Sandy Hook Time Travel? Adam Lanza’s Hat Wasn’t Made Until 2013 ...hehe fucking Oops ! :o

Posted on August 29, 2014 by Dean Garrison

Another piece of the puzzle that simply doesn’t fit has surfaced in the Sandy Hook Shooting. The hat that Adam Lanza was allegedly wearing, as documented in the Connecticut State Police Final Report, was not manufactured until 2013.
With the shooting happening on December 14, 2012 this certainly makes no sense.
Wolfgang Halbig has previously reported that the final documentation reads like an 11,000 page script.
As more and more people sift through this information it is uncertain what may be found, but this particular item is quite interesting and not easily explained. One of the many Sandy Hook researchers took it upon herself to research Adam Lanza’s hat from the crime scene and what she found suggests that either time travel was used or that there has been false evidence presented, for whatever reason.
Jim Fetzer reports for Veterans Today:

The hat trick

Even more proof that the entire exercise was a charade has emerged from the Connecticut State Police Final Report in the form of photos of a hat that alleged shooter Adam Lanaza is supposed to have worn. It’s black and made of a durable material of the kind hunters and fishermen might wear. Scroll down to “Photographs, Primary Scene”, and you will find several of the hat that he is alleged to have worn:

Hat photo, page 482 (left), Close up (showing scale), page 483 (right)

A student of Sandy Hook by the name of “Bridget” noticed that, in addition to these two photos of the hat, there are others, which provide more detailed information about its brand and source of manufacture, an issue that she would pursue:

The hat with manufacturing data (page 476)

Correspondence with FLEXFIT

Bridget wrote repeatedly to FLEXFIT and eventually made contact with someone who could assist her named “Leslie”. In her last email to Leslie on 13 August 2014, she reiterated her keen interest in information about manufacturing the hat:

From: Bridget
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 1:37 PM To:leslie@flexfit.comSubject: HELLO??
I was wondering if you were going to possibly call me back in regards to my recent request? Sorry to keep bothering you about this. I know it seems like an odd request. I also left you a voicemail at your office.
It would be much appreciated if you could keep me in the loop. Thanks,– *::Bridget::*

This time, rather to Bridget’s surprise, Leslie wrote back with a comprehensive discussion of the problems she had locating the information that Bridget had requested, but answering that that model with the elastic band was only available in 2013:

———- Forwarded message ———-<
From: Leslie<leslie@flexfit.com> Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:58 PM Subject: RE: HELLO?? To: “Bridget”
Hello Bridget, Sorry for the delay in responding… I have reached out to my Production Team here and in NY.. And I contacted my factory overseas….to see if I could get some answers regarding: The production cycle – and being able to identify product by label etc… So it has taken some time to go to the appropriate people who might help
In identifying the timeline as to when this was made, who purchased the hat and when we changed our labeling.
Unfortunately – I cannot give you a ‘definitive’ answer, although I can give you a really good idea and bet that I am 98% correct. I would just hate to find out that it could be wrong, so please keep that in mind.

The only photo given – is limited in view, however I am able to blow the photo up and found more markings and numbers that have helped us in our search. Here are the areas of issue:
1. I cannot see if there is a Flexfit ‘Flag’ label (This specific label was only produced and sold on the east coast for a period of time. I can speculate that it was during this time based on the style of the hat, because I have been working here for well over 20 years, but it is not definitive.) This is on the brim, where the crown meets the brim top side.
2. Our inside label has identifying markers as to season/year of production, however the numbers on this hat do not seem to match any that we have produced, which is odd because I have contacted our overseas production department as well, and they also do not use those numbers.
We produce blank inventory such as the bucket cap – and they are shipped to 2 different distribution centers. One on the east coast and another on the west coast…so stock levels are sold and replenished regularly, but we do keep track of the numbers on the hats for inventory and identifying sales.
This style is carried over from year to year with little to no change –as it is a staple item. So we need to keep it consistent as possible for our customers/distributors who purchase it yearly, but I do recognize that this hat was during a year we had been making changes by the lot. My California distribution center alone – receives on an average 5 to 7… 40 foot containers of various cap styles weekly.
3. We have done 5 updates to this cap within the last 20 years that I have been with the company.
a.) We removed the flag label from the brim – (I mentioned above) approx. 3 years ago. with that being said, that would have been in 2011. This photo was taken in 2012. That does not mean that this person would have not kept on to the hat after the year we removed that label. I would assume most people keep their hats years after their original purchase.
But we would have continued to sell through any product still in the warehouse until it was sold out – so it could have carried over longer than when we actually stopped producing it with the label. I know that they stopped selling this item on the east coast and west coast both around the end of 2012. (not sure on the exact month and day).
b.) We updated the sweat band inside in 2013….but we continued to sell through the previous sweat band until stock levels depleted…However the new sweat band is pictured in this photo you have sent me. This is odd given the information you have given me.
There is an ‘identifying marker’ on this item I can see from the photo you have given – that can tell us when it was made and where it was purchased…However I am still looking into the number listed on the hat, trying to find out who made it (if it was even Felxtfit and find out the purchaser from this number.)
I’m sorry I could not be of more help right now – if you have any further questions please let me know. Until then I will continue to look into this and get back with you as my time allows. Sorry for the delayed response.
I wish you luck with what you’re looking for. I know it meant a lot to you.
Thank you, Best Regards, Leslie

So FLEXFIT, the company that “Adam Lanza’s hat” found lying on the ground at the Sandy Hook School Crime Scene (above)  has confirmed that this particular hat was not manufactured until March 2013. That model of the inner elastic portion of the hat was zoomed in on and reviewed by the company, which has indicated that they did not manufacture that band on those hats prior March 2013 in their factory in Vietnam.
As Yvonne Adamow has observed, “This poses a particularly interesting quandary, insofar as the hat that (according to the Connecticut State Police report) Adam  Lanza was wearing had not yet been manufactured by 14 December 2012, the day of the shooting. It was not manufactured, in fact, for several months after the shooting. There appear to be only two answers to this problem: (1) time machines were used; (2) the pictures were staged. Call me crazy, but I’ll go with (2).”

It is unclear where the “March” 2013 date comes from. It does not seem to be cited in Jim’s report. Maybe that is when new manufacturing lines are updated, or were updated in 2013. Either way the month does not matter because Sandy Hook happened in 2012.
From the email exchange we see that the hat was likely manufactured after the beginning 2011 because of its style, however, because of the inner band it was likely manufactured in 2013.
This is just a small piece of the overall puzzle and proves nothing in and of itself.
But if that hat was manufactured in 2013, which appears highly likely, then the evidence appears to be tainted.
If you can think of another explanation please let me know.