Hi readers. Luckily I just don’t give a damn. But this Sandy Hook thing’s all out of hand.
Snopes put it all aside, laid it firmly to rest January, 2013. Addressed it all calmly in that irritatingly smug Snopes fashion and has never again let the subject darken their door. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
Shortly later in February, 2013, Huffington Post put the whole thing to sleep offering up all manner of point-by-point reasoned arguements and explanations: Sandy Hook Hoax Theories Explained: Why Newtown ‘Truther’ Arguments Don’t Hold Up, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/sandy-hook-hoax-theories-explained-debunking-newtown-truther_n_2627233.html
But as Walter Brennon used to say about them Shoshones, they just “kep a’ comin’!” Every day some new doppelganger shows up, some missing birth or death certificate, some piece of vital-but-never-the-less photoshopped evidence.
A person could walk away from it all as legitimately believing the Lanza shooter never existed, or didn’t exist on the day of the shooting, as believing t’other extreme. Every shred of evidence in the one direction appears to be offset by equally [pick one: (a-valid)(b-absurd)] and damning proof for the other side.
In a sane world the default position would be that officialdom and their statements were a reflection of reality. And the burden of proof would be on anyone wishing to put forward another viewpoint.
Unfortunately, the Internet and a decade of this new century have proved officialdom is composed of liars as sneaky and Byzantine in their motives as the rest of us, perhaps more so. No doubt they’re completely capable of doing what the Sandy Hook “Truthers” accuse them of. Provided they were sufficiently motivated to do so.
So draw straws, or follow your gut feel if you want to believe one side or the other. And be comforted knowing you’re as likely to be on the side of the angels as anyone holding any other view.
I suppose if Sandy Hook were just a tragedy and nothing more, nobody would be trying to change the story. But because it’s used to justify political football, it’s bound to face an onslaught of naysayers. You’re right: Both sides are full of it.