Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The photographer who took the picture is a resident of Newtown and a reporter for the Newtown Bee. It is not that she was "unable". This article was posted way back in the beginning of the thread:
Other scenes witnessed -- and captured -- by Bee staffers included the now iconic photo of a line of anguished children, their hands on their classmates' shoulders, being led away from the horrible event. Associate editor, reporter and photographer Shannon Hicks, a 20-plus year veteran Bee journalist, photographed the children in the early moments of the shooting aftermath. She had arrived at the school as a journalist, but found herself slipping into her role as a Newtown volunteer firefighter, rendering whatever help she could.
Thanks Mighty! I thought I had read every post in this thread, but somehow I missed (or had by now forgotten) this. OK, so the explanation is that she shot one photo of the kids evacuating, then realized she had more important things to do in the role of volunteer firefighter. That is certainly conceivable, and an explanation that I had not yet heard.
I won't ask about why only one evac photo again --- because I truly am not trying to keep beating a dead horse after reasonable answers have been given. I'll pass along the firefighter explanation to my wacky relative who believes SH is actually a hoax.
No, no reasonable explanation has been offered regarding a question that I have asked numerous times in this thread. I'll repeat it again:
If the photographer was able to get close enough to take that ONE photo of the evacuation, why not others? "Logistics" doesn't explain that. "Fear of a lawsuit" doesn't explain that. People who live in Connecticut being "reserved" doesn't explain that.
Publicizing just ONE photo of the evacuation is simply a curious and vastly different type of photo-journalism than I have seen in any other major news story.
It doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist. As I've stated before, I HAVE encountered some CTs who are asking these exact questions, and I realize I have no answer for them on this particular question, and others.
I don't think the publication of only ONE evacuation photo proves or disproves anything, it is merely an oddity to me. (oops, someone previously informed us that "odd" means "suspicious"). Let me rephrase, it is, in the word's of Yul Brenner, "a puzzlement."
Call up law enforcement in Sandy Hook and ASK them who they let in and why. There is a photo up thread of the roadblock at the school. I think that would prevent idle private citizens and/or photographers from getting down, close up, to the school.
I guess you'd have to be able to relate to normal human emotions like shock and horror to be able to understand the very real possibility that the ONE photographer, who lived in that town and knew many of the people whose children may have been killed, actually responded as a human being, overriding her "duty" to take photos when confronted with the horror of what happened. That certainly seems a reasonable possibility to me.
Okay. We understand that you find it odd and curious. I do not. Your "puzzlement" is overkill and looks like a smoke screen from here.
Call up law enforcement in Sandy Hook and ASK them who they let in and why. There is a photo up thread of the roadblock at the school. I think that would prevent idle private citizens and/or photographers from getting down, close up, to the school.
I guess you'd have to be able to relate to normal human emotions like shock and horror to be able to understand the very real possibility that the ONE photographer, who lived in that town and knew many of the people whose children may have been killed, actually responded as a human being, overriding her "duty" to take photos when confronted with the horror of what happened. That certainly seems a reasonable possibility to me.
Okay. We understand that you find it odd and curious. I do not. Your "puzzlement" is overkill and looks like a smoke screen from here.
I have a little assignment for you FF. Compare and contrast your answer to the helpful one that Mightyqueen gave me. Then read the reply that I gave Mighty. I respectfully and sincerely thanked her for giving me an answer that is quite plausible.
You seem to want to close down genuine discussion, that seems to have been your intent throughout this thread, and for the life of me, I do not understand why. Why would you accuse me of lacking normal human emotions, when I am consistently one of the most respectful and kind posters anywhere on CD? You are free to disagree with my opinions (although I have actually expressed very few opinions in this thread, merely asked questions), but you throw out buzz words like "smoke screen" and "overkill," and have brought little substance to the discussion at hand.
Is there a way you and I can agree to discuss things more respectfully? <holding out olive branch>
To answer some of Dorthy's other questions specifically about Lanza at the top of her question: This is where you and I differ. I don't think it will matter a hill of beans if we find out "why" Lanza did this or that or the other thing or what he thought. Who cares why he destroyed his hard drive other than it would have been interesting for shrinks to look at? I don't think it will matter one way or the other if we enact new gun laws, or worry about prescription drugs, or have armed guards at schools, or monitor gun-loving mothers with crazy sons. Sometimes terrible things happen and there is no way anyone could have predicted them or prevented them. This is one of those terrible things. All the pointing and blaming and twisting and turning is not going to change the fact that there are people walking amongst us, right now, who may just snap and bring on the next incident. Everyone jumps on what they want to because of their own personal agendas. For some, it's gun control. For others, it's anti-pharmeceuticals. For others, it's about not locking up crazy people. Some will always get through, no matter what we do.
True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.
I already posted the study that analyzed decades of school shootings and found that two-thirds of the shooters got the weapons used in their crimes at home. And that 1/2 knew how to operate guns. Maybe it's not such a good idea to teach children to shoot.
I suggest that gun-owning parents should rid their house of guns if they have sons with emotional problems. Not just lock the guns up, but store the guns elsewhere for a while. It is up to gun owners to start taking some responsibility to prevent future shootings. Because the majority of these weapons are coming from gun-owning parents' homes, not illegal trafficking.
Curing mental illness, not so easy. Armed guards at schools? No guarantee of security. Ridding the house of guns? Easily done, and if enough parents did this, it might prevent the next school shooting.
I always check out snopes whenever there's some kind of conspiracy theory. They do a pretty good job of debunking.
Look at the "sources" your heroes at snopes used to "debunk" everything supposedly. The same pathetic media tools who have been lying the entire time to begin with. Unbelievable.
I would still like a reliable source for the claim that the Newtown Bee originally published an "interview" with a principal who turned out to be dead. All I've found is a supposed screen shot on the conspiracy sites of this article, and Dorthy, you did say "the mainstream media took it down", and I'm not sure to whom you are referring (I do know what MSM usually means--but are you including the "Bee" the MSM?)
Having seen many photoshopped pictures of the WTC on conspiracy sites, I'm a little leery of accepting a screen shot purported to have been a real news article when it only appears on a conspiracy-theory website.
Okay, so what's the point then? Some information was reported inaccurately.
There's more driving this whole thing than just criticizing media inaccuracies...there are a lot of (deranged) people on this forum and many others who think there really is a conspiracy here, and that conspiracy is the confiscation of weapons for some sinister purpose.
Why give any support to it by saying that any of these "questions" have legitimate reason to be beaten to death?
Because I believe many of the questions are valid. I believe the media botched the reporting of this event terribly and I sincerely hope they start taking their profession more seriously than just trying to be first.
I "know" Dorthy and Kathryn from seeing them post in other areas of the forum. Neither of them are extremist wingnuts. Plus, many of the questions both asked are good ones. *shrug*
I have a little assignment for you FF. Compare and contrast your answer to the helpful one that Mightyqueen gave me. Then read the reply that I gave Mighty. I respectfully and sincerely thanked her for giving me an answer that is quite plausible.
You seem to want to close down genuine discussion, that seems to have been your intent throughout this thread, and for the life of me, I do not understand why. Why would you accuse me of lacking normal human emotions, when I am consistently one of the most respectful and kind posters anywhere on CD? You are free to disagree with my opinions (although I have actually expressed very few opinions in this thread, merely asked questions), but you throw out buzz words like "smoke screen" and "overkill," and have brought little substance to the discussion at hand.
Is there a way you and I can agree to discuss things more respectfully? <holding out olive branch>
Sure.
I honestly believe there is an agenda behind these types of questions, and I believe many reasonable explanations have been given, yet the same questions get put out again, and they are actually fairly ambiguous questions at that. Smoke screen is not a buzz word but IMO an accurate description of what's taking place in these kinds of discussions. smokescreen - definition of smokescreen by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
MightyQueen's style is to let you save face, which is admirable. I might consider doing the same if it weren't for things like this, which are rather patronizing, the first words in your post: "I have a little assignment for you FF."
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 01-23-2013 at 03:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought I had read every post in this thread, but somehow I missed (or had by now forgotten) this. OK, so the explanation is that she shot one photo of the kids evacuating, then realized she had more important things to do in the role of volunteer firefighter. That is certainly conceivable, and an explanation that I had not yet heard.
