Alex Jones Thoughts on Sandy Hook Reliable?
Alex Jones, Can We Trust Him?
Alex Jones is a popular man on the controversial podcast, "InfoWars." This man, as well as some others social media pages (I will get to that on a post later this week) have taken the tragedy at Sandy Hook and have planted that seed of doubt that just maybe, the audience who watches the show might begin to question the event as well. Alex Jones helped blow this tragedy out of proportion by spreading his thoughts through his podcast. He helped make this conspiracy theory grow and blossom into what we see today as it was a ploy by the government to promote gun control.
I decided to sit down and listen to him talk one last time on the subject. He called it his "Final Statement." He needed this time to retract his early claims on the conspiracy theory. In his final statement, he tells his audience that he's not sure what happened, but here's my opinion. It's a simple ploy where if he's asked about it, he has a backup answer he can fall on. (To understand the rest of this post, I highly recommend you watch this video or things might not make sense.)
Now in the actual video, which if you can get through the constant male vitality supplements he's trying to promote or the 2 minute ad at the end of the video where he once again promotes his online shop, he has some interesting "evidence" that he wants answers to. I'm here to try to help him answer them.
His first piece of evidence is on a website called, "WayBackMachine." This website tracks other websites and takes screenshots of the site itself. People in advertising or business use this site to track how their competitors are evolving their products to make them more appealing. "Here" is a link that will give you the basics on using this site for business purpose. Alex Jones uses this site and claims that up in the top bar of the site, that no one visited the school districts website for five years but as soon as Sandy Hook was about to happen, it exploded with the number of people looking at it. The district closed for those said years then re-opened five years later for the school year of Sandy Hook. Why would parents need to access a site that they no longer need to use? If their child isn't in a school in the district anymore, there's no use for them to go onto the site. This explains the low traffic.
His next piece of "evidence" is the media falsely reporting on the issue. Now this is a very deep conversation that someone can have over 10 videos of media all reporting different stories. This includes: two shooters, differing number of guns used, a father who lost his daughter laughing before an interview, reporters for CNN interviewing next to each other, the list can go on and on. ( I once again highly recommend you watch his video "Final Statements" which is linked up top, to understand what I am talking about.) I am going to take these one by one.
The two shooters interview sparked up a ton of popularity in the news. In this interview, a man reported that a second possible shooter was taken into custody. The best identification he could remember about this man was, "he was wearing camo pants, and a dark sweatshirt." This man also claimed the man in custody was being interrogated by the police while being handcuffed in the front of a cop car. This really happened but Jones is not releasing all of the facts. In this LA Times Article, the man is identified as a father who was going up to the school to help with the class. They needed some parent volunteers to help with a gingerbread house project. When he heard the guns going off, he was running around the building to find a way in or to find his daughter. When he was questioned, the police immediately concluded his alibi held up and let him go. That was it. The media had that interview and just was following up on leads of a possible second shooter.
Next up is the differing number of guns used. There were multiple reports of 2 guns, then 4 guns, then one shotgun and a pistol to what we now know, an AR-15 in the actual attack, two pistols in the actual attack and then a shotgun in his car that was never used. I don't understand why this is even evidence towards a conspiracy theory existing. It seems irrelevant to even debate this topic but after a month, the police made a press release to end this confusion (source.) This is just reporting before knowing the facts but they were speculating.
Next is CNN reporters reporting from the same spot. Once again, this seems extremely irrelevant to the theory itself. Media does this all the time where they'll report from other places if they deem it unsafe to work. In a shooting situation where Lanza seems crazy enough to shoot at anyone, it makes sense to not put yourself in harms way.
The last comment on the media is the laughing father before his interview. The father was set to give a speech about how much he missed his daughter. When the camera pans to him, as he is walking up to the microphone, he is laughing and smiling. Once he is told he is ready to go, he starts to break down into tears. This father is grieving in ways I can't even comprehend. How can we judge how he mourns his daughters death? Maybe they were exchanging stories of his daughter that made him laugh and remember the times he had with her. He closed his interview by saying how much of a privilege it was to be her father.
I don't deny there was bad reporting for Sandy Hook, but most of Alex Jones evidence doesn't make sense to follow this conspiracy theory. It seems like he wants to attack the media more than actually promote the theory itself.
Lastly, he speaks that since video evidence of surveillance cameras of the school weren't released, this event losses credibility. In today's age, you need a parents permission to allow for their kid to be shown on national television. Besides, what parent would allow others to see their 6 year old child get gunned down? Who would even want to see that? What media station would play that? What seems like a better idea, watching 6 year olds being gunned down on live television or trusting the hundreds of people who saw it happen in front of them?
Alex Jones is a conservative through and through. His intentions are to help out his own agenda by getting people to buy his products and allow for republicans to get into office. This conspiracy attacks the democratic party head on by saying they did this to pass gun control laws. Alex Jones has the most to gain from this conspiracy theory which is why he ran with the story. Trusting him would be a grave mistake as he is just using you to get what he wants.
Can we trust Alex Jones? Comment down below your thoughts.
-Matt Waeckerle
 |
| Pictured above is Alex Jones, director of "InfoWars" |
Alex Jones is a popular man on the controversial podcast, "InfoWars." This man, as well as some others social media pages (I will get to that on a post later this week) have taken the tragedy at Sandy Hook and have planted that seed of doubt that just maybe, the audience who watches the show might begin to question the event as well. Alex Jones helped blow this tragedy out of proportion by spreading his thoughts through his podcast. He helped make this conspiracy theory grow and blossom into what we see today as it was a ploy by the government to promote gun control.
I decided to sit down and listen to him talk one last time on the subject. He called it his "Final Statement." He needed this time to retract his early claims on the conspiracy theory. In his final statement, he tells his audience that he's not sure what happened, but here's my opinion. It's a simple ploy where if he's asked about it, he has a backup answer he can fall on. (To understand the rest of this post, I highly recommend you watch this video or things might not make sense.)
Now in the actual video, which if you can get through the constant male vitality supplements he's trying to promote or the 2 minute ad at the end of the video where he once again promotes his online shop, he has some interesting "evidence" that he wants answers to. I'm here to try to help him answer them.
His first piece of evidence is on a website called, "WayBackMachine." This website tracks other websites and takes screenshots of the site itself. People in advertising or business use this site to track how their competitors are evolving their products to make them more appealing. "Here" is a link that will give you the basics on using this site for business purpose. Alex Jones uses this site and claims that up in the top bar of the site, that no one visited the school districts website for five years but as soon as Sandy Hook was about to happen, it exploded with the number of people looking at it. The district closed for those said years then re-opened five years later for the school year of Sandy Hook. Why would parents need to access a site that they no longer need to use? If their child isn't in a school in the district anymore, there's no use for them to go onto the site. This explains the low traffic.
His next piece of "evidence" is the media falsely reporting on the issue. Now this is a very deep conversation that someone can have over 10 videos of media all reporting different stories. This includes: two shooters, differing number of guns used, a father who lost his daughter laughing before an interview, reporters for CNN interviewing next to each other, the list can go on and on. ( I once again highly recommend you watch his video "Final Statements" which is linked up top, to understand what I am talking about.) I am going to take these one by one.
The two shooters interview sparked up a ton of popularity in the news. In this interview, a man reported that a second possible shooter was taken into custody. The best identification he could remember about this man was, "he was wearing camo pants, and a dark sweatshirt." This man also claimed the man in custody was being interrogated by the police while being handcuffed in the front of a cop car. This really happened but Jones is not releasing all of the facts. In this LA Times Article, the man is identified as a father who was going up to the school to help with the class. They needed some parent volunteers to help with a gingerbread house project. When he heard the guns going off, he was running around the building to find a way in or to find his daughter. When he was questioned, the police immediately concluded his alibi held up and let him go. That was it. The media had that interview and just was following up on leads of a possible second shooter.
Next up is the differing number of guns used. There were multiple reports of 2 guns, then 4 guns, then one shotgun and a pistol to what we now know, an AR-15 in the actual attack, two pistols in the actual attack and then a shotgun in his car that was never used. I don't understand why this is even evidence towards a conspiracy theory existing. It seems irrelevant to even debate this topic but after a month, the police made a press release to end this confusion (source.) This is just reporting before knowing the facts but they were speculating.
Next is CNN reporters reporting from the same spot. Once again, this seems extremely irrelevant to the theory itself. Media does this all the time where they'll report from other places if they deem it unsafe to work. In a shooting situation where Lanza seems crazy enough to shoot at anyone, it makes sense to not put yourself in harms way.
The last comment on the media is the laughing father before his interview. The father was set to give a speech about how much he missed his daughter. When the camera pans to him, as he is walking up to the microphone, he is laughing and smiling. Once he is told he is ready to go, he starts to break down into tears. This father is grieving in ways I can't even comprehend. How can we judge how he mourns his daughters death? Maybe they were exchanging stories of his daughter that made him laugh and remember the times he had with her. He closed his interview by saying how much of a privilege it was to be her father.
I don't deny there was bad reporting for Sandy Hook, but most of Alex Jones evidence doesn't make sense to follow this conspiracy theory. It seems like he wants to attack the media more than actually promote the theory itself.
Lastly, he speaks that since video evidence of surveillance cameras of the school weren't released, this event losses credibility. In today's age, you need a parents permission to allow for their kid to be shown on national television. Besides, what parent would allow others to see their 6 year old child get gunned down? Who would even want to see that? What media station would play that? What seems like a better idea, watching 6 year olds being gunned down on live television or trusting the hundreds of people who saw it happen in front of them?
Alex Jones is a conservative through and through. His intentions are to help out his own agenda by getting people to buy his products and allow for republicans to get into office. This conspiracy attacks the democratic party head on by saying they did this to pass gun control laws. Alex Jones has the most to gain from this conspiracy theory which is why he ran with the story. Trusting him would be a grave mistake as he is just using you to get what he wants.
Can we trust Alex Jones? Comment down below your thoughts.
-Matt Waeckerle
Since the laughing father is being considered a set up actor, how come the media does not interview any of the peers or teachers present during the shooting? Why is the media concerned about a father's reaction when there should be more of a focus on the teacher's point of view, unless the government paid them off as well?
ReplyDeleteGreat question. I think it has to do with the media doing what would sell and our society. Authorities are responsible with finding the details of the case. Our society pushes for ease of access. Because of this, why would individuals in our society look for details of the case when they can simply view them on T.V. with the news presenting the facts. The media relies on the authorities to give them the facts (ease of access) so we can view them on television (ease of access). We just want a face to the crime, know he/she had a motive to create this crime, and be told it was them who committed the crime. This gives people that sense of safety again and that everything that goes out of control, will be roped back into a sense of control. In this case, the shooter was chaotic but eventually committed suicide so he was no longer a threat to society. All is safe in society again. Everything is under control.
ReplyDeleteThe media is also trying to sell whatever story they have and get the highest rating possible. Our society seems desensitized to shootings so what makes for a better story: repeating facts about a case by interviewing people who saw the same event happen in front of them, or a new spin that involves emotion and loss? It seems sick but the new spin helps the media coverage seem fresh with a new slant to the story while involving emotions that people can try to relate to. This, in turn, will keep those people watching that news channel coverage.