When I learned that one of the videos I’ve produced was going to be the subject of a multi-part critique, I was very curious. I wasn’t bent out of shape by this news. My work stands up decently to criticism. It’s genuine, so there wasn’t any anxiety from thinking, “how am I going to keep up with all of the lies.” I was, however maybe more curious than I might otherwise be because the dynamic of the particular video in question was different. It was a video enhancement, or redux of a video presentation by Sofia Smallstorm. In many ways, it’s just a repackaging of her information. But, in some ways my views and opinions were infused to a degree.
My motivation in producing the video being examined by Ms. Spingola was to broaden the audience for the information presented in Sofia Smallstorm’s original video. After seeing it myself, I contacted Sofia and explained that whether she liked it or not I was going to make a more polished version of it. However, at minimum I didn’t want to offend Sofia and at most hoped she would be agreeable to the idea. For clarification, this was not a collaboration. Rather, my video is my creation and responsibility. Sofia was kind enough to provide her original footage, to preview and comment on the finished product and to have made a few suggestions. In truth, I didn’t follow all of her suggestions. Ultimately, Sofia was gracious enough to say I had done a good job. I’m sure there are some aspects of it that get under her skin.
The critique being produced by Ms. Spingola is ultimately of Sofia’s original video and the information it contains. My video being involved is likely only the result of a desire to be thorough. There are definitely subtle differences between the videos as well as a few minor additions in my more recent version. In this response, I will certainly address questions, issues and claims that relate to anything I’m responsible for. Wherever possible, I’ll respond as well to any critique of Sofia’s presentation to the extent that I can.
I wasn’t planning on issuing any response initially. But, after some time to think about whether it might be helpful to others if I did I decided to do so. My impression was that the separate parts would be completed in rapid succession, but that hasn’t been the case. I figured I’d wait until maybe half were done, but only 2 parts have been posted thus far and I have no way to gauge when to expect the others. So, I’m going ahead with my response premature as it may be.
Here are the relevant links to the source materials for reference…
The Spingola Zone – Feb. 11, 2014 (Discussing Part 1 above)
The Spingola Zone – Feb. 18, 2014 (Discussing Part 2 above)
Sofia Smallstorm Unraveling Sandy Hook – Nov. 5, 2013
SANDY HOOK – CREATING REALITY: A TNN Redux of a Sofia Smallstorm Presentation – Dec. 15, 2013
Rather than be limited to responding only to the specific points identified by Ms. Spingola, I’m going to simply compile my own list. And, as stated I will only be responding to what material is my responsibility or where I have an informed opinion.
1.)Right away, I’m compelled to clarify a few inaccuracies presented by Ms. Spingola relating to Sofia’s original video. In her critique, Ms. Spingola says,
People obviously filmed her presentation and she evidently presented a portion of the video that she released on November 5, 2013 at that conference.
She’s referring to Conspiracy Con, which took place in June of 2013. In actuality, she did give a very similar presentation there with a PowerPoint that included much of the material included in her video. She did not, however present a portion of her video as it hadn’t yet been filmed. And, the filming of the content for the video in question took place some time after that conference.
2.)In the initial sequence of Sofia’s video and included in my version as well, there’s a time-warped video of a ride inside a Sandy Hook school bus as it makes its way through various side-streets and eventually winding up at Sandy Hook Elementary. Obviously, as the video is heavily sped up any accompanying audio wouldn’t have been possible so Sofia chose to accompany the video Tchaikovsky’s Waltz of the Flowers. Simultaneously, she included a clip of a local resident with law enforcement experience speaking about the Sandy Hook school event she obtained from a radio program. You following me so far? Good.
This gentleman makes some interesting comments that end with his not seeing any crime scene photos from inside or outside of the school, just as the video slows to real-time and the bus pulls up directly in front of the school. This was all intentionally part of the production. In playing both the grandiose music and this man’s comments at the same time, it was pointless to raise the volume of his comments to compete with the music. The idea was to create an audio/video collage to set the tone for the lengthy presentation. Ms. Spingola says about this,
She may use music to obfuscate or distract you from the audio that she does not want you to question.
She must, therefor be claiming that this man’s comments were intended to be heard only subliminally. If not subliminally, then we would only be talking about a man making some comments while music plays in the background. If the music is simply meant to distract you from the comments being made by drowning them out, how then are the comments supposed to even be heard?
I believe this to be one of the weirder claims made by Ms. Spingola, but not the last relating to this part of the video.
3.)About the bus ride sequence, Ms. Spingola says,
…and, in her version, allows the viewer to assume that the driver is talking…She never says that the driver is the speaker, possibly to maintain plausible deniability. The “guy,” if one assumes it is the driver, as you can see, does not match the description of the “guy” who is talking. Perhaps, Smallstorm is hoping that your lying eyes and ears do not notice these trifling details.
I’ll just say this as bluntly as I can. I am willing to bet that, given a group of 100 randomly selected people to watch the bus sequence in question and to be asked, “did you get the impression that it was the bus driver speaking?”, maybe 1 person would say yes. And, that person would have been paying the least attention and be the least able to explain what they had just seen. It’s that obvious. This doesn’t even factor that much of the video sequence in which the man is heard speaking the video is playing at warp speed. So, it couldn’t be anyone in the video speaking, at least not in real time. And of course there’s the obvious problem of the voice clearly being that of a man whilst the bus driver is clearly a woman.
Throughout her critique of just this 2 minute, artistic opening sequence Ms. Spingola refers to the “guy” in quotes at least 10 times. I presume this is intended to further emphasize that the voice IS that of a man, while the video depicts a woman and this is all intentionally meant to deceive. I’ll go out on a limb and speak for Sofia and say that, no it was simply assumed the viewer would be savvy enough to discern for themselves what they were seeing and hearing. As someone who spent a great deal of time reworking the audio and video of this sequence for my version, it never even occurred to me that anyone would mistake the voice as that of the bus driver. And, ultimately I don’t know what difference any of this makes anyway.
At this early point, I can already say I have my suspicions about what Ms. Spingola is arguing. I can’t yet say that I have a theory as to why she would be engaging in trumping up false arguments, but it’s almost certain to me that she’s doing exactly that in this case.
Although it seems overkill to drag this inconsequential segment out further, I’ll address one other nonsensical issue Ms. Spingola brings up.
If this was after the event, as implied, these people would not be there. The grass is green, not brown as it would be in December.
This is in reference to the bus ride sequence that ends at Sandy Hook Elementary. Ms. Spingola claims that it’s being “implied” that this clip is from some time after the school event. My question to her is simply this. There was only one video clip that so perfectly captured a ride around town, entering the school parking lot, passing perfectly by the large school sign and pulling right up in front. Isn’t this likely the reason for selecting the clip and that no consideration was given to what time of year it was or whether it was pre or post event?
4.)Finally moving beyond the opening sequence of the video, Ms. Spingola says in reference to the comment that no crime scene photos had been seen from inside or outside of the school…
Notice the shrubbery by the front door and the large hole where Lanza entered the school. This is one of 760 photos taken of the crime scene, those that the “guy” complains about not seeing. In America, officials do not release gory crime scene images.
This is a very telling few sentences. First she could be seen as supporting the official account by saying, “…where Lanza entered…” without adding “purported” or “is said to have.” Certainly that is the impression I get when reading that passage. Secondly, she refers to 760 photos being taken of the scene which does nothing to address the man’s earlier objection. These photos weren’t released until many months later, a point that Ms. Spingola must be well aware of. Lastly, she seems to state with pride that, “In America, officials do not release gory crime scene images.” The problem with that statement is first, that it’s false. I suggest that anyone reading this simply conduct an image search for “crime scene photos” and, excluding those from other countries and those obviously from notorious crimes see what you find.
More interesting is Ms. Spingola’s own inclusion of the word “gory” to imply, I suspect that the man’s objection was to not seeing any gory crime scene photos, when he simply said he had not seen any. I’ll add that, of those 760 photos a great many were redacted. In fact, not a single photo depicts any portion of a body despite the scene being primarily that of over 2 dozen homicides. In my opinion, the crime scene photos that eventually were released were of almost no value to citizens and watchdog groups.
5.)Sofia points out that there were no Christmas decorations visible at the school. To refute this observation, Ms. Spingola directs us to see 2 photos from the crime scene photos released long after the videos were produced. In them are depicted a small holiday-themed landscape of what looks like construction paper on an interior window and a couple candy canes on another interior door. These elements are not visible from outside of the school, so i don’t see how pointing this out refutes the observation that none could be seen from outside of the school.
6.)Ms. Spingola says, in reference to the earlier clip of the man speaking about the purported shooting…
She implied that she doesn’t know who he is, yet we are supposed to unquestionably accept his opinion.
I am certain that Sofia never asked the viewer to “unquestionably accept” anything, and neither have I. This would be like PBS doing a documentary on the event and conducting 5 or 6 man-on-the-street interviews to gather opinions from the public and then being held to the various opinions that were given.
This is a very obvious example of being held to a non-existent standard where the producer of a video must believe and support everything said by every person appearing in the video. Does that sound like a trumped-up, false argument to you? It does to me.
7.)At this point in the conclusion of part 1 of the critique, Ms. Spingola gives a short biography of Sofia that is mostly accurate from my understanding, but certainly isn’t intended to depict her in a favorable way. In what does appear to be an attempt at smearing Sofia, the best she can come up with is to say, “She certainly has a track record for helping others who share her views.” Couldn’t it just be said that she helps others? Adding that she does so to “others who share her views” doesn’t seem to be adding much since I imagine most people tend to help others who share their views more so than those who have opposing views. Make sense?
8.)This is a minor grievance, but since it relates to something exclusive to my version I think I should take a moment to respond. Needing to provide a description for my video and wanting to include a modest opinion of the content of the video which was primarily taken from Sofia’s presentation without sounding like a sales pitch, I wrote the following…
Based on the incomparable presentation by Sofia Smallstorm, this documentary is a must-watch for any Sandy Hook researcher. This video accompanies Sofia’s original presentation and spot-on analysis by adding a distinct audio/visual layer. A best effort was made to reinforce the original material, maintain accuracy and stay true to the original reporting.
In response to this, Ms. Spingola says,
If you wish to feel important and call yourself a researcher, just listen to Smallstorm and she will tell you what to think. And don’t forget to make a donation.
Is this honestly how someone could view my statement? I simply don’t understand how someone can claim I almost magically imbued such tactics in my simple statement. And, neither do I take donations nor is a request for donations included in either the video or description. So, I simply don’t know why a reference to donations was made.
In the conclusion of my video description I write…
Let’s all continue to learn and achieve, every one of us. Don’t fear going against the general way of thinking. Great minds are currently in demand.
Personally, in reading that after some time has now passed I find that passage very uplifting. But, not surprisingly Ms. Spingola sees through my thinly-veiled attempt to brainwash the viewer into total acceptance of my views. She says…
If you have a great mind, more flattery here, you will embrace the ideas in the video.
I’ll just let the reader take that in and make of it what they will. After all, if I were to even state my opinion the accusation could somehow be made that I was somehow manipulating the reader.
I think it’s best that I end my response to specific points raised by Ms. Spingola here, since most of part 2 involves the information originally included in Sofia’s video. Not that I don’t have an opinion here or there. But, my point in responding in this way was not to share my opinions. That being said, I do think it’s fair to state my opinion of what Ms. Spingola has embarked on with this multi-part critique. Unfortunately, I don’t have a firm theory as to what her true motivations are. Nor do I accept the reason she gives, that being to alert the public to what she deems disinformation meant to both misdirect and to discredit.
For the record, my intentions for creating my version of Sofia’s presentation were to get more people exposed to the information and to ultimately help other independent researchers to eventually get to the bottom of this disgusting hoax. I don’t claim to know the details of what happened and my personal view is that Sofia isn’t claiming to know either. That, in itself should be an indication of our willingness to allow people to interpret the information in the manner they choose. Ms. Spingola has shown signs of being less open to theories of what happened, in my opinion.
Which brings me back around to the question of why she thinks a critique of this kind was warranted. Sadly, none of the possible explanations I can come up with are positive. Is it a simple case of state-sponsored opposition? Is it jealousy? Is it a case of being incapable of accepting a very present and well-organized deception being carried out by those who we are told are the arbiters of justice in this nation? Well, I’m running out of possibilities since a simple case of misjudging the information is just not a reasonable conclusion.
In any case, I don’t worry too much about Ms. Spingola continuing her work or what might come of it. The lacking in the quality of her arguments and sincerity with which she presents them just gives me more reason to be proud of my efforts.