A bit of a lurker here and I have always enjoyed researching theories, studying photographic evidence and film especially, as that's my profession. I also (in my free time) have studied non-verbal language, persuasion, influence, deception detection and linguistics - I'm by no means an expert but I have been studying it on my own for the last 15 odd years.

I've looked at Sandy Hook and seen the evidence for and against it and although a lot of the evidence that is thrown around such as we have seen recently in other threads can perhaps be accounted for, there is something about it that doesn't seem right and it really holds my attention. I won't specify which physical evidence I think can be accounted for or not. I don't live in America, I'm not overly familiar with the whole affair and therefore find it impossible to say either way what could or couldn't be true. I can talk about people though.

Right off the bat, we see interviews with the family members of the victims - the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters of the victims and one thing is consistent throughout - they are all coping with the sudden and shocking loss of their loved ones very well. Some will say they smiling and happy - some will pulse a video and say, see, they're smiling, they're laughing.

Pulsed video or still frames cannot portray a real moment in time as we process it. I know it doesn't, I've been shooting for 20 years and anyway it doesn't take a genius to understand that expressions are formed over time and muscles move in the face to create that expression, stopping it at a certain point in time cannot be considered an accurate account of what the expression may be unless it is already fully formed.

What I do see in the interviews though is this; they are almost forgiving, extremely well adjusted and extremely lucid and in control of their emotions. I can understand people in shock not wanting to come to terms with some horrific event and even pretending like it didn't happen until the reality of the situation really starts to take hold. But, the families seem to be very aware of what happened and very in control of their emotions. One would expect them to be unkept, down tempo and just extremely distraught. The loss of a child, especially by murder so motiveless and senseless, by automatic rifle... I could see the parents coming to terms with it and adopting a more positive outlook over months or years but in a day or so? The shock alone would take weeks. The motivation to talk about it publicly simply wouldn't be there, you'd be devastated.

Anyway, I wanted to talk about Gene Rosen. We all know he was enlisted in the local theatre and therefore he was acting... You could say hey he's an amateur actor so there you go, proof, case closed. I don't buy that, but here's the thing about Gene, in my opinion he definitely was acting.

The interviews over and over again in which he gave, recounted the story in almost the exact same words. The same intonation and timbre in his voice was used in the same words over and over again, just like badly rehearsed speech. The same pauses, the same hand on heart gesture, the same screwed up facial expression of pain, all of it inconsistent with a normal person recounting a multiple times.

There is little doubt, actually proof, he did rehearse what he was going to say in the link. Of all the alleged evidence suggesting Sandy Hook was not real, the fact that Gene Rosen rehearsed his words is the most compelling piece in my opinion.

We could perhaps discount the families relatively unemotional interviews days after the event as parents who are just well adjusted and very forgiving, extremely religious and positive. Or maybe a government entity came in and said, for the sake of the nation we need some strong characters to tell the world how wonderful their children were, to make it about them and not about the shooter. It's not unthinkable is it?

But Gene man, I cannot get past Gene. If this was a real event and what Gene said really happened can anyone give me any idea of why he would be rehearsing what he had to say? Does anyone know who the cameraman was? Who leaked the footage? When it was taken? According to the linked video, the footage was taken in his backyard and there is a helicopter buzzing around.

If the event was real, the only scenario I can imaging is this:

Gene is a keen amateur actor. He played a somewhat key role (for real) on the day of the event by helping some children. News crews were very keen to interview him. Taking this opportunity, Gene decided that he would take advantage of his famous fifteen minutes. He's perhaps a bit nervous and after agreeing to do interviews asked to borrow a cameraman for a few minutes to practice what he's going to say before going 'live'. That would explain the 'rehearsal' video and that he knew the cameraman's name. Remember Gene didn't lose anyone that day, he's probably somewhat emotionally detached and perhaps the whole I'm going to be on TV thing got the better of him and he decided he was going to ramp it up a notch.

Admittedly, unlikely and unnatural given the context but again not unthinkable, perhaps? I don't know. I do know (or am of very strong opinion that) he was acting but I don't know why. If it could be proven the video was filmed the day before, that would be all you needed - slam dunk. But the helicopter suggests it was on the day, right?

Also telling, is the fact that the cameraman does seem to interject at times. It's not clear what he says. Some say he says "No", or "Cut!" at times but I cannot hear exactly what he says. It sounds more to me like a gasp and not an actual word - nevertheless, Gene reacts to the interjection.

The very fact that the cameraman interjected however is suspicious. Even if the event were real and Gene borrowed a cameraman to rehearse because he was nervous, the cameraman would surely not have much knowledge of the chain of events and have no opinion and thus no cause or reason to interject at anytime. The one time I would accept interjection would be when Gene swore using the f-word. That's fine, a cameraman knows what words are and are not permitted on live television. When the interjections happen, Gene backs up and changes the narrative as pointed out by the video narrator. This is interesting for the reasons I've just mentioned.

I've never expressed my opinion about this event because of it's very nature. If it happened and those children died in the way they did, out of respect from them and their families, it's something I'd like to tread lightly around. I would never have brought it up if it weren't for the leaked video. Without going off on any other tangents or lines of discussion, can we talk about Gene?

TL;DR: Gene was acting, but why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqJh7FzS1Ao

*Edited some spelling and added an extra sentence but before any comments have been made.