Or does it stand for "Conspiracy No-No".  And I mean Cooper, as in Anderson Cooper, the openly homosexual reporter and host of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.  What was he thinking? Moreover, what is CNN thinking?  They seem to be losing their minds over there and are scrambling to try and slow their ratings plummet.

As if the Pierce Morgan, second amendment attack programs weren't enough, we get word of an alleged "forgery" of sorts surrounding a supposed interview that he conducted with a parent of a slain Sandy Hook school child.  

But while conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this, there are those who have a technical explanation for what was seen on the video below.

Someone named "nick" blogging on metabunk.org says that the reason for this is motion compensation video compression. Video is compressed by a variety of methods so it can be either transmitted or played back at low bandwidths. I've not seen a higher resolution version of this video, so I assume the compression is in the transmission from the church back to the studio. Remote broadcasts now quite commonly use a technology called "bonded cellular", which transmits video over the cell phone network using (essentially) multiple digital cell-phone connections instead of a traditional satellite or microwave ENG transmission. This gives great ease of use, and the reliability of redundant channels. But in places that don't have the best cell phone coverage, the bandwidth can be reduced, which can lead to patchy video like this. 

The motion compensation method of compressing video is to detect which parts of the frame have not changed, and which parts have simply moved, and then only transmit the changed parts, or the new positions of the unchanged parts.  He shares several examples of this here. 

So was Sandy Hook a "staged event" with this alleged Anderson Cooper "green screen" as part of the cover up, or, an actual event with the usual amount of conspiratorial misinformation?

Here Anderson offers an explanation that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are "dangerous". So what are we to believe?