Curious Inconsistencies in Reports of the Sandy Hook School Shooting

Reuters report:

U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones must pay the parents of a 6-year-old boy killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre $45.2 million in punitive damages - on top of $4.1 million in compensatory damages already awarded - for falsely claiming the shooting was a hoax, a Texas jury decided on Friday.

So there you are, the Sandy Hook School massacre of December 14, 2012 really happened. 

But then what is one to make of the report of an interview with Sandy Hook School Principal, Dawn Hochsprung, which was published on the Web site of the local newspaper, The NewTown Bee, and in which it was stated that:

"Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shows [sic] – more than she could count – that went "on and on."

This is bizarre for two reasons. 

First, Dawn Hochsprung was later reported to have been the first to die in the shooting rampage when she confronted lone gunman, Adam Lanza, as he entered the school building. If true, this would have made a post-event interview impossible.

Second, the NewTown Bee's story appeared in the Bing cache date-stamped December 13, 2012, the day before the school shooting occurred. 

For obvious legal reasons, we refrain from all inferences concerning the above-stated facts.

Related:

Why the Elites and the Liberal Mainstream Media Want Alex Jones Gone

An Exclusive Interview with Satan

In view of the interest evoked by my interview with Jesus of Nazareth, I decided to further enhance understanding of the supernatural forces at play in this world by seeking an interview with the Devil in Hell. I anticipated some difficulty reaching out to the Lord of Darkness, but my emailed request for an interview received a prompt and positive response.

Thus it was that I found myself seated the other day at a table outside a neighborhood StarBucks in conversation with a pleasant-mannered individual dressed in a well-cut two-piece suit in a good quality, charcoal gray worsted, and with a plain white shirt and a black and white polka-dot tie. His manner was charming, his features pleasant, and his complexion not, as I'd expected--dark as the event horizon of a black hole--but somewhere between olive and white.

The weather was cool, and I was glad to have worn a full-length overcoat together with a hat and scarf and to have a mega-sized mug of Starbucks' regular grind around which to warm my hands. Satan, however, seemed oblivious to the cold and indeed radiated a perceptible warmth of which I was only too glad.

Were the Skripal Poisonings a British Intelligence Service Hoax?

In an interview conducted in the Kremlin on June 19, this year, Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, Oliver Stone. The discussion turned to the case of Sergei Skripal, the pardoned Russian traitor, resident in Salisbury, England where he and his daughter, Yulia, were reported by British authorities to have been poisoned by Russian security service operatives who painted the deadly nerve agent Novichok on the knob of the front door of Sergei Skripal's house.

Concerning that incident, Stone's conversation with Putin included the following:

Stone: What has happened to Skripal? Where is he? Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding. Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei Skripal to come back to Russia? Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me? Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so. Oliver Stone: Who did then? Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today’s world. In fact, a fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just wanted to provoke a scandal.

Putin is certainly not acknowledging Russian responsibility for the Skripal poisonings, yet he said the Brits weren't responsible either. So the Russia position seems to be that the poisonings were a hoax to smear Russia, and that no one was actually poisoned with the deadly nerve agent, Novichok.

But if that were the case, why? Why would the British Government engage in such charade? Presumably as part of the UK–US deep state project to to create an obstacle to a US/Russian rapprochement. 

But if so, surely there would have been a pretext. And if there were a pretext, it must have been the visit to Salisbury of the alleged Russian security service operatives, Petrov and Boshirov, immediately prior to the poisoning of the Skripals with the deadly, "developed-in-Russia," nerve agent that proved curiously undeadly, at least in the case of the Skripals. 

According to British authorities, Petrov and Boshirov were in Salisbury to paint Novichok on the knob of Sergei Skripal's front door. But what if they were there for some entirely different clandestine purpose? Then a faked poisoning might have been judged by the UK as a good means of retaliation, since it could be blamed on Russia, by virtue of the presence of the Russian agents. 

But there was also the case of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, reported by British authorities to have been poisoned with Novichok contained in a perfume bottle that they found in a rubbish bin in Salisbury. 

Apparently Dawn Sturgess died as a consequence of applying the contents of the bottle, which she took to be perfume, which if true is inconsistent with the idea that the Novichok poisonings were simply a piece of theatre intended to sway public opinion. But then perhaps it was precisely to create such an apparent inconsistency that Dawn Sturgess had to "die." 

Is thatDawn Sturgess carrying a red 

bag and accompanied by and Pablo

Miller, Sergei Skripal's MI6 handler? 

Image source.

As far as we know, Dawn Sturgess did die, and if the circumstances of here death are as reported by British authorities, her death was certainly tragic.

But if the incident was part of a propaganda exercise, then Ms. Sturgess may still be alive and living at public expense under another name?

But if Dawn Sturgess is still alive, then she must have been one of the actors in a British operation to discredit Russia, a possibility suggested by the surveillance camera image of a women who might well have been Dawn Stugess accompanied by a man who might well have been Pablo Miller, Segei Skripals MI6 handler.

The CCTV image, taken at around the time of the alleged poisonings, is from a camera in the lane connecting Zizzi's restaurant in Salisbury, where the Skripals had just eaten, with the park where they are supposed to have been poisoned.

The woman in the photograph is carrying a red bag, which is interesting in view of the report of a witness at the scene of the poisoning who said, referring to Yulia Skripal:

She had a red bag at her feet.

So perhaps we need no longer mourn for Dawn Sturgess, who may yet be living comfortably at public expense, albeit under a different name.

An Exclusive Interview With Jesus Christ

We all know what Jesus thought about major social issues of his own days on Earth, matters such as the stoning of adulteresses, the payment of taxes to Rome, how to respond when smitten on the cheek, and so forth. But there are many moral questions that we have to decide today on which Jesus's position is not immediately obvious.

Fortunately, Jesus, as everyone who has read the gospel accounts of his life knows, taught his followers to regard God as a personal god to whom they could speak as they would speak to a loving father. It was in this spirit, therefore, that we invited Jesus to join us on this blog for an exclusive interview via Skype*, a request that Jesus, now a member of the Holy Trinity, and thus the voice of God, very graciously agreed to.

Without further ado, then, here is our conversation.