Hell Freezes Over: A Denier Admits Defeat

A couple of smarty-pants researchers from Dartmouth spent a lot of time studying something called the “backfire effect.” Their work eventually became a paper titled When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. I’m drastically oversimplifying here (seriously, go read it if you’re interested), but the basic idea — nicely summarized by RationalWiki — is this: when people are confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they don’t always change their minds. Sometimes they actually double down.

Kind of wild, right?

Once you understand that, it can be hard to work up the motivation to engage with conspiracy theorists at all. You know the odds are terrible. No matter how clear the evidence is or how calmly you present it, you’re usually just talking to a brick wall. That’s why I was genuinely surprised when, after a relatively short back-and-forth, I managed to get a hardcore Sandy Hook denier to actually admit they were wrong about something.

Last week, a Reddit user with the groan-inducing username HONRWATCH (HONR is a charity that documents harassment by deniers, for anyone not familiar) posted a nearly seven-minute video to /r/conspiracy. The title was a masterpiece of confidence:

Video analysis proves the Newtown Hoax was filmed in stages. Literally no Christmas lights on the fire station during the ‘chaos.’ Christmas lights obvious in the background of live reports. Not debatable.

Not debatable! Welp — pack it up, everyone. Guess thinking is canceled.

Seeing deniers discourage critical thinking never really surprises me. Critical thinking is basically conspiracy theory kryptonite. What did surprise me was that a bunch of /r/conspiracy users immediately pushed back and pointed out some pretty obvious problems with the video — most notably that you actually can see the Christmas lights, especially if you know where to look.

One user even did an excellent job compiling evidence and thoroughly debunking the claim. Naturally, HONRWATCH ignored that and instead went after easier targets.

Still, watching how active HONRWATCH was in defending this garbage — maybe they just really enjoy the sound of their own greasy fingers hammering a keyboard — I figured there was a small chance I could get them to engage directly. So I called them out.

Since you’re watching, /u/HONRWATCH…

You’ve made the claim that this photo:

…does not refute your theory because ‘The aerial footage was shot on another day.’ I’m asking you if the only evidence you have of this is the fact that you personally cannot see the unlit Christmas bulbs on the firehouse. If so, what is it?

Do you still stand by the idea that unlit Christmas lights are not visible anywhere in that footage?

Up to that point, HONRWATCH had refused to acknowledge anyone making a solid argument, so I was honestly shocked when they replied at all:

Yes, do you see unlit Christmas bulbs?

I can’t pretend to fully understand how people like this think, but my best guess is that keeping things simple worked better than dumping a full debunk on them. So I stuck with that approach and kept asking very straightforward questions.

Yes, I do. As multiple people have pointed out in your original thread, you can see the lights.

Here’s one instance:

Here’s another:

You can see the extension cord leading to the lights, lights wrapped around the base of the antenna, and lights dotting the peak of the roof. They’re about as clear as possible, given the circumstances. If you’re going to continue to believe that these aren’t lights, then what are they? What is the extension cord running to?

Also, please answer the following questions:

1) What other evidence do you have that the Channel 12 helicopter footage was not taken on the same day as the photos you were presented with in your own thread?

2) Do you acknowledge that the three wreaths are visible on the firehouse in the helicopter footage?

3) Do you acknowledge that the hanging icicle lights are visible on the cupola in the helicopter footage?

4) Do you acknowledge Christmas trees are visible behind the firehouse?
“Yes” or “no” will do. It will take you 30 seconds to answer them.

At this point, I fully expected the usual routine: insults, deflection, then radio silence. Instead, I got this:

Point taken, I’m convinced.

…Wait. What?

I was genuinely floored. This was someone who had spent a lot of time defending this claim — even against other conspiracy theorists — and they folded after four simple questions? I assumed they were being sarcastic, so I pushed a bit more.

You’ve already written about Sandy Hook at great lengths, but you won’t take the 30-60 seconds (tops) required to answer these questions and support your position?

But no — they were serious. The jig was up.

I said I was wrong, I’ll drop this angle.

And shockingly… they did. It’s been over a week, and I haven’t seen them bring it up again. So much for “not debatable,” I guess.

Now, I’m not naïve. Someone this deep into nonsense isn’t going to abandon ship entirely because one talking point collapsed. That argument just gets added to the ever-growing pile of failed claims. The goalposts always move. Still, a small win is a win, and it felt good. If HONRWATCH weren’t so entrenched, this genuinely could have been the moment they snapped out of it — backfire effect be damned. It’s not always pointless.

Bonus Round: Debunking the Christmas Lights Video

Most of the important points came up in my exchange with HONRWATCH, but a few additional things about the video itself are worth calling out:

• Holy hell, “William Tyndale,” learn how to use screen-capture software. Instead of recording his screen directly, he films his monitor with a camera while rambling. It looks awful and noticeably degrades the image quality — which just so happens to make the lights harder to see. Draw your own conclusions.
• No sources are provided. The daytime footage comes from Channel 12’s helicopter video, which is available in high definition on YouTube. The nighttime footage is from Nightline, though HD doesn’t add much there.
• Only about 4–5 seconds of a 10-and-a-half-minute helicopter video are shown. Funny how the remaining ten minutes contain some of the clearest views of the bulbs and wiring along the roof.
• Viewers are deliberately directed to look for lights in places where lights were never hung. At one point, he runs his cursor along the back of the building and says there are “no lights on the ridges.” There weren’t lights there — not in the nighttime footage either. That’s not ignorance; that’s intentional.

• He even hovers over a very obvious Christmas wreath on the cupola and says nothing about it. The other two wreaths visible at night are also clearly visible in the daytime footage.
• Just to be clear: we’re watching a video of a video and trying to spot unlit Christmas lights from a helicopter.

And finally, the nail in the coffin:

• We can prove the lights are there year-round. A photo published in the Newtown Bee on May 3, 2010 — advertising a June LobsterFest — clearly shows the same Christmas lights on the firehouse.

I tried posting a condensed version of this in the video’s comment section. Naturally, William Tyndale deleted it and banned me.

Because of course he did.