The Phaserl


Caravan To Midnight: SANDY HOOK A-Z

from John B. Wells:

Episode 188 Full Show Special

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

9 comments to Caravan To Midnight: SANDY HOOK A-Z

  • Almost 3 hours — just don’t have the time, especially since I’ve been convinced about Sandy Hoax for almost 2 years now. Anyway, I’ve listened to the introduction, and it appears the majority of the show is going to be an interview with Wolfgang Halbig, who has become a bit of a controversy within the Sandy Hook truth community. There have been other controversies between the Sandy Hook truthers, such as the video by The Paulstal Service which convincingly claimed Nancy Lanza was played by Annie Haddad, but the Wolfgang story is even more divisive. I’ve had mixed feelings about his authenticity from day one. Maybe this interview will change that, if I find the time to indulge.

    If you’ve watched “We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook”, the new documentary that’s also almost 3 hours long, you’ll notice that neither Halbig nor the Annie Haddad controversies are even mentioned. That’s probably wise because both subjects are “controversial” and could potentially weaken the arguments made in the doc. Still, in my personal opinion, these controversial topics are important because they ADD to all the rest of the anomalies and inconsistencies and bizarre behaviors and outright lies and the dark deceptions that abound with Sandy Hoax.

    John Wells stated near the beginning of the show that Halbig has some new information. Now that’s a tease, and I’m wondering what these new revelations are and how significant, so I’ll probably take a listen to at least some of this. Maybe the comments section at youtube will have some insights, from those who made it all the way through. I’m glad he’s tackling this subject, regardless. Waking up to Sandy Hoax is almost as important as waking up to 9/11 and the other Big Lies of this post-WWII nightmare. Maybe it’s no less important really, because as Wells stated near the beginning, if they can get away with any of these, they will continue to do even more, which is exactly what’s been happening — more mini-hoaxes and false-flags, with increasing regularity, from fake beheadings, to more shootings, to fake ebola, to fake racial incitement… and, of course, the distinct possibility of another BIG false flag to really take control, pre-economic collapse. /soapbox

    • Interview starts at approximately 24:00.

    • Simon

      @Mangrove…Why is Wolfgangs stance devisive? I would suggest it reinforces the latest video by the compilation of ‘researches’, ‘we need to talk’. I would suggest he adds credability from a different angle…and collectively, they build a very very compelling state of affairs surrounding the whole subject.

      Wolfgang isn’t sensationalising anything. He is adding more structure and basic building blocks onto which the ‘We need to talk’ video adds the meat and futher compelling facts.

      • I agree. Just pointing out that the fact that people within the Sandy Hook truth movement have been fighting over Wolfgang from day one. And his absence from the documentary makes that clear. Also, Paulstal’s theories were conspicuously absent, but again, people within the truth movement took sides on his video about Haddad/Lanza.

        I think people who have spent a lot of time researching and revealing Sandy Hoax have a lot of ego invested as well, PLUS they’re extremely on guard for disinfo agents entering the truth movement. That’s actually quite warranted, because it has been shown over and over that pretty much every movement, whether Occupy or the Tea Party or 9/11 Truth or any other group that might have influence, has been infiltrated and split up into factions.

        It’s a very hard battle to win, in the information war, especially when your opponent has all the resources (government backing, media control).

        Anyway, I’ve been listening to Wolfgang’s interview (above) and really like what he’s pointing out. I don’t see him as an infiltrator. At about 1:16:50 into the interview, John Wells asks him what he believes the real reason for Sandy Hook was, and his reply was spot on in my view. Essentially, it’s about using “mental health” to control people. If people don’t have time for the whole interview, at least listen to that segment.

  • But wait, there’s more! Almost 4 hours of discussion, as a matter of fact. This is from Red Pill Revolution, Free Radio Revolution, and many of the Sandy Hoax researchers who were involved in the making of the new documentary “We Need to Talk…”

    I haven’t even started this one, but linking to it anyway because I tend to like these folks. (Oooh, did I just sound like Obama?)

    We’ll Do it LIVE! The Real Alternative Podcast – Sandy Hook Anniversary

  • Sam

    Well, I’ve listened to the entire interview for starters, so I can comment without speculation or without preconceived notions of what others THINK about it or what was or wasn’t discussed, much to my dismay of what “mangrove” above states by adding to the confusion he has about what others have said – WOW!?

    Wolfgang Halbig is as consistant as the North Star on this and the only “controversies” surrounding the issue are all of the unanswered simple questions that have been asked and of those claiming he has no right to ask a questions…Strange, that in America there are those that believe that by asking simple questions is a “controversy” or that FOIA’s requested need not be answered as they are legally obligated to be. There is much dancing around the questions by others or by those too lazy to address them – why?

    You see, when simple questions go unanswered from the start from those who by law are required to answer them, there is a huge turd in the punch bowl obviously.

    Now, there is new info discussed during this interview and there is not one thing that reflects any “controversy” over Mr Halbig. Mr Halbig’s questions have not been answered – why? And of course, why are there those that asuume there are “controversies” with the messenger as if they are legit and not in the message itself? Simply address and answer the simple questions but, please, do not ASSUME there are “controversies” with the messenger especially when you don’t even bother to listen the interview to begin with or to address any contrived “controversies” that you ASSUME are there.

    A lot of mocking birds out there quacking nonsense offering no answers that ought to be as simple to answer as stating the day of the week it is – wonder why?

    • See my reply above, Sam. I didn’t create the controversy over Halbig. It’s a known fact that within the truth movement there has been a lot of distrust of Halbig and therefore a lot of disagreement and arguing. There’s one guy who has been dissing Halbig from way back: xrayultra. And now, Mr. xray (Brendan Hunt) is dissing the new documentary by “debunking” it. Some of the egos involved are just getting in the way, IMO. Anyway, your points were all good and I think Halbig should have proven by now that he’s on the side of truth. But don’t expect any mea culpas from those who dissed him though, sadly.

      • Sam

        IDK what you are referring to as “controversy” surrounding Halbig, except that you seem to be part of it by feeding into that line of BeeEss.

        Further, how do you know WHY his very simple questions were not included in the latest documentary because of one reason or any other?

        Couldn’t it be that Halbig has legal proceedings going forward and that he simply needed to refrain from input? Could be any number of other reasons why as well. He did mention several times he would go away if they would simply answer his questions…maybe he is simply awaiting answers that he has presented unlike anyone else?

        Going along with alleged “controversy” as you put it sounds fishy, can we be sure you are not disinfo? I still agree with Simon above and you still offer nothing to support your assertions of “controversies” other than what others may or may not have said and an Assumed reason why you believe his input wasn’t included in the film…You do realize that anyone pointing out the hoax is subject to the jackals and their stirred up “controversy” claims, right? I have researched a bit into this myself and have come across other info that wasn’t included in the film but, I couldn’t say for sure why one way or the other.

        More is coming out by the day it seems, let the truth ring out from all corners and to those with “controversies” over it – go back to hell from where you came!

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>