The release of the documentary, “We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook” by the group, Independent Media Solidarity has become a story of aggressive copyright fraud, a massive video upload movement and an unexpected Internet solidarity more than a story of the controversial Sandy Hook event itself.
The weakest link in a chain is the one you choose to break.
If you imagine manufactured events like 9/11, the Aurora theater shooting, Sandy Hook and others as links in the greater chain of deception, you might be close to understanding the circumstances in which these events are allowed to go unchecked. This chain of events cannot survive if any one of its links is broken.
On November 30th, the fortress that protects the truth about these grand deceptions was dealt a very different kind of blow. Unlike fleeting exposures or leaks of evidence that quickly get swept into the memory hole, this blow has caused a festering wound that will persist indefinitely. The opening act in this play, long in production was the release of the documentary, “We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook.” This, nearly 3 hours long video exposing the numerous anomalies and ongoing cover-up is in itself an important, historical document. But, it’s the stories behind this story that are becoming a phenomenon.
A Documentary by and for the Common Man
In February of 2014, over a year since Sandy Hook many groups were deeply involved in research and analysis of the Sandy Hook event. This may come as a surprise considering that the media had long since moved on to speak of it as a well-documented, historical event. Referring to the little-understood, Adam Lanza as “the shooter” is but one example of their portrayal of the event as authentic and undeniable. What little attention the media paid to anyone who thought otherwise was limited to stories of “conspiracy theorists” harassing and even stalking victim’s family members. Behind these stories of bloggers turned stalkers was a large body of people who continued to question the event.
One such group questioning Sandy Hook was a research group on the topic comprised of 60 some odd members. Back in February, one of its members approached the group with an idea for a project that would involve a number of segments, each focusing on a different piece of evidence. The Sandy Hook event is, if you weren’t aware is brimming with anomalies and curiosities. These segments would then be combined to form a painstakingly factual and revealing expose. The only caveat was that nothing contained within a segment would be included if any of the others in the group specifically objected to it. In addition, each participant would be required to narrate their segment. The topics would be submitted to a coordinator beforehand, to prevent participants from covering the same topic.
Once a core group had formed, a repository for evidence such as photographs, video clips, news stories as well as narration scripts and cut lists was established and the work began. Over the course of 9 months, the work continued and the segments were produced with little consideration of cohesion or the end result. The coordinator and editor were tasked with producing an introductory and closing segment. As each completed segment was previewed, a picture began to form and as fate would have it the picture was that of a complete and very intriguing documentary.
Creating a Home for the Project and the Group behind It
One other significant development emerged from within the project early on. One of the participants, who was also the editor had conceived of a way to give life to the project, prevent the video from becoming just a static document as well as give the group an informal identity. Without much fanfare, Independent Media Solidarity (IMS) was born. This would become the moniker under which the group could be identified. A website and various social media accounts were established in support of the group. Although the significance of this move was predicted to some degree by the group, none predicted just how significant or in which ways IMS would become a useful platform.
Video Take-Downs and the Surprising Counteraction
Long before the documentary was completed, it was determined that the usual method by which the video would be disseminated through YouTube would not work in this case. Many of the members had been stung previously by having videos flagged or removed through claims of copyright or privacy infringement. YouTube is heavily invested in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) implementation, having designed an automated system by which to prevent copyright violations.
One component of the system is built into YouTube’s uploading function. As videos are uploaded, they are screened for audio that matches anything within a massive database of copyrighted material. If a match is found, one of two things happens. Either the uploader is presented with the option of disputing the claim or accepting it as accurate, or YouTube simply rejects the video on the basis of it being a violation of their terms. The second major component of their DMCA system involves the copyright owner making a claim against a particular video. In this process, the owner of the material flags the offending video and YouTube responds automatically by taking the video offline while notifying the video’s producer that a claim has been made. The video producer at this point must either accept the claim as accurate and forfeit the video or dispute the claim, at which time notice of the dispute is sent to the claimant.
The unfortunate side-effect of the overall process is that, during a 10 day period in which the claimant has to choose whether to take further action the video is offline.
As you might imagine this policy of allowing anyone to make a claim against any video is easily abused. The function largely favors claimants over producers of videos the claims are made against. As it stands, anyone can make a claim against any video to have it removed for a period of between 10 days and 3 weeks, and the uploader of the video has no recourse whatsoever. They are simply not afforded a means to legally challenge the claim aside from the initial dispute option. But this does nothing to prevent the take down of the video. It’s this concerning reality at the root of the next story behind the story.
As mentioned, the group chose not to upload their documentary to YouTube. After researching the options, it was determined that Vimeo would likely be the best home for the video. So, on November 30th it was uploaded to a newly established Vimeo account, a trailer was loaded to the group’s YouTube account and those of the participants. Despite there having been little hype in the time preceding its release, many people began to watch and the buzz was that people liked it.
Within less than 24 hours, Vimeo removed the video and sent notice that it was removed due to a violation of their terms. Here is the relevant text of that message…
Your video “We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook” has been removed for violating our Guidelines. Reason: Vimeo does not allow videos that harass, incite hatred or depict excessive violence.
If you haven’t yet seen the video, this might appear to be a legitimate reason for its removal. However, if you have seen the video it’s very unlikely that you’ll find the reason given to make much sense. There simply isn’t anything that could be construed as harassment or inciting of hatred. Not only is their not excessive violence, there’s no violence depicted at all. Therefore, it appears that Vimeo chose to remove the video for other reasons. I won’t begin to speculate what those reasons were and the group hasn’t bothered to inquire further into the matter. Both Vimeo and YouTube are notoriously steadfast in their take-down decisions and rarely, if ever provide detailed explanations for them.
Although the plan had been to load the video to a secondary host as back-up, that simply hadn’t been done when the primary source at Vimeo was removed. Being faced with a newly-released video now totally unavailable, the decision was made to upload it to the group’s YouTube channel. Although it was predicted that it wouldn’t last more than a day or two, this seemed the quickest way to make the video viewable again. Concerned about and fully expecting it to be removed from YouTube, the group also scrambled to upload the video to Archive.org, which seemed like a suitable back-up source.
By this time there was a growing buzz across the Internet in places where conspiracies were discussed as well as matters of free speech. The group began to receive numerous requests through the simple contact form on its website for a copy of the video that people could upload to their channels both on YouTube and elsewhere. A completely unexpected phenomenon was showing its first signs when discussions of the take down by Vimeo was seen as unfair censorship. This generated more interest, the assumption being that for it to have been taken down so quickly what it contained must be bombshell material.
Although the matter of whether any material in the video constitutes being described as “bombshell” is relative, this notion did lead to increased interest. As the group struggled to ensure the video was viewable, considering the take-down of it at Vimeo to be a setback it was in no way a ruse by them to gen up interest through promoting a perceived notion of scarcity. This appears to have been an organic phenomenon.
Then the video was taken down from YouTube. In just over 24 hours, the video was taken offline by a copyright claim made by the HONR network, represented by one Lenny Pozner. For those who may be unfamiliar with the Sandy Hook characters, Lenny is the purported father of child victim, Noah Pozner. Although Lenny wasn’t amongst the many victim’s parents making the rounds on news programs and morning shows, Lenny has been highly involved in post Sandy Hook event affairs. At the point at which it was taken down, just this single source of the video had received over 117,000 views. This was learned thanks to an observant viewer who kindly emailed a screenshot to the group.
Some members of IMS had previously had videos removed through copyright claims. What was different in this case was that the claim made no reference to any specific material. It wasn’t possible to determine which specific material within the video was supposedly infringing on a copyright. The reader might be interested to know that, in order for a claim to be made at all the person or group making the claim must be the owner of the material. The group was perplexed, as it seemed extremely unlikely that any material in the video was owned by the HONR Network or Lenny Pozner.
Once again, the documentary was offline and a seemingly endless string of notices of this fact and requests for a different link to the video began to flood the group’s inbox. The uploading process for a nearly 3 hours long video can take many hours to complete, depending upon conditions like bandwidth availability. At the time the video was removed a second time by YouTube, the upload to Archive.org was not yet completed. Once again, the video was inaccessible for a few hours until traffic could finally be redirected to Archive.org. At this time, the primary source of the video stream remains Archive.org.
Acts of Kindness and of Rebellion
Once the dust began to settle after scrambling to keep the video online, the group finally had a chance to see a sampling of the public’s reaction to it. It was overwhelmingly positive. Some comments online read like letters written to Charles Lindbergh after landing at Le Bourget Field. Messages coming in through the contact form often referred to the group as heroes. Even in places where the tone was typically cynical and comments were often times ugly, there was a swell of appreciation for the producers and many recommendations that others take the time to watch.
Below is a sampling of the comments found or received by IMS…
“The video you made was GREAT!…I’ve made a video with you guys in it to promote your work.”
YouTube User: HighImpactFlix
“Great work! Independent journalism is the only journalism. Thank-you for helping us understand reality in this lifetime.”
YouTube User: David Gordon
“i am sharing now………..i will do my part, world, how bout you?”
Beforeitsnews.com commenter: truthlovingsoul
“It’s truly a great video! Very informative!!!… Well worth the time to watch!”
Lunaticoutpost.com commenter: LoP Guest
“Great job! I actually learned a thing or two. I’ll do what I can to get it out for you…here’s to viral status”
Vimeo User: SusanL
“Great video and i am so relieved this event is being looked into by so many talented people…”
Vimeo User: Stuart Heathcote
“HOLY MOLY! Who gets the Nobel prize for investigative journalism? Now THAT’S what the truth looks/sounds like. Many thanks!”
Vimeo User: Ron Trinny
“Thank you very much. I have forwarded your website and Vimeo link to my family members and will continue to promote your work at every possible opportunity, because, yes, we do need to talk about Sandy Hook.”
Received through Web Form: Anonymous
“Thank you for your incredible work exposing the Defrauding of the American people,”
Received through Web Form: Anonymous
“Keep doing what you’re doing. Thank you for your time and effort.”
Received though Web Form: Anonymous
The list above would be dozens of pages long if you were to compile all the supportive comments. It’s fair to say the response was generally positive, despite some negative assessments. But, in another example of how this whole phenomenon is different, the documentary found its way into the Internet Movie Database. That, in itself is unusual for videos produced as non-commercial ventures that didn’t receive wide release. Again, the views of those discovering the documentary through IMDB are highly favorable. At the time of this writing, 81 IMDB users have rated the video and the overall rating is a 9.5.
It doesn’t require re-printing the entirety of the eight reviews of the video to get a clear impression of the reviewer’s opinion. Just take a look at the review titles alone…
- Worth the time. Amazing.
- Very well prepared.
- A Oscar worthy documentary that will change everything
- Well done
- Paradigm shifting
- A must see!!!!!
- Excellent documentary! 10 star
- The Smoking Gun of Sandy Hook Research
View the complete reviews on IMDB…
Some will argue that the phenomenon of numerous people uploading portions of or all of the video was born entirely from the early reports that it had been taken down. The perception this led to was that the material in the video was explosive and that taking it down stood as another example of an attack on free speech. They will likely cite the spreading news of the many other video take-downs as only supporting their theory that all the uploading was in response to this.
There’s little doubt that this partly accounts for motivating this mass upload, but it simply doesn’t make sense that it accounts for it all. Fundamentally, a video is uploaded to a user’s channel with the expectation that at least some people will view it. Popular YouTube channels that regularly see thousands of views of any video uploaded to their channel would expect similar results from this video. But, the channels where videos barely garnered any views and had few or no subscribers wouldn’t expect so many viewers. Some of these less-trafficked channels broke up the video into as many as 15 or more parts. So, when a couple days had been spent uploading the first half as only a handful of viewers took notice, it was clear their channel wasn’t going to receive much traffic. Yet they diligently uploaded the remaining parts.
Simply put, never before has such a mass upload occurred on YouTube. It’s astonishing to see. As IMS isn’t aware of a method to track exactly how many copies of the video were uploaded before being taken down, the true number may be impossible to know. What is apparent is that comments from users on various channels and comment threads indicate that they too had uploaded the video and had it taken down. IMS is making efforts to record the account names and titles of copies of the video still available on YouTube. But, the take-downs are occurring at about the same rate as the new copies that are uploaded in response.
The Coordinated Efforts to Eliminate this Video and the Greater War on Free Speech
I’ve made reference to the various incidents of copyright claims being made against the documentary appearing on the official IMS YouTube channel and many others. These incidents, however aren’t limited to the actual documentary itself. It has been discovered that, likely in response to this mass upload event they’ve upped the ante.
Well known YouTube user, blogger and activist Dutchsinse has a very compelling story to tell involving his copy of the documentary being taken down, videos that merely report on the take-down phenomenon being taken down and even efforts by YouTube and other social media outlets to limit his ability to communicate with his fan base. Dutchsinse is no stranger to difficulties with YouTube and other social media portals, having had his account shut down 6 times in 4 years. Each time his account was shut down it was as a direct result of false copyright claims. In each case, he fought the claim and his account was restored.
Not only was Dutchsinse in the sights of those who falsely file claims of copyright infringement, he’s also been the victim of anonymous claims that he is an imposter. This actually led to his story being covered in grotesque detail on Nasdaq.com and other main-stream sites. In short, when an anonymous individual flagged his unwanted and unused Google+ account which happened to be connected to his popular YouTube account, it resulted in the interconnected accounts being taken offline. The 800 videos and his 75,000 subscribers just disappeared and no mechanism existed for him to refute the false claim.
Only because he had a connection inside Google was his issue raised with the proper departments, resulting in his YouTube account being restored. However, his access to the Google+ account tied to the YouTube account was not restored requiring he go through an identity verification process. Surprisingly, this was still deemed necessary despite the fact that his account was under the name Dutchsinse, not his real name Michael Janitch. The passport he used as the photo ID required by Google didn’t contain a reference to this pseudonym, and the processes in place seemed insufficient to reconcile this.
If not standing as an example of a serious campaign to harass Dutchsinse, then certainly standing as evidence of the unfair policies of Googe/YouTube he was forced to comply with this identity verification process 6 times. In each case, the anonymous person making the claim wasn’t required to identify themselves or provide any contact information.
When Dutchsinse recently produced a video in which he merely describes how his copy of the documentary was given a strike by Lenny Pozner of the HONR Network, that video too was given a strike and taken down. But, this time there was something different about the claim and something that should be very concerning to anyone hoping to keep the Internet a home for free speech. Unlike other copyright or privacy claims he had received, this one didn’t allow him to dispute it. When he clicked on what had formerly led him to the copyright claims dispute form, there was a message instead that read simply… “This video is not eligible for a counter-notification.”
As Dutchsinse explains in an article on his blog, “The fact that I cannot dispute this means that even though I committed no crime, I have been deemed guilty by the person accusing me of the crime. I now have to get a lawyer and sue to have this accusation of a crime removed”.
It’s known who is doing the targeting of certain online content, in Dutchsinse’s case and in the case of IMS and others. But it isn’t only Lenny Pozner and the HONR network that’s working hard to oppose the efforts of IMS and others to speak freely about the Sandy Hook event. Take, for example one CW Wade. Wade began to appear first through his YouTube channel, Wadesvids. His very first video was a lengthy analysis of the official report in which he attempted to reconcile as many of the anomalies discovered by independent researchers with the official report. From there, he graduated to appearing on radio shows and podcasts where his position as a supporter of the official account of events was cemented.
Over the following months CW Wade began to establish a number of online blogs which he has devoted to the singular topic of Sandy Hook “hoaxers” and “stalkers.” Through first one and now a handful of blogs, he slanders many people researching Sandy Hook with an obvious proclivity to bend the words he uses to better portray his subjects as “stalkers.”
One example is an article in which he accuses one researcher of soliciting the help of another, whereby he claims they put a “…stalking hit…” on someone related to the Sandy Hook event. I’ve heard examples of stalking, but this is truly the first time I’ve heard that one stalker may have asked someone else to stalk on their behalf. It’s clear that CW Wade’s intent is to do as much damage as he can to people questioning Sandy Hook. The answer to whether anyone in the IMS group knows who CW Wade is working for isn’t being revealed.
In a bold move that only leads people to further suspect deception, Wade published another blog that this time he acquired a domain name for. The reason why a proprietary domain name was a requirement in this case was that it was needed to create the impression of being a regional news site. Writing articles now for the “Newtown Post-Examiner,” Wade appears to be making an attempt to pose as a writer working for a non-biased news organization. The strategy appears to be paying off to some degree. A few news stories on the web cite quotes from the Newtown Post-Examiner. They don’t bother to clarify that it’s a blog and likely doesn’t employ an editorial review process.
Incidents of this online persona slandering people who produce content questioning the Sandy Hook event is not only impacting the individuals but, by association anyone in the growing community of those who question the event. Making these acts even more sinister is the possibility that they are part of a coordinated effort working with other groups, one of which was mentioned previously.
When one member of IMS had received two copyright strikes made by Lenny Pozner resulting in two videos being taken offline, he noted something CW Wade said in one of only two exchanges they had with each other. Only the member and the claimant, Lenny Pozner knew that they had been saddled with two copyright strikes. In closing a comment made to the member, CW Wade asked, “How many strikes is that now?” Without explaining exactly how, the comment made it clear that CW Wade received this information from Lenny Pozner. It’s likely that CW Wade didn’t wish to make this fact known. It doesn’t seem all that far-fetched considering that Wade has allowed his blogs to be used as a pulpit by Lenny.
The relationship between Lenny Pozner and the HONR Network has been well established. In what is unlikely to be a simple case of showing appreciation for having shared values, CW Wade openly supports the HONR Network which has even been the subject of articles by Wade. Because Lenny Pozner is engaged in making false and illegal claims against members of IMS and their supporters, and CW Wade has made numerous statements that slander IMS members as well as others, they are engaging in a criminal conspiracy. CW Wade has openly called for IMS members to be the targets of law enforcement actions, claimed that they are lying to their respective subscribers and that it’s just a matter of time before they WILL commit acts of violence. IMS requests that these claims be examined carefully. They state that not a single shred of evidence exists to support them and that, to view them individually isn’t likely to reveal Wade’s true intent. But, to view them within the context of Wade’s single-minded body of work shows clearly his intent to manipulate public opinion of those who dare to question officialdom.
What’s in a Name and Why it’s a Very Serious Matter
It is an act of perjury to file a claim of copyright infringement via YouTube using anything but your legal name. An alias may not be used when filing these claims. It is through the work of IMS members beginning before their documentary project even began that many now suspect “Lenny Pozner”is not the actual name of the person presenting himself using that name.
One very simple technique by which the average person may see evidence of this is to conduct a search of any number of public records databases, such as Radaris. Searching “Lenny Pozner” may, depending upon the system being queried result in a match for a person in Connecticut. On Radaris, for example a result for “Leonard P Osner” can be seen in Newtown CT. Researchers who have looked into the matter of Lenny’s true identity have cross-referenced the data available through both public and commercial sources and determined that “Leonard P Osner” is almost certainly an identity used by Lenny Pozner.
With that name in Radaris are associated aliases. They include “Enta C Pozner, Len Pozner, Lenny Pozner, Leonard Posner, Leonard Pozner and Eliezer Pozner”; six in total. How many aliases do you have? The more appropriate question in this case is, how many aliases are connected to your identity? My age is close to that of Lenny’s. I checked to see in Radaris how many aliases I was shown to have. I have one alias, which is a simple misspelling of my name with the last character of my middle name missing. Likely this was the result of an input error. If, however, Lenny’s actual legal middle initial and last name is “P. Osner” the fact that he’s credited for his editorials and has established a family under the last name “Pozner” is no simple clerical error.
Evidence is said to be in possession of IMS members indicating that Lenny has committed numerous acts of federal fraud by providing affidavits using names other than his legal name. This is not just a case of whether there was intent to defraud. It’s a simple requirement of certain documents. If the person who has filed no less than dozens of copyright claims on YouTube using the name Lenny Pozner has a different legal name, then this is a clear case of perjury, as YouTube specifies that they require the claimant’s sworn oath.
As IMS has been forced to deal with what are likely illegal attempts to disrupt dissemination of their new documentary, the plight of their supporters has become a concern as well. Not that the people who took it upon themselves to upload a copy of the video and been subject to its removal have been taking it sitting down. Many have been quite vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction with how easily the system allows for their videos to be taken offline. In one sense, YouTube is being exploited for this purpose. However, it’s YouTube’s lopsided system, favoring the claimant that doesn’t prevent and even facilitates the fraud.
IMS has determined that the best course of action to remedy the conditions that are impacting their supporters is to provide a detailed report of the problem to YouTube. As stated, YouTube is both being defrauded by these illegal claims and are themselves employing a system that facilitates it. There seems no party better situated to resolve the matter than YouTube themselves. The support mechanisms available to YouTube users are tailored for copyright owners making claims of infringement. Although there are mechanisms for some other scenarios, there simply isn’t anything amongst their standard support means suitable for reporting the situation IMS and their fellow YouTube users are in. Therefore, IMS is considering their options as it’s in the best interest of everyone concerned to report this activity in the most expedient way possible.
At present, IMS doesn’t know of any way to obtain a comprehensive list of YouTube videos taken offline through unwarranted and illegal copyright claims. That may require an in-depth and lengthy search effort. This should give you an idea of the numbers of users that could have potentially been impacted just in relation to the IMS documentary. Presented below are just the first 125 accounts that have uploaded the video to their respective channels…
|Documentary Video Uploaders
||B3LI3V3R 1- FREEDOM FOR ALL
||The Vigilant Christian
|Tatoott1009Reloaded 2 MIN NEWS
||tatoott1009 2 MIN NEWS
|Skid Davidson a Voice Crying in the Wilderness
||Miss Island Spice
|Exposing The Big Three
||Free Mind Revolution
||OFC Go F Yourself
||The Knowing 101
||Amanda Saor Alba
The above list is in no way comprehensive. It lists only the first 125 uploaders. IMS will continue to record the account names of uploaders in a master list for future reference. Everyone’s efforts will not be forgotten.
The Future Remains Uncertain but One in Which We Might Speak Freely
There are definitely stories emerging from a simple, yet unprecedented act. Regular people came together to share their individual contributions in research of the Sandy Hook event. In addition to the sensible presentation of the information, people seem to appreciate that those presenting it are personally motivated to give of their time and energy without being paid to do so. Maybe this is why harsher criticisms of the amateur effort are set aside in favor of giving thanks.
There is mounting evidence that this controversial documentary is the target of a coordinated effort to prevent it from being seen. Because of this, the very people who appreciate the work of its producers found an opportunity to help by uploading the video themselves. In so doing, they’ve joined with IMS in solidarity; in sharing their goal of achieving full disclosure. Others who watched as people came to IMS’s aid, helping ensure their documentary would be seen were touched by the display and decided to join in.
It’s unclear how long this phenomenon will continue. We can’t know for sure how far the opposition will go to disrupt it. More interestingly, we don’t yet know what other twist will develop out of all this. One thing that it calls to mind is that the Sandy Hook matter appears far from being concluded. For so many people to express their thanks, there must be far more conspiracy theorists out there than traditional media would have us believe. For still more people to go to such great length to help the video get seen, there may be a bright future in which we’re free to speak our minds in store for us after all.
Please direct questions or requests to the IMS group: [email protected]
Independent Media Solidarity on the Web
Official Website: http://mediasolidarity.com/
Watch the Full Documentary: http://mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html
IMS on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheIMSMediaGroup
IMS on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IMSolidarity
IMS on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndependentMediaSolidarity
IMS Contributors to the Documentary “We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook”
Free Radio Revolution
Sandy Hook Research
Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.