Amazing Gene Rosen Song Parody Was Not A Parody Song After All

Written by Devtome contributor Bomac

Click here to listen to the song to end all songs











Gene Rosen - The Gift That Keeps On Giving

The lyrics posted above are from what I was absolutely sure was one of the best parody songs ever made. Of course, the subject of the song is one of the characters in the Sandy Hook production, “Uncle Grampy” Gene Rosen. Well… it turns out, it was not meant as parody. I would have bet big bucks (if I had big bucks to bet and if I were a betting man) that the song was a spoof. I would have been wrong.

For those who aren't familiar with Mr. Rosen, please allow me to provide some background. As I stated, Rosen was a character in the Sandy Hook TV show. He should have had, at most, a very minor role, but inexplicably it morphed into a major recurring role for the lucky crises actor.


I have some experience in television production, and even if I didn't, I have studied TV enough to know how sometimes certain characters will become a bigger star, play a larger role, than the producers ever envisioned when they were created the show to begin with. Fonzie from Happy Days & Urkel from Family Matters are two cases in point. I'm sure such was the case with Gene Rosen, but the difference is that it made sense with Fonzie & Urkel, since they added to their respective shows. In Rosen's case, it made zero sense, as he was an, “epic fail”.

He should have had a medium guest co-starring role, good for one or two days of that mini series, (which, as you remember, lasted for weeks.) Let me take that back. His character should have had a one day or two day appearance, but they should have gotten another actor to play the role.

Psy-Op - The Hottest Television Genre

The Sandy Hook production, being part of the Psy-Op TV genre, put the producers at a distinct disadvantage. In normal TV shows, if an actor is obviously not able to perform the role, the director and producers can fire her before the show is taped. She keeps her pay, but she loses the gig. It's very disappointing for the thespian, not to mention embarrassing and humiliating. 1)

The Sandy Hook show, though, was a psychological operation (Psy-Op) and a hoax – the hoax part is the only silver lining to the entire production. (Unlike another Psy-Op / false flag, called 911, nobody actually died at Sandy Hook.) So, as Psy-Op TV, it was not a taped production, but a series of live interviews. Once Rosen went live the first time, the genie could not be put back in the bottle, so to speak. They could not fire him and call the casting director for a quick replacement. 2) They could have, however, simply ended his role early, limiting his TV exposure time, and thus limiting the damage he would do in terms of getting people to realize Sandy Hook was indeed a horrible hoax to help the globalists who are moving toward a world dictatorship, move ever closer to their goal of largely or entirely disarming the American public, like most of the other countries on Earth.

Who Gets The Blame?

The main blame for the Gene Rosen fiasco has to go to the casting director. Because PsyOp TV is live TV, casting directors for this genre of television are much more important than traditional casting directors,. You don't have the option of making a mistake, yet getting a second chance with an emergency replacement.

People who have followed the Sandy Hook show have never been able to figure out why the Rosen character continued to be available for more than one interview. All any producer who had any level of skill would need to see was one interview to know that they were better off losing that character and storyline entirely, than to let him go on, in transparently bad acting, interview after interview.

Shockingly, it went on for not just days on end, but literally weeks on end. It was like the train wreck that wouldn't come to a final stop. It's totally inexplicable that the Sandy Hook producers kept letting it happen.

Unfathomable & Unexplainable Yet It Just Wouldn't Stop

All I can figure is that someone at the top, upon seeing his first interview, made the decision that even though it seemed bad, if they kept it up, people would believe he was for real, simply because if he really were that bad an actor, people would assume he would be yanked. I guess that's related to the concept of, if you are going to tell a lie, make it so huge that people believe it, based on their assumption that nobody would possibly have the balls to make something like that up.

Still, even if I'm on the money with this admitted conjecture, the production team could not been of one mind. With each succeeding interview, that got progressively worse than the last, but not as bad as the next, there had to be voices on the staff who were saying they need to cut their losses and nix the character and the storyline. (What I would have given to be a proverbial fly on the wall of those production offices.)

The Process

If you watch the many interviews Rosen gave, you get the feeling that he is writing portions of the story as he speaks. Then he includes the past creations in the next interviews. The more interviews he gave, the more parts to the story were included. My take is that he probably was given the basic structure of the story about a small group of kids on his lawn, that told him of their teacher being shot, but that there was no script, per se.

If I'm correct, that was a mistake because it left him to write dialogue, that is, to repeat the alleged conversations that were had. So much of it seems unlikely, to put it mildly. They would have been much better off with a fleshed out script.

The talking heads from the various news type shows, of course, would not usually be given scripts, per se, for a number of reasons. A portion of them probably were not even in on the hoax themselves. Those who were, would still shun a script, because the spontaneity would suffer. So when I say Rosen should have been given a full script, I mean a full “treatment.”

A treatment is something a good script writer will write before the script. It will often contain portions of the script, but it also has the detailed storyline and lists the characters, the settings and even some back stories that flesh out the characters, even though those details don't make it to the script.

With a good treatment, he wouldn't have had interviews in the beginning where it looked so much like he was making things up. I mean there are clips of Rosen interviews online that look exactly like they are rehearsals. In at least one, he waves his hand and says, no, as if to start over. In another, an interviewer supplies him with a word as he was struggling to find an adjective to describe the state of mind of the children.

The Repetition

Rosen took the tack of using a lot of the exact words and phrases, from one interview to the next. Done correctly, repeating many of the same words and phrases can add to the believability factor when you are trying to sell a fictitious story as real.

On the other hand, it's quite possible to overdo the repetition, to the point where it becomes blatantly obvious that you're an actor sticking to your script. That is the territory Rosen took us to. He is probably the single biggest reason that millions of people who originally bought into the hoax, were able to break the spell and see it for what it was.

The Inconsistencies

Rosen managed to give the show the worst of two worlds. While the idea was to use a lot of the same words from one news interview to another to provide authenticity, he did that so much, there was an unnatural lack of variation that anybody would have when they tell the same story different times. Yet, the silver lining that should come with that, is that at least the tell tale details of the story never change.

When detectives question suspects, they have the person tell their story many times. They do this, of course, to see if any of the details are going to change. Amazingly, even though you could tell that Rosen was going out of his way to repeat the various aspects of his story, virtually exactly the same, he would manage to change a number of details that should have driven the producers absolutely crazy.

Sometimes, there was a man with the kids. Sometimes that was a woman, who was a school bus driver. Sometimes they both were there. If I'm remembering correctly, early on, I believe there was a version where neither of them were present. There were always 6 kids, but sometimes, from his narrative regarding who said what, you could tell there were 3 boys and 3 girls, but other times, there were 4 girls and 2 boys. Still others, he seemed unsure. (That is in keeping with that bizarre, comic relief coroner in the show, Wayne Carver, who admitted he had no idea how many boys vs girls were killed.)

In some versions of Rosen's story, he spotted the kids on his lawn after having come down from a loft where he was feeding some cats. In other versions he first saw them when he was coming home from a walk. In another he found them when he was getting ready to go out to a diner -although that could be said to be a matter of what he was going to do after feeding the cats or after the walk.) There were actually quite a few other glaring inconsistencies.

The Acting / Emoting


If ever there was an individual who belonged in the 12 step group, Overactors Anonymous, it's Gene Rosen. I know you may be thinking, Jim Carey, but Carey does his for comic effect. Rosen has evidently deluded himself into believing he could have taught Constantin Stanislavski and Lee Strassberg about the Method.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps he tells people that what he has is a gift that can't be taught. He might say there was Garbo and there is Rosen, and when Rosen dies, the gift will be gone. The truth, however, is Rosen is the anti Garbo.

However he obviously believes he has the whole emoting thing, down. Many times, in every interview, his produces vocal traits as if to convince us he's crying. It might have helped if he could have even once produced a single tear to go along with all that pseudo voice crying.

No Tears For The Wicked

Of course, if he had managed to do that, he'd of been the only crises actor from the entire Sandy Hook show who did. Gene took a different tack than most of the others. The other actors involved, for the most part, didn't try to pretend to cry. Yes, there were some, and they never produced a tear, either, but most of them, including the alleged parents demonstrated a bizarroworld above-it-all stoicism.

Actually, they were beyond stoic. They were downright glowing, smiling, laughing, fondly remembering their recently slaughtered children, including mere hours after their demise. (…But I don't want to get too far afield here. I talk about other aspects of Sandy Hook here, and some here as well.

He's Got The Body Language Too

Rosen doesn't just use his voice to overact with. He uses his body. His hand goes to his heart. His hand goes to his head. He bows his head. He shakes his head. It's quite the transparent show. The more practice he gets, the more emotive he gets. You can tell he's really believing in his skills.

Really, who can blame him? If the director and producers are going to give him that much national air time, why wouldn't he believe he's good? It's difficult to fathom that the hierarchy actually ever thought he was their guy. I'm actually tempted to believe that they purposefully put someone so incompetent to test the level of brainwashing of the masses.

They figured a large percentage were sufficiently programmed to buy into his performance, and a large percentage would still be able to see through it. For those who can easily see through it, it's a giant, “Fuck you,” from the producers. Perhaps, they will do the same thing with a similarly awful actor in future Psy-Op TV show, and monitor social media to see if even more people are brainwashed than before.

The Talking Heads & Reporters

I know I mentioned earlier that some of the interviewers may not have been in on the hoax themselves, but I really have to question myself for one reason. Rosen (as well as the school bus driver) never called the police when children had escaped from a mass murder scene at the school. In all the interviews you can find online, not a single TV journalist asked why they didn't call the police.

The interviewers varied from on the scene reporters to talking head teleprompter name brand personalities. That would generally indicate that the reporter interviews were edited, while the talking heads were live on the air. So it's possible some of the reporters asked and it got edited out, because the producers didn't want people getting any help in realizing how ridiculous it would be to have 2 adults (or 3, in the versions with the mystery man), being around several children who are upset due to seeing their teacher shot in cold blood, and nobody thinks to call the cops.

It's also inconceivable that none of the interviewers would ask the question. Lots of people asked that online. It's only logical and natural to pose the query, but in all those interviews, we don't see anybody broach it.

Is Rosen A Rogue Opportunist?

Some people have postulated that they believe chances are very good that Rosen actually wasn't part of the cast. They think he just wanted to get in on the limelight so he made up the story. 3)

There is helicopter footage of the firehouse (which is next door to Rosen's house, by the way), with Rosen in the parking lot at about 11:20 AM. He said he spotted the kids between 9:30 and 10, and that he was with them for hours before any of their parents could pick them up. That throws a gargantuan monkey wrench into his story.

It does seem plausible that he may not have been one of the hired actors. That theory would answer the mystery as to how any credible casting director could have cast him in such an important mini series. If this is indeed the case, it's possible that Rosen didn't even know it was a hoax. He might have seen the commotion at the fire house and gone over there, heard the cover story and started turning his brain wheels, trying to come up with an angle to insert himself. He might have gone straight home and started calling the networks. 4)

Once he got airplay, the producers of the Sandy Hook show would have had to make the decision of whether to disavow him as a crank or let him do his thing and then invent backups to corroborate his musings. If this theory is true, they decided that drawing attention to any fictitious aspect to the narrative would be self defeating, so they opted to deal with his nonsense and work it into the script.

I remember as days or weeks went by, there would be alleged corroborating testimony to aspects of Gene's story. Like one of the alleged parents who said she discovered the shot out window, said she saw a group of kids go running out. As months turned into years (2 years, to be specific), more and more people were saying it was ridiculous that we never heard from the school bus driver.

The producers – neigh, make that associate producers (since that's usually the title of the folks in TV production who specialize in post production) – decided to give the people what they want in January, 2014, just past 2 years after the (non) massacre. The crack Newtown police detectives had finally tracked down our mystery bus driver. They met with her at the local Starbucks (was a product placement fee accepted?) and gleaned some interesting information, as outlined in this POPO report.

Many of us found the idea of a bus driver dropping kids off at Rosen's house to be preposterous. Why wouldn't she have taken them to the firehouse, which is a safe house for children? Well, the po-po report clears that up.

She had been done with her morning route and was in the area with her personal car when she saw the kids running. She pulled into the fire station and implored the kids to come to her. (They evidently decided to not go directly to her, in the firehouse driveway, but to the yard next door.)

She makes no mention of a mystery man that Rosen spoke of a lot who allegedly kept yelling to the kids, “Everything is going to be alright,” over and over, in a very loud voice, that somehow made Rosen wonder if they were Cub Scouts rehearsing a play(?). However, she does say the neighbor came out and invited them in his house.

I never could wrap my head around the idea that a school bus driver would go into a stranger's house – especially a male stranger) with several children. It makes even less sense since the fire station is right next door. The police report doesn't do anything to change my mind on that.

Discrepancies Between The Alleged Bus Driver's Story & Grampy Gene's

As if the Rosen narrative could use more discrepancies besides those supplied by Rosen himself in the various retellings of it, the bus driver provides some major problems for anyone foolish enough to be hoping to be able to cling to the truth of Sandy Hook. First of all, despite that fact that in everyone of Rosen's (probably) dozens of interviews, one factoid he was good at keeping 100% consistency was the number of children.

It was always 6 kids. The boy to girl ratio wasn't constant, but the total was 6, each and every time. It was never, 5 or 6. It was never, several. It was never, a few. It was 6. Bus driver lady told the cops it was 4, 2 girls & 2 boys. How is it possible she could have forgotten? In a number of the interviews, Rosen said he asked the kids their phone numbers and called each one only to get “answer machines”, so he said the bus driver called the bus company, and gave them the students' names. The bus company called the parents. They stayed, “for hours,” with them until most of the parents picked up their kids, but they (Rosen and the driver) ended up walking 2 of them over to the firehouse.

The police report for the bus driver states that the kids did indeed know their phone numbers, but that they were successful in contacting 3 of the 4 families. She said when the parents came for the 3, they walked the fourth over to the fire station. So, once again, the bus driver remembers it differently than the way Rosen told it, over and over and over.

Rosen said 6 kids total, 2 were walked over to the fire station. Bus driver (according to the police) said, 4 kids total, 1 was walked over. Rosen said the bus driver had the presence of mind to call the bus company to have them call the parents, 4 of whom came. Bus driver woman says nothing of the sort. She makes no mention of calling her company and she contradicts Rosen's statement that they were personally unable to contact any of the parents, since all they got was answering machines. She said that from the phone numbers the kids supplied, they were able to get a hold of all but one of the children's parents.

I've seen websites saying that the bus driver's police report corroborates Rosen's story. I never cease to be amazed by the level of denial that is to be found among the true believers of such Psy-Ops. I guess that these people feel that since every single statement wasn't a contradiction, that means the report was a corroboration.

More To Chew On

According to Rosen, (at least in some of the interviews) the kids didn't say anything he could make sense of for at least 20 minutes. That could supply some plausibility to use if anyone would have ever asked him why he didn't call the police, even though six young children were upset on his front lawn and he had heard popping sounds that he recognized as gun fire, but thought somebody must be hunting, (even though the reality is that there is no hunting for 150 miles of there, so he had never heard anyone hunting from his home before).

The police report seems to indicate, though, that the bus driver was made aware of the school shooting situation before she went into Rosen's house. If that's the case, there is no plausible deniability for her not to have called the police, or asked to use Rosen's phone, if she didn't have one of those new fangle cellular telephone thingies.

Rosen, rather consistently stuck to the narrative that he first served juice to everyone and brought down, from upstairs, the various stuffed animals he keeps there for his grandchildren, for the kids to enjoy. All that time, according to Rosen, he had no idea what had happened. It beggars belief that the driver would not have told Rosen.

The report does say that she had to ask the kids 3 times what happened before she could understand what they were telling her, but before that, it says they did tell her. Here is what is says:

“[Name redacted] stated that four of the children, two boys and two girls, followed her directives and ran to her, telling her there was a man in the school shooting people. [She] stated that she asked the children three times to tell her what happened as she could not comprehend what they were saying.' ”[She] stated that the children were all crying and upset, and that a neighbor who lives alongside the fire house came out and saw them all down the end of his driveway and took them all inside his home. [She] stated that all the children wanted to contact their parents or have [her] drive them home, and that along with the man's help, they asked the children for their phone numbers which they all knew, and she and the man called each of the telephone numbers.“

”[She] stated that they made contact with a parent at three of the four telephone numbers, and that ultimately those parents responded to the address and claimed their children. [She] stated that the fourth child, a girl, remained with them, and that they walked her over to the fire house where she was ultimately reunited with a parent.“

So clearly, the driver was made aware of the school shooting before Rosen even spotted them. She never called the cops and she allowed Rosen to serve juice and stuffed animals to the children, without ever telling him what had happened.

Gee, this story just gets more and more believable as more and more time passes.

Also, in Rosen's narrative, two boys told him the shooter had a big gun and a small gun. In the bus driver's version, the children told her the shooter had a shotgun. Rosen said the kids said they saw blood coming out of their teacher's mouth. The bus driver said they saw her get shot only in the foot.

The Question Must Be Asked

In case anyone is confused here, there was obviously no bus driver, since there was no actual event. So, when I refer to comparing the discrepancies between the bus driver's police report and the Rosen narrative, I'm not saying the bus driver really existed.

You've got to ask yourself why it purportedly took 2 years to track her down. Obviously, some of the producers were feeling that enough people were asking about her for so long, that they felt the need to make a belated decision to conjure her up. It really doesn't matter if they used a cop who wasn't in on the hoax & had him interview a crises actress two years after the fact, or if they simply wrote up the report using a cop who was in on the deal. The outcome was the same.

The question, though, is how in the world did they have discrepancies in the two narratives? I have no doubt that the true believers are so delusional that they are making up excuses for her supposedly not recalling that there were 6 children, rather than 4, and for not remembering that she and Rosen walked 2 children to the fire station, rather than only 1, and that they were unable to reach any of the parents on the phone, so she called her bus company, who were able to reach most of them. Or, who knows? Maybe they are making up excuses for Rosen for not remembering the details.

So, how could the producers have been so sloppy? The citizen journalists have posted many Rosen compilation videos on YouTube. They didn't have to work hard to prime their memories of the details he gave, yet they evidently put very little effort into doing so.

It's true, that the entire production is filled with similar issues of sloppiness, but this one came 2 years after the actual production. There was all the time in the world to get the “facts” straight. It's inexcusably lazy and sloppy.

Since it's difficult to believe that they could be that negligent,perhaps it's a case of flipping off the segment of the population that isn't brainwashed. The other possibility is that the producers are following the mandate that evil spiritual beings, according to various metaphysicians throughout the eons, are said to operate under. They have to tell people what they are doing, so that people can exercise their free will as to whether to be taken advantage of.

Their inexcusable discrepancies might be their disclosure. It's a tough one to try to decipher. That's for sure.

Everybody Must Sign In Is A Red Herring

I'm trying to keep this post on Rosen, but I want those who are seeking the truth to have the record set straight regarding the sign behind Rosen in one of the interviews. It is not the smoking gun that truth seekers originally thought it was. The sign flashed, “Everyone must sign in.”

This would make it seem like a drill was in progress. It was thought that the drill got elevated to be played out as a real event – or possibly, that a real event was played out during the drill. (Don't laugh. During 911, there were drills going on of hijackers flying their hijacked airliners into buildings. During the 7/7 tube (subway) bombings in England, tube bombing drills were going oh at the same time.

The truth is that sign that the sign that is seen flashing behind Grampy Gene, was from an interview several days after the purported mass shooting. That was not a sign for participants in a drill. The Sandy Hook TV show had a lot of smoking guns. That sign is not one of them.

If you would like to hear the parody song that isn't a parody song, but should have been one, as well as see the ultimate Gene Rosen citizen journalist video documentary, go here now. The comments section to that video is where I learned the song was the work of what one commenter referred to as, “a well meaning idiot.”

I'm going to close this out with the comment I made to that YouTube channel owner:

My YouTube Comment

I was hoping you wrote and sung [that song.] I was sure, though, that it was parody. There are a lot of good lyrics, but the best part is the ooooh ooooh ooooh. I'm flabbergasted to learn it's on the level.

I'm pretty sure I remember Rosen had versions where only the agitated man was with the kids, and versions where only the bus driver, and versions where they both were there.

The version where he was getting ready to go to a diner can't count against him, because it can be postulated that he was going to do that after the walk or after feeding the cats – but it's definitely a problem to have the story start up at either after the walk or after feeding the cats in the loft. (Yeah, you could stretch it (suspend disbelief) and say, he fed the cats after the walk, but neglected to mention the walk. Did he mention the walk more than once? It would be really hard to stretch the belief factor with each time he repeated it.

The huge red flags include why didn't a single talking head or on scene reporter ask why he didn't call the cops – or take the kids to the firehouse right next door, since fire stations are taught to everyone to be safe places for children. If the media were on the level, every single person would have asked that.

Repeating the same wording and phrases may have been his idea (or his producers) to make it seem believable, but there was just so much of it, exactly the same, wow, it definitely backfired.

All the inconsistencies, in aggregate, comprise a series of red flags, but even more so, is the consistently bad acting. You'd think with so much practical experience he would have learned some skills & get progressively better; not worse.

As you said, he showed more and more emotion as more and more days passed. The emotion itself was hokey and only got hokier, but beyond that, the natural thing would be for it to become a bit easier on the emotions each day, as opposed to much harder.

Of course you're right about the lack of tears. The producers couldn't buy even a single bottle of that onion spray that Hollywood actors use, for these crises actors to use between them? I'm sure they'd of been willing to share.

Even if you just can't wrap your head around the event being staged, how in the world do you watch grampy Gene Rosen and not be able to admit to yourself that something is wrong with this part of the story?

It's kind of interesting, btw, the way a number of those talking heads set him up for the pedo references. Didn't more than one ask him what he would like to do with those kids if he ever gets the chance? Wow, that's a minefield that Gene didn't mind trampling through. He wants to hold them. He wants to hug them… Right? Did he actually say he wants to touch them, or is my memory embellishing it?

And he wants them to call him grampy or Uncle Gene. Sheesh. What he needed to do was steer completely clear of the wistful pet names for himself as well as steer clear of talking about any kind of physical contact, and then, in the post production meeting, (or at the wrap party) tear those talking heads a new one for lobbing him that hand grenade. Heh.

You did a lot of good work with this video. I love that you went to Newtown and spoke with him. Cheers

Issues | Television | People | Crime | Music

I mean, put yourself in her place. You've already told your family and friends that you got a guest role on a sitcom, for instance, and then you have to tell everyone that you sucked so badly, they fired you and got a last minute replacement. (You can, of course, try to spin it and lie, by saying that the producers rewrote the script during rehearsal, and your part got written out, through no fault of your own; but everyone sees through that, so you're really better off just going with the truth.) If you've had that happen to you, and you're smart, you don't let anyone know in the future when you get gigs, until they are in the proverbial can, and you have word as to when the episodes will air.
The old farts among us may recall in the 1960s when the TV show, Bewitched had to switch Darrin's by trading different Dick actors. That is, they switched out Dick York for Dick Sargent, in the middle of a TV season, no less, due to York's health issues. Sargent had actually auditioned for the role originally, and had gotten it, but turned it down to do another show that turned out not to be successful. No doubt, he had bemoaned his decision of turning down Bewitched, because it was a major hit, right out of the gate, becoming one of the most popular TV shows in the USA, second only to Bonanza. As fate would have it, 5 years later, Sargent got a do-over, and got to get paid for kissing one of the most beautiful women in the world, Elizabeth Montgomery, his TV wife. Unfortunately for the producers of Sandy Hook, there was no way to replace Gene Rosen. It will probably remain one of the greatest mysteries in television history, as to why the producers kept using the Rosen character in episodic interview after episodic interview.
Rumor has it that he had a habit of hanging out at various places where the local newspaper was covering a human interest story or a local event, trying to find a way to insert himself into the action.
If you are a true believer in the Sandy Hook narrative, you might counter this speculation as to Rosen inserting himself into the story as being inconsistent with a conspiratorial perspective. You might say something to the effect of, “Hold on. If it's all one big TV show, then he could have never gotten any air time. The various mainstream media outlets would have known it wasn't part of the storyline.” Actually, that isn't necessarily so. In fact, it's highly unlikely. And, I repeat, this is speculation. I really can't say definitively that Rosen was planned, any more than I can say he definitely was a rogue opportunist. I am saying it's entirely feasible that he really did crowbar himself into the action. You might say that such action is highly abnormal, but I would counter that claim as actually reinforcing the conjecture that Rosen was a ballsy & rogue media whore, because you don't have to watch Rosen for very long at all before you realize he is a highly abnormal individual. However, as to the point of it not being possible that he could have inserted himself into such a large hoax, the fact is that such a hoax is very much possible due to the nature of the compartmentalization process by which they get carried out. Most the the media members are not in on it. Most of them (not just the on camera individuals) were scrambling to cover the story in a very genuine manner because they believed it was real. Rosen could have easily made a phone call to a TV outlet and told the story he was coming up with. The person who answered the phone would likely have him hold and speak to somebody with the power to make a decision. There was a genuine desire to get content, and such a story would be natural to cover. If you don't believe it's possible to call news organizations and get live interviews, including at the national level, you have obviously never seen the video from the ABC TV network which, like all 3 of the major networks at the time, interrupted regular programming so that 95 million people could watch the OJ Simpson low speed police chase, as former OJ teammate Al Cowlings drove OJ in Cowling's white Ford Bronco to OJ's compound. While the Bronco sat in the driveway, and nobody got out and the police did not rush to immediately extricate Cowlings & Simpson, ABC news anchor, Peter Jennings said they had a neighbor of Mr. Simpson, one Mr. Robert Higgins on the phone, and then proceeded to engage haplessly in an obvious phone prank that totally went over Jenning's head. Sportscaster, Al Michaels, who, for some reason, was co-hosting the coverage, evidently because OJ was from the world of sports, had to break the news to Jennings that they had just been pranked. Michaels said it was from a fan of a radio personality, not wanting to mention that personality's name, Howard Stern, even though Michael's himself was/is a fan of Stern's and had been a guest on his radio show a number of times. Not long after the prank he was on Stern's show again & spoke about it. He told Howard that he wasn't sure whether to say his name or not, but ultimately decided not to, thinking it might save Stern some backlash. I have my doubts as to the veracity of that statement. I think it would have opened Michaels up to criticism for giving Stern publicity, and possibly even having the effect of encouraging other Stern fans to partake in that type of activity. He did say, though, that he rates it as the greatest prank of its kind of all-time. Incidentally, the tip off that it was a fan of Stern's was that the prankster ended the call with a reference to Stern's producer, who is nicknamed, Bababooey. For many years, before & since, Stern fans had been making such prank calls, often saying Bababooey as a code word for other Stern fans to relate to, but the Peter Jennings OJ prank, by far, was seen by the most people ever. It was further enhanced by the fact that it was done at what was an incredibly tense moment, as millions of people wondered if there would be a shoot out & the cops would kill Simpson or if Simpson might kill himself. You didn't need to be Wernher von Braun to realize these were distinct possibilities as to how it could end, but even if you had not thought of them, the “play by play” announcers on all the networks reminded everyone multiple times, to help increase the ratings, no doubt. I called Joyce Kaufman, a local radio talk show host in the area and friend at that time, to ask if she felt like joining me in prayer that he would not die. She let me know she had no such compunction. I was especially motivated because as a big anti death penalty guy, I was sure that OJ was going to be convicted and would potentially face the death penalty. I believed furthermore, that there would be many millions of people who would not want to see him die, and that such a situation would be helpful for the anti death penalty cause. As you know, it didn't work out that way… But I digress. The point was, we all were aware that we might see OJ die on live TV. It was a tense and surreal moment shared by millions & millions of people; so for that prank to have happened, made the moment all the more surreal and unforgettable. The absolute master of the Howard Stern fanboy, phoney phone calls to live TV pranks is known as Captain Janks, although the OJ prank was done by Maury from Brooklyn. You can watch the OJ prank here, as well as some of Janks' greatest hits, here. Click here to watch the simulcast video from E Entertainment TV show of Michaels on the Howard Stern radio show discussing the incident, not long after it happened. For the sake of trivia, I'll add that Bababooey's real name is Gary Del'Abate. He got the name when, speaking with Stern on the air, regarding the classic cartoon character, Babalooey, Bababooey. For some reason, that gave Stern cause for great laughter, as if Del'Abate's lack of knowledge of animated character's names was something to be embarrassed about. So Stern started referring to him as Bababooey & the name stuck. Anyway, Janks is still going strong. When Stern speaks to him on the air, Janks admits that it never ceases to amaze him that he is still able to successfully complete these pranks. He can't believe that the level of vetting remains so bad due to the desire of media outlets to generate news and garner ratings. The bottom line is, you better believe that a character like Gene Rosen could come up with a story and get air time, and that if the event were big enough, it could snowball. We will likely never know which scenario it was that unleashed the outrageously bad acting of Gene Rosen into our lives on a daily basis for weeks on end, but it is certainly possible that it was all his doing. What is not possible is that the Sandy Hook massacre actually happened. Need more data? Click here and here and here (at the 30 minute mark & then after the break at the 40 minute mark) and here and here for starters.

QR Code
QR Code amazing_gene_rosen_song_parody_was_not_a_parody_song_after_all (generated for current page)