

Another substantial segment of the US population has taken a closer look at the evidence and drawn the conclusion it was a hoax, where no children really died: it was an elaborate psy-op to promote gun control.

Americans are hard pressed to sort these things out, because they are hit with a blizzard of reports that appear to confirm the official account, leaving them in the predicament of not being able to tell if it was real or fake.”(1)

Probabilities vs. Certainties

“Knowledge of historical events (based upon documents and records, photos and videos and witness testimony, for example) can never be “definitive and certain”. You only know your own origin in life (where and when you were born and the parents who brought you into this world) on the basis of information that could have been faked. Even DNA comparisons can be invalid or mistaken on purpose or by accident.

Your belief about today’s day/month/year is something else of which you have no direct and certain knowledge but rather have a host of sources of information, such as newspapers and television reports, which collectively confirm your belief but could be fabricated or faked, but which are almost always accurate and true.

The occurrence of an elaborate hoax intended to fool the people does not occur often, but there can be no doubt that it does sometimes occur. The Warren Report (1964), for example, provides an indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK, where the evidence for that conclusion was carefully selected and, in some cases, completely fabricated.

The backyard photographs were faked, for example, and the home moviesof the assassination were edited. That he had been captured in a famous photo taken during the shooting was suppressed.”(1) Check out The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003):

“These things can and sometimes do happen. And one of them happened here.

If you only read the government’s account, you might very well be convinced that JFK had been killed by Lee Oswald. And if you only paid attention to the mass media, you would probably believe that 20 children died at Sandy Hook. Once you acknowledge that some of the evidence has been fabricated or faked, however, the case begins to assume a completely different character. This does not mean we cannot know what happened in this instance, but it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man. New evidence or alternative hypotheses may thus require us to revise our position by rejecting hypotheses we previously accepted, accepting hypotheses we previously rejected and leaving others in suspense. We now know more about Sandy Hook.”(1)

Inference to the best explanation

“The principle known as “inference to the best explanation”, has the potential to turn every American into a critical thinker in comparing alternative hypotheses. In relation to Sandy Hook, there are two alternatives, which have consequences that would also be true (or probably true) if they were true and others that would be false (or probably false) if they were not (setting the alleged suicide by Adam Lanza to the side):

(h1) Sandy Hook was a real event, where 20 children and 6 adults were
killed at a school;

(h2) Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax, where a drill was conducted
and no children died.

But the key to understanding is making an appraisal of which of these hypotheses is better supported by the evidence. We can think of the evidence as effects of one or another hypothesis as their cause. When one hypothesis makes the effects more probable than the other, it is more likely to be true
and the alternative false. For the shooting to have been real, the school had to have been operational in 2012; yet we have indication after indication that it had been abandoned by 2008.

We know from past experience that the names, ages and sex of victims of crimes are almost invariably printed in newspaper accounts of crimes. In this case, however, the final reports coming from the Connecticut authorities did not include them. That is a very odd aspect of this event, but
an attempt has been made to explain it away on the ground of preserving the privacy of the families of the victims. But if there were victims, their families already know they are dead. There is no evident benefit to the families, if it was real, but a major element of the cover up, if it was not.

From the date of the event, we have a photograph taken from a CT State Police chopper at 9:15 AM/ET, which is 20 minutes before the first 911 call came in; there was no surge of EMTs into the building to rush those little bodies off to hospitals, where doctors could pronounce them dead or alive; virtually all of the emergency vehicles were kept at the Firehouse, which became the center of activity as opposed to the school; the parents were not even allowed to identify their children, which was done using photos. Any parent would emphasize that there is no way they could have been kept
from viewing the body of their child, while the conduct of the “parents” in this case is remarkably obedient.”

No ambulances at the school

Ambulances are at the Firehouse

Other circumstantial anomalies

If the school had been abandoned, then the shooting has to be an illusion, since there would have been no students present for Adam Lanza to shoot. And if that were the case, then we might not be surprised if any number of measures were taken at the time by authorities to suppress relevant information (and thereby making it unavailable) or by otherwise circumventing what would have been the ordinary and normal procedures of investigation and administration by local and state authorities. But the measures that were taken were rather extraordinary, including these examples:

* the Attorney General of Connecticut argued against releasing the 911 calls, where the court ruled against him;

* the Clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid issuing death certificates;

* a special panel of the state legislature recommended that any state employee who released information about Sandy Hook other than via Freedom of Information Act request be prosecuted as an E-felony with a five year sentence; and,

* those who were hired to participate in the demolition of the school
building were required to sign life-time gag orders that prohibit them
from talking about what they saw or did not see during its destruction.

Each of these qualifies as a “fact” insofar as its truth can be confirmed by research you can conduct yourself. Admittedly, if all the information accessible via the Internet about Sandy Hook were fabricated or faked, then that would not be the case.

But no one who seriously contests any of these points. So ask yourself, what is the probability that these five claims (if we also include the missing names, ages and sex from the final report) would be true if Sandy Hook had been a real event? And by comparison, what is the probability these five claims would be true if Sandy Hook had been a hoax? Which hypothesis is more likely to be true?”(1)

The Governor’s Press Conference

“The day of the shooting, Governor Dan Malloy and his Lt. Governor held a press conference, during
which he observed that they had been “spoken to” that something like this might happen.
“Something like this”?
What could that mean.

There are only two alternatives:

(a) that he had been told there would be a shooting in a school in his state,
in which case he, as governor, should have warned school districts to be
on high alert and make sure it did not happen, which he did not do; or,

(b) that he had been told they would be taking an abandoned school and
using it as a prop for a drill, which would be presented to the public as
real to promote an aggressive gun-control agenda, which is the case here.

And an investigation into recent visits with the Governor to determine by whom he might have been “spoken to”, it was discovered that Attorney General Eric Holder had met with him on 27 November 2012 to discuss “Operation Longevity”, a special interest of the Attorney General and the President of the United States for promoting gun control. Mark my words. The evidence presented here demonstrates that the school was closed by 2008; that there were no students to evacuate; that Adam Lanza appears to have been a work of fiction; and that the teachers, the parents, the Newtown School Board, the State Police, the Medical Examiner and the Governor were in on the hoax.”(1)

The Requirement of Total Evidence

“Indeed, scientific reasoning specifically and rational inquiries generally must satisfy the requirement of total evidence: in the search for truth, reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence, where evidence is relevant when its presence or absence (or truth or falsity) makes a difference to the outcome, typically on the basis of considerations of probability.

According to the official report on Sandy Hook by Danbury States Attorney Stephen Sedensky  (“The Sedensky Report”), there were 489 children present that day. Minus 20 murdered, there ought to have been 469 to evacuate (as well as around 70 more teachers, administrators and staff). But we have no pictures of their evacuation. What we have instead this “iconic” photograph:

 

Below is a closeup of the group:

It has sometimes been said that “You can’t prove a falsehood true!” But that assertion overlooks the role of false clams and fabricated evidence. We have here a photograph purporting to show a string of children being led away from the school to safety by a policewoman on the scene. This photo was published on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world—and shown endless times on television. It was undoubtedly the single most important form of proof in convincing the public around the world that Sandy Hook was real.

But there is a catch: the photograph was staged! And we know that not on the basis of the weaker evidence that there are too many leaves on the trees and no frost for this to be a 28 degree day in December but because Shannon Hicks took a second photograph!”(1)

Rearranging the kids to get a better shot

“It’s bad enough that we have a series of parents looking on, some with their arms cross or their hands in their pockets—which is certainly not what we would expect in an emergency situation. It gets much worse when you realize that the police woman has stopped the children to rearrange them to get “a better shot”!

Here’s a comparison that shows what was going on and demonstrates—as conclusively as anyone could have the right to expect—that the first photograph was staged to create the false impression that there was an emergency and that these kids needed to be removed from a threat at the earliest possible opportunity—which would not leave time to stop and rearrange them as follows:

We not only know that Shannon Hicks was “in on the game” by taking these photos (as early as in October) in preparation for this elaborate charade but we also know that there was no evacuation. The claim is sometimes made that “You can’t prove a negative!” But that turns out to be false. When evidence that ought to be present if an hypothesis were true is not present, then the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence.

Suppose you were told there is an elephant in your living room. If you go there and find no indications of the presence of an elephant, you are completely justified in inferring that there is no elephant in your living room.

If the 469 kids who should have been there, had this this event been real, were not there, you are completely justified in inferring that it was not real.

In the photo above, notice how many indications are present that this photo was staged. There was no emergency in progress, the people behind the woman in the center (closest to the children, whom Dan Cady has identified as Lisa Terifay) appear part of a drill by their body language, where the conga line sequence in the photo above is missing the girl in the front, meaning Hicks’ claim that she took that photo under emergency conditions is indefensible: they staged multiple shots and selected the one that they thought was best.

An evacuation would have looked something like this, with strings of children led by other police officers or teachers performing their duty under stress:

But we have Dash Cam footage at the locations in the parking lot where, according to official police records, the evacuation was taking place—and there is nothing there! Just as the absence of signs of the presence of an elephant in your living room is proof of the absence of an elephant, the absence of signs of the presence of children undergoing evacuation is proof that no evacuation was taking place.”(1)

More parking lot anomalies—and a stunner!

“Inspection of the vehicles in the parking lot in front of the school shows that they are parked in the wrong direction (which should have been nose-in), given the arrangement for driving into the lot. The image itself suggests of a group of drivers methodically filling up the lot with used or abandoned cars, driving straight into the designated parking places without regard for how they should have been arranged.

Once again we ask, “What is the probability that the lot would be filled with cars parked in the wrong direction, if this had been a real event? What if this had been a drill?” Truly stunning, however, is the discovery of a series of photographs that display setting the stage early in the morning for the events that would transpire this day:

Notice that the windows of Classroom 10 are not shot out and the flag is up. This photograph is taken from one of the elevated cameras we have discovered that were mounted around the parking lot to record the drill. The mortuary tent is not there yet, which makes this early morning. Could we have more decisive proof? When an hypothesis has been confirmed by abundant evidence and no alternative explanation is reasonable, it has been established “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Hypothesis (h1), that Sandy Hook was real, has been falsified and (h2), that this was an elaborate hoax, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.”(1)

Benefits to the participants

“The benefits to those who participated in the Sandy Hook hoax have been substantial. The donation sites created by “families of the victims” have hauled in over $27,000,000 or in excess of $1,000,000 per family. Other substantial grants have been given to alleviate the pain and suffering of those who responded to the event. On Friday, 12 December 2014, for example, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Representative Elizabeth Esty (CT-5) announced a $775,914 grant from the Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crimes and their families, firs responders and members of Newtown community in the wake of the shooting to “help fund continued mental health services and other support services”, which sounds like a lot for participating in a charade.

Other pay-offs, bribes and hush-money—and under the circumstances, is there anything more appropriate to call it?—are documented below.

When debate was taking place over the choice between refurbishing the old school or constructing a new one, The Newtown Bee published about the presence of asbestos, lead and PCBs in the building, which had no doubt factored in the earlier decision to abandon the school in 2008. Newtown received $50,000,000 to build a brand new K-4 elementary school. I surveyed the cost of comparable cost for K-4 schools across the nation and discovered they average $7,000,000, which reflects the generous benefits that a community might accrue from cooperating covertly with the federal
government in the pursuit of its political agenda.”(1)

Below is a photo of the new $50 million Sandy Hook Elementary school:

For some, well worth participation in the Hoax!!!

Medical Examiner: More Questions than Answers

“Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggest a deepened credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information is electronically mediated and controlled.

The condition is reinforced through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked information while invoking prior restraint through threats of prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry
seeking to interpret the event on social media.

Along these lines on December 19 the Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honored.

The de facto gag order was in effect until the investigation concluded—even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been confirmed as the sole culprit.

With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny. What can be gleaned from this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring inconsistencies
than answers. While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.”(1)

The accidental Medical Examiner

An especially important yet greatly under-reported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.

H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel
he oversaw.

Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with
the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.” One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.

Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.

The following video includes a couple of Wayne Carver’s ‘comments’, such as they are, starting at 1:05:

With this in mind extended excerpts from the full exchange are worthy of recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified so I have assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be discerned of their voices.

Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?
H. Wayne Carver: Yes.
Reporter #1: [Inaudible]
Carver: Uh (pause). Question was what caliber were these bullets. And I know—I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court they yell at me and don’t make me answer [sic]—so [nervous laughter]. I’ll let the police do that for you.

Reporter #2: Doctor can you tell us about the nature of the wounds. Were
they at very close range? Were the children shot at from across the room?
Carver: Uhm, I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from three to eleven wounds apiece and I only saw two of them with close range shooting. Uh, but that’s, uh y’know, a sample. Uh, I really don’t have detailed information on the rest of the injuries.

[Given that Carver is Connecticut’s top coroner and in charge of the
entire postmortem this is a startling admission.]

Reporter #3: But you said that the long rifle was used?
Carver: Yes.
Reporter #3: But the long rifle was discovered in the car.
State Police Lieutenant Vance: That’s not correct, sir.

Unidentified reporter #4: How many bullets or bullet fragments did you
find in the autopsy. Can you tell us that?
Carver: Oh. I’m lucky I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know. There were lots of them, OK? This type of weapon is not, uh … the bullets are designed in such a fashion that the energy—this is very clinical. I shouldn’t be saying this. But the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in [the tissue].

[In fact, the Bushmaster .223 Connecticut police finally claimed was used in the shooting is designed for long range field use and utilizes high velocity bullets averaging 3,000 feet-per-second, the energy of which even at considerable distance would penetrate several bodies before finally coming to rest in tissue.]

Reporter #5: How close were the injuries?
Carver: Uh, all the ones (pause). I believe say, yes [sic].

Reporter #6: In what shape were the bodies when the families were brought to check [inaudible].
Carver: Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We have, uh, uh—it’s easier on the families when you do that. Un, there is, uh, a time and place for the up close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this we thought it would be best to do it this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh … You can control a situation depending on the photographer, and I have very good photographers. Uh, but uh—

Reporter #7: Do you know the difference of the time of death between the
mother in the house and the bodies recovered [in the school].
Carver: Uh, no, I don’t. Sorry [shakes head excitedly] I don’t! [embarrassed laugh]

Reporter #8: Did the gunman kill himself with the rifle?
Carver: No. I—I don’t know yet. I’ll-I’ll examine him tomorrow morning. But, but I don’t think so.

[Why has Carver left arguably the most important specimen for last? And why doesn’t he think Lanza didn’t commit suicide with the rifle?]

Reporter #9: In terms of the children, were they all found in one classroom or—
Carver: Uhm … [inaudible] [Turns to Lieutenant Vance] Paul and company will deal with that.
Reporter #9: What?
Carver: Paul and company will deal with that. Lieutenant Vance is going to handle that one.

Reporter #10: Was there any evidence of a struggle? Any bruises?
Carver: No.

Reporter #11: The nature of the shooting; is there any sense that there was a lot of care taken with precision [inaudible] or randomly?
Carver: [Exhales while glancing upward, as if frustrated] Both. It’s a very difficult question to answer … You’d think after thousands of people I’ve seen shot but I … It’s … If I attempted to answer it in court there’d be an objection and then they’d win—[nervous laughter].

[Who would win? Why does an expert whose routine job as a public employee is to provide impartial medical opinion concerned with winning and losing in court? Further, Carver is not in court but rather at a press conference.]

Reporter #12: Doctor, can you discuss the fatal injuries to the adults?
Carver: Ah, they were similar to those of the children.

Reporter #13: Doctor, the children you had autopsied, where in the bodies were they hit?
Carver: Uhm [pause]. All over. All over.

Reporter #14: Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?
Carver: I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].

Reporter [#15]: How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?
Carver: [Slowly shaking his head] I don’t know.”(1)

More unanswered questions and inconsistencies

“In addition to Carver’s remarks several additional chronological and evidentiary contradictions
in the official version of the Sandy Hook shooting are cause for serious consideration and leave
doubt in terms of how the event transpired vis-à-vis the way authorities and major media outlets have presented it.

It is now well known that early on journalists reported that Adam Lanza’s brother Ryan Lanza was reported to be the gunman, and that pistols were used in the shooting rather than a rifle. Yet these are merely the tip of the iceberg.”(1)

When did the gunman arrive?

“According to ‘official’ reports, after Adam Lanza fatally shot and killed his mother at his residence, he drove himself to the elementary school campus, arriving one half hour after classes had commenced. Dressed in black, Lanza proceeds completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.

Further, initial press accounts suggest how no school personnel or students heard gunshots and no 911 calls are made until after Lanza begins firing inside the facility. “It was a lovely day,” Sandy Hook fourth grade teacher Theodore Varga said. And then, suddenly and unfathomably, gunshots rang out. “I can’t even remember how many,” Varga said.

The recollection contrasts sharply with an updated version of Lanza’s arrival where at 9:30AM he walked up to the front entrance and fired at least a half dozen rounds into the glass doors. The thunderous sound of Lanza blowing an opening big enough to walk through the locked school door caused Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach to bolt from a nearby meeting room to investigate. He shot and killed them both as they ran toward him.

Breaching the school’s security system in such a way would have likely triggered some automatic alert of school personnel. Further, why would the school’s administrators run toward an armed man who has just noisily blasted his way into the building?

Two other staff members attending the meeting with Hochsprung and Scherlach sustained injuries “in the hail of bullets” but returned to the aforementioned meeting room and managed a call to 911. This contrasted with earlier reports where the first 911 call claimed students “were trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two guns.” Recordings of the first police dispatch following the 911 call at 9:35:50 indicate that someone “thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.” There is a clear distinction between potentially hearing shots somewhere in the building and being almost mortally caught in a “hail of bullets.”(1)

How did the gunman fire so many shots in such little time?

“According to Dr. Carver and State Police, Lanza shot each victim between 3 and 11 times during a 5 to 7 minute span. If one is to average this out to 7 bullets per individual—excluding misses—Lanza shot 182 times, or once every two seconds. Yet according to the official story Lanza was the sole
assassin and armed with only one weapon. Thus if misses and changing the gun’s 30-shot magazine at least 6 times are added to the equation Lanza must have been averaging about one shot per second—extremely skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with absolutely no military training and who was on the verge of being institutionalized. Still, an accurate rendering of the event is even more difficult to arrive at because the chief medical examiner admittedly has no idea exactly how the children were shot or whether a struggle ensued.”(1)

Where is the photo and video evidence?

“Photographic and video evidence is at once profuse yet lacking in terms of its capacity to demonstrate that a mass shooting took place on the scale described by authorities. For example, in an era of ubiquitous video surveillance of public buildings especially no visual evidence of Lanza’s
violent entry has emerged. And while studio snapshots of the Sandy Hook victims abound there is little if any eyewitness testimony of anyone who’s observed the corpses except for Carver and his staff, and they appear almost as confused about the conditions of the deceased as any layperson watching televised coverage of the event. Nor are there any routine eyewitness, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s aftermath—broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings and holes, bloodied walls and floors—all of which are common in such investigations and reportage.”(1)

Why were medical personnel turned away from the scene?

“Oddly enough medical personnel are forced to set up their operation not at the school where the dead and injured lay, but rather at the fire station several hundred feet away. This flies in the face of standard medical operating procedure where personnel are situated as close to the scene as possible.
There is no doubt that the school had ample room to accommodate such personnel. Yet medical responders who rushed to Sandy Hook Elementary upon receiving word of the tragedy were denied entry to the school and forced to set up primary and secondary triages off school grounds and wait for the injured to be brought to them.

Shortly after the shooting “as other ambulances from neighboring communities rolled up, sirens blaring, the first responders slowly realized that their training would be tragically underutilized on this horrible day. ‘You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well try,’” 44 year old
emergency medical technician James Wolff told NBC News. “’And when (we) didn’t have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it’s difficult.’

In light of this, who were the qualified medical practitioners that pronounced the 20 children and 7 adults dead? Who decided that none could be revived? Carver and his staff are apparently the only medical personnel to have attended to the victims—yet this was in the postmortem conducted several hours later. Such slipshod handling of the crime scene leaves the State of Connecticut open to a potential array of hefty civil claims by families of the slain.”(1)

Did a mass evacuation of the school take place?

“Sandy Hook Elementary is attended by 600 students. Yet there is no photographic or video evidence of an evacuation on this scale. Instead, limited video and photographic imagery suggest that a limited evacuation of perhaps at most several dozen students occurred.

A highly circulated photo depicts students walking in a single file formation with their hands on each others’ shoulders and eyes shut. Yet this was the image of a drill that took place prior to the event itself:

Most other photos are portraits of individual children.

Despite aerial video footage of the event documenting law enforcement scouring the scene and apprehending one or more suspects in the wooded area nearby the school, there is no such evidence that a mass exodus of children from the school transpired once law enforcement pronounced Sandy
Hook secure. Nor are there videos or photos of several hundred students and their parents at the oft-referenced fire station nearby where students were routed for parent pick up.”(1)

Sound bite prism and the will to believe

“Outside of a handful of citizen journalists and alternative media commentators Sandy Hook’s dramatically shifting factual and circumstantial terrain has escaped serious critique because it is presented through major media’s carefully constructed prism of select sound bites alongside a
widespread and longstanding cultural impulse to accept the pronouncements of experts, be they bemused physicians, high ranking law enforcement officers, or political leaders demonstrating emotionally-grounded concern.

Political scientist W. Lance Bennett calls this the news media’s “authority-disorder bias.” “Whether the world is returned to a safe, normal place,” Bennett writes, “or whether the very idea of a normal world is called into question, the news is preoccupied with order, along with related questions of
whether authorities are capable of establishing or restoring it.”

Despite Carver’s bizarre performance and law enforcement authorities’ inability to settle on and relay simple facts, media management’s impulse to assure audiences and readerships of the Newtown community’s inevitable adjustment to its trauma and loss with the aid of the government’s protective
oversight—however incompetent that may be—far surpasses a willingness to undermine this now almost universal news media narrative with messy questions and suggestions of intrigue. This well-worn script is one the public has been conditioned to accept. If few people relied on such media to develop their world view this would hardly be a concern. Yet this is regrettably not the case.

The Sandy Hook tragedy was on a far larger scale than the past year’s numerous slaughters, including the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and the Batman theater shooting in Colorado. It also included glaringly illogical exercises and pronouncements by authorities alongside remarkably unusual evidentiary fissures indistinguishable by an American political imagination cultivated to believe that the corporate, government and military’s sophisticated system of organized crime is largely confined to Hollywood- style storylines while really existing malfeasance and crises are without exception returned to normalcy.

If recent history is a prelude the likelihood of citizens collectively assessing and questioning Sandy Hook is limited even given the event’s overtly superficial trappings. While the incident was ostensibly being handled by Connecticut law enforcement, early reports indicated how federal authorities were on the scene as the 911 call was received.

Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration’s complicity or direct oversight of an incident that in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remained a key piece of Obama’s political platform.

The move to railroad this program through with the aid of major media and an irrefutable barrage of children’s portraits, “heartfelt” platitudes and ostensible tears neutralizes a quest for genuine evidence, reasoned observation and in the case of Newtown honest and responsible law enforcement.
Moreover, to suggest that Obama was not capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to similarly place ones faith in image and interpretation above substance and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought America to such an impasse.”(1)

Six Signs Sandy Hook Elementary School was Closed

The alternative media have blogged and made countless YouTube videos on what Wolfgang Halbig calls “things that don’t make sense” about the Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES).

Some of those “things that don’t make sense” are emergency medical helicopters not being called to the scene, parents showing no grief, donation websites with creation dates that preceded the massacre, government’s continuing refusal to release the death certificates and burial sites of the alleged victims, and homes with a sale transaction date of 12/25/2009 and a $0 sale price.

The decisive and most important issue — of whether the massacre actually happened is this:

Was Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) operational on December 14, 2012, or had it long been abandoned?

If the school already was closed, no children or teachers would be there on December 14 to be gunned down by Adam Lanza.

Here’s the evidence supporting the contention that SHES had long been abandoned:

1. What school’s neighbors said

In an interview with Halbig on Truth Radio Show on March 21, 2014, Infowars reporter Dan Bidondi said (5:45 mark), “The school’s been closed down for God knows how long. [Neighbors] can’t understand why there were kids in that building because it was condemned.”

2. Reports of SHES being contaminated with asbestos. requiring expensive repairs

SHES was built in 1956. Several reports in local newspaper The Newtown Bee indicate that years before the massacre, SHES was in a state of disrepair and contaminated with environmental toxins.
As examples, in 2002, Consulting Engineering Services recommended to the school district that SHES be “worked on in 2010 over a nine-month period” to upgrade and renovate its heating and ventilation system at a cost of $4.5 million.Two years later, in 2004, the Newtown Board of Education was told “there were serious problems with the Sandy Hook elementary school roof.” Four years later, in 2008, there was yet more bad news: SHES was contaminated with asbestos. (Remember that 2008 date.)

On October 5, 2013, nearly 10 months after the massacre, a city referendum passed by over 90% in support of the demolition and rebuilding of SHES with a generous $49.25 million grant from the State of Connecticut. The reason given for the demolition was “asbestos abatement”. On Dec 2, 2013, Newtown’s Public Building and Site Commission Chairman Robert Mitchell issued a report to justify the already-approved demolition.

He said that “had the town decided to reoccupy the school on Dickinson Drive, it would have faced a daunting and possibly insurmountable challenge regarding the presence of hazardous materials” because the school was contaminated by not just asbestos, but also PCBs under the flooring and in the foundations and footings.

Just think: If the city already knew in 2008 that the school was contaminated with asbestos and, in 2013, used the contamination to justify tearing it down, why would the same asbestos-contaminated school be safe for children and teachers to inhabit from 2008 through 2012? If SHES had remained open, wouldn’t the school district be sued for endangering public health? It makes more sense that the school was shut down in 2008 and remained closed, until the massacre provided Newtown with the financial means — a windfall of $50 million from the state — to tear down the school and build
a swanky, state-of-the-art replacement.

The New Sandy Hook Elementary School

 

3. Photographic evidence of an abandoned school

Crime scene photos of the exterior and interior of SHES — from the website of the State of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, and from a batch of photos that Halbig obtained via Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), some of which are posted on Jim Fetzer’s blog — are consistent with the appearance of an abandoned school.

Moss and grime covered the school building; repairs were left undone. Especially noteworthy, as pointed out by Jim Fetzer, is a dangerous, exposed metal rod on an exterior staircase (see #3 in photo
above)

Classrooms and hallways were used for storage, jammed with furniture and office supplies. If
those rooms and hallways were actually in an operational school, then SHES was in clear violation
of the fire safety code.

Then there is this photo of a pile of dust underneath an alleged bullet hole in a wall
outside Room 1C, which looks suspiciously like the debris from someone drilling a pretend
“bullet” hole into the ceramic wall-tile. There are painted red circles around the “bullet” hole and the
little pile of drilled dust underneath.

4. Absence of handicapped parking spaces and signage

But we don’t need crime scene photos for visual indicators of a long abandoned school. The many aerial photographic and video images of Sandy Hook Elementary School’s parking lot taken by news media on the day of the massacre would suffice, such as the one from a CNN news video. Although the CNN image on the next page shows a wheelchair symbol painted on a parking space closest to the school’s front door, it is not painted in the now-familiar blue and white colors that have become ubiquitous certainly by 2012.

As an example, an August 22, 2011 article by Debbie Moore for My Parking Sign stated: Americans with Disabilities Act signed in 1990 … details guidelines for every public area that needs to provide with ample accessibility options for the disabled….

ADA states the following rules that need to be followed while posting accessibility signs in designated areas –

The international symbol of accessibility should be posted on all accessible parking spaces marking the reserved spot. The accessibility symbol is the well-known picture of a person using a wheelchair on top of a blue background.

Van-accessible parking spaces to have additional ‘text’ or ‘sign’ below the accessibility symbol to mark the van-accessible area specifically.

Signs should be placed at such a height (at least 60 inches above surface) that they do not get obscured by any parked vehicles or other obstructions. ADA handicap parking signs (commonly known as Access Signs) posted must be viewable from the drivers’ seat of the vehicle and located right in view of parking spaces.”

But aerial images of SHES’s parking lot, including the CNN image, show no blue-and-white signage for designated handicap parking spaces, which would make the school in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the subsequent ADA Amendments Act of 2008 that broadened
the meaning of disabilities.

Indeed, Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 14-253a(h), clearly states that “Parking spaces designated for persons who are blind and persons with disabilities on or after October 1, 1979, and prior to October 1, 2004, shall be as near as possible to a building entrance or walkway and shall be fifteen feet wide including three feet of cross hatch, or parallel to a sidewalk on a public highway.”

Referring to that Connecticut state law, a 2009 ordinance of the town of Monroe, CT,about 9 miles from Newtown, specified that “Exterior accessible parking spaces [for the handicapped] shall be located on the shortest route . . . and identified by both a standing sign and painted on the pavement.”

But aerial views of SHES’s parking lot show no handicap standing signs or the distinctive blue-and-white handicap sign colors.”(1)

5. Absence of internet activity 2008-2012

“Arguably, the most compelling evidence that SHES had long been abandoned before the 2012 massacre is the testimony from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine of the school’s lack of of Internet activity from the beginning of 2008 through all of 2012.

The Wayback Machine is a digital archive of the Internet which uses a special software to crawl and download all publicly accessible World Wide Web pages. It was Jungle Server who first discovered that the Wayback Machine shows an absence of Internet activity from SHES since 2008 — the same year when the school was found to be contaminated with asbestos.”(1)

6.Wolfgang Halbig’s FOI hearing

“Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper, school principal and nationally recognized school safety expert, has been the leading researcher into the Sandy Hook affair.

On April 24, 2015, more than two years after Halbig first asked questions about Sandy Hook by phoning and writing letters to Connecticut officials invoking the FOIA, the state finally granted him the first of two hearings before the State of Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. The respondents were the Newtown Police Department, First Selectman Patricia Llodra, the Town of Newtown, and Newtown’s Board of Education. They were represented by attorney Monte Frank, a gun-control activist who founded Team 26, a cycling group that lobbies for gun control.

The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Newtown improperly withheld documents requested by Halbig. Halbig claims that he had requested the following documents from the respondents, but was denied — the denial being a violation of FOIA:

SHES maintenance work orders, including:

1. Copies of all maintenance work orders submitted by SHES principal Dawn Hochsprung (one of Lanza’s alleged victims who, strangely, was interviewed by The Bee about the massacre) or her designee to the school district maintenance department for any repairs, new classroom doors or painting from July 1, 2012 through December 13, 2012.

2. Copies signed by Hochsprung or her designee showing the date of completion of the repairs together with time stamps showing job completion.

3. Copies of all emails to and from Hochsprung and her assistant to various school district departments, e.g., food services provider, from May 1, 2012 through December 13, 2012.

The requested documents presumably could prove that the school was operational on the day of the massacre.

In a post on April 25, 2015, an anonymous contributor to SandyHookFacts.com, a blog that claimed to debunk Sandy Hook “conspiracy theorists,” triumphantly crowed that the FOI hearing was a “total failure” for Halbig because attorney Frank said time-stamped SHES maintenance work orders signed by Hochsprung or her designee had been made available to Halbig six months before the hearing.

SandyHookFacts.com is much too hasty and mistaken in its crowing, for in a memo on June 25, 2015, titled “Transmittal of Proposed Final Decision,” the State of Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) states the following:

“It is found that . . . the respondents, through counsel, also informed the complainant that the town had no records responsive to the request described.”

In other words, Newtown cannot produce evidence that in the months preceding the [alleged] massacre from May 1, 2012 through December 13, 2012, repairs were made on Sandy Hook Elementary School or that Hochsprung had exchanged emails with school district departments.

The reason is a simple one: the school was not operational, having been closed down for years, most probably since 2008 when it was discovered to be contaminated with asbestos.”(1)

Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax

“It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” –Sherlock Holmes (“The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet”)

In the photo above is Gene Rosen during a Fox News live interview of December 18, 2012, now known to have been filmed in front of a green screen, with the “everyone must check in” sign inserted in the background.

The New York Times, our nation’s newspaper of record, published a story on Connecticut’s “final report” on the Newtown shooting (December 27, 2013). In this article we are told that although the report contained “hundreds of photographs, hours of video, and voluminous crime scene reports… care was taken to conceal the most graphic crime scene images.” Not only that—the final report does not even include the names, ages, or sex of the alleged shooting victims (Figure Below). There was no actual identification of any of the dead. Even the News–Times of Danbury, CT, found it unsatisfying.

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Reports

Redaction Index

The New York Times was not worried, however, proceeding once again to retail the official story, seemingly satisfied that in place of the redacted pages are “detailed descriptions,” “eyewitness accounts,” and “snapshots” of emergency workers dashing around and supposedly interacting with the school’s teachers.

According to The Times, the report “did not appear to alter the broader understanding of the shooting”—the official version, that is, which the paper has promoted relentlessly despite massive evidence to the contrary. In this gross dereliction of duty, The Times has displayed not only its journalistic incompetence but, more grievously, its complicity in the perpetration of the Sandy Hook hoax.

This pattern of deceit extended to the Newtown Clerk’s secret arrangements with the state legislature to avoid releasing death certificates to the public, attempts to withhold the 911 calls, and gag orders that were imposed on those responsible for tearing down the school building itself.

In a letter accompanying the report, Reuben F. Bradford, the Commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, stated that “the names and contextually identifying information of involved children” were removed, including descriptions and images of the children, their clothing, and their belongings. “All visual images depicting the deceased have been withheld,” he added, “as well as written descriptions whose disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and would violate the constitutional rights of the families.”

According to Bradford, the investigation was “unparalleled in the one hundred and ten year history of the Connecticut State Police. Tens of thousands of hours were spent by investigators from all over the country tracking down leads, processing evidence, and doing everything within their collective ability to provide answers for the questions that remained in the wake of the terror that morning.”

With the issuing of the “final report,” the investigation “has been closed for administrative purposes.” However, this so-called investigation did nothing to reveal the truth of the matter but rather was part of the conspiracy to conceal the reality of the event from the public.

The basic principle that applies here is inference to the best explanation. Consider the totality of the evidence in this case. Is the evidence more probable on the hypothesis that Sandy Hook was a real event or that it was instead an exercise (a “drill”), which was presented as though it was a real
shooting? The hypothesis that confers the highest degree of probability based on the evidence is preferable. Despite the exhaustive investigation allegedly carried out by the Connecticut State Police, the official scenario is not feasible in terms of the evidence.

Here are the “top ten” reasons that support the conclusion that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and not real, where no children or adults appear to have died:

1. Proof of death has been suppressed

Twenty-eight people allegedly died: 27 children and adults, including Adam Lanza, at the school, and his mother, Nancy Lanza, in her home at 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown. However, there is no direct proof of anyone’s death: no photographic evidence or video footage was released to confirm the official story that these 28 persons actually died. In fact, no video surveillance footage shows anything—not even Adam shooting out the front plate-glass window or walking through the halls like Rambo, even though the school had supposedly updated its security system at the start of the 2012–2013 academic year.

Sandy Hook Elementary, alleged bullet hole
(2013 final report, Walkley scene photos).

The best the authorities could come up with was a heavily redacted “final report” (December 2013) that includes numerous photos of the inside of the school, with a few dings identified as bullet holes, several bullets and casings on the floor, and hundreds of black (redacted) images with white numbers, which we are supposed to associate with dead people

Sandy Hook Elementary, redacted image
(2013 final report, Meehan autopsy photos)

Compounding the situation, the parents were not allowed to view their children’s bodies to identify them. Instead, they were reportedly shown photographs of the deceased. This was done, according to the Medical Examiner, Wayne Carver, in order to “control” the situation. But what was there about the situation that required “control”? No normal parent would have agreed to accept the death of a child without viewing the body.

James Tracy has published a discussion of the medical examiner’s performance.

According to Carver:

Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took
pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We have, uh, uh—it’s easier
on the families when you do that. Uh, there is, uh, a time and place for
the up close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this
we felt it would be best to do it this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh …
You can control a situation depending on the photographer, and I have
very good photographers. Uh, but uh—

Remarkably, the state has done its best to avoid releasing the death certificates and even recordings of the 911 calls. Death certificates were eventually “released” but not to the public or those who might want to investigate the case further; only a short, general summary was available.

On June 5, 2013, Connecticut passed legislation (Public Act 13–311) blocking disclosure of photos or video images of (all) homicide victims, along with other records. According to Gov. Dannel Malloy, who signed the bill hours after it was passed, “all families have a right to grieve in private.”

The final version did not cover the 911 recordings, which were ordered released in late 2013, after Judge Eliot Prescott ascertained that “no children are identified by name, no callers indicate that they can see a child being shot, and the only injury described is that of an educator’s being shot in the foot.”

Moreover, the victims’ funerals were all “closed casket,” although the funeral of Noah Pozner supposedly included a private viewing before the public ceremony. As recounted in interviews with the families, the circumstances of their last encounters with their children (or with their caskets) are strange to say the least. The phony “love fest” at the white coffin of Grace McDonnell was detailed on CNN for Anderson Cooper.”(1)

2. Emergency protocols were not followed

“There is no evidence of any frantic effort to save lives or remove bodies to hospitals. Instead the scene outside the school looked calm and largely bloodless—with police and other personnel milling around casually and a severe shortage of dead or injured victims. One Sandy Hook researcher decided to call Lt. Paul Vance to ask who cleaned up the blood, which would have been considered a bio-hazard, and got the reply, “What blood?”

Sandy Hook Fire Chief Bill Halstead was ready to help the victims but could recall only two wounded people.

Sandy Hook Fire Chief Bill Halstead, in an interview on December 18,
2012, says he got word that “no one else would be coming out of the building.”

A few survivors were reportedly taken to the hospital, but, oddly, these people were never interviewed. There were no first-hand accounts that proved anyone was killed or injured. Nonetheless, by the afternoon of December 14, Lt. Vance had confirmed that 18 children were pronounced dead at the scene, two children were removed to an area hospital and died at the hospital, and seven adults were pronounced dead at the scene, including the shooter.

No emergency vehicles were present at the school or even lined up in the fire lane for a rescue attempt—the parking lot was filled with parked cars, police cars and possibly media vehicles. Such rescue activity as occurred was centered, not on the school premises, but at the nearby Firehouse. Emergency vehicles at the Firehouse were jammed together impeding access to the school, in case anyone might have thought about attempting a rescue.”(1)

“The scene at the Firehouse was quite peculiar, with people milling around and circling through the building, walking out one door and into another, to give the impression of lots of people and lots of action:

Crowds circling around and through the Sandy Hook Firehouse

Here’s a video of the action:

But it was all in accordance with FEMA manuals for drills.

3. Drill protocols were followed instead

“We are now living in a security state, and the school system is among its beneficiaries. While we used to have occasional “fire drills,” we now have “lockdown drills” implemented by school districts, with some states requiring a set number of drills by law. Private security firms, which operate for profit, now conduct “crisis preparedness assessments” at the taxpayer’s expense. Larger scenarios are also developed as active-shooter drills, in which local law enforcement can take part in storming a school in pursuit of an active-actor-shooter.

One such plan available on the web is “Operation Closed Campus,” developed in Iowa following guidance set forth by the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) of the US
Department of Homeland Security. According to protocol, everyone at the drill must check in, identification badges are issued to personnel and observers, and drinking water and restrooms are
available. Personnel include the director, staff, controllers, evaluators, actors, media personnel and “players” (agency employees) both in uniforms and civilian clothes.

“Gunshot wound victim” being made up for an active-shooter drill that took place in 2014 in Contra Costa County, CA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This protocol appears to have been followed at Sandy Hook, where many participants wore ID/identification badges on lanyards, a huge check-in sign is visible in one Gene Rosen interview (Above), water is available in quantity at the Firehouse, and even Port-a-Potties are at the ready. The check-in sign was inserted via green screen,
however, shown in an interview held days after the event, so its presence is controversial.

Sandy Hook Firehouse on December14, 2012, with drinking water for the participants, according to drill protocol.

An emergency preparedness drill took place on December 14, 2012 (9:00 am – 4:00 pm ET), in Bridgeport, CT, which is a 20 minute drive from Sandy Hook. The course, “Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters,” was run by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection/Emergency Management and Homeland Security. And a FEMA Mass Casualty Drill, “Emergency Response for Mass Casualties Involving Children,” was scheduled to take place on December 13 or 14, 2012 (location unspecified). The exercise was to target the following capabilities: Mass Prophylaxis, Mass Death of Children at a School by Firearms, Suicide or Apprehension of Unknown Shooter, Use of Media for Evaluation, and Use of Media for Information Distribution. This may have been the script for the Sandy Hook “shooting.”

The Sandy Hook “massacre” appears to have been an Integrated Capstone Event (ICE), an exercise run by FEMA to coordinate federal, state and local emergency response teams in the case of a mass-casualty event.

As such, it would have utilized actors and media partners to simulate a tragedy in order to train participants, and also to observe the reaction of the citizenry.”(1)

4. There was foreknowledge of the event

“The Connecticut state emergency system was taken over long before the “massacre” occurred, with a frequency change implemented five hours in advance of the “shooting.” Normal police and EMS dispatch protocol, using the Alpha Phonetic System for communications between officers and dispatchers, was replaced with staged transmissions by non-trained personnel.

In addition, tweets about the shooting began before it occurred, 34 a tribute was apparently uploaded one month before the event, and web pages honoring the victims, including a Facebook page R.I.P. Victoria Soto, were established before they had “officially” died.

And photos of the “evacuation” and “shooting” scene by Newtown Bee photographer Shannon Hicks were taken before December 14, 2012.”(1)

5. There were contradictory reports about the weapons

“According to initial reports, weapons used in the shooting included four handguns recovered at the scene, the only guns taken into the school (NBC). Then an AR–15 was said to have been found in the trunk of Lanza’s car (NBC). Then it was reported that Lanza may have carried only two handguns and that a rifle was also found in the school (NBC).

Wayne Carver, the Medical Examiner, said that all the victims were shot with the “long weapon.”
37 Lt. Paul Vance then said that a Bushmaster AR–15 assault weapon with high capacity magazines was used “most of the time” and that Lanza was carrying “many high-capacity clips” for the
weapon (Huffington Post).

In January 2013, Connecticut state police released a statement indicating that they had found three guns inside the school: a Bushmaster .223 caliber XM 15–E2S semi-automatic rifle with high capacity 30 round clips, a Glock 10mm handgun, and a Sig Sauer P226 9mm handgun.

The police said they also found an Izhmash Saiga–12 12-gauge shotgun in Lanza’s car (NBC). This is presumably the gun shown in a video aired on the night of December 14, 2012, by NBC. An evidence collection team and a policeman are shown finding the shotgun in the trunk of Lanza’s
Honda Civic— the policeman handles the gun without gloves and ejects the ammunition on the spot, destroying evidence in the process. 38 Some have seen two long guns in the trunk in the NBC video: the 12-gauge shotgun and the Bushmaster rifle.

Lt. Vance then asserted that Lanza had killed all his victims with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle (ctpost.com). Regarding the confusion, Vance told reporters, “It’s all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters.”

Perhaps “The Top Prize for Fantastical Reporting” goes to Fox News, however, which announced that a 12-gauge shotgun along with two magazines containing 70 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge shotgun rounds had been found in the glove compartment of Adam Lanza’s Honda Civic—that’s right, in the glove compartment.”(1)

6. Adam Lanza cannot have done the shooting

“Adam Lanza, reportedly a frail young man weighing 112 pounds with Asperger’s Syndrome, is said to have carried massive weaponry on his person when he shot his way into the Sandy Hook school and proceeded to kill 26 people and then himself. This after he supposedly killed his mother before driving to the school. It should of course be noted that Adam Lanza was initially listed in the Social Security Death Index as having died on December 13, 2012, one day before the alleged shooting.

 

 

A young Adam Lanza, who supposedly “fell
off the face of the earth” around 2009, with no record of
his activities since that time (CNN).

According to State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky, Lanza killed his 26 victims with the Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle and then killed himself with his Glock 10mm handgun. Lanza was also allegedly carrying three 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster as well as a Sig Sauer 9mm handgun. The victims were supposedly shot multiple times each in a fusillade of bullets from these military-style weapons. In order to wreak this havoc, he fired more than 150 rounds, and he carried more rounds in addition. Lanza was reportedly found dead wearing a bulletproof vest and military-style clothing (AP).

Bushmaster allegedly found inside the school (2013 final report, Walkley scene photos).

Glock and clip allegedly found inside the school (2013 final report, Walkley scene photos).

Sig Sauer and clip allegedly found inside the school (2013 final report, Walkley scene photos).

As Mike Powers, a professional military investigator and ballistics expert, has observed, this young man of slight build could not have carried all these heavy, bulky weapons and ammunition on his person.

Furthermore, since first responders were supposedly inside the school within seven minutes, there was not enough time for Lanza to have carried out the shooting as reported. In an interview with Joyce Riley, Powers states that Lanza could not have fired so many times continuously without destabilizing himself from the intense noise from the Bushmaster. As a novice, he could not have shot an AR–15 with such speed and accuracy, supposedly changing magazines 4–5 times without
a stoppage.

According to Lt. Vance on the night of the shooting, one victim survived. So in less than seven minutes—or less than five minutes according to the media—Lanza killed 26 people and then himself, producing only one injured victim. This is a 96% kill ratio, which is unheard-of accuracy among the most experienced marksmen. Mike Powers thinks the whole scenario is a physical
impossibility. He is not even convinced that Adam Lanza was a real person.

Oddly, considering the horrifying details of the alleged massacre, as well as Adam’s own suicide by shooting himself in the head with the Glock handgun, the 2013 final report photos show no obvious traces of blood or gore on Adam’s clothes, hat, gloves, or shoes.

Some of Adam Lanza’s alleged clothing removed from his body for
photography (2013 final report, Walkley scene photos).

The final travesty involves the weapons and other paraphernalia that were allegedly found in the Lanza house.

The “arsenal” supposedly included guns, Samurai swords, knives, a bayonet and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, according to search warrants released. Other items of interest were ear and eye protection, binoculars, holsters, manuals, paper targets, a military-style uniform, and Lanza’s NRA certificate (Fox). Lanza had reportedly compiled a spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide in 9-point type detailing 500 victims of other mass murders (CBS). We are supposed to believe this, and, at the same time, that Adam Lanza was a shy, quiet kid who didn’t like noise and chaos, as promoted by the PBS Frontline Special, “Raising Adam Lanza.”(1)

7. Key participants displayed inappropriate behavior

“There are many bizarre media reports and interviews of those associated with the “shooting.” Many of the participants seem to be actors (or intelligence operatives).

Some examples:

Wayne Carver—Medical Examiner Wayne Carver’s surreal press conference is one of the most startling of all the media offerings. Widely available on youtube, this event shows H. Wayne Carver II, a public official of some standing, clowning and acting outlandish—grinning strangely, making irrelevant comments, and basically appearing unknowledgeable and unprofessional (evidenced above).

Robbie Parker—Perhaps the most infamous press conference is that of Robbie Parker, the alleged father of victim Emilie Parker, speaking on a CNN report of December 15, 2012. He chuckles as he walks up to the camera (Figure 24), then gets into character by hyperventilating, and finally feigns distress as he talks about his daughter—reading from a cue card—and about the fund set up to help raise money “for Emilie.”(1)

Robbie Parker, walking up to the camera for his interview.

“The families—In addition to Robbie and Alissa Parker, other parents and family members take their turn in the spotlight, including (but not limited to) Mark and Jackie Barden, Jimmy Greene and Nelba Marquez–Greene, Ian and Nicole Hockley, Neil Heslin (alleged father of Jesse Lewis), Chris and Lynn McDonnell, Veronique Pozner, Carlee Soto, and David and Francine Wheeler. Anderson Cooper is the interviewer in two notable instances: his conversation with the McDonnells mentioned above, and an interview with Veronique Pozner.”(1)

The school nurse

“Numerous reports offer detailed and totally fictitious information, some of which was later abandoned in favor of more tenable versions. On the evening of December 14, a USA Today reporter said she had spoken with the school nurse (not identified by name), whom she had met on the street. The nurse told her that the gunman had come into her office, “they met eyes, she jumped under her desk,” and he walked out. The nurse said that the gunman was the son of the kindergarten teacher, who was known to her and “an absolutely loving person.” It later developed that Nancy Lanza had not been a kindergarten teacher at all, and that neither Nancy nor Adam had any proven connection to Sandy Hook school whatsoever.”(1)

USA Today reporting a fabricated story about the school nurse, the
gunman, and his mother the kindergarten teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Dawn Hochsprung

“In an embarrassing fiction, The Newtown Bee reported on December 14, 2012, that Dawn Hochsprung, the Sandy Hook school principal, told the paper that a masked man had entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots—more than she could count—that went “on and on.” Of course, Dawn Hochsprung was allegedly killed by Adam Lanza and so could not easily have provided this statement.  In fact, Dawn was said to have acted heroically, dying while lunging at the gunman—although one wonders who witnessed and reported this act of heroism.

On December 17, 2012, The Bee retracted the report and apologized: An early online report from the scene at the December 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School quoted a woman who identified herself to our reporter as the principal of the school. The woman was not the school’s principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the Friday morning attack. The quote was removed from subsequent online versions of the story, but the original story did remain in our online archive for three days before being deleted. We apologize for whatever confusion this may have caused our readers and for any pain or anguish it may have cause [sic] the Hochsprung family.”(1)

Gene Rosen

“Gene Rosen is one of the most prolific of the Sandy Hook media stars, giving animated and conflicting statements to a series of reporters (in English and Spanish). Considered a “good Samaritan” by the mainstream media, Gene supposedly harbored six children who ran away from the school, rode to his house on a school bus, sat down on his lawn and proceeded to cry and tell him that their teacher, Miss Soto, was dead. Strangely, Rosen took the children inside and gave them some toys to play with, instead of calling 911 like any normal person.

The Gene Rosen videos are important for the official narrative, in that they corroborate many of its details: the staccato gunfire (and thus a semi-automatic weapon) and hearsay evidence from the children (Lanza had a big gun and a little gun, Vicki Soto was killed, etc.). These incriminating
videos are some of the best evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.”(1)

Gene Rosen signaling to a “reporter” that he wants to start over, after bungling his lines in a
practice interview.

8. Photos at scene and of victims look staged or fake

“Many of the photos released to the public look staged or fake; here are some notable examples:

As mentioned above, Shannon Hicks photo of children being evacuated from the school— The only photo we have seen of any children being evacuated from the school was apparently taken earlier in the fall during a drill—no coats, smiling faces, leaves remaining on a few trees. Shannon Hicks of The Newtown Bee took the “iconic” photo (Figure 28) and claimed to have taken many others of the event—although no other children being evacuated were seen in those released to the media. Hicks reportedly took the famous photo “as an associate editor” and then, when another editor arrived, “changed into her firefighting gear and tried to help.” This heroic account was promoted by NPR on December 16.

An analysis of the Hicks “iconic” photo has shown that it was not taken around 10:00 am on the morning of December 14, 2012—the shadows are wrong for that time of day, no one’s breath has condensed into visible vapor (although the recorded temperature was 28 degrees F and frost appears on the ground in other photos), the markings on the parking lot are wrong, the positions of the vehicles and traffic cone do not match, etc. A recent sun-shadow analysis shows that the photo was taken at around 11:10 am, not at 10:09 am as alleged by Hicks, and clearly not on the cold morning of  December 14.

Indeed, another photo appeared (Below), showing what appears to be a preliminary staging for the famous “iconic” photo released worldwide. Here also is the line of students but in a somewhat different order. In addition, several onlookers stand in the foreground; the woman at center may have been snapping photographs, although there is certainly someone else taking pictures here—the photographer who captured this second image.

Shannon Hicks was named Photographer of the Year by the New England Newspaper and Press Association (NENPA) in February 2014, as well as receiving a first place award for Spot News Photo “for her iconic image of young students being led from Sandy Hook School by law enforcement
responders.” However, it has now emerged that Shannon Hicks uploaded a slideshow of 20 photographs to YouTube the day before the alleged shooting— including the staging shot (Above) among others. This slideshow was available by the evening of December 13, 2012, but released on December 14 as photos taken on that date, as documented by QKultra.

Photo of shattered plate glass window at entrance to Sandy Hook Elementary

Several photos from Connecticut’s December 2013 final report show the plate glass window that Adam Lanza allegedly shot out with his Bushmaster, and through which he entered the premises. But how did he get past the furniture, with all his weaponry, without moving anything out of position? Not only did Lanza squeeze through this hole and edge carefully through the narrow space between the couch and table, but so did ten policemen, all with their guns and gear, according to sworn affidavits. Yet nothing was pushed aside, and the magazine rack looks like it was moved
carefully away from the window.

Window with shattered glass, supposedly blown out by “the shooter,”
next to the front lobby doors (2013 final report, Walkley scene photos).

Many of the photos from the December 2013 final report look staged, such as those showing small numbers of bullets scattered over the school floor, or the unlikely shots of Adam Lanza’s clothing.

Just as insidious are photographs of the children who allegedly died at Sandy Hook, many of which were demonstrably altered via Photoshop. Most of the individual images of the children released to the media are peculiar—numerous images have a curiously similar background of green foliage, and
several look outdated and may be old photos.”(1)

The Firehouse had Sandy Hook School Signs

There was a deliberate attempt to give viewers of the event, the impression that the Firehouse near the Sandy Hook Elementary School was actually the Sandy Hook School. Signage was placed near the Firehouse to mislead the viewers:

The Firehouse is in the background.

This would make sense, since there was nothing happening at the actual school.

Parker family photos

“Some of the most problematic involve the Parker family, several of which show evidence of tampering. In two notorious photos, Emilie’s red-and-black dress appears in both: once worn by Emilie in a Photoshopped family photo (below) and then supposedly worn by her younger sister Madeline for the photo-op with Barack Obama (below).

Photoshopped image of the Parker family, showing the two youngest
girls missing their legs and Emilie, at right, apparently added to the image.

President Obama with children from the Parker family (and others), in which Emilie’s sister
Madeline is supposedly wearing her red-and-black dress.

Victoria Soto photos

Photos of Victoria Soto have emerged as Photoshopped creations. Images of Soto were inserted into photographs in which she did not originally appear, and several shots of her face were created from a single photo. The well-known photograph of Soto’s class of first grade students is an elaborate composite, released in a small format, low quality image. Soto is wearing the exact same outfit seen in another photo with green foliage background, although there she faces the other direction; that image was merely flipped and inserted into the class picture.

In doing so the creators had to reconstruct her right hand and did so poorly, cutting off her thumb with a vertical line. Ann Marie Murphy was also inserted, and her hand too is problematic.

The hands of the children are blurry, their eyes are fuzzy, and square and rectangular defects appear on their faces—all unnoticeable in a small image but readily seen when enlarged.

Soto’s class photo with defects visible in enlarged images (Megatronics Media).

Allison Wyatt/Lily Gaubert

In a likely sloppy slip-up, a photo of a real child, Lily Gaubert, who is apparently alive and well, was promoted in the media as an image of Allison Wyatt, an alleged victim. Lily’s mother supposedly discovered the error and made it public via Flickr.”(1)

Lily Gaubert (left) and Allison Wyatt (right).

Adam Lanza

The ridiculously fraudulent photographs of Adam Lanza clearly do not depict a real person:

9. The crime scene was completely destroyed

“As with Ground Zero after 9/11, Sandy Hook Elementary and all the evidence have been completely obliterated; $50 million in CT state funds were allocated for the demolition and rebuilding of Sandy Hook school. This would never have been tolerated if an actual crime had been committed—at least one that was meant to be investigated. The demolition of the school has been completed and a new school has been constructed (photos above).

As mentioned above, employees who worked on the project were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. They were not only prohibited from removing anything from the site, but they were forbidden from discussing publicly anything they may have observed or not observed during the demolition, such as an absence of bullet marks on the walls or blood on the floor of the classrooms.”(1)

10. Deceased children sang at the Super Bowl

“Research has resulted in a “Sandy Hoax Surprise,” a convincing youtube video by QKultra identifying eight alleged Sandy Hook victims and six brothers of victims singing in the Newtown children’s choir at the 2013 Super Bowl, February 3, 2013.

“Sandy Hook Elementary School Chorus” sings “America the
Beautiful” at Super Bowl XLVII, along with Jennifer Hudson and Sabrina Post of
Encore Productions.

Identified here are Charlotte Bacon, Olivia Engel, Josephine Gay, Grace McDonnell, Emilie Parker, Caroline Previdi, Avielle Richman, and Benjamin Wheeler, along with victims’ brothers Guy Bacon, Jake Hockley, Freddy Hubbard, Jack McDonnell, Walker Previdi, and Nate Wheeler.

Screen capture from “Sandy Hoax Surprise.”

One more victim has been identified since the original video, Noah Pozner, making a total of 15 out of the 26 children in the choir who were from the Sandy Hook “families.” The newly recognized victims are all older than they appear in the photos released at the time of the “shooting,” giving credence to the theory that the victims’ photos we were shown were outdated images.

The children in the Newtown choir, whoever they are, seem quite happy to be singing at the Super Bowl, smiling and running across the field after the event—giving no sign of the trauma they had suffered less than two months prior.”(1)

Cui bono?

The evidence thus demonstrates that:

(1) proof of death was suppressed

(2) emergency protocols were not followed

(3) drill protocols were followed instead

(4) there was foreknowledge of the event

(5) there was confusion over the weapons supposedly used

(6) Adam Lanza cannot possibly have carried out the shooting as claimed

(7) strange and inappropriate behavior was displayed by officials, witnesses, and relatives

(8) many odd photos of the participants and premises were released

(9) the crime scene was destroyed under conditions of secrecy

(10) as many as nine of the children who were supposedly murdered appeared on television singing at the Super Bowl seven weeks later.

With the possible exception of (5) and (9), all these features yield a low probability that Sandy Hook was a massacre but a high probability that it was a staged psy-op tied to a drill. Some of them are decisive by themselves, such as (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6)—not to mention (10). And nothing else about this event supports the conclusion that it was real as reported. Although this may be hard to believe for some—“no one could have faked a massacre like this,” “we watched the funerals on TV,” or “there were too many people involved and someone would have spilled the beans”—the evidence is conclusive. To return to the maxim of Sherlock Holmes, “when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

So who did it and why? The “shooter” Adam Lanza had no apparent motive, as even the 2013 final report acknowledged: Why did the shooter murder twenty-seven people, including twenty children? Unfortunately, that question may never be answered conclusively… there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.

But all good detectives will look for a motive when investigating a crime. When considering cui bono (who benefits), a large amount of money is at stake–and much of it has already been distributed.”(1)

Follow the money

“First of all, the construction industry got a boost, with the $50 million in Connecticut state funds allocated for the destruction of Sandy Hook School and rebuilding of a new school on the premises. And this from a state with a projected budget deficit of $1.1 billion for the 2015–2016 fiscal year.
The Sandy Hook School Support Fund raised approximately $12 million and distributed it to the Newtown– Sandy Hook Community Foundation, overseen by Ken Feinberg, “a victim compensation master with a national reputation,” according to United Way of Western Connecticut. And the Support Fund/United Way posted its condolences on December 11, 2013, which was three days before the actual event. The Sandy Hook School Support Fund paid $281,000 to each of the victims’ families, as well as $20,000 each to the families of 12 children who reportedly witnessed the shootings but survived, and $150,000 to two teachers who were injured.

The families have also raised additional funds through private organizations with their own websites—some of which were apparently advertised on the web in advance of the shooting. These include efforts such as 26 Miles for Caroline (Previdi), the Musical Benefit for Catherine Hubbard
Foundation, Ben’s Lighthouse (Benjamin Wheeler), and Noah’s Ark of Hope (Noah Pozner). All of the victims, both children and adults, have had memorial funds established in their names to collect money.

“Sandy Hook Promise,” which actively solicits money “to protect children and prevent gun violence by providing awareness, education, and programs in the areas of mental health, mental wellness, and gun safety,” currently boasts over 434,000 people who have made the “Sandy Hook Promise” to turn the “tragedy into a moment of transformation.” Nicole Hockley and Mark Barden are staff members. As part of their fund-raising efforts, the group sells car decals, wrist bands, T-shirts, and OPI limited-edition Sandy Hook Green nail polish. The latest estimate of funds available to Sandy Hook Promise is $3 million.

OPI’s Limited-edition Sandy Hook GreenNail Polish for a donation of
$26 to Sandy Hook Promise.

The federal government has also forked over a lot of taxpayer money, including a $150,000 federal grant to Newtown to pay for two “school resource officers” (aka police), $1.5 million from the US Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime, and $2.5 million in federal funds from the DOJ to compensate the Connecticut State Police, the town of Newtown, the town of Monroe, and other partner agencies. In June 2014, the DOJ gave Newtown another $7.1 million for mental health counseling for families, law enforcement, and first responders. In December 2014, another $775,914
was donated by the DOJ Office for Victims of Crimes for Sandy Hook victims, their families, first responders, and members of the Newtown Community.

In addition, the US Department of Education has awarded a total of $3.2 million to the Newtown Public School District under Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence) to help with ongoing recovery efforts following the shooting. 85 This total of $15.2 million in hush money is sure
to keep the lid on things for now.

The latest edition of the video “We Need To Talk about Sandy Hook,” lists a total of $131,009,229 in grants and donations, including the $50 million for the new school, 86 but this is only a partial accounting. Indeed, the total amount of money raised to date cannot easily be calculated. A 2014 Connecticut report on charitable donations lists organizations such as The Animal Center, Inc., Newtown Forest Association, Inc., Sandy Hook Arts Center for Kids, and Angels of Sandy Hook Bracelets, all raising funds for Sandy Hook Elementary.”(1)

Gun control

“The issue of gun control gained ground after the Sandy Hook “shooting,” with widespread coverage in the mainstream press, expertly juxtaposed with maudlin stories about the fallen children to tug at the nation’s heartstrings. The families have been out in force, appearing on television and in print,
lobbying for gun control in the states and the US capitol. By now, their stories are known to everyone in America.

In late February 2013, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a relentless gun-control advocate, used his clout to meet separately with Vice President Biden and several senators. At the same time, Neil Heslin, father of alleged victim Jesse, testified tearfully at a Senate hearing on the banning of assault
weapons. Publicity surged in late March, when authorities allegedly found a huge cache of guns, ammunition, and exotic weaponry in the Lanza home, publishing a detailed list and photos (see above, reason #6).

On April 2, 2013, the United Nations “Arms Trade Treaty” regulating the international trade in conventional arms was passed by the General Assembly. 90 On April 8, 2013, 12 parents of the Sandy Hook “victims” flew with President Obama to Washington, D.C., aboard Air Force One to lobby congress on gun-control legislation put forward by the White House—which ultimately failed. The continuing media blitz has created an impression that the Sandy Hook hoax was all about gun control. Meanwhile, however, the gun industry has benefited immensely.

The New York Times reported in 2013 that around 1,500 state gun bills had been introduced in the year following the shooting, with 109 becoming law. However, nearly two-thirds of these laws ease legal restrictions and support the rights of gun owners. This may have been an unintended consequence of an intentional plan.

Nonetheless, it is not clear that the Sandy Hook event was carried out solely with the aim of passing gun-control legislation. More plausibly it was a Gladio-type operation—implementing a strategy of tension with real and simulated events in order to control and oppress the population.

It does appear that the government is out to disarm the American public, if not by legal means then ultimately by seizure. The efforts of “the families” at promoting gun-control legislation may merely be a pretext, a prelude to accustom us to the idea; the increasing number of false-flag shootings may eventually be used as grounds to round up weapons. This would involve a beefed-up security apparatus, which is already in progress.”(1)

The security state

“The already immense and rapidly growing “security industry” has also benefited from the Sandy Hook “massacre,” as we, the citizens of the United States, lose more of our Constitutional rights (see above, reason #3). Efforts to increase security in schools—and even arm teachers—are underway. 94
This suggests an orchestrated charade in which more gun violence is partnered with more guns in society, but held only by the approved authorities.

The Sandy Hook families have pushed continually for increased security measures along with gun control legislation, starting right after the “shooting.”

Some are now directly involved with security companies, such as the Gay, Parker, Mattioli, and Rekos families, which are affiliated with “Safe and Sound,” a non- profit started by Michele Gay
and Alissa Parker, mothers of alleged victims Josephine Gay and Emilie Parker (who, by the way, were both identified in the children’s choir that sang at the 2013 Super Bowl). Safe and Sound is partnered with NaviGate Prepared, a for-profit “school safety emergency response system,” as well as with several other “sponsors.”(1)

Mental health screening and treatment

“In a 2015 TEDxTalk, Nicole Hockley relates gun violence to mental health issues, another pervasive concern of the Sandy Hook parents. After reciting the statistics on shooting deaths, she urges us to learn how to “identify children who may be troubled and get them help…to insure that those that are crying out for help on social media are properly investigated before they hurt themselves or someone else…” We can find out about all the actions that we can take, “focused on identification and intervention,” at the Sandy Hook Promise website.

This is part of a more subtle but insidious effort to promote mental health screening and the consequent treatment (medication) of the “mentally unstable” in our society, based upon an event that did not take place.  We are asked to consider Adam Lanza’s “mental illness,” which was supposedly “completely untreated,” based on unverified information in a November 2014 report of the State of Connecticut’s Office of the Child Advocate.

We are told that Adam had Autism Spectrum Disorder, Anxiety, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, as well as possible undiagnosed Anorexia, and was deprived of recommended services and drugs. It is here that we learn Adam was 6 feet tall and weighed 112 pounds. The report resulted in
numerous recommendations, based on the fictional medical and psychological evaluation of Adam Lanza, including universal mental-health screening for children ages birth to 21, and the evaluation of children by the school system.

The report exposes one purpose of the Sandy Hook event: a “dramatically intensified bureaucratic and quasi-scientific control over the everyday lives of children alongside the continued erosion of the family itself.”(1)

Trauma-based mind control & “The Revelation of the Method”

“Beyond all these agendas, the Sandy Hook “massacre” was an exercise in trauma-based mind control, employed with increasing frequency in the US (and throughout the world) since the mega-trauma of 9/11. As with 9/11, the official Sandy Hook narrative is nothing like what really happened, as proven again and again by an army of independent researchers. The official version is recounted in detail at Wikipedia—the go-to source for the propaganda that the intelligence state wishes to convey.

This false and illogical account is transmitted through all forms of media—TV, radio, newspapers, websites, and magazines, many of which have been taken over in toto by the intelligence services since 9/11. The evolving account has become so confusing, with its inconsistencies and contradictions, that most people find it easier to accept the official story and go about their business—resulting in a nation of people who can no longer think for themselves, even when confronted with the obvious. On the most basic level, mass terror and tragedy are used to frighten the public into acquiescence, causing people to band together as a community and turn to their leaders for guidance.

Thus the seemingly endless series of violent assaults in the form of terrorist attacks, lone-wolf shootings, and white-on-black police killings, all to keep us focused on these horrifying acts and not on the looting of the US treasury or illegal foreign wars. Perhaps the most significant achievement of the Sandy Hook event was the creation of a terrifying crisis that did not actually occur—but was vividly portrayed in the media—allowing the perpetrators both to achieve their objectives and to
gauge the public’s response.

Would-be investigators have also been taken in—chasing red herrings, delving deeply into individual facets of the mystery, and grasping at anomalies in an effort to solve the crime. We too are manipulated, as the perpetrators allow details to emerge—The Revelation of the Method— and watch our reaction. Thus Governor Malloy’s statement that “the Lieutenant Governor and I have been spoken to in an attempt that we might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our state,” or Wayne Carver’s “I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” Likewise the “Please Check In” sign, Gene Rosen’s practice interview, and memorial websites posted before the date of the tragedy.

Part of this ploy is the ridicule of the populace, a “macabre nose-thumbing at our complete indifference to our mental enslavement,” such as the smiling relatives and weird interviews, Noah Pozner shown among photos of the victims of a Taliban attack in Pakistan, the myriad police photos providing no evidence, and—the ultimate joke on every sentient person—the students alive and well and singing at the Super Bowl. Such stunts are intentional, and are not only fun for the perpetrators but are seen to enhance their power.

In the face of this brutal violence, we are told to choose LOVE. This was expressed by the resigned and even cheerful parents and other participants in their interviews, even though their relatives and friends had died in a horrific bloodbath only one or two days earlier. This has also occurred with other recent manufactured acts of terror, such as the Boston Marathon Bombing and the recent Charleston church shooting. People choose love, resilient communities magically bond together, and everyone moves on to the healing process—immediately.

Such hoaxes involve government at the highest levels, as shown by Obama’s visit to Newtown (and Boston and Charleston), the use of Air Force One to fly the families to Washington, D.C., and Francine Wheeler’s White House Weekly Address (April 13, 2013). 107 Such government complicity has been demonstrated for the assassination of JFK, the attacks of 9/11, and beyond. In the face of such vast conspiracies, it is hard to know how to view the world.

When one understands the Sandy Hook psy-op, however, things come into focus. When contemplating our current predicament—the incessant “mass shootings” and their promotion in the media, the trashing of the constitution and rise of the security state, and the use of false flags and fake data to direct policy on everything from “climate change” to the “war on terror”—we can
study the lessons of Sandy Hook, and navigate accordingly.”(1)

Cites:

(1) Nobody Died at Sandy Hook

 

Albert Einstein was a Fraud

Like so many other people on this Earth, I was led to believe that Albert Einstein was the “Greatest” scientist that the world has ever known.

But just as so much of so-called ‘history’ has been fabricated in order to brainwash the public into believing myths that serve the parasitic controllers, so was Albert Einstein created into a mythic figure in order to support those ends.

Unfortunately, many generations of trusting students have been brainwashed into believing in this fraud, and hailed Einstein as a shinning example of scientific genius.

He was nothing of the sort. Einstein was a total fraud.

The Einstein Time Line (1)

1700

Newton predicts the deflection of light around the sun, something Einstein plagiarized as his 1911 prediction without even mentioning, much less citing, Newton.
1801 Johann Georg von Soldner publishes his predictions which Einstein plagiarizes as his own predictions 114 years later, never citing Soldner in “his” 1915 paper.
1827 78 years before Einstein gets credit for it, Robert Brown in Scotland explains Brownian Movement, yet Einstein never even cited him.
1878 James Maxwell in Scotland publishes Special Theory of Relativity in Encyclopedia Britannica, which Einstein then publishes as his own in 1905, without ever even citing Maxwell [it seems incomprehensible that Einstein could have copied an article from an encyclopedia, submitted it as his own work, and never get questioned by the hundreds of professors and publishers who must have reviewed it].
1879, March 14 Einstein born in Württemberg, Germany
1887 Michelson-Morley experiment suggests there is no ether, an observation made by Einstein in his 1905 papers in which he never even cited Michelson or Morley.
1888 Heinrich Hertz publishes his paper on the photoelectric effect, a paper which Einstein failed to cite.
1889 George Fitzgerald in Ireland publishes his paper about the theory of relativity, a paper which Einstein never even cited, even though Fitzgerald’s numerous collaborators did cite him.
1890 Ludwig Boltzmann of Austria and Josiah Gibbs of the US develop the Boltzmann Constant.
1892 Hendrik Lorentz in the Netherlands publishes the Lorentz Transformations.
1895 At age 16, Einstein fails a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich, Switzerland.
1896 At age 17, Einstein becomes a high school drop out, his German citizenship is revoked, and he enrolls in the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich.
1898 Paul Gerber in Germany publishes the exact equations in Annalen der Physik (also in “Science of Mechanics”, a book that Einstein is known to have studied) which Einstein publishes 17 years later in 1915 as his “perihelion motion of Mercury”, in exactly the same journal, with no cites to Gerber, claiming that he was “in the dark”, only to confess in 1920 to his crime, under pressure.
1898 Poincare in France wrote the paper on the theory of relativity, which never mentions Einstein, which Einstein plagiarizes as one of his 1905 papers without ever citing Poincare.
1900 Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien of Germany develop the quantum theory which Einstein plagiarizes as his “Light Quantum” paper in 1905, never even citing either Planck or Wien.
1901 At age 22, after five years at Swiss Federal Polytechnic School, Einstein graduates with the lowest grade point average in the class, becomes a Swiss citizen, and gets the lowest ranking position an engineer could get in the patent office, technical assistant.
1902 Einstein sires his first mental mushroom, an illegitimate daughter Lieserl, who’s believed to have had Downs Syndrome and was put up for adoption.
1903 Olinto de Pretto publishes E=mc^2 in Atte, a scientific magazine known to be read by Einstein, which he later claimed as his own work, never citing de Pretto.
1904 Einstein sires his only normal child, Hans Albert, whose main claim to fame seems to have been to keep up his subscription to Applied Mechanics Review for 20 years.
1904 Friedrich Hasenohrl of Germany, citing J.J. Thomson of England and W. Kaufmann of Sweden, publishes E=mc^2 in the very same journal as Einstein plagiariazes it as his own in 1905, never citing any of the three.
1905 Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard, under whom Einstein’s wife studied, received a Nobel Prize for discovering the photo-electric effect, which Einstein then completely plagiarizes the SAME year, presenting it as “his” paper, with no references to Lenard.
1905 June 5th, Poincarre publishes Sur la dynamique de l’electron, naming the Lorentz Transformations after Lorentz, and 25 days later, on June 30th, Einstein, failing to even cite Poincarre or Lorentz, presents it as his theory of relativity.
1905 At age 26, while still a low level technical assistant at the patent office, he publishes 4 groundbreaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics in Annalen der Physik, gaining him a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich and worldwide support from Zionists. He includes his WIFE Marity’s name on the papers who is rumored to have done all his math for him, who he gave all the prize money.
1907 J. Precht says of Einstein’s ridiculous twist of logic “Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)” that such an experiment “lies beyond the realm of possible experience”.
1909 At age 30, four years after getting his Ph.D, this “genius” is still a technical assistant at the patent office, so World Jewry arranges to promote him to associate professor at Zurich University.
1910 Einstein sires his second mental mushroom, Eduardo, who dies in a sanatorium in 1965.
1919, November 7 London Times begins the jew disinformation campaign, heralding Einstein as a “genius”
1915, November 20 David Hilbert presents his paper in Berlin, citing Marcel Grossmann, including precisely the same field equations that Einstein presents as his own equations 5 days later (2 weeks after it was known that Einstein had received a copy of Hilbert’s paper and that Hilbert hadn’t received a copy of Einstein’s paper).  Dingle repudiates the special theory of relativity in 1972
1915, November 25 Einstein presents “his” paper and publishes the General Theory of Relativity based on the mathematics of Marcel Grossmann and Berhard Riemann, first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.
1921 Einstein’s first visit to the US to promote Zionism.
1922 Einstein receives a Nobel Prize concerning the photoelectric effect, something he plagiarized from Heinrich Hertz, but who Einstein never even cites.
1932, December 9 Einstein was denied a visa to visit the US because of his “communist connections”.
1955, April 18 Einstein dies.
1972 Herbert Dingle refutes the special theory of relativity which Einstein plagiarized from him in 1915.
1993 Peter Beckman writes that Special Relativity will eventually be dismissed.
1995 The Global Positioning Satellite “works fine”, in spite of Einsteinians’ concerns that they ignored Einstein’s “theories”.
1998, December 21 Tom Van Flandern publishes in Physics Letters A that the speed of gravity must be at least 20 billion times faster than the speed of light, disproving “Einstein’s” theories.
1999 Time Magazine puts Einstein on the front cover as “person of the century”, even though he wasn’t an American, he was an enemy foreign agent, the American public never viewed Einstein as even one of their most favorite 100 people of the year, much less the century, and the last picture we want on our coffee tables is one of a LYING PLAGIARIZING demagogue.
2000 Anedio Ranfagni proves that “Einstein’s theory” about the constant speed of light is wrong.

 

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” — Albert Einstein

The Einstein Myth

“The “Einstein myth” has become so ingrained in popular thought that many of the current generations will be loath to part with it. It does make a terrific story: a student whom his teachers thought would not amount to anything, a sloppy dresser who abhorred wearing socks or even neatly combing his hair, should later be revealed to be the greatest scientist of all time. A solitary genius who without any significant help from anybody, re-arranged the universe. Like most fine stories that sound too good to be true, the “Einstein myth” is really too good to be true. The Nobel Prize winning chemist Linus Pauling once said (on a completely unrelated topic) that it takes a generation before people will accept a truly new idea. Current generations, weaned on the “Einstein myth” will not bear to part with it.

Women and men of newer generations, not weaned on the myth, willing to investigate the evidence for themselves, and not wedded to any ideology or point of view, will approach the issue of Einstein’s authorship of the Special Theory of Relativity and the formula “E=mc²” with fresh eyes.”(1)

“The Einstein Hoax consists of maintaining the quasi-religious belief that the phenomena associated with velocity and gravitation cannot be understood by ordinary men using their common sense. It can only be understood in terms of mathematics performed by initiates who possessed the prerequisite degrees. Whether it is recognized or not, all of the essentials of a religion are present.
 
There is a deity in the form of Dr. Einstein, who, like most of the men who have had that role thrust
on them over the centuries, probably did not seek or even relish it. It has an established but unproven set of truths which were revealed by that deity. Finally, it is protected by selected defenders of the faith who, in this case, act through the peer review process to insure that heresy in any form is never published.
 
A primary motive for the maintaining of the Einstein Hoax is rather obvious, it’s money. Society expends a large sums supporting this priesthood through tuition paid by parents and grants by governments and industry. The donors believe they are paying for the teaching of the young, however, that teaching is mostly done by graduate students who are seeking their own degrees. The established possessors of the necessary degrees spend most of their time in research because, not only is that activity more interesting, it serves to advance their tenure protected careers. Should Special and/or General Relativity be shown to be fundamentally flawed, the careers of Relativists, most Cosmologists, and those working on Quantum Gravity and/or Unified Field Theory will have been wasted.
 
The publication of Special Relativity provided a golden opportunity for the majority of the academic community. Under the interpretations of Nature provided by Special Relativity the door was opened for the majority of its members who were without the talent required to understand its workings. At the same time, those with the necessary talent needed to understand reality instinctively recognized that contradictions were implicit in Special Relativity and could not accept the subject as it was presented. (Teachers of Special Relativity report that a significant percentage of intelligent and mathematically skilled students cannot master the subject.)
 
The inability to accept Special Relativity, as presented, effectively eliminates individuals with a strong sense of reality (which by another name is called common sense) from the ranks of those who acted as advisors to PhD candidates and from the roles of those who perform the peer reviews which determine what is published in scientific journals. As a result, a selection process was gradually put in place which insured that only material which did not threaten the validity of Special and General Relativity was published. Material which appeared to be a threat, no matter how powerfully presented and how intellectually and observationally valid, was effectively squelched.
 
On the other hand, material which supported Special and General Relativity, no matter how trivial or
absurd, was readily published. Once this point was reached, it was possible to make the claim that
the subject matter could not be understood in terms of common sense. It could only be understood
in terms of mathematics and there were a limited number of minds in the world who could truly
comprehend Dr. Einstein’s work.
 

Metaphysical Priest-Kings

Early civilizations were based upon the invention of agriculture and the ability to determine the
proper time for planting and harvesting crops was very important. In those societies, a small group
of men studied the heavens and learned how to divine the seasons from the positions of the Sun,
Moon, Planets, and Stars. Instead of passing along their knowledge, they kept it to themselves and
became priests who provided life and death information for society as a whole. As a result of their
monopoly of vital knowledge, more and more power and wealth flowed to them and in time they
formed a religion.
 
That religion eventually became the basis of all powerful states ruled by god-kings. In such a society, heresy was the most heinous crime imaginable, with revelation of the secrets of the religion to the masses a close second. From the vantage point of history, the motivation of these priests was obvious. They worked to achieve enormous power and luxury for themselves at the expense of the peasants. They did not work for the benefit of society as a whole.
 
The establishment of the relativistic effects as a mystery which could not be understood in terms of common sense placed the community of physicists into a position similar to that of those ancient priests. They possessed knowledge which could only be understood by those individuals who possessed the appropriate PhD in Physics. Naturally, no one whose innate sense of reality caused him to question the conclusions of Relativity ever received such a degree.”(2)
 

Albert’s Early Years

 “Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg in the German Empire, on 14 March 1879. His parents were Hermann Einstein, a salesman and engineer, and Pauline Koch.

The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews, and Albert attended a Catholic elementary school in Munich from the age of 5 for three years. At the age of 8, he was transferred to the Luitpold Gymnasium (now known as the Albert Einstein Gymnasium), where he received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left the German Empire seven years later.

In 1895, at the age of 16, Einstein took the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich. He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination, but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.

After returning to secondary school and completing his education, Einstein,  though only 17, enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Zürich Polytechnic.

Albert and Mileva

Einstein’s future wife, Mileva Marić, also enrolled at the Polytechnic that year. She was the only woman among the six students in the mathematics and physics section of the teaching diploma course.

Over the next few years, Einstein and Marić’s friendship developed into romance, and they read books together on extra-curricular physics in which Einstein was taking an increasing interest. In 1900, Einstein was awarded the Zürich Polytechnic teaching diploma, but Marić failed the examination with a poor grade in the mathematics component, theory of functions.”(3)

“Maric remained the only woman studying physics at the Swiss Polytechnic the entire time Einstein was there. Maric was four years Einstein’s senior. She was a Serb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, short of stature, had a limp and was extremely bookish. In addition to taking the exact same course-work in college that Einstein took, Maric studied on her own for one semester in Germany under Phillipe Lenard, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered the photo-electric effect (which was explained in one of the 1905 papers attributed to Einstein).

Soon the two physics students fell in love and began living together, sharing love and textbooks. The work they would do together would change the world of science and re-arrange the universe. Maric is finally beginning to be noticed among scholars. Her achievements were first chronicled by Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric in her book In the Shadow of Albert Einstein, which, unfortunately, has been published only in German. Because Trbuhovic-Gjuric relied on oral reports of friends of the Einsteins her documentation is not considered rigorous enough. Trbuhovic-Gjuric writes that Maric always considered herself as partner of Einstein, and when asked why she did not insist on more of the credit for their joint work, she replied, “We are one stone; Einstein.
 
The Serbian scholar Dord Krstic has written about Maric’s close working relationship in an Appendix to the book, Hans Albert Einstein: Reminiscences of his LIfe and our LIfe Together, written by Elizabeth Einstein, the wife of Einstein’s son, Hans Albert Einstein. Senta Toremel-Ploetz has written a noteworthy article on Maric, “Mileva Einstein Maric, the woman who did Einstein’s mathematics” in Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 13, no. 5 (1990).
 
By far the most interesting and insightful writer on Maric is Dr. Evan Harris Walker, who literally has turned the Einstein image around, crediting Maric with having formulated the Special Theory of Relativity as well as other ideas now commonly attributed to Einstein. Many other popular writers have adopted the insights of Dr. Walker; it is his manuscript Ms. Einstein (1990) that remains the leading work so far on the collaboration between Einstein and Maric. Dr. Walker is hereby credited for the information and ideas contained in this article. It was he who first seriously pushed the idea of an Einstein/Maric collaboration. And what a collaboration it was! The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein prove to any open-minded person, that Maric did indeed collaborate on the authorship of Einstein’s famous papers in 1905. Einstein even uses the word “collaboration”. Just a sample quote from Albert to Mileva from their love letters: “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion!”
 

Our work ???

 
Senta Troemmel Ploetz, in her excellent paper, quotes Einstein as telling his friends that his wife did his math for him. When one realizes the highly mathematical aspect of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, which relies heavily on derivations of the Lorentz transformations, then one can see the importance of having a first-rate mathematician’s help.
 
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein even have a photo-static copy of one of Albert’s college notebooks, in which Mileva has gone through and corrected Albert’s math! Yet the myth of the isolated Einstein working alone, who all by himself, without help from anyone, wrote four brilliant papers on physics in 1905, endures. These papers included the work on Special Relativity; the photo-electric effect; an explanation of Brownian motion; and the famed formula, E=mc². All this is detailed in the Love Letters and in Dr. Walker’s paper, Ms. Einstein.
 
Yet the “Einstein Establishment” has been reluctant to recognize the important role Maric played. John Stachel, the first editor of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, has recently moved away from previous statements that Maric was a mere “sounding board” for Einstein, and has grudgingly stated that she has played a “small but significant role” in Einstein’s work.
 
But was her role really so small?
 
In addition to the many references to joint work and swapping of textbooks, Dr. Walker has found fascinating evidence that Mileva Maric may have actually put her name on the original manuscript of the Special Relativity. Naturally, the original manuscript for the Special Relativity paper is missing. It was lost during Einstein’s lifetime. Yet, Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physics graduate of the ETH is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, “Einstein-Marity” (Marity being the Hungarianized version of Maric’; at that time Serbia was under the dominion of Austro-Hungarian empire). Joffe died in 1961. (see Ms. Einstein by Evan Harris Walker.)
 
It is interesting that Joffe would remember the name as “Einstein-Marity” since “Marity” was the Hungarianized version of Maric. Mileva Maric rarely wrote her name as “Marity” except on important formal documents, such as her wedding certificate. That Joffe would remember the name specifically as “Marity” lends credence to his having seen the original Special Relativity manuscript. It is extremely unlikely that Joffe could have made a mistake.
 
Moreover, when Albert admitted adultery and divorced Mileva in 1919, he promised that in the event he should win the Nobel Prize all the money-not part of the money but all the money-would go to Mileva. According to the Einstein biography, Subtle is the Lord, Einstein kept his promise. When he received the Nobel Prize money in 1922 (he was awarded the prize for the year 1921; the award was announced and he received the money in 1922) Albert did indeed give Mileva all the money from the Nobel Prize. Why all the money?
 
There are other strange aspects to Einstein’s life. Einstein was extremely secretive about his first marriage. It was only in 1987, with the publication of the Love Letters between Albert and Mileva that we find out Einstein fathered a daughter, named Lieserl, the first child of Albert Einstein and Mileva Maric. Nobody really knows what happened to this child; there is a mention in one of the letters to her having scarlet fever and it is believed that the child was put up for adoption in Serbia. Albert never breathed a word about her publicly during his lifetime, which is quite strange.
 
The Love Letters also make clear that Mileva Maric was absolutely hated by Einstein’s mother,
Pauline, who protested to her son that Mileva was, “a book like you.” Still, despite his mother’s
fierce objections, Einstein stubbornly went ahead and married her. It was during this marriage
that Einstein is credited with producing the 1905 papers which made him famous.
 
After they married, Mileva bore Albert two more children, sons Hans Albert and Eduard. Eduard suffered psychological troubles throughout his life, and according to Dord Krstic was even seen by Sigmund Freud.
 
Maric seems never quite willing to take complete credit for the work she did. Much has been made of Maric never having graduated from the Swiss Polytechnic, implying that she could not have been the intellectual equal of Albert Einstein. This is simply not accurate.
 
Mileva faced the obvious invidious prejudice of being a woman. Remember, in 1900 women couldn’t even vote! Even to be allowed admittance as a woman to the elite Swiss Polytechnic, she had to have been brilliant. Although her grades were comparable to Einstein’s grades, Mileva ultimately did not pass her final examinations. It must be noted, however, that at the time she was taking these exams she was late in her pregnancy with Albert’s second child (his son, Hans Albert) and also faced the prejudice of her teachers for being both a Slav and a woman. She was, indeed, the only student in Albert’s class not to graduate, although she did receive a research position with Professor Weber, which later fell through. Of the students who did actually graduate, Einstein had the lowest grade point average (see The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, which lists the grades of all those who graduated; also see Dr. Evan Harris Walker, Ms. Einstein.)
 
Einstein rarely mentioned those who assisted him. Indeed, in all the famous 1905 papers that he published, only Michele Besso, his friend and sounding board, is mentioned. There is simply no
other source material cited in any other of his 1905 papers.
 
We know from the Love Letters that he had a very close collaboration with Maric. Unfortunately, these letters are heavily edited, the omissions being mainly from Maric’s letters. Why are Maric’s letters so heavily edited? Why are there so many omissions? Will the editors of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein publish or make available Maric’s letters in their entirety? Some have felt that Maric’s senior thesis at the Swiss Polytechnic might actually have dealt with Relativity theory but, according to correspondence I have had with Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia, her thesis cannot be located in the Polytechnic’s archives.”(2)
 
“Einstein was very cruel to Mileva. He not only cheated on her openly, but as the marriage unraveled, he laid out cruel conditions for staying with her as follows:
 
Under the heading: “Conditions.”
 

“You will make sure that: 1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order; 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room; 3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons…you will stop talking to me if I request it.”

Mileva accepted the conditions.”(5)

Elsa Einstein


“Einstein’s marriage to Maric ended in acrimony. He began treating Maric, for whom he had originally professed such great love, cruelly toward the end of the marriage, even calling her
“uncommonly ugly” (see Collected Papers). He admitted in a deposition during divorce proceedings (28 December 1918) that he had carried on an adulterous relationship with one of his cousins, whom he later married. During this second marriage, Einstein had numerous affairs, even including -apparently – an affair with a Russian spy! And again, Einstein never breathed a word about having fathered a daughter with Maric.
 
The full truth of Mileva Maric’s role in the work now commonly attributed exclusively to Einstein will only become known when the complete, unedited letters of Mileva Maric are made available to scholars. It is also a fervent hope that the senior thesis of Maric might be found – or at least its subject might become known – because that thesis might actually have been about Relativity theory. Clearly, further research on her life and her physics work needs to be done.”(2)
 

“In 1919, Albert Einstein rose to international fame for predicting that the gravitational field of the sun would deflect rays of light. Eclipse observations confirmed this prediction. Newspapers around the world covered the story and declared that Albert Einstein had surpassed the genius of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. It seemed that all was right with the world — but then everything went tragically wrong.

In April of 1921, Albert Einstein took advantage of his newly found fame and traveled to America. He promoted racist Zionism to the Jews of America, while raising money for the Eastern European Zionists who had made him famous.

Einstein championed the racist doctrine of Theodor Herzl, that Jews were a distinct race of human beings, who could not assimilate into any Gentile society and therefore ought to segregate themselves and form a nation in Palestine.

Einstein also believed that there ought to be a world government. However, Einstein thought that Israel ought to be a distinct nation. Though he described himself as non-religious, Einstein’s racist views, and his concurrent call for a world government and a segregated “Jewish State” mirrored Jewish Messianic prophecies.

Einstein raised money in America for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He also tried to popularize the racist Zionist cause. The news media enthusiastically covered his trip to the United States. Mainstream news media claimed that all of Einstein’s critics were anti-Semites, but did not criticize Einstein for his rabid racism or his segregationist politics.

Dr. Arvid Reuterdahl (1876-1933)

Prof. Arvid Reuterdahl of St. Thomas College, in St. Paul, Minnesota, responded to Einstein’s aggressive self-promotion. With reference to the notorious circus promoter P. T. Barnum, Prof. Reuterdahl dubbed Albert Einstein the “Barnum of the Scientific World”. He publicly challenged Einstein to a debate over the merits of the theory of relativity and publicly accused Einstein of plagiarism.

Einstein refused to debate Reuterdahl. Einstein stated that his sole purpose for coming to America was to raise money for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and that he could not be bothered with issues related to “his” theories. Even before coming to America, Einstein had earned an international reputation for hiding from his critics. His favorite tactic to avoid debate was to accuse his critics of being “anti-Semites”, while refusing to address their legitimate accusations of his, Einstein’s, irrationality and plagiarism. Like most bullies by bluff, Einstein was a coward, who hid behind the power of the racist Jews who attempted to shield him from criticism through well-orchestrated smear campaigns in the international press.

In spite of this, or perhaps because of this, Einstein generally had a hard time in America. Due to his incompetence, and the tribalistic racism he and his Jewish friends exhibited, Einstein faced scandal after scandal. Though Einstein had arrived to a triumphant welcome in New York City, he left the United States an utter disgrace. Though Einstein had accepted many honors from American universities, he publicly ridiculed American scholars and Americans in general in a widely published interview he gave after he had returned to Europe.

Isaac Newton believed that light is composed of matter converted into tiny “corpuscles”. Newton predicted that the gravitational attraction of other matter would attract light corpuscles, just as it attracted everything else made up of matter. Einstein repeated Newton’s prediction that gravitational fields would deflect light.

Like countless others before him, Einstein had proposed a non-Newtonian law of gravity. In Einstein’s gravitational theory the deflection of light rays was twice as great as in Newton’s gravitational theory.

In 1918-1920, the British astronomers Frank Watson Dyson, Charles Davidson and Arthur Stanley Eddington collaborated with Albert Einstein, and his friends Alexander Moszkowski, Max Born, Erwin Freundlich and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz to promote and sensationalize contrived reports that eclipse observations had confirmed Einstein’s prediction.

The astronomers had attempted to photograph stars which could be seen near the edge of the Sun during a full eclipse. The images of these stars might indicate that the path of the rays of light coming from stars behind the Sun had curved when passing near the Sun, thereby displacing the images of the stars from the position they would otherwise have had on the pictures, had not the gravitational field of the sun altered the path of light coming from the stars behind the Sun.

J.G. Soldner

Johann Georg von Soldner (in 1801) and Albert Einstein (in late 1915) predicted that the deflection would be twice the amount the Newtonian theory of gravitation predicted. This factor of two distinguished their theories from Newton’s. Though it was Newton who first predicted the effect, and it was Soldner who first correctly predicted the amount of the deflection for light rays, it was Einstein who took credit for both predictions.

Dyson, Davidson, Eddington and Einstein misrepresented the photographic evidence, which was of poor quality and, therefore, inconclusive. They falsely claimed that the photographs taken during eclipse of the Sun proved not only that the deflection of light had occurred, but that it was twice the Newtonian value, in accord with Einsteinian (Soldnerian) theory. However, this is not what the photographs had shown, and it is doubtful that the photographs could in any case have been conclusive. The effect was exceedingly small and the equipment the astronomers employed was primitive and did not have the precision needed to accurately record the predicted effect.

The press promoted these falsified reports and told the general public that Newtonian theory had been overthrown and that Einstein was a great genius, who was at least the equal of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton.

Newspapers asserted that Einstein had introduced a new world view, one that was true no matter how strange it appeared to be, with its “warped space-time”, “hundred foot poles in fifty foot barns”, and other “paradoxes”. The press reported that Einstein’s unique insight was so sophisticated and enlightened that only twelve men in the world could understand it. Reporters told the people of the world that a dramatic revolution in science had taken place — though this magnificent and unprecedented revolution, so deserving of international attention and praise, had changed nothing in their lives and they had no need, nor reason, to try to understand it.

The sensational reports created a mass hysteria for Einstein in America, one which culminated in Einstein’s visit to the United States in the spring of 1921. Einstein’s trip came shortly after Einstein had endured a series of public humiliations in the scientific community in Germany in 1920. He was hiding from the German scientists who had informed the public that he was a fraud. Whenever Einstein faced overwhelming problems in Germany, he wisely traveled to other nations, in part for publicity purposes to promote Zionism — which gave him undeserved publicity and paid for his trips — and which gave him the means to hide from his many critics. Einstein went to Spain and to Japan, continually promoting himself by being seen in the company of royalty, heads of state and international celebrities.

In spite of all the humiliating defeats Einstein met in the scientific world, a pro-Einstein press stuck by him and unfairly smeared those who legitimately criticized him. Some of his critics were highly respected Nobel Prize winning physicists, but this did not inhibit the pro-Einstein press from attacking their reputations merely because they had dared to disagree with the racist Zionist Albert Einstein, on purely scientific matters.

Alexander Moszkowski

In an epiphany of Saint Einstein, Jewish journalist Alexander Moszkowski wrote to Albert Einstein on 1 February 1917, “Regardless of what happens, I would like to continue the ‘cult’; for you it is secondary, for me it is of paramount importance in life. Additionally, I have the encouraging feeling that, with my modest writing abilities, I may also serve the cause once in a while.”

Moszkowski used his writing talents to make Einstein a superstar. In October of 1919, Moszkowski fulfilled his promise to Einstein to promote the “cult” of Einstein, and began the international “Einstein mania”, which peaked in November and December of 1919.

Einstein knew that the newspaper hype was disingenuous and distasteful, but he blamed the public for the hype his racist Jewish friends had manufactured. In mid- December, 1919, Einstein wrote to his friend and confidant Heinrich Zangger, “The newspaper drivel about me is pathetic; this kind of exaggeration meets a certain need among the public. Really, a harmless ideology.”

On 24 December 1919, Einstein wrote to Zangger and justified the lies as “harmless tomfoolery”, “[T]his business reminds one of the tale of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes,’ but it is harmless tomfoolery. The disparity between what you are and what others believe, or at least, say about you, is far too great.”

When Albert Einstein’s critic physicist Ernst Gehrcke made similar statements, Einstein called him “anti-Semitic”.

Zangger received yet another letter from Albert Einstein dated 3 January 1920, in which Einstein stated, among other things, “As for me, since the light deflection result became public, such a cult has been made out of me that I feel like a pagan idol.” 

The press claimed that Einstein was the greatest and most original thinker that the world had ever seen. No one knew better than Einstein himself that the press was deliberately lying to the public.

Hendrik Antoon Lorentz

Albert Einstein wrote to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz on 19 January 1920, “Nevertheless, unlike you, nature has not bestowed me with the ability to deliver lectures and dispense original ideas virtually effortlessly as meets your refined and versatile mind. This awareness of my limitations pervades me all the more keenly in recent times since I see that my faculties are being quite particularly overrated after a few consequences of the general theory stood the test.” 

With Einstein’ s blessing, the Jewish litterateur Alexander Moszkowski published a sensationalistic and hagiographic book, which advertised Einstein to the public in an unprecedented and shameless way: Einstein: The Searcher, E. P. Dutton, New York, (1921). This self-aggrandizing book recorded Moszkowski’s conversations with Einstein, and presented Einstein to the public as if he were a god condescending to speak to mere mortals.

The public was vulnerable to such hype. Heike Kamerlingh Onnes wrote to Albert Einstein on 8 February 1920, as if Einstein were the law giver Moses, “In my imagination I can already see you at our university’s venerable rostrum that was born of the struggle for freedom of conscience smiling down at us and telling us about your communion with the gods and about the fine interplay of harmony by which hints of Nature’s laws are revealed, your kind eyes sparkling with delight!” 

Though Jewish litterateurs were infamous for overrating Spinoza’s philosophy, Mendelssohn’s music, Marx’s and Lasalle’s political philosophies, Theodor Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, Bergson’s philosophy, etc.; that shameless self-glorification did not begin to approach the magnitude and the absurdity of the promotion of the Jewish racist Albert Einstein. Many leading scientists found such unprecedented advertising for Einstein distasteful. In 1924, Ernst Gehrcke preserved conclusive evidence that Moszkowski’s book was promoted in the daily newspapers as part of an overall plan to promote Albert Einstein to the gullible public through intensive advertising.

The press and elements of the Physics community did indeed create an “Einstein ‘brand'” which has lasted. Peter Rogers, editor of Physics World, stated in his editorial in the August, 2004, issue of Physics World, “His legacy as the greatest physicist of all time is guaranteed, despite the regular claims that ‘Einstein was wrong’ or that he stole his ideas from someone else.

The real opportunity presented by 2005 is the chance to sell Einstein and physics to the young. Physicists have to realize that physics needs the ‘outside world’ more than it needs physics. [***] Physics as a subject is lucky in having Einstein as a ‘brand'[.]”

Rodgers wrote, in September of 2003, “[. . .JEinstein developed the special theory of relativity in 1905. This potted history is true, of course, but it overlooks the contributions of Poincare and Lorentz. However, if every article had to give full credit for every advance in the history of physics, there would be little room for what is going on today.”

Rodgers also stated, in November of 2003, “Fabrication, plagiarism and a range of other offences — duplicate submissions, conflicts of interest and referee misconduct — were among the topics discussed at a recent workshop on scientific misconduct. Failure to cite the work of others adequately is also an offence. [J]ust one more major case of fabrication or plagiarism would be very bad news for our subject.”

The Einstein brand was already established and used to market products in January of 1920, shortly after the press hyped Einstein and the theory of relativity in November and December of 1919. Alexander Eliasberg, a Jew who wore his Jewishness on his sleeve, wrote to Albert Einstein on 27 January 1920, “This new type of monthly, which will serve a very large readership, is characterized by its emphasis on the sciences — of which your illustrious name serves as a symbol[.]”

In letter to Albert Einstein, Paul Epstein described Alexander Eliasberg, who was Epstein’s cousin, in the following terms, in the hopes that it would impress the Jewish racist and segregationist Albert Einstein, “Eliasberg is a Jew of nationalistic bent, who stresses his Jewishness at every opportunity that presents itself. His name is emblazoned on the cover of the Jewish monthly Judische Monatshefte; furthermore, he has published a library’s worth of translations from Yiddish.”

In 1930, some German Jews recognized the danger of Zionist racism and demanded that Albert Einstein stop using his scientific fame to promote racism, disloyalty and “interracial” strife. The New York Times reported on 7 December 1930 on page 11 , “The National German-Jewish Union, a small group of extreme nationalist and anti-Zionist Jews, protested against Professor Einstein using his world-fame as a scientist for ‘propagating Zionism.'”

After the Second World War, Jews again criticized Einstein for his nationalistic Zionism. Einstein responded, “In my opinion condemning the Zionist movement as ‘nationalistic’ is unjustified. Thus already our precarious situation forces us to stand together irrespective of our citizenship.” 

There was a panic in the western world following the violent Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. The New York Times in the late teens and early twenties published numerous articles warning of the dangers of Bolshevism. Many conservative German newspapers also tried to rouse public apprehensions over the dangers of the Communist revolution and Einstein was widely seen as an anarchist and a Communist. 33 Max Born wrote, “Einstein was well known to be politically left-wing, if not ‘red’.” Einstein put his name to Communist and Socialist causes and both groups actively sought his support, with varying degrees of success. When Einstein wanted to visit the United States in the early 1930’s many protested against his admission into the country on the grounds that he was a Communist, an anarchist and a Socialist. The New York Times, on 4 December 1932, on the front page, stated, “The board of the National Patriotic Council in a statement today termed Dr. Einstein ‘a German Bolshevik’ and said his original theory ‘was of no scientific value or purpose, not understandable because there was nothing there to understand.'” 

The Patriot of 22 December 1932 published an article “The Visa of Professor Einstein” detailing the objections raised to the granting of a visa to Albert Einstein, “Professor Einstein has informed the world, through the Press, of his difficulty in getting an American visa in Berlin, owing to the U. S. Consul having been warned that he is an undesirable alien by the American Women’s Patriotic Association. In the end the professor got his visa, and chuckled over the fact that the sentries of America had not given heed to ‘the wise, patriotic ladies,’ but had forgotten the occasion when ‘the Capitol of mighty Rome was once saved by the cackling of its faithful geese.’ The fact is that the patriotic American women had as substantial a reason for giving warning as had the Roman geese. The Patriot has given many instances in which Americans had as much right to object to the meddling of Professor Einstein in revolutionary movements on his visits to the U. S. as we have to protest against the Bolshevik finger in the preparation of revolution by British Communists.” 

The Patriot article continued with extracts from the law and from the charges, which proved that Einstein was a member of several Communist front organizations and encouraged illegal activities, and that he could not be lawfully admitted into the United States of America. Einstein had influential friends and his record was ignored. The protests that he should not be allowed a visa to come to the United States were ultimately unsuccessful. Einstein expressed himself in Marxist terms and his friends as well as his foes recognized the Socialistic tones in his statements in the early 1920’s. In 1949, Einstein published an article in the Monthly Review in which he advocated Socialism. Since both world wars weakened the nations of the world, both wars created an atmosphere where Communism could flourish.

Einstein the Racist Coward

Albert Einstein was a genocidal racist Zionist. He was appalled by the fact that most German Jews did not share his racist and segregationist views. Einstein ridiculed Jews who assimilated into German society. Einstein hypocritically and disingenuously dubbed all of his critics “anti-Semites “. He was a coward who hid from criticism by smearing his critics. When he was finally forced to debate in Bad Nauheim, he made a fool of himself and ran away in the middle of the argument.

 

 

“The General Assembly, Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” — UNITED NATIONS GENERAL Assembly Resolution Number 3379 343

“I get most joy from the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to me that our kinfolk really are more sympathetic (at least less brutal) than these horrid Europeans. Perhaps things can only improve if only the Chinese are left, who refer to all Europeans with the collective noun ‘bandits.'” — ALBERT EINSTEIN 

 The massive emigration of Eastern European Jews, coupled with the financial might of the Rothschild family and their lesser branches, and with the disproportionate Jewish domination of the press, resulted in tremendous power for the Jewish community, especially in America, England and Germany. Einstein used this organized Jewish power in a cowardly fashion to suppress open debate on the theory of relativity and his career of plagiarism. Einstein, himself a racist, hypocritically and disingenuously accused his critics of racism for saying the same things that Einstein himself had said both publicly and privately. Einstein counted on fellow racist Jews to rush to his defense simply because he was a Jew. His expectations were rewarded.

The Power of Jewish Tribalism Inhibits the Progress of Science and Deliberately Promotes “Racial” Discord

Just as the “Jewish press” refused to entertain criticism of Judaism in the Kulturkampf while they relentlessly ridiculed Catholicism specifically and Christianity generally, they refused to entertain criticism of their Jewish Messiah, Albert Einstein. However, Einstein’s Nobel Prize was not awarded for the theory of relativity, because so many were aware of the fact that Albert Einstein had plagiarized the theory. Ernst Gehrcke demonstrated that Paul Gerber had anticipated the general theory of relativity, as had Johann Georg von Soldner, making a Nobel Prize for that theory impossible. It was long known that Einstein had plagiarized the special theory of relativity from Lorentz and Poincare. Instead of exposing the public to these facts, the Jewish dominated press smeared Einstein’s critics, obstructed their access to the public, and shamelessly hyped Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity.

A Jew is Not Allowed to Speak Out Against a Jew

The second meeting of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Naturforscher zur Erhaltung reiner Wissenschaft took place on 2 September 1920. The famous Jewish philosopher Oskar Kraus of Prague was scheduled to deliver a lecture stating his objections to the special theory of relativity. The Czechoslovakian government refused Kraus a visa for “political reasons” thereby preventing his appearance at the meeting and actively obstructing a public expression of anti-relativism by a famous intellectual figure of Jewish descent. Kraus had known Einstein while Einstein lived in Prague. Kraus believed that Einstein was nothing more than an amateurish Metaphysician. Einstein told Leopold Infeld, “I am really more of a philosopher than a physicist.” Einstein was a poor philosopher, as well. He argued in redundancies based on unproven assertions.

The pro-Einstein forces — forces so powerful that they were able to deny a man’s right to speak and to corrupt the workings of a nation’s government — prevented Kraus’ speech, which would have been far more interesting and readily understood by a crowd of laymen and news correspondents than was Glaser’s technical lecture which replaced it. Kraus’ arguments against the metaphysical absurdities in relativity theory make a powerful impression on the lay public — one Einstein’s advocates were frantic to prevent. Einstein did not grasp the distinction between Metaphysics and science. He stated in 1930, “Science itself is metaphysics.”

This maneuver was done to change the subject from Einstein’s plagiarism, Einstein’s self-promotion and gross exaggeration of the significance of his theories, the relativists’ corrupt misrepresentation of the available evidence to the public, and the absurdities of the theory of relativity — all of this was done to change the subject to the irrelevant issue of anti-Semitism. Einstein and his friends were completely unethical. They inhibited the progress of science and took away fundamental human liberties.

Max von Laue reported in the evening edition of Vossische Zeitung on 4 September 1920 that the Czechoslovakian government denied Kraus, of Prag, the right to leave the country “for political reasons”. Laue, racist Zionist Albert Einstein’s “Shabbas Goy”, again tried to change the subject to racial issues in a cowardly effort to avoid the relevant facts.

Oskar Kraus was an outspoken critic of the theory of relativity before the Berlin Philharmonic lectures and for many years thereafter. Frank’s account does not agree with that of Paul Weyland, Max von Laue and Johannes Riem, who recorded that Kraus wished to attend the meeting, but was refused a visa for political reasons.

Einstein’s advocates have always relied upon clannish Jewish racism and disproportionate Jewish influence in government, the press and in the universities to prevent a fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory of relativity and of Einstein’s career plagiarism.

This is but one of many instances of Jewish censorship in the modern world. Jewish organizations have successfully criminalized opinions which deviate from their own. It is today illegal in many countries to offend or obstruct Jewish racists by revealing their destructive lies and dangerous Messianic aspirations.

Philipp Lenard

Nobel Prize winning Physicist Philipp Lenard took great offense at Einstein’s defamatory comments. Lenard had said nothing anti-Semitic in public, but instead, in the wake of Germany’s defeat in World War I, had simply asserted his national pride and declared that German science stood for high ethical standards and sound scientific practices — as opposed to the wild speculations of the British eclipse observations and the immoderate and self-glorifying advertising of Albert Einstein.

Lenard’s reaction came at a time when the British and French had openly attempted to destroy German science, with Albert Einstein’s help.

In the winter of 1914, Lenard criticized J. J. Thomson and England in a 16 page pamphlet in a nationalistic — not anti-Semitic — tone. Lenard, himself, may have been of Jewish descent and had a classically Jewish appearance. It was common at the time to speak of “German science” and many of Einstein’s friends and supporters, many of whom were Jewish, proudly spoke in those exact terms.

Einstein covertly supported the Allies throughout the war. Though he lived in Germany — Einstein was a disloyal agent of Germany’s enemies. Einstein became a symbol to many Germans of the Jew who had “stabbed Germany in the back”.

Many Germans believed that Jewish leaders in the press, the English, and Jewish world finance, had conspired to destroy pan-Germany as it tried to defend Europe from pan-Slavism, and that after the war the Jewish press in Germany sided with the Allies when they sought to punish Germany and break it apart in violation of President Wilson’s directives that no nation would lose territory at war’s end, which promise had led Germany to surrender in the good faith of that promise. The Allies, and some leading German Jews, betrayed Germany’s good faith.

Let the Debate Begin

Einstein, against his better judgement, did speak at Nauheim. The event was highly publicized by Einstein and his supporters and thousands showed up to see the debate.

Bath house number 8 in Bad Nauheim, the site of the session on relativity and the Einstein-Lenard debate at the 86th meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians

The theory of relativity was hyped beyond all reasonable limits and many were certain that the great hero Einstein would crush his opponents, as advertised. The much anticipated debate between Lenard and Einstein over the general theory of relativity began on Thursday, at 12:45 PM. Einstein’s advocates, Max Planck who chaired the session, et al., employed armed police to keep anti-relativists and neutral parties out of the audience and attempted to stack the audience with a pro-Einstein claque. This resulted in a tumultuous protest and unbiased audience members stormed the hall and held their ground.

After long and boring lectures by Einstein and his friends which began at 9:00 AM, the bell sounded at 12:45 PM for the time allotted to Einstein-critics to begin. Einstein and Lenard began to debate.

Though accounts of the meeting are incomplete and vary, Lenard clearly made Einstein look very foolish in a very short time. Einstein was flustered and could not give cogent responses, even though Lenard repeated his questions.

In a prearranged maneuver, Max Planck called the session, which had begun at 12:45 PM, to an end at about 1:00 PM, after only a few minutes of debate, so as to let Einstein off the hook and prevent a fuller exposure of Einstein’s incompetence.

Fifteen minutes before the afternoon session began, Einstein ran away.

Ernst Gehrcke

Ernst Gehrcke, who had humiliated Einstein at the Berlin Philharmonic, and whom Einstein had openly challenged to speak at Bad Nauheim, repeatedly demanded time to speak, but Max Planck refused to allow Gehrcke a chance to speak, and delayed Gehrcke until the session was closed. Planck also refused to allow Rudolph, another Einstein critic, time to speak.

Pursuant to Planck’s corrupt plan, Einstein’s critics were only allotted fifteen minutes to speak, including responses from Einstein and his friends, after hours of pro-Relativity lectures. Planck tried to arrange it so that only pro-Einstein mathematical lectures would occur, which would be entirely uninteresting to the public and to the press.

Max Planck fed Friedrich von Midler, the opening speaker to the Bad Nauheim gathering, a prepared speech Planck and Arnold Sommerfeld had written lauding Einstein and unfairly degrading his opponents.

Planck arranged it so that armed guards would intimidate anti-Einstein participants and prevent them from attending the meeting hall and attempted to stack the audience and the stage with a pro-Einstein claque.

Planck not only limited the time of the anti-Relativists at the Thursday meeting to a few minutes, Planck also greatly restricted their time at the Friday meeting to 12 minutes including discussion — a meeting which Einstein and his cronies did not attend. Einstein hid from his opponents and ran away from the debate, even after Max Planck had arranged it so that Einstein would have every conceivable advantage.

Albert Einstein was ashamed of the fact that he had run away. He wrote to Max Born in October of 1920, “I will live through all that is in store for me like an unconcerned spectator and will not allow myself to get excited again, as in Nauheim. It is quite inconceivable to me how I could have lost my sense of humour to such an extent through being in bad company.” 

Einstein’s cowardice and incompetence did not go unnoticed. Johannes Riem ridiculed Albert Einstein.

Einstein lost all credibility at the debate and knew that the scientific community was against him. He undoubtedly wanted only to flee Germany and retreat from the public eye. As happened after Einstein’s public humiliation at the Berlin Philharmonic, the Einstein sycophants and the ethnically biased pro-Einstein Jewish press came to his rescue after his public humiliation at Bad Nauheim and carried him through this time of criticism as he traveled the world promoting himself, relativity theory and Zionism, until his second rush of fame, which came with the announcement of the award of his Nobel Prize in late 1922. Many found the award scandalous, given that Einstein was a proven sophist and plagiarist.

Lorentz, Born, von Laue and the others were loyal to Einstein. The acceptance of their fatally flawed theories hinged on the cult of personality which was created for Einstein. If Lorentz exposed Einstein, Lorentz’ beliefs and legacy would suffer.

The relativists were, and are, so pernicious in their suppression of opposing views, because they were, and are, so insecure and politically motivated. They were, and are, so vicious in their defense of Einstein, because their mythologies are so easily defeated. The theory attacks gullible persons who are willing to accept irrational arguments and who act out of hero worship. Therefore, it is not surprising that these same individuals behave in an unscrupulous and adolescent manner when confronted with the facts.

Knowing they had lost at the debate, Einstein and his friends sought a rapprochement with Lenard which would dull the sting of Einstein’s humiliation at Nauheim.

Johannes Stark

Tragically, Lenard and Stark, (Nobel Prize laureates each) who were initially very helpful to Einstein in the early years of the special theory of relativity, after witnessing the corruption in the press and in the German Physical Society, after witnessing the Zionist betrayal of Germany, succumbed to the racial mythologies of the National Socialists and became outspoken advocates of Nazism, and in so doing were yet again the victims of Zionist Jews, though they did not realize it.

Einstein’s actions played no small role in elevating Adolf Hitler to power, in that the Nazis exploited Einstein as an example to stereotype millions of innocent people. The Nazis also exploited Einsteinian racist Zionist mythology to promote their own racial myths, which they imposed on the German People at the behest of Jewish Zionists who wanted assimilating Jews segregated from the allegedly inferior “Goyim”.

This was, and is, a common practice among Zionists and anti-Semites. They promote one another’s common racism. This compounds the problem by creating an incentive for non-racists to forgive the intolerable behavior of characters like Einstein and to refuse to speak out against it for fear of having that behavior generalized in a sense unfavorable to them.

“When Ambassador Page was editor of the Atlantic Monthly he gave the following advice to a young journalist: ‘The most interesting fellow in America is the Jew: but don ‘t write about Jews: without intending it, you may precipitate the calamity America should be most anxious to avoid — / mean Jew-baiting. ‘ Incidentally we may mention that an English book which happened to contain that quotation was suppressed, soon after birth, by a very obvious withdrawal of the usual advertising nourishment.”

The young journalist was Rollin Lynde Hartt. This censorship further results in a group dynamic whereby one member of the group who speaks out against another is chastised for “betraying” the group which will allegedly be unfairly stereotyped by the exposure of the behavior of an individual like Albert Einstein. Of course, it is human nature to think in symbols and to generalize, especially when viciously and unfairly attacked and threatened, as were the anti-Relativists Lenard and Stark.

Einstein the Genocidal Racist

Albert Einstein was himself a racist; and, therefore, a hypocrite when criticizing the racism of others. John Stachel wrote, “While he lived in Germany, however, Einstein seems to have accepted the then-prevalent racist mode of thought, often invoking such concepts as ‘race’ and ‘instinct,’ and the idea that the Jews form a race.”

On 8 July 1901, Einstein wrote to Winteler, “There is no exaggeration in what you said about the German professors. I have got to know another sad specimen of this kind — one of the foremost physicists of Germany.” 

Einstein wrote to Besso sometime after 1 January 1914, “A free, unprejudiced look is not at all characteristic of the (adult) Germans (blinders!).”

After the war Einstein and some of his friends alluded to much earlier conversations with Einstein, where he had correctly predicted the eventual outcome of the war. In his diaries, Romain Rolland recorded his conversations with Einstein in Switzerland at their meeting of 16 September 1915, “What I hear from [Einstein] is not exactly encouraging, for it shows the impossibility of arriving at a lasting peace with Germany without first totally crushing it. Einstein says the situation looks to him far less favorable than a few months back. The victories over Russia have reawakened German arrogance and appetite. The word ‘greedy’ seems to Einstein best to characterize Germany. Einstein does not expect any renewal of Germany out of itself; it lacks the energy for it, and the boldness for initiative. He hopes for a victory of the Allies, which would smash the power of Prussia and the dynasty. . . . Einstein and Zangger dream of a divided Germany — on the one side Southern Germany and Austria, on the other side Prussia. We speak of the deliberate blindness and the lack of psychology in the Germans.” 

Einstein’s dreams during the First World War remind one of the “Carthaginian Peace” of the Henry Morgenthau, Jr. plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second World War. Morgenthau worked with Lord Cherwell (Frederick Alexander Lindemann), Churchill’s friend and advisor, who planned to bomb German civilian populations into submission.

Lindemann studied under Einstein’s friend, Walther Nernst, who worked with Fritz Haber, a Jewish developer of poisonous gas. James Bacque argues that the Allies, under the direction of General Eisenhower, starved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of German prisoners of war to death. Dwight David Eisenhower was called “the terrible Swedish- Jew” in his yearbook for West Point, The 1915 Howitzer, West Point, New York, (1915), p. 80. He was also called “Ike”, as in. . . Eisenhower? The Soviets also abused and murdered countless German POW’s after the Second World War.

Einstein often spoke in genocidal and racist terms against Germany, and for the Jews and England, and he betrayed Germany before, during and after the war. Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest on 22 March 1919, “[The Allied Powers] whose victory during the war I had felt would be by far the lesser evil are now proving to be only slightly the lesser evil. I get most joy from the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to me that our kinfolk really are more sympathetic (at least less brutal) than these horrid Europeans. Perhaps things can only improve if only the Chinese are left, who refer to all Europeans with the collective noun ‘bandits.'” 

While responsible people were trying to preserve some sanity in the turbulent period following World War I, Zionists like Albert Einstein sought to validate and encourage the racism of anti-Semites. The Dreyfus Affair taught them that anti-Semitism had a powerful effect to unite Jews around the world. The Zionists were afraid that the “Jewish race” was disappearing through assimilation. They wanted to use anti-Semitism to force the segregation of Jews from Gentiles and to unite Jews, and thereby preserve the “Jewish race”. They hoped that if they put a Hitler-type into power — as Zionists had done in the past, they could use him to herd up the Jews and force the Jews into Palestine against their will. This would also help the Zionists to inspire distrust and contempt for Gentile government, while giving the Zionists the moral high-ground in international affairs, despite the fact that the Zionists were secretly behind the atrocities.

Theodor Herzl

In 1896, Theodor Herzl wrote in his book The Jewish State, “Great exertions will not be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a love of emigration where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before. I imagine that Governments will, either voluntarily or under pressure from the Anti- Semites, pay certain attention to this scheme; and they may perhaps actually receive it here and there with a sympathy which they will also show to the Society of Jews.” 

Albert Einstein wrote to Max Born on 9 November 1919. Einstein encouraged anti-Semitism and advocated segregation (one must wonder what role Albert’s increasing racism played in his divorce from Mileva Marie — a Gentile Serb), “Antisemitism must be seen as a real thing, based on true hereditary qualities, even if for us Jews it is often unpleasant. I could well imagine that I myself would choose a Jew as my companion, given the choice. On the other hand I would consider it reasonable for the Jews themselves to collect the money to support Jewish research workers outside the universities and to provide them with teaching opportunities.” 

In 1933, the Zionists publicly declared their allegiance to the Nazis. They wrote in the Judische Rundshau on 13 June 1933, “Zionism recognizes the existence of the Jewish question and wants to solve it in a generous and constructive manner. For this purpose, it wants to enlist the aid of all peoples; those who are friendly to the Jews as well as those who are hostile to them, since according to its conception, this is not a question of sentimentality, but one dealing with a real problem in whose solution all peoples are interested.”

On 21 June 1933, the Zionists issued a declaration of their position with respect to the Nazi regime, in which they expressed a belief in the legitimacy of the Nazis’ racist belief system and condemned anti-Fascist forces.

The hypocrisy of racist Zionists often manifested itself. As another example, consider the fact that racist Zionist Moses Hess was married to a Christian Gentile prostitute named Sybille Pritsch.

Einstein may have been effected by his mother’s early racist opposition to his relationship with Marie. Another factor in the Einsteins’ divorce was, of course, Albert’s incestuous relationship with his cousin Else Einstein, and his desire to bed her daughters, as well as Albert’s general promiscuity — some believe he was a whore monger. Albert Einstein opposed his sister Maja’s marriage to the Gentile Paul Winteler on racist grounds and thought they should divorce. Albert Einstein wrote to Michele Besso on 12 December 1919 and stated that, “No mixed marriages are any good (Anna says: oh!)” Besso, himself, was married to a Gentile, Anna Besso-Winteler. 

Dennis Brian wrote, “When asked what he thought of Jews marrying non-Jews, which, of course, had been the case with him and Mileva, [Albert Einstein] replied with a laugh, ‘It’s dangerous, but then all marriages are dangerous.'” 

On 3 April 1920, Einstein wrote, criticizing assimilationist Jews, “And this is precisely what he does not want to reveal in his confession. He talks about religious faith instead of tribal affiliation, of ‘Mosaic’ instead of ‘Jewish’ because the latter term, which is much more familiar to him, would emphasize affiliation to his tribe.”

After declaring that Jewish children segregate due to natural forces and that they are “different from other children”, not due to religion or tradition, but due to genetic features and “heritage”, Einstein continued his 3 April 1920 statement, “With adults it is quite similar as with children. Due to race and temperament as well as traditions (which are only to a small extent of religious origin) they form a community more or less separate from non-Jews. It is this basic community of race and tradition that I have in mind when I speak of ‘Jewish nationality.’ In my opinion, aversion to Jews is simply based upon the fact that Jews and non-Jews are different. Where feelings are sufficiently vivid there is no shortage of reasons; and the feeling of aversion toward people of a foreign race with whom one has, more or less, to share daily life will emerge by necessity.” 

Albert Einstein often referred to Jews as “tribesmen” and Jewry as the “tribe”. Fellow German Jew Fritz Haber was outraged at Albert Einstein’s racist treachery and disloyalty. Einstein confirmed that he was disloyal and a racist, and was obligated, “…to step in for my persecuted and morally depressed fellow tribesmen, as far as this lies within my power[.]”

Albert Einstein advocated the segregation of Jewish students. Peter A. Bucky quoted Albert Einstein, “I think that Jewish students should have their own student societies. One way that it won’t be solved is for Jewish people to take on Christian fashions and manners. In this way, it is entirely possible to be a civilized person, a good citizen, and at the same time be a faithful Jew who loves his race and honors his fathers.”

Einstein stated, “We must be conscious of our alien race and draw the logical conclusions from it. We must have our own students’ societies and adopt an attitude of courteous but consistent reserve to the Gentiles. It is possible to be a faithful Jew who loves his race and honours his fathers.”

On 5 April 1920, Einstein repeated what he had heard from his political Zionist friends who believed that anti-Semitism was necessary to the preservation of the”Jewish race”, “Anti-Semitism will be a psychological phenomenon as long as Jews come in contact with non-Jews — what harm can there be in that? Perhaps it is due to anti-Semitism that we survive as a race: at least that is what I believe.”

Einstein had a reputation as a rabid anti-assimilationist — here again Einstein merely parroted the racist anti-assimilationism of his Zionist predecessors, like Solomon Schechter who dreaded assimilation more than pogroms — and Zionists encouraged pogroms in order to discourage assimilation.

Hilaire Belloc

Others repeated Theodor Herzl’s theme, that Jews could not assimilate, because the presence of Jews in a host nation ultimately led to anti-Semitism due to Jewish parasitism — according to Herzl. Hilaire Belloc was a strong advocate of the view the that Jews should not integrate. Belloc published a book on the subject entitled The Jews in 1922, and expressed similar convictions in G. K. ‘s Weekly in the 1930’s. Belloc wrote biographies of men who had fallen under the influence of Zionists, like Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon.

On 15 March 1921, Kurt Blumenfeld wrote to Chaim Weizmann, “Einstein is interested in our cause most strongly because of his revulsion from assimilatory Jewry.”

 

Einstein stated in 1921:

“To deny the Jew’s nationality in the Diaspora is, indeed, deplorable. If one adopts the point of view of confining Jewish ethnical nationalism to Palestine, then one, to all intents and purposes, denies the existence of a Jewish people. In that case one should have the courage to carry through, in the quickest and most complete manner, entire assimilation.

We live in a time of intense and perhaps exaggerated nationalism. But my Zionism does not exclude in me cosmopolitan views. I believe in the actuality of Jewish nationality, and I believe that every Jew has duties towards his coreligionists.

[T]he principal point is that Zionism must tend to strengthen the dignity and self-respect of the Jews in the Diaspora. I have always been annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my friends.”

Einstein’s public racism eventually waned, but he continued to publicly express his segregationist philosophy in the same terms as anti-Semites, as well as his belief that Jews “thrived on” and owed their “continued existence” to anti-Semitism. Einstein stated in December of 1930 to an American audience,

“There is something indefinable which holds the Jews together. Race does not make much for solidarity. Here in America you have many races, and yet you have the solidarity. Race is not the cause of the Jews’ solidarity, nor is their religion. It is something else — which is indefinable.”

Einstein’s confusing public statement perhaps resulted from his desire to promote multi-culturalism in America, which had the benefit of freeing up Jewish immigration to the United States. Einstein was also likely parroting, or trying to parrot, a fellow anti-assimilationist political Zionist whose pamphlet was well known in America, Solomon Schechter and his Zionism: A Statement, Federation of American Zionists, New York, (1906), in which Schechter states, among other things, “Zionism is an ideal, and as such is indefinable.”

After siding with Germany’s enemies in the First World War — while living in Germany, and after intentionally provoking Germans into increased anti-Semitism, which he thought was good for Jews, and after defaming German Nobel Prize laureates in the international press to the point where they felt obliged to join Hitler’s cause, which cause eventually resulted in the genocide of Europe’s Jews, Einstein sponsored the production of genocidal weapons to mass murder Germans, whom he had hated all of his life, in the famous letter to President Roosevelt that Einstein signed urging Roosevelt to begin the development of atomic bombs — before the mass murder of Jews had begun.

Einstein advocated genocidal collective punishment:

“The Germans as an entire people are responsible for these mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely.” and, “It is possible either to destroy the German people or keep them suppressed; it is not possible to educate them to think and act along democratic lines in the foreseeable future.”

Albrecht Folsing has assembled a compilation of post- WW II quotations from Einstein, which evince Einstein’s lifelong habit of stereotyping people based on their ethnicity. Einstein expressed his hatred in the horrific post-Holocaust context — a temptation Max Born had resisted:

“With the Germans having murdered my Jewish brethren in Europe, I do not wish to have anything more to do with Germans, not even with a relatively harmless Academy. The crimes of the Germans are really the most hideous that the history of the so-called civilized nations has to show.

[It was] evident that a proud Jew no longer wishes to be connected with any kind of German official event or institution. After the mass murder committed by the Germans against my Jewish brethren I do not wish any publications of mine to appear in Germany.”

Einstein wrote to Born on 15 September 1950 that his views towards Germans predated the Nazi period:

“I have not changed my attitude to the Germans, which, by the way, dates not just from the Nazi period. All human beings are more or less the same from birth. The Germans, however, have a far more dangerous tradition than any of the other so-called civilized nations. The present behavior of these other nations towards the Germans merely proves to me how little human beings learn even from their most painful experiences.”

Nobel Prize laureates Philipp Lenard (1905 Nobel Prize for Physics) and Johannes Stark (1919 Nobel Prize for Physics) had initially sponsored Einstein and his work, and it was only after Einstein played the race card — publicly and internationally smearing Philipp Lenard without cause, that race became an issue in the debate over relativity theory — mostly for Einstein, Max von Laue and Max Born, who had a financial interest in the Einstein myth, and for the press people who smeared Einstein’s opponents. They desperately wanted to change the subject from the legitimate claims of Einstein’s plagiarism, legitimate arguments against the irrationality of the theory of relativity and the shameless hype and misrepresentation of experimental evidence by Einstein and his friends, to name-calling and racial strife provoked by them.

Einstein eventually succeeded in bringing racial politics into the debate, though it was initially a larger issue for him than for his opponents. Einstein most often outright refused to discuss his plagiarism or purely scientific, non-political critiques of the theory of relativity; but he did not hesitate to name-call and smear his critics. He could not win in a dispute over the scientific and historical facts, so he provoked a race war over relativity theory in order to avoid legitimate criticism. It was a war everyone would ultimately lose.

Einstein’s complaints were hypocritical. He himself sought ethnically segregated educational institutions and an ethnically segregated society and often stated that anti-Semitism was both correct and good for Jews. Einstein had bad experiences early in his youth and always bore a stereotypical prejudice against Gentile Germans, which is consistent with the racism inherent in genocidal Judaism.

Albert Einstein was one of the world’s leading political Zionists. Political Zionism was a new form of racism that emerged at the end of the Nineteenth Century. It held that Jews were a pure race that could not coexist with non-Jews. Einstein had many powerful friends in the Zionist and Socialist press. Einstein’s friends and supporters, in what political Zionist founder Theodor Herzl called the “Jewish papers”, 591 libeled those who opposed Einstein or the theory of relativity and deflected attention from Einstein’s plagiarism by misrepresenting any criticism of Einstein as if it were anti-Semitism, per se.

There was also an anti-Einstein press and an unbiased press which documented Einstein’s plagiarism and his scientific and philosophical defeats. Like radicals in general, radical Socialists, Zionists and Communists had well-deserved reputations as defamers, which manifested itself in their vitriolic attacks on Jewish leaders who refused to fund their schemes; or, in the case of Zionism, opposed their racist agenda.

Einstein stated, “But in Germany the judgement of my theory depended on the party politics of the Press[.]” German newspapers had well-deserved reputations as being organs for the many political parties which were active in Germany in the Teens of the Twentieth Century. They brought politics into science in a way not previously known.

Einstein took advantage of the political climate after World War I to change the subject from the accusations of plagiarism against him, which were easily proven, to racial politics, which were explosive at the time. It is tragic that the search for the truth in Physics, and in Ethics related to priorities, became a political issue centered on “the Jewish question”, but Einstein succeeded in making it one.

Political Zionists, Einstein and his friends among them, have earned a reputation throughout their history for preventing free and open public dialog about important issues they would rather not see discussed. They have often had open access to the press to publish their smears and the means to largely prevent those who have been wronged from responding. They accomplish these feats by: spuriously presuming to speak for all persons of Jewish descent, organized intimidation, boycott, smear tactic, intensive letter writing campaigns which give an inflated appearance that their views are widely held, threats and acts of violence, etc.

Just as the Zionists have often sought to suppress public discussion of the Palestinians’ rights and an honest discussion of what is in America’s best interests, as opposed to the Zionists’ perceived self-interests, political Zionists — and indeed like minded Marxist-leaning Socialists — have often obstructed public debate about Einstein’s plagiarism from the moment Einstein became their most famous and important spokesman.

Many have been wrongfully and viciously smeared as alleged “anti-Semites” because they refuse to discriminate in their opposition to racism, including but not limited to, their opposition to political Zionist racism. The vast majority of Jews initially opposed political Zionism due to its expressed racism. Their leaders were smeared. After the founding of Israel, debate was largely stifled.

Norman Finkelstein

Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein writes in his book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, Berkeley, (2005), pp. 21-22, 32, and 66,

“THE LATEST PRODUCTION of Israel’s apologists is the ‘new anti-Semitism.’ The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. Finally, whereas in the original New Anti-Semitism marginal left-wing organizations like the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party were cast as the heart of the anti-Semitic darkness, in the current revival Israel’s apologists, having lurched to the right end of the political spectrum, cast mainstream organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in this role.  WHAT’S CURRENTLY CALLED the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. EXAGGERATION AND FABRICATION The evidence of a new anti-Semitism comes mostly from organizations directly or indirectly linked to Israel or having a material stake in inflating the findings of anti-Semitism.” 

In 2006, Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt wrote in their paper, “The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy”,

“No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U. S. Middle East policy — an influence that AIPAC celebrates — stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby.’ In effect, the Lobby boasts of its power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective, because anti-Semitism is loathsome and no responsible person wants to be accused of it.”

There is nothing new about fabricated accusations of anti-Semitism. The Judeans who fabricated the Old Testament fabricated a history of Egyptian tyranny which never occurred, and which fictions recklessly defamed the Egyptians as anti-Semites.

Einstein was discredited in Germany in late 1 920 . In early 1921, Einstein desperately needed a boost and a break. Zionist Kurt Blumenfeld arranged for Einstein to take a trip to America in order to spread propaganda for political Zionism and to raise money for the cause, on the deceitful premise that the money would go to fund an university in Jerusalem, the “Jewish university” or “Hebrew University”. Einstein was deceived. The real goal of the Zionists who took advantage of him was to exploit Einstein’s fame for profit.

Elements of the American press again promoted Einstein as the greatest genius of all time. For Jewish racists, this provided helpful racist propaganda claiming that all important contributions to the world of thought were made by Jews. The racist political Zionist United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis wrote in a letter dated 1 March 1921,

“You have doubtless heard that the Great Einstein is coming to America soon with Dr. Weizmann, our Zionist Chief. Palestine may need something more now than a new conception of the Universe or of several additional dimensions; but it is well to remind the Gentile world, when the wave of anti-Semitism is rising, that in the world of thought the conspicuous contributions are being made by Jews.” 

Paul Ehrenfest wrote to Einstein that he had heard that the Zionists were using Einstein to promote the myth that he was a “Jewish Newton” and a Zionist. Ehrenfest was tortured by the fact that his character would not allow him to participate in the dishonest promotion of Einstein to the public. He believed it would ultimately be destructive to Jews. Ehrenfest committed suicide in 1933.

In 1905 and 1906, Paul Ehrenfest considered Lorentz’ 1904 paper on special relativity and Poincare’s 1905 Rendiconti paper on space-time to be the most significant work (both historically and scientifically) on the subject of the principle of relativity. Ehrenfest and his wife Tatiana attended David Hilbert’s Gottingen seminars on electron theory, which described Lorentz’ and Poincare’s work on special relativity. They knew that Einstein did not create the theory of relativity.

Paul Ehrenfest wrote to Albert Einstein on 9 December 1919,

“I hear, for ex., that your accomplishments are being used to make propaganda, with the ‘Jewish Newton, who is simultaneously an ardent Zionist’ (I personally haven’t read this yet, but only heard it mentioned). But I cannot go along with the propagandistic fuss with its inevitable untruths, precisely because Judaism is at stake and because I feel myself so thoroughly a Jew.”

Immediately upon his arrival at America’s shores, Einstein mischaracterized any and all opposition to him and the theory of relativity as if it were anti-Semitism, per se. After Einstein returned to Europe and after these Zionists bilked many generous Americans in the name of ethnic pride and duty, the promised funding of the university did not materialize. The nationalists allegedly could not agree on the final form this ethnically segregated school should take.

Louis Dembitz Brandeis

We learn from American Zionist Louis Dembitz Brandeis’ letters that the University was nothing but a “side show”,

“The University, important & dear to us, is merely a side show. It can wait. Nothing must be done in relation to it which would embarrass or confuse the main issue. It should be taken up — if and only if it would be helpful in furthering our fight on the main issue.” 

When Albert Einstein traveled to America in April of 1921 to promote his Zionist agenda he had received a triumphant welcome, but soon met with great and growing opposition. Einstein was lampooned and humiliated in certain segments of the international press. Einstein left America in defeat. He expressed his bitterness towards America in an interview for the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Einstein stated, as reported in The New York Times on 8 July 1921 on page 9, “BERLIN, July 7. — Dr. Albert Einstein, the famous scientist, made an amazing discovery relative to America on his trip which he recently explained to a sympathetic-looking Hollander as follows:

“The excessive enthusiasm for me in America appears to be typically American. And if I grasp it correctly the reason is that the people in America are so colossally bored, very much more than is the case with us. After all, there is so little for them there!”, he exclaimed.

Dr. Einstein said this with vibrant sympathy. He continued: “New York, Boston, Chicago and other cities have their theatres and concerts, but for the rest? There are cities with 1 ,000,000 inhabitants, despite which what poverty, intellectual poverty! The people are, therefore, glad when something is given them with which they can play and over which they can enthuse. And that they do, then, with monstrous intensity.”

“Above all things are the women who, as a literal fact, dominate the entire life in America. The men take an interest in absolutely nothing at all. They work and work, the like of which I have never seen anywhere yet. For the rest they are the toy dogs of the women, who spend the money in a most unmeasurable, illimitable way and wrap themselves in a fog of extravagance.”

“They do everything which is the vogue and now quite by chance they have thrown themselves on the Einstein fashion.”

“You ask whether it makes a ludicrous impression on me to observe the excitement of the crowd for my teaching and my theory, of which it, after all, understands nothing? I find it funny and at the same time interesting to observe this game.”

“To believe quite positively that it is the mysteriousness of what they cannot conceive which places them under a magic spell. One tells them of something big which will influence all future life, of a theory which only a small group, highly learned, can comprehend. Big names are mentioned of men who have made discoveries, of which the crowd grasps nothing. But it impresses them, takes on color and the magic power of mystery, and thus one becomes enthusiastic and excited.”

“My impressions of scientific life in America? Well, I met with great interest several extraordinarily meritorious professors, like Professor Milliken [sic]. I unfortunately missed Professor Michelson in Chicago, but to compare the general scientific life in America with Europe is nonsense.”

Einstein’s comments met with much criticism and a damage control apparatus quickly began to repair the harm he had done to his reputation, by denying that he had said what he had said.

Though Einstein had hoped to run away from his critics, he had an international reputation as a coward, a plagiarist and a scientific fraud. Things we not as easy for Einstein in America as he had hoped they would be.

On 11 April 1921, the New York American wrote, ‘EINSTEIN CHARGED WITH PLAGIARISM St. Paul Educator Says Theory of Relativity Was Advanced in Harper’s Weekly in 1866.

Special Dispatch to the New York American. MINNEAPOLIS, April 1 0.— That the Albert Einstein theory of relativity in its gravitational aspects was advanced in 1866, thirteen years before Einstein was born, by a scientist known under pen name of ‘Kinertia’ was the assertion made to-day by Professor Arvid Reuterdahl, dean of the engineering school of St. Thomas College in St. Paul. He challenged the German savant to defend his theories in a written debate.

Professor Reuterdahl declared Einstein was not only deceiving scientists with a mythical theory, but that he was either a plagiarist or his work had been antedated by another without his knowledge.

The Kansas City Post reported on 17 April 1921, ‘DUBS EINSTEIN ‘BARNUM OF SCIENCE ‘ AND ‘KIDDER ‘ German Savant Challenges Theorist to Written Debate on Relativity. Charges Feted Jew With Having Plagiarized Material From the Past. A ‘Barnum of science.’

Thus is Prof. Albert Einstein, German scientist, who at present is making a triumphal visit to the United States, branded by a former Kansas City public school professor, Dr. Arvid Reuterdahl, dean of the engineering school of St. Thomas colege, St. Paul.

While New York hands the celebrated discoverer of the theory of relativity the key to the city, and while savants, scholars, bankers, butchers, hang on his non-understandable words, Dr. Reuterdahl steps out and boldly calls him names.

A ‘sophist,’ a dealer in ‘might have beens,’ says Dr. Reuterdahl of Einstein.

Arvid Reuterdahl

The former Kansas City teacher then challenges the widely heralded mathematician to a written debate. Dr. Reuterdahl, speaking of course in scientific language, has said in effect that he is prepared to prove the Einstein theory largely ‘bunk,’ and a borrowing from older scientists. It is easy enough, he insinuates, to set forth a theory of any kind, so long as you make it sufficiently abstruse not to be understood.

Long before Einstein announced his visit to America, Dr. Reuterdahl and he had become involved in an international dispute over his theory. The controversy has attracted wide attention in the old world from Norway to Italy.

Dr. Reuterdahl, who was an instructor at the Polytechnic institute here, left Kansas City in 1915. In the fall of the same year he gave lectures at the Kansas State Agricultural college at Manhattan and at Kansas university on ‘Space-Time-Potential,’ in which he set forth some of the same views enunciated by Einstein, crediting them to scientists who lived before Einstein was born.

At that time Dr. E. Lee Heidenreich of the Heidenreich Engineering company of Kansas City, a friend of Dr. Reuterdahl, wrote the Carnegie institute of Dr. Reuterdahl’s lectures, saying:

‘It takes a scientific giant to gainsay a Newton and such a giant we have with us today.’

Coupled with his challenge to a debate, Dr. Reuterdahl now asserts that Einstein is deceiving scientists with a mythical theory and that he is a plagiarist, his works being antedated by another.

Dr. Reuterdahl points out that the Einstein theory of relativity in its gravitational aspects was advanced in 1866 by a scientist who wrote under the pen name of ‘Kinertia.’ The latter, when a student under Lord Kelvin, is said to have questioned the Newton theory of force.

Dr. Reuterdahl, while giving Einstein credit for being one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, ‘calls’ him on many parts of his theory:

“I demand that Einstein show me his proof,” says the American professor. “I believe in dealing in the physical things in the world. In other words, I am from Missouri. I shall be glad to meet Professor Einstein at any time or place and debate this subject. But I shall demand an actual demonstration of his theory, not a journey into the realm of the mythical. That demonstration he can never give.”(4)

Assassination Plots

Walther Rathenau

“Though Theodor Wolff, editor of the Berliner Tageblatt, had stated that there was no anti-Semitic movement in the German government in 1915, Wolff spread the rumor in 1922 (which was denied by the German police) that assassins were out to murder him and Albert Einstein. Wolff’s pronouncement followed on the heels of the assassination of Walter Rathenau. Rathenau was a German Jew who found a way around the Treaty of Versailles (which he had supported — profiteering off of the reparations payments made by Germany) by restoring Germany’s military in Russia with the Rapallo Treaty. It was alleged that he and his friends could financially profit from this venture and that they sought to sponsor Bolshevism. Bolshevism itself stole the wealth of Russia and channeled it other hands. Rathenau was preparing the way for the Second World War.

Wolffs baseless claims of assassination plots may have been a pretext for Einstein’s withdrawal from the meetings of the League of Nations, where he would have had to have met with his critic Henri Bergson, and been publicly challenged to debate his positions. Instead of running this risk, Einstein ran around the world promoting himself and advertising the theory of relativity — and Zionism, at a critical point in the history of the Zionist Movement.

In this same period, Wickham Steed prevented Lord Northcliffe, principal owner of The London Times and outspoken critic of Zionism, from voicing his objections to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 24 July 1922. Perhaps the Zionists sought sympathy for their cause by spreading rumors that Einstein was in danger from those who had murdered Rathenau. They failed to explain how exposing himself in public and traveling abroad safeguarded Einstein.

Einstein’s Internationalism and his anti-Germanism did indeed cause some Germans to wish him dead; and a year earlier, in 1 92 1 , Rudolph Leibus put a bounty on Einstein’s head and Leibus was prosecuted for it.

There were many more reasons why some suspected that Einstein’s flight from the League of Nations, and the Hundertjahrfeier der Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte in Leipzig, on the pretext of unsubstantiated murder plots against him, was a contrived affair to create a false panic over anti-Semitism and to promote sympathy for Einstein, the theory of relativity and Zionism in anticipation of a grand world tour.

German science had turned against Einstein. Philipp Lenard and others promised to again embarrass Einstein at the Leipzig meeting as they had done in Bad Nauheim. The racist coward Albert Einstein wanted to hide from them, as Ernst Gehrcke recorded in his book Die Massensuggestion der Relativitdtstheorie: Kulturhistorisch-psychologische Dokumente, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924), pp. 62-64. Though Einstein was scheduled to deliver a lecture at the centenary of the Association of German Scientists and Physicians in Leipzig, which was overseen by the corrupt sycophant Max Planck, Einstein again took the coward’s way out. Max Planck and Max von Laue again rescued Albert Einstein from certain embarrassment. Laue, who was far more competent, though no less childish, than Einstein, delivered a lecture on the theory of relativity, while Einstein again hid from his critics.

Max Planck

Several top Physicists, Mathematicians and Philosophers joined Nobel Prize laureate Philipp Lenard in protesting Max Planck’s attempt to deceive the German Public into believing that the scientific community had accepted the theory of relativity as if it were the climax of modern science. These scholars joined together to protect the lay public from the self-aggrandizement and lies of Max Planck and Albert Einstein. Their published protest revealed that the majority of Physicists, Mathematicians and Philosophers considered the theory of relativity to be an unproven hypothesis and a fundamentally flawed, irrational and untenable fiction.

It is clear that the Zionists needed a common enemy to unite them, and the alleged murder threats against Einstein, real, contrived or imagined, played a role in the promotion of that goal. The Zionists then worked to create economic conditions which would make Germany ripe for a Zionist dictator named Adolf Hitler. The history of the political Zionists ‘ involvement in German wartime politics is discussed in Isaiah Friedman’s Germany, Turkey, and Zionism, 1897-1918, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1977).

The promoters of Einstein and the theory of relativity have employed many of the same tactics and strategies common to such corrupt Jewish political movements as Zionism and Bolshevism. Charles Lane Poor worked hard to expose Einstein as a fraud. Poor complained of terrible censorship of his efforts to expose Einstein and the experiments taken as evidence in support of the theory of relativity. This was and is a common complaint among those who raise concerns about the shameless promotion of the plagiarist Albert Einstein, and who question the metaphysical fallacies and internal contradictions of the theory of relativity.

In l930, C.L. Poor wrote,

“Thus the claim of Einstein to have found a new law of gravitation and the many assertions that the theory of relativity has worked in accounting for the motions of Mercury and has been conclusively proved by the eclipse observations and by the displacement of spectral lines are all merely unproved, and, so far, really unsupported illusions. Einstein and his followers have been dwelling in the ‘pleasing land of drowsyshed — ‘; in the land ‘Of dreams that wave before the half shut eye.'”

Though the theory of relativity was hyped in the 1920’s as a well-proven and perfectly exact, perfectly logical theory, such claims were just that, just hype. There were few people who were competent to try to defend the theory, and the nonexistence of empirical justification for its fantastical claims led to a great insecurity in the academic community — some members of which had stretched out their necks when the press promoted Einstein as the new and improved “Jewish Newton” — and which was worried that the public might discover that Einstein was a fraud and his theories had no rational justification.

Those brave enough to speak out against the degeneration of science into bizarre mysticism, and the demise of professional integrity in science, faced intimidation, censorship, and the classic pernicious political tactics of crowd manipulation by Einstein’s supporters. Einstein and his followers were not above employing dirty tricks to suppress opposition and the public disclosure of the truth.

Hubert Goenner tells the story of how Oskar Kraus was scheduled to deliver a speech in Berlin against the theory of relativity on 2 September 1920. Kraus was not able to give his speech, because he was not allowed to go to Germany. Johannes Riem stated that Kraus had wired him a telegram on 2 September 1920, which informed him that Kraus, “was refused a visa for political reasons.” Riemcomplained that, “In such a way relativity theory is protected by the immigration service.”

Arvid Reuterdahl wrote of the political atmosphere surrounding the corrupt promotion of Einstein, “Were the Theory of Relativity sound, upright men must, nevertheless, protest against such questionable means of forcing its acceptance. Hidden forces, inimical to the frank and open discussion of alleged merits of this theory, have been at work in every civilized land.

I am in possession of letters from eminent European scientists describing the deplorable methods employed to hinder and, if possible, completely prevent an unbiased and free discussion of the problem of relativity. In addition to this evidence my own experience is proof conclusive that the known evil effects are not due to accidental causes, but arise from a well defined and strongly organized plan.

Scientific journals and societies in the United States have been loath to accept articles which even mildly criticized Einstein’s theories. The advertisement of a book which contains a criticism of relativity, written by a well-known opponent of Einstein, was refused by a journal known for its vigorous publicity campaign in favor of Einsteinism. Two leading American journals, whose main alleged purpose is the unbiased presentation of both sides of every question, have until recently refrained from publishing any statements inimical and detrimental to the theory of relativity. The change of attitude is undoubtedly due to the potent fact that despite the attempted suppression of free discussion, the entire world is now fearlessly and openly challenging the foundations of Einsteinism. A reaction against relativity, of unprecedented proportions and intensity, has set in and Einstein now finds himself on the defensive.

Ad hominem attack and smear campaigns were Einstein’s preferred method of response to challenges to Einstein’s priority and challenges to relativity theory, as even Einstein’s advocates were forced to concede in 1931. Von Brunn, a defender of Einstein, wrote,

“Even individual fanatic scientific advocates of the Einsteinian theory seem to have finally abandoned their tactic of cutting off any discussion about it with the threat that every criticism, even the most moderate and scrupulous ones, must be discredited as an obvious effluence of stupidity and malice. But even if these monstrous products of the ‘Einstein frenzy’ [Einstein-Taumel] now belong to history and are thus eliminated from consideration, thoroughly respectable reasons for a certain discomfort with relativity theory still do remain[.]”(4)

Tesla on Einstein

“Show a photo of the hideous creature known as ‘Einstein’ to even the most learning disabled child and he’ll immediately identify the sanctified scientist. His name itself has become synonymous with genius.”(6)
 
“When we do a Google image search for the word “genius”, one of the first things we see is the wretched mug of Albert Einstein.
 
 You can scroll and scroll way down those pages and not even find a hint of folks like Tesla, von Braun, Shockley, and other great names. Why is that? Was St. Albert really such a “genius”? Or is this a case of the press pumping-up a fellow tribesman? Let’s have a look.
 
Einstein’s “discoveries”, stolen as they were, are still disputed to this day. Einstein himself expressed some doubts about his “theories”. The fact that a minority of physicists continue to passionately insist that Einstein’s ideas are false, is very intriguing. For every outspoken critic of Einstein, how many more scientists hold the very same doubts but are too intimidated to express them. Of even greater interest is the fact that the scientific doubters are often childishly ridiculed, but never openly debated.”(5)
 
“What exactly did this great “genius” – the man whom H.L. Mencken derided as “that fiend for publicity” – actually do, besides fill up chalkboards with numbers? How has humanity benefited from his ‘Theory of Relativity’? Contrary to popular laymen belief, space travel and nuclear energy have nothing to do with Einstein’s “discovery”.
 
Without going deep into the scientific realm, let us be clear as to what Einstein’s Relativity actually claims. The Theory of Relativity holds that time and space are “warped”. Those of you old enough to remember the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ with Charlton Heston will recall how time had slowed down for the space travellers when they had reached a certain speed. Upon their return to Planet Earth, the astronauts are still in their 30’s while the Earth has passed through 1000’s of years of “Evolution”. Heston’s age defying journey is based on the Theory of Relativity.
 

The crew looks pretty good for being 1000+ years old!

 
Apart from challenging our common sense, the time warps, space warps and artificial speed limits of Einstein’s imagination (actually stolen from previous theoreticians) can neither be tested nor observed. Yet we are all supposed to accept this dubious brand of “Theoretical Science” as Holy Writ. “Time and Space can warp. Trust us. We’re scientists.” say the Relativists.
 
Einstein’s modern doubters included renown cold fusion expert Eugene Mallove (1947-2004). In an article published in Infinite Energy magazine, Mallove writes:
 
“There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein’s work, such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics, Physics Essays, Apeiron, Journal of New Energy, etc., as well as books by thoughtful critics: Harold Aspden, Petr Beckmann, Peter and Neal Graneau, Ronald Hatch, Herbert Ives, Thomas Phipps, Jr., and Franco Selleri, to name but a few.
 
There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), which holds regional and national meetings devoted to critiquing modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity. This community of dissidents and publications has been completely ignored by a self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves its power and prestige, in part by mystifying veritable “scientific saints,” such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking.”
 
Electrical Engineer and author Robert L. Henderson:
 
“Einstein was perhaps the most irrational person ever to masquerade as a mathematician or scientist. The book explains how all of Einstein’s impossible concepts of the world around us–as well as his unintelligible attempts to mathematically express those concepts–became accepted solely through operation of The-Emperor’s-New-Clothes syndrome: the most egregious example of this syndrome that has ever occurred.”
 
Einstein himself, that great egomaniac, even admitted:
 
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”
 
This of course is a classic study in ‘Negative Proof Fallacy’. Evidently, St. Albert has never read the Sherlock Holmes stories of Arthur Conan Doyle. The legendary sleuth warns:
 
“Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
 
St. Albert put the conclusion first, followed it with elegant mathematics to “prove” the premise, and then challenged his peers to disprove a negative. That’s a tall order for anyone to fill.
 
But if there was one man could dethrone such a cleverly crafted illusion, it was the great, and I mean great, Nikola Tesla. When once asked by a sycophantic reporter how it felt to be the smartest man on Earth, Einstein himself replied, “I wouldn’t know. Ask Nikola Tesla”.
 
Tesla’s genius can only be described as the stuff of “freak of nature”. There is simply no exaggerating the depth of his scientific and creative prowess. He was the greatest electrical engineer of all time and perhaps the greatest inventor as well. Tesla is most well known for his invention of the AC power distribution system that we still use today.
 
A 1931 Time Magazine cover story (above left) revealed Tesla’s disdain for Relativity. An excerpt:
 
“Nikola Tesla, the man with seven hundred basic patents to his credit, who startled the world on a number of occasions in the past by achieving what others had regarded as impossible, including the large-scale generation and distribution of alternating current, yesterday treated the combined metropolitan press to a personally conducted tour of the labyrinthine laboratory of his fertile mind.
Just a few of his inventions include the electric (AC induction) motor, radio and wireless communication, electronic logic (the AND gate), charged particle beams, the rotating magnetic field, flourescent lighting, and the vertical take-off and landing concept.”
 
“And what exactly did this under-appreciated genius have to say about Relativity?”
 
“Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible  ..Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
 
At times, Tesla’s criticism of Einstein was even personal in nature, suggesting that Einstein was not merely mistaken, but actually a fraud:
 
“Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth”…
 
 
“Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.”
 
 
“The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.”
 
 
“The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”
 
“Relativity is a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a King.”
 
Einstein’s fraud clearly rankled Tesla; so much so that he set out to dethrone the puffed-up hero of Jewish Marxism. The Time article also revealed that Tesla was committed to debunking Einstein:

 
“…My conclusions in certain respects differ from his (Einstein’s) and to that extent tend to disprove the Einstein Theory. My explanations of natural phenomena are not so involved as his. They are simpler, and when I am ready to make a full announcement it will be seen that I have proved my conclusions.”
 

 
The man who was perhaps the greatest scientist in human history publicly maintained, to his dying day, that Einstein and his Relativity were cleverly masked frauds. Who knows? Perhaps the odd circumstances surrounding Tesla’s death may have had something to do with protecting the myth of St. Albert.”(6)
 
 
 
 

Cites:

(1) The Einstein Hoax

(2) The Einstein Hoax

(3) Albert Einstein – Wikipedia

(4) The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein

(5) The Einstein Monster

(6) Tesla vs Einstein