Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Carl Herman: Sandy Hook shooting mothers’ average age giving birth = 36 years old


Carl Herman
Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu I publish on Washington’s Blog. Other sites republish at will. Videos live at source.

Sandy Hook Shooting, the Mothers Average Age Giving Birth = 36 Years Old – Odds of 20 Such Elderly Mothers in One Group = 109,418,989,131,512,370,000 to 1 — that translates to 109 Quintillion, 418 Quadrillion, 989 Trillion, 131 Billion, 512 Million, 370 Thousand to one — Adds to Overwhelming Evidence of Official Fraud

KateSlate11’s strong catch in 3-minutes:

The alleged Sandy Hook shooting of December 2012 included 20 1st grade children with stated ages of 6 and 7 years old (only four at age seven). From public information,* the average age of those mothers in 2012 is 42.25; meaning their average age giving birth is 36. Some 1st grade students’ mothers will be 36 or older, but what are the odds of a random group of 20 such mothers averaging 36 years of age?

What are the odds?

According to the CDC, the percentage of US mothers giving their first birth at age 35 or older for 2006 is ~8%; about 1 in every 12. Pew Research Center reports that American mothers’ age 35 or older for any birth is 14%. Therefore, let’s estimate the percentage of 1st grade students’ mothers ages being 36 or older at 11%: about 1 in every 9. Age 36 is nine years above CDC average of age 27 for mothers with any number of children giving birth in 2006.
This means in an average US classroom of 27 1st grade students, 24 moms would be younger than 36, and only 3 would be 36 or older. To calculate the odds that the average age of Sandy Hook mothers at birth was 36, we multiply 1/9 to itself 20 times. This is the same method for the odds of flipping a coin: multiply 1/2 times the number of flips to have the odds of all heads or all tails (the odds of two straight heads is 1/4, 20 straight heads or tails is 1 in 1,048, 576 by placing 2 in the number to calculate, then looking at power of 20).
The odds that Sandy Hook mothers averaged an age of 36 is therefore about 109,418,989,131,512,370,000 to 1 (verify yourself by placing 9 in the calculator, then looking at the power of 20).
I had to look up how to say this number: 109 quintillion, 418 quadrillion, 989 trillion, 131 billion, 512 million, 370 thousand. Or:
one hundred nine quintillion,
four hundred eighteen quadrillion,
nine hundred eighty-nine trillion,
one hundred thirty-one billion,
five hundred twelve million,
three hundred seventy thousand
to
one.

How often would odds of 109,418,989,131,512,370,000 to 1 actually happen?

On its face, it is statistically impossible for the Sandy Hook story to be true given this data point. This is more than enough by itself to question the accuracy of what you’re told about Sandy Hook. For comparisons:
  • The odds of a person being left-handed is 15% (~1/6 to 1/7). It’s more probable for a random group of 20 people to all be left-handed than for a random group of 1st grade students’ moms to be age 42.
  • The odds of a person having green eyes is 12%. That all 20 Sandy Hook moms have green eyes is more likely than their alleged ages.
  • The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is ~175,000,000 to 1. The odds of winning two consecutive Powerball jackpots is 30,625,000,000,000,000 to 1 (175 million times itself). It’s more likely that you would win two straight Powerball jackpots than the Sandy Hook moms’ ages being true.
  • The number of days since the claimed life of Jesus is ~730,000 (2,000 times 365). If Jesus were alive for 33 years, that’s 12,045 days. This means Jesus was alive 1.6% of the days passed since his birth (about 1/60). If you had a time machine to pick a random day to visit in those 730,000 days, it’s as likely you’d have 12 consecutive days in Jesus’ lifetime than it’s likely the Sandy Hook mothers’ ages is true.
  • The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which is 1.64 trillion days. If we had a computer randomly select one of those days, the odds of you picking that same day is 1.64 trillion to 1. You are more likely to accomplish this miracle than it’s probable the Sandy Hook moms’ ages are accurate.
  • In fact, the number of seconds Earth has existed is 141.7 quadrillion. You’re more likely to correctly predict which random second of Earth’s existence a computer selects than the Sandy Hook moms’ ages not being a lie.
  • Of course, we can also say you’re personally more likely to select a random 1/700th of a second from all Earth’s existence over 4.5 billion years than the Sandy Hook “mom” birth age of 36 not being a hoax.

What are the odds a Sandy Hook ‘dad’ would laugh it up and dramatize ‘getting into character’ before a press statement of grief?

46 seconds of alleged father, Robbie Parker, the day after the event:


The entire press conference, including Robbie apparently “getting into character” after his jovial entrance:

I don’t know how to calculate the odds that a father whose daughter was brutally murdered would approach a press conference smiling, laughing, saying, “I feel terrible to support this,” and then making a point to “get into character” (or whatever you’d call what happened).
I do know the odds of the mothers’ ages makes Robbie’s status as one of the dads statistically impossible, and therefore is hard evidence of what Robbie says of feeling "terrible" to support a lie. Perhaps Robbie's youthful relative lack of seriousness to "stay on script" is a general reason older people were selected as Sandy Hook "parents."
This evidence is revealing, and without expert analysis into duping delight, is a matter of the observer’s judgment. Here is a counter-argument:
Robbie Parker displayed unimaginable grace, humility, compassion and kindness even as he faced the murder of his oldest daughter, a first-grade student who had yet to reach the age of seven. If you’re looking to exercise your critical thinking skills and amateur detective work, this particular angle is not an ethical one to explore, and anyone who has furthered such damaging claims should be heartily, deeply ashamed for compounded the pain of a family who have already experienced the worst possible loss imaginable.
But this statement becomes a lie of omission when other facts pointing to a “Sandy Hook Hoax” are considered.

What other facts argue that Sandy Hook was a staged event?

Thirteen various experts that include six current or retired college professors wrote Nobody died at Sandy Hook (2015). Among their documented findings that what occurred wasn’t a school massacre but a staged FEMA drill then portrayed as real for a political agenda:
Proof it was a drill was right before our eyes:
* the sign, "Everyone must check in!"
* boxes of bottled water & pizza cartons,
* Port-a-Potties present from scratch,
* many wearing name tags on lanyards,
* parents bringing children to the scene.
Proof it wasn't a massacre:
* no surge of EMTs into the building,
* no Med-Evac helicopter was called,
* no string of ambulances to the school,
* no evacuation of 469 other students,
* no bodies placed on the triage tarps.
We have proof of photo fakery, proof of furnishing the Lanza home to serve as a prop, proof of refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. We even have the FEMA manual for the Sandy Hook event.
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." - Mao Tse Tung
Recent developments include:
An example from the above five:
One of the key claims for those who believe Sandy Hook “massacre” to be a false flag is that the school was closed in 2008, as Dr. Eowyn and others contend in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015). This claim is mainly based on evidence of no Internet activity since 2008, obvious disrepair of the school, serious environmental problems such as asbestos contamination, no updating of parking signs to reflect then-current disability laws, eyewitness testimony that pointed to the school’s closure, and  the inability/unwillingness of Newtown School officials to provide documents of maintenance activity at the school after 2008. 
For abundant proof of the deplorable condition of Sandy Hook Elementary School, go to "SANDY HOOK: Wolfgang Halbig goes for the jugular in FOIA hearings" (8 May 2015), which includes the following interview in which school safety expert Wolfgang Halbig reviews the deplorable condition of the school building:

 But why the hoax?!?BBut why the hoax?

But why the hoax?!?

After you’ve spent a few minutes with the above video of perhaps the #1 national school safety expert walking you through the data, the obvious question is why perpetuate this apparent hoax. The only way to ethically claim “official” stories are true requires you to review the strongest arguments that it was a hoax. So before you argue, have you looked at the factual claims?
Assuming you have, let’s address why. The conclusion of the authors of Nobody died at Sandy Hook is gun control, as supported in their quote from Mao that dictatorial government requires unarmed subjects.
I add this: We the People are on the edge of dispelling Emperor’s New Clothes delusion to recognize US .01% naked empire. The .01% are scrambling for ongoing control of propaganda to hide rogue state empire, and proactively working to seize guns for their own protection.
May I remind you of fundamental US history: the American Revolution started when our own government enacted involuntary gun control. Our .01% wanna-be masters would certainly prefer our voluntary gun control, and would engage in ongoing deception to achieve that policy objective.
Among the facts demonstrating a .01% US rogue state:

Don't believe such 'Big Lies' are possible in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave? How about assassinating President Kennedy, then outrageously lying for over 50 years?

With full documentation here:
AlphaMindControl's revealing 3-minute video of CIA Director Colby’s testimony to the US Senate for the 1975 Church Committee admitting the CIA directs corporate media how to lie to the American public with "fake news" (six similar videos here):

3-minute video of Dan Rather's fake news from November 25, 1963 to sell 
the lie that President Kennedy's fatal head shot caused "violent forward 
motion" opposite to the fact his head was violently hit to cause backward 
motion (hat tip What Really Happened) [Editor's note: But the 
Zapruder film was massively edited to merge two shots to the head, 
as I have elsewhere explained]:


Breaking history for a future brighter than we can imagine: .01% arrests for OBVIOUS crimes centered in lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, looting, constant lying

Given the prima facie evidence, it's unreasonable for Americans to "hope for change" from Donald Trump's "leadership." We the People must demand .01% arrests or continue to serve as minions and work animals to rogue state empire. Until .01% arrests prove real leadership to stop ongoing slaughter of millions of human beings, harm to billions, and looting of trillions, it is only reasonable for Americans to embrace the evidence only lightly summarized in this article to conclude ongoing illegal .01% empire under a new "teleprompter reader-in-chief," lying psychopathic puppet, oligarchic tool on the Right hand of one vicious imperial political body.

The categories of crime include:

1.     Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).

2.    Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

3.    Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).


US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

§  Demand arrests, with those with lawful authority to enact it. An arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes, with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests.

§  Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):




3-minute videoPolice, Military – Was your Oath sincere?

* Consider this list of 16 mothers, and these additional 4 from Professor James Fetzer: Rebecca Ann Kowalski born 1968; maiden name Frazier = 44,  Michelle Gay (1972); maiden name Hartman = 40, Tricia Pinto 1970; maiden name Volkmann = 42, Cheyenne Wyatt 1975; maiden name Wirtz = 37. The mothers certainly look these ages.
**
Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
**
Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu
Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

70 comments:

  1. If 1 in 9 mothers are 36 or more years old at the time of giving birth, and if we randomly draw a sample of 20 mothers, then (1/9)^20 equals the probability that ALL 20 mothers will be 36 or more years old at the time of birth. It does not equal the probability that the AVERAGE age of the 20 mothers will be 36 as stated by the author. As a simple example to illustrate this point, suppose that ten of the mothers are below 36 and ten are above 36, and that the average age across all 20 is 36. Obviously (1/9)^20 is an erroneous calculation of one's objective is to calculate the probability that the average is 36 or more. If we knew what the population distribution looks like, we might be able to compute the probability that the mean of a randomly drawn sample of 20 turns out to be 36 or more. For example, the means of samples drawn from a normal distribution are themselves normally distributed, hence one can compute the probability that the mean of a randomly drawn sample is more or less than a given value of one knows the population mean and variance. In any case, the astronomically small probability presented by the author likely far understates the probability that the average is 36 or more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting this, Jim!

      Anon: I am the author. Thank you for your thinking on this important point of the topic.

      Taking the average age of 36 to calculate odds is a pretty close mathematical estimation, and the best I can easily apply given public data, as seven mothers’ birth ages of 40 to 43 in this group would have much higher odds balanced by lower odds for the only mother of this group giving birth in her 20s, Alissa Parker at alleged age of 26.

      The objective is to calculate the probability of truth that this one group's claimed data is true. In this case, we're taking observable and verifiable data of relatively elderly mothers to determine if this part of the story is probable. We do this to quantify what appears to be an unlikely fact of elderly birth parents.

      This quantification is my best first attempt, and whatever tweaks might improve it, certainly demonstrates that the claimed ages of Sandy Hook moms is false.

      Delete
  2. what is your source of the average of the mothers ? Where did you get the mothers ages for all mothers victims. Was the ages calculated only the mothers of children , or did that include teachers and adults that were shot ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please read the article more carefully; your questions are answered clearly beginning in the very first paragraph.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A quick Google sear shows these kids had older siblings:

    Noah Pozner, Benjamin Wheeler, Caroline Previdi, Grace McDonnell, James Mattioli, Ana Márquez-Greene, Chase Kowalski, Catherine Hubbard, Madeleine Hsu, Dylan Hockley, Josephine Gay, Daniel Barden, Charlotte Bacon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent, since the shooting victims appear to be fictional characters created by using photos of older kids when they were young. We even have photos of four of the older kids with the insertion of images of them when they were younger by photoshopping in
      an effort debunk the fakery but which only confirms it.

      Delete
    2. Appear to be, but you can't prove it.

      Alyssa Parker admitted she photo shopped Emilie into a photo, but anyone with small children has done the same thing.

      Photo shopped Emilie:

      http://imgur.com/a/Nl5Bc

      Not photo shopped Emilie:

      http://imgur.com/a/TF3c4

      http://imgur.com/a/qMEza

      http://imgur.com/a/4FQ1I

      Delete
    3. "Anyone with small children has done the same thing" you claim? I've never done that, and you present zero evidence to support your claim.

      jjis: given the totality of evidence in this article, including the leading work of 13 various experts that include six Ph.D professors, along with the top school safety expert Wolfgang Halbig, is this the single point you wish to comment upon?

      If so, please explain how you prioritized this to be what you really want attention on. I'm also interested in your conclusions to the point of this work: was Sandy Hook reported accurately, in general, by "official" sources, OR was this a staged event?

      Delete
    4. Ask people you know with small children or grandchildren, I guarantee you some of them will tell you they have had to photo shop a photo because it didn't look right.One of the kids is making a face, has their eyes closed, etc. It's very common.

      There is no evidence, that Sandy Hook was staged. There is lots of speculation and opinion, but no actual facts.

      How Robbie Parker behaved at a prtess conference is not evidence, it's opinion. People react differently to situation. You, me, and everyone else on the planet will not react to something in the same way.

      Your signs it was a drill:

      The check-in sign really only matters if it was there before the shooting. There is no evidence that the sign was up anytime before the afternoon of the 15th.

      With the hundreds of people that had to be around Sandy Hook investigating the shooting and the media covering it and the parents it makes perfect sense for porta potties and food/water to be brought in. If not for the porta potties where would everyone use the bathroom? Can't go in the school obviously

      BTW, at Columbine porta potties were brought in for everyone and the Red Cross had food and water. Not seen anyone every think it was odd when it happened then.

      The speculation about the ID badges is that they were FEMA badges. But that's all it is, speculation. If it were a drill made to look like a real shooting, why would they all wear FEMA badges? Wouldn't that kind of give it away. A more logical explanation is that those people came from work. Work that requires employees to wear ID badges.

      There is a much more detailed debunking of MR Fetzers book, chapter by chapter here:

      http://www.crisisactorsguild.com

      Starting with chapter 1:

      http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2015/12/30/fact-checking-nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-chapter-one/

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your response, jjis. Here's mine:

      1. You begin by correcting your false statement that "anyone with small children has done the same thing" (photoshopped pictures of their children or grandchildren). Thank you for this.

      2. You claim "There is no evidence, that Sandy Hook was staged." If Dr. Fetzer or any of the authors wish to respond to the evidence published, I defer to them, especially since this is Dr. Fetzer's blog. I'm satisfied for the public to consider the evidence and come to their own conclusions with any controversial event.

      3. This article is about the mathematical probability of the alleged mothers averaging a birth age of 36. I will address anything you have to say about this factual claim.

      So, jjis, any complaint with the data point of mothers' ages that I contribute for public consideration of what really happened at Sandy Hook?

      I do have another question for you: the context of this one data point also includes that the US has devolved into a rogue state empire, with central facts proving this in lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, looting, and constant "official" lying. These massive crimes annually killing millions, harming billions, and looting trillions require .01% arrests.

      The gun confiscation agenda fits into historical models to disarm citizens of a targeted nation for dictatorial control, and is the genesis of the American Revolution. The "official" claims that our .01% want gun confiscation because they care about human life is refuted by Wars of Aggression and rejection of simple ways to end poverty at the ongoing cost of ~ 1 million children's lives in gruesome slow-motion agony each month (documentation in the article for "Crimes Against Humanity").

      So! I have these two questions for you:

      1. Any complaint about the data point that is the subject of this article that the alleged mothers average age of 36 makes it impossible for the "official" story to be true?

      2. Do you accept that the US engages in rogue state government policies, and to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?

      Delete
    6. The US Government engaging in rouge activities does not mean Sandy Hook was a hoax. There are disturbed people out there who for whatever reason want to kill people. Just like there are governments who do evil things. Both can be true.

      You did not mention in the article that thirteen Sandy Hook moms had older children than the ones that were killed. That means that it looks like thirteen women had their first child from age 30-35. In the 2015 CDC report 1 million moms had their first child age 30-35, 1.2 million had their first from 25-30.

      Having
      In 2002, 1 million had their first at 25-29, 950 thousand had their first at 30-34. Not that big of a difference.

      In 2006, around the time the Sandy Hook victims would have been born. 163,000 moms had the 2nd child between 35-39. Moms 30-34 was about double that for the 2nd child.

      Seven children that were murdered were first born children. If the average age of those seven mom is 36, I don't think that is odd at all. Considering the avg age of first time moms is going up and the Northeast has a higher avg age.

      Delete
    7. Thank you, jjis. Please provide the links to the information you have about the older children and averages for NE moms. This will refine the data.

      Let's address both points, ages and rogue state US government.

      Ages:

      The method I used includes the assumption that some mothers will have other children. But let's go with the extremely high acceptable age you point to, and the CDC data that the percentage of mothers giving birth at age 35 or older with any number of other children is 14% (even though 36 or older would be less).

      I used 11% to include the seven moms that did not have other children, but let's calculate the odds for 14%.

      Let's use 1/7 for readers to follow the same method I used for this article (14.2%), raise 7 to the 20th power, and these are your odds:

      79,792,266,297,612,000 to one.

      That's said as:

      79 quadrillion,
      792 trillion,
      266 billion,
      297 million,
      612 thousand

      to

      one.

      Do you accept this as accurate? If not, please explain.

      If you accept it as accurate odds, then how is it reasonable to believe those women are the alleged mothers?

      US ROUGE STATE:

      You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it:

      Do you accept that the US engages in rogue state government policies, and to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?

      Delete
    8. From 2002:

      https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5419a5.htm

      Your stats still do not include race, income, those are factors too.

      Yes, US and many other governments have engaged in rogue state activities. But that does not mean Sandy Hook was a hoax.

      Like I said, both can be true. It's an assumption to say that the US engages in illegal wars, so school shootings must be a hoax.

      There are answers to the Sandy Hook questions, unfortunately the hoax theory people will not accept the answers. One great example, since you brought up Wolfgang Halbig before.

      Wolfgang asked for photos of a Veteran's Day breakfast held at Sandy Hook in 2012. Someone did just that and sent them to Wolfgang. True to form he didn't think they were legit, he claimed the photos were from 2011. That's the type of answer you'll get from conspiracy theorists.

      Delete
    9. Thank you, jjis.

      1. The data you provide is from 2002 by the CDC that the average age of Connecticut women giving their first birth is 27-28; data that suggests older mothers. You bring up valid points: do you have data for race and income?

      The average age of these 20 women for birth in 2006 is still 36, which the CDC report for 35 or older as 14% (1/7). Because Connecticut women are perhaps 2-3 years older than the CDC age of "35 or older," and assuming race and income also increase the percentage, let's place these mothers likely to be the Sandy Hook average of 36 up to 20% (although we're straying from the data we have to make a reasonable guess), which is 1/5.

      5 raised to the 20th power is odds of 95,367,431,640,625 to one.

      That's:
      95 trillion,
      367 billion,
      431 million,
      640 thousand,
      625

      to

      one.

      Do you accept these odds? If not, please explain.

      2. You didn't answer the question for a second time. You admit the US engages in rogue state policies, but this is my third request for the specific question that I repeat:

      "to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?"

      Delete
    10. What do illegal wars have to do with Sandy Hook?

      Like I said again and again, whatever rogue activities the US engages in, does not mean Sandy Hook was a hoax.

      There can be illegal wars and real mass shootings. There are evil people in government who lie to start wars and there are evil citizens who kill random people.

      Your data flawed. Thirteen of the children who were killed had older siblings. So those moms were not all first time moms at the avg age of 36.

      Delete
    11. Ok, then jjis, let's summarize what you've stated and what I see as missing from your factual claims:

      1. I'll ask a second time: please provide the data you have of the older siblings. This will refine the data.

      2. You refuse three times to answer an important question about the biggest context of "official" voices telling us the story of Sandy Hook: these same "official" voices engage in rogue state empire with perhaps the most easy area of recognition as lie-started and Orwellian Wars of Aggression. What this has to do with Sandy Hook is to prove the voices telling us what happened are grossly unreliable to tell us the truth given their choices to annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. So I'll ask a fourth time: "to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?"

      3. Are you mistaken or confused about the whole point of this article? It seems so from how you close, stating "Your data flawed. Thirteen of the children who were killed had older siblings. So those moms were not all first time moms at the avg age of 36." Now that I've pointed this out, do you see you're making a straw man argument? Here is the data we just discussed from the article that I use: "Pew Research Center reports that American mothers’ age 35 or older for any birth is 14%."

      Do you wish to make a correction, or do you choose the lie to claim this data comes from the assumption that all of the Sandy Hook women were first time moms?

      Delete
    12. You data is still falwed because you have not factored in race, income. You're going to do a more detailed analysis that includes race and income. Also do it by region, state, county, town, and community. All of those will factor into the avg age.

      The CDC report from 2002 shows higher age for the Northeast. You can go from there and write a new article about it.

      Answer this question, can there be illegal wars and real mass shootings?

      Delete
    13. From 2016:

      http://www.nhregister.com/nationworld/article/Average-age-for-1st-time-moms-in-Connecticut-at-11337318.php

      “Women are staying in school longer, they’re going into the workforce, they’re waiting to get married, and they’re waiting to have kids,” said John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health"

      Delete
    14. Thank you, jjis:

      1. The data you provide state the average age of mothers' first birth in CT is closer to 28 than 27 in 2016, so perhaps this was 2-3 years above the national average in 2006. While suggesting that later births will also have older mothers, we are still left with the SH women having an average birth age of 36 for the children in question.

      2. For a 4th time you refuse to answer the question of lie-started and illegal US Wars of Aggression as context to discredit the same "official" voices telling us what happened at SH. Why are you refusing this, jjis???

      3. I've offered an estimate that CT women age 36 and older at birth might be as high as 20% from the article's estimate of national average data of ~11%. THIS IS A HUGE JUMP from 1 in 9, to 1 in 5. I've asked you if you accept these odds. You failed to answer. Do you accept this as a reasonable estimation? Please do not avoid this question.

      4. Sure, I'll answer your question (and model how simple it is for you to also do): of course it's possible to have illegal wars and real mass shootings. This is obvious.

      Now, jjis, while I appreciate the opportunity to consider the data with you, it's time to answer my questions or I'll wrap this up with conclusion that you won't/can't answer my questions because it proves evidence that the SH "official" story must be false. It will also point to you as a disinformation agent rather than honest citizen attempting to consider data that SH is the same type of story as the ones we're told about illegal US Wars of Aggression.

      Your call.

      Delete
    15. I answered your question about illegal wars, yes there have been. And I'll say again, those does not mean Sandy Hook was a hoax.

      I won't accept your data because you have not done a complete analysis.

      There are many factors that come in when women have their first child. Race, income level, education, health concerns. You have to take all of those things into consideration when doing data research like this.

      CT is one the wealthiest stats, Fairfield county is one of the richest, if not the richest county there. That would fact in on when a couple starts a family.

      Time article 2014:

      http://time.com/95315/women-keep-having-kids-later-and-later/

      Pew:

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/15/for-most-highly-educated-women-motherhood-doesnt-start-until-the-30s/

      On the surface it may look odd the Sandy Hook moms being older. But once you look into it more and more, it becomes less odd despite your stats.

      Delete
    16. Thank you, jjis. So to be clear:

      1. The question I don't see that you answered, and that your text doesn't directly address is this (5th repetition): "to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?" So! Are you saying you're in agreement that the current US military attacks are lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression???

      2. On this point, this IS NOT a general question you seem to answer with "yes there have been" but with the US wars right now. So, what is your direct answer of either, "Yes. The current US wars are started by lies and are illegal," OR some other response to these current wars.

      3. If you reject the estimate of 20% of CT women being of age 36 or older giving birth, what is your estimate? You are going outside the data we have, but I'm curious and asking.

      4. Are you now lying about this topic by repeating "There are many factors that come in when women have their first child"? I already pointed out what the article is clearly stating the data references mothers' age of giving birth for any number of other previous births. Why do you repeat this straw man argument?

      5. The Time article repeats data my article covers and supports. What is your point with this?

      6. The Pew data AGREES WITH THE HIGHEST ESTIMATE THAT ONLY 20% of mothers' ages are 35 or older at their first birth. Even if we claim the unbelievable estimate that 25% (1/4) of SH women would give birth at age 36 or older we then have odds of 4 to the 20th power: 1,099,511,627,776 to one. Do you accept those odds?

      7. Third request: please provide the data for older siblings you talk about.

      8. On the surface, the conservative use of probability is exactly how we calculate whether this is "odd" or not. Are you rejecting the use of mathematics for this application?

      Delete
    17. Oh, and one more:

      9. What is your connection to "Crisis Actors Guild", the website you provided arguing against the points from the book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook"?

      Delete
    18. Why would you assume I have a connection? It's just a website that I discovered researching Sandy Hook.

      Just Google the victims and it will say which one had older siblings. The names are in an earlier post of mine.

      You need to do this article again, with income level and education level of the moms factored in. Those play a part on when women choose to have a child.

      Even without doing research on all of it, it's reasonable to think that higher income women, with higher education levels, living in a wealthy county in a wealthy state, would have children at a higher age than the national average.

      At this point in Sandy Hook hoax research people are grasping at straws since really nothing new is coming out that supports the hoax theory.

      Delete
    19. Ok, we're done here, jjis. Thank you for the degree that you responded. To complete what I see:

      1. You refused five times to answer this question: "to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?" Your "answer" was a generic that some countries historically might engage in rogue state policies, but avoid the point of studying history: to place the present into context. You also refused to answer why you won't address this direct question. At the bottom of this page of comments, you complained to me that "conspiracy theorists" won't deal with facts. Do you see the irony? We do.

      2. You won't give an estimate of the percent of CT women giving birth at age 36 or older, despite my providing several models to choose from. You IGNORE the last model seemingly grossly exaggerating the odds of this happening including legitimate data you point to of higher likely average ages based on geography of the NE, income, and race. Even in the most favorable statistical frame to your position of "nothing new is coming out that supports the hoax theory," if we claim the unbelievable estimate that 25% (1/4) of SH women would give birth at age 36 or older we then have odds of 4 to the 20th power: 1,099,511,627,776 to one. YOU IGNORE THIS. WE NOTICE.

      3. You have shown yourself to be either incompetent or a liar to claim after multiple corrections that the data of this article is based on mothers' birth age of a first child, when it specifically accounts for average ages of mothers with any number of previous births. But hey, I'm polite and will ask just once more: care to correct your misunderstanding?

      4. You ignored this direct point: "On the surface, the conservative use of probability is exactly how we calculate whether this is "odd" or not. Are you rejecting the use of mathematics for this application?"

      5. For interested readers, yes, jjis, we're alerted by your refusal to say anything negative about the US .01% rogue state AND refusal to address the topic of this specific article about mathematical probability given the ages of these claimed "mothers" of Sandy Hook children. This is both dishonest of you to pretend to care about Sandy Hook when you refuse to address important data points, and raises a red flag that you are commenting here to distract and destroy legitimate commentary regarding best available data.

      6. Again, thank you for the degree you engaged. It's helpful for discerning readers to evaluate your sincerity and competence with the comments you provided, and weigh what you have to say defending your position defending the "official story" versus the facts documented in this article.

      Unless you address the questions you've dodged, I doubt I'll conclude any further responses to you is worth the investment of my attention. For God's sake, jjis, the illegal US .01% rogue state empire slaughters about a million children in gruesome poverty each month. Better rethink your priorities of what you care to support: Life will honor what you care to work for and provide it to you in abundance.

      Choose wisely.

      Delete
    20. I answered your questions, I say there are illegal wars. Your reading comprehension is not very good. Go back and look at my answers. I answered yes and and you agreed there could be illegal wars and real mass shootings.

      You seem like an intelligent man, but you then go into the paranoid conspiracy theorist. Accusing me of having an agenda and being associated with a Sandy Hook debunking site.

      I suggest you read the Crisisactorsguild site and other debunking sites, like Metabunk and compare that info to what was in Mr Fetzer's book and what Halbig had provided. Reading both sides with an open mind is the best thing you or anyone else can do.

      Delete
    21. Go here and join Metabunk, will take you a minute to sign up.

      https://www.metabunk.org/forums/

      Posting it here on a conspiracy site is one thing, will you post the same data on a site that may look on it critically?

      Delete
    22. jjis: please quote your answer to this specific question that I repeat for now the 7th time, and with added explanation of the limited answer you provided:

      "to be simple and direct, let's just take the example of ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression started on known lies (look at the links for this argument), OR do you accept that "official" story also?" Your "answer" was a generic that some countries historically might engage in rogue state policies, but avoid the point of studying history: to place the present into context. You also refused to answer why you won't address this direct question."

      WHAT YOU STATED: a generic answer "there are illegal wars" but dodging the question whether the current US wars are illegal or not. You won't be able to quote your text for anything beyond. But I'll ask again, because we are thorough: NOT if some wars by some nations in some points of history are illegal, but ARE THE CURRENT US WARS ILLEGAL AND LIE-STARTED?

      You close with the ad hominem that I am a "paranoid conspiracy theorist" for requesting that you answer specific questions: one to see if you will criticize the US rogue state in its most obvious policy with lives and money in ongoing lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, and two on the specific mathematical probability that the SH women claiming to be mothers of children born in 2006 could be true.

      jjis: you refuse to offer probabilities for these women's ages given several models to reference. That is the topic of this article you choose to comment upon. So no, the type of "answer" you provide to questions regarding war and ages is dodging the question (so far), and denial that even the most untrue stretch of the data that 25% of SH moms could average 36 ages at birth for the children in question.

      Thank you for your recommendation of how to spend my time. Based upon your failure to answer basic questions, I will not take your recommendation of further investment of my time.

      Delete
    23. George W and his gang lied about WMD's in Iraq so yes that war is built on a lie. So what? Sandy Hook can still be a real shooting.

      I'm truly stunned that you would not post your article on a forum that might be critical of your work. You'd think you would want to get as many people as possible to read your article, so far I have only seen it here and at Cinderella's Broom. It was on your blog, but you removed it, I wonder why?

      Delete
    24. Thank you, jjis. The fact that you accept our most "official" voices lie is a big deal. If they lie about war, are they afraid of being caught? What would they pro-actively plan to protect themselves from having a rogue state empire revealed? What else are they doing to feel afraid of being discovered?

      I don't know what you do for a living, jjis, but Dr. Fetzer and I have almost 100 years combined academic and professional consideration of what the US .01% do that to repeat, annually kills millions, harms billions, and loots trillions.

      Yes, the facts we allege of huge crimes is a completely separate issue from the fact that a mass shooting could occur.

      You are welcome to post this article if you wish. I am not out to pick fights, but to communicate central facts. Want to change the world, jjis? I've had 40 years' work in this field, and will trust my judgment.

      Washington's Blog is not mine; the owner chose to remove it to avoid such controversy that you suggest I willingly enter.

      To perhaps conclude: you reject any estimation of odds of the options I present to you? If so, why?

      Delete
    25. Carl,

      jjis is an obvious shill and you will not get straight answers. For additional gun control, I recommend those to read "Stonewalled" by Sharyl Attkisson. Stonewalled ties into the Sandy Hoax narrative of gun control by taking you back to pre-SandyHoax time period 2010-2011 in that the DOJ with ATF under the shill Eric Holder's watchful eyes by supplying "untraceable" guns to Mexico. Simply look up "fast and furious". It's detailed in her book on the level of corruption, collusion and lies by the government and media.
      Jim and Carl, keep up the good work. The totality of evidence yet again shows the corruption of the (((lizards))) in charge.

      Delete
    26. And this article has also appeared on several other prominent web sites, including:

      http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/08/new-angle-on-the-sandy-hook-shooting-hoax/

      http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=79901

      http://cosmicconvergence.org/?p=20972

      Delete
  5. jjis , concerned citizen/person , or perhaps a paid commentator ? Merely curious , that's all .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My vote leans towards the paid commentator/gatekeeper, hoping to discourage rookie truth seekers from pursuing more evidence or reading any of Fetzer's books. Anyone of an open mind would say "ready the book for yourself and make up your own mind based on the evidence presented". I recommend others to do this. They are like Pandora's box, in a way, exposing the tip of a huge iceberg of false flag state sponsored terrorism. The evidence out there is plentiful for anyone curious enough to take the "red pill" and dive in. The shills are there to discourage the average Joe from knowing the truth.

      Delete
  6. To jjis: First it is perfectly reasonable to raise any questions regarding claims of professor Jim Feter,Ph.D. on the Sandy Hook Hoax issue and he would be the last one in the world to criticize you for raising them. He is absolutely honest and open in all things. However, what you must keep in mind regarding his "proof" that Sandy Hook is a hoax, is that it is based on many bits of evidence, some stronger than others, which, when taken together, complete the proof of his claims. The fallacy you are making is that you are cherry picking his proof by removing parts of it at a time, when no part proves the whole. Let me give a simple example from algebra: One of the earliest problems in proving theorems in algebra and number theory in high school is that of proving that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. What is an irrational number? An irrational number is one which cannot be written as the ratio of two integers. The proof is utterly simple: One assumes the contrary proposition that it can be written as the ratio of two integers say a/b where a and b are positive non zero integers on the number line. Then one proceeds though about 5 or 6 simple permitted steps and finds a contradiction. This concludes the proof by contradiction because so long as each step is logically valid, then the original premise must be wrong. This is the result of the logic of Aristotle to this problem. If you improperly and illogically remove one of the steps in the proof, one may come to an erroneous conclusion. That is the fallacy you are engaged in with your arguments. Note also that professor Fetzer has not accused you of anti Semitism for challenging him as some members in Israel routinely do when they are challenged about their claims in order to shut down debate or intimidate any challengers before they make any criticisms at all out of their mouths. Again professor Fetzer is a totally open and honest scholar and professor and scientist not a dishonest one seeking to shut down debate or censor books like Jeff Bezos owner of Amazon seeks to do or many in Israel who seek to shut down criticism of the alleged Holocaust story by claims of anti Semitism or laws against criticism with criminal sanctions. Open scholarship means anyone can criticize any proposition by any person anywhere at any time without intimidation or fear of reprisal period. This logical procedure developed basically by the Greek philosophers thousands of years ago is responsible for the advances in civilization today. Let's not return to the dark ages. However professor is a busy man and does not have time to debate all the rules of logic with every challenger of his claims. You must do some of the homework on your time clock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Note also that professor Fetzer has not accused you of anti Semitism for challenging him as some members in Israel routinely do when they are challenged about their claims in order to shut down debate or intimidate any challengers before they make any criticisms at all out of their mouths"

      What is that supposed to mean?

      Mr Herman, this is and the previous post are examples of the tactics of conspiracy theorists. If you dare to same something really happened, you're assumed to be a paid agent or an Israeli agent.

      So nice they can be so open minded of others thoughts on the subject.

      Delete
    2. Could Carl have been more patient or painstaking with you? It seems to me the conversation has been one-sided, where he has responded to your claims but you have not responded to his. I think you are sincere, but misguided. The proof of a hoax is simply overwhelming. Download the book and read it. We leave very few stones unturned.

      Delete
    3. I answered his question about rogue state illegal wars but he kept asking it again.

      Your book is based on assumptions and speculation. You think it was a hoax, so then you saying the crime scene photos were taken the night before. But offer no proof of that claim. Just you saying it is not evidence.

      In the book you and Allen Powell tried to claim that Carver and others were there the morning of the 14th setting up. When it was clearly pointed out that the photos were actually taken at sunset, you changed your story to say they were there setting up on the 13th. But that is not proven in your book, you use blurry photos of the windows. An interesting tactic.

      In the 1st chapter by James Tracey, you and he totally contradict each other. Tracey writes:

      Dressed in black, Lanza proceeds completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.”

      But then you wrote in the prologue with the image of the parking lot:

      “The image itself suggests of a group of drivers methodically filling up the lot with used or abandoned cars”.

      Which is it, vacant or filling up with cars?

      Also in chapter one, Tracey writes that 600 students were in the school, but in chapter four you write there were 469, which is it?



      Delete
    4. Hey jjis, the windows were not blurry, but why even take this picture? That alone shows collusion/collaboration and simply not coincidence. Most state-sponsored terrorism events are always preceded or in parallel by "a drill". How ironic this one too follows the same script, but not by coincidence!

      BTW, I just thought of something. Since one of the police cars was in a great position to record the entire evacuation, please provide proof (to all of us) showing all the kids being "evacuated" from the school through the parking lot on the day of the event? That might help your case.

      Delete
    5. There is no full video of every kid being evacuated. there are some shown on dash cams but they were redacted.

      The pictures Fetzer has are crime scene photos. They're in the report, the ones in the report are actually clearer though.

      there was no drill the same day as Sandy Hook. There was class being taught. A class that regularly met. One of those just happened to be on the 14th.

      Delete
    6. Thank you jjis - you haven't proven your point. Please provide evidence.

      Delete
  7. Mr. Herman,
    I was the one who posted the first comment after this article. I would first like to say that my view is that the evidence that this event was a hoax is overwhelming. This is the only reasonable conclusion given the body of evidence. That said, I would like to reiterate my original point concerning the error in your probability calculation(appearing at the beginning of the article and a few times throughout this comment thread). Whatever you assume to be the proportion of US mothers aged 36 or more at time of birth (1 in 9 in the article), taking this proportion and raising it to the 20th power gives you the (unconditional) probability that ALL 20 mothers in a random sample of 20 are 36 or older at the time of birth. Clearly this is going to be infinitesimally small given any reasonable estimate of the proportion of mothers in the US that give birth at age 36 or higher, as your calculation shows. However, all 20 of the Sandy Hook mothers are not purported to have been 36 or older at the time of birth. While I very much applaud and admire your effort to inform readers about this hoax, I fear that opening the article with this misinformed calculation (and persisting with it in this comment thread) might diminish your credibility in the eyes of some readers. I am therefore posting a link to an online calculator that performs cumulative binomial probability calculations that can be used to calculate the correct probability if you can find out exactly how many of the 20 mothers were (purported to be) 36 or older at the time of birth.
    http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=71
    If you can find out exactly how many of the 20 mothers were 36 or older at the time of birth, and if we assume that 1 in 9 (or 11% of) mothers in the US are 36 or older at birth, then you would plug in .11 for the "probability of success," 20 for the number of "trials," and the number of mothers in the sample of twenty that were 36 or older at birth for the number of "successes." For the sake of example, let's suppose that 10 of the 20 were 36 or older (which is as reasonable a guess as any if the average is 36). We would therefore plug 10 in for the number of successes along with the values discussed above for the other two fields. Doing so yields a probability of 0.00001679. This is the probability that 10 or more of the 20 were 36 or older. Very small indeed! And certainly small enough to make the point that such an outcome is extremely unlikely. For a discussion of the actual underlying mathematics of this calculation (in case you want to include a calculation such as this in a future article and be able to provide the readers a discussion of how the calculation is performed) here is a very good link.
    https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat414/node/69
    As I discussed in my previous comment, you cannot calculate the likelihood that the AVERAGE in a random sample of 20 is 36 or more unless you know what the population distribution looks like (e.g. Normal, lognormal, Weibull, Poisson, etc.) and you know certain parameters of the population distribution (e.g. mean and variance in the case of the normal). I would be surprised if such information about the population is known or publicly available in this instance. I therefore recommend against framing you discussion/calculation of the odds in terms of the sample average.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much for your thinking and care for these data :)

      I agree completely that the most accurate probability would derive from first taking the data for each and every alleged "mother's" age, then combining those probabilities. That said, I don't have the CDC data for all ages, only certain ranges. So! The best solution I have to contribute this initial and elementary statistical analysis is to take the average of 36.

      This said, with all respect, we also need to average in the data of alleged mothers giving birth at age 40 or older (7 of the 20), which powerfully drive the math to ridiculous odds that these women are who they say they are.

      I'm pleased with my initial contribution to this data point for public consideration of what really happened at Sandy Hook. I invite and welcome others to take this data and continue the analysis.

      I would also point to another data point: what is the probability of the number of these families receiving homes at a sales price of $0 all on 12/25/2009??? From this source: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/02/13/the-strange-purchase-date-and-price-of-sandy-hook-homes/

      This data from the article: "The homes of 15 of the 20 Sandy Hook child victims, 1-2 of the 7 adult victims, and all 6 of the Sandy Hook adult non-victims (the Phelps, Gene Rosen, the three Selectmen) have the mysterious sale date and $0 sale price.

      At the very least, that is interesting. The three Selectmen are especially interesting because if the hypothesis is that the massacre was a contrived event, then Newtown’s highest governing body would have to be “in the know.”

      Your guess is as good as mine as to what all those strange 12/25/2009 sale dates and $0 sale price mean. I’d appreciate input from readers of this blog who are in the real estate business and can shed some light on what the odd sale date and sale price mean."

      This will also likely find astronomical odds.

      Delete
    2. The home for $0 has been debunked over and over, it's just people will not accept the explanations.

      https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-sandy-hook-residents-got-their-houses-for-free.t3198/

      As it says in that link, you can check the tax assessor page of just about any US city and get similar results as Newtown.

      One very interestinfg point in that thread, James Tracey the co-author of Mr Fetzer's book, had $10 sale price for his home on three different occasions.

      You quoted that article on fellowshipoftheminds, but left out a very important. Where the author got an explanation for the 12/25 date.

      "Thank you for your inquiry Dr ____. In most instances of a sale price of $0 the reason would be because of a family sale where the house ownership is simply transferred. [In other words, no money actually changed hands.] The other reason for that to happen would be a town entering a parcel into their database for the first time they must put a first owner and a sale price. Often times they will put $0 as a filler price. The sale date of 12/25/2009 would be the same thing"

      An article with a further explanation:

      https://sandyhookstalkers.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/fetzers-free-homes-folly/

      Delete
    3. jjis appears to specialize in faking explanations for evidence contrary to the official account. There is such a mountain of proof that he won't even try to debunk it. Try the photo of the SWAT team already on the scene, where the windows of Classroom 10 are not shot out. There is crime-scene tape up for a crime that has yet to be committed. Download NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK for free. You can find the photo in Ch. 8, with 49 others refurbishing the school to serve as the stage, taken by the CT State Police, who were apparently working with FEMA to stage a fake shooting.

      Delete
    4. Ok, jjis, thank you for the info on the home sales. This is why I limit my professional contributions to the areas I've personally invested the time to verify with the best data available.

      Delete
  8. Ypou didn't answer about the contradictions I pointed out.

    Why does tracey say the lot was oddly vacant when you showed the photo and described the cars in it?

    Why did Tracey say 600 students then later you said 469?

    Like I mentioned before you use blurry photos. Allan Powell says the tape is up and has a photo that he says shows the glass not broken out. Yet in the report there are crime scene photos that clearly show the glass is breaking out.

    http://imgur.com/a/nHpRE

    Compoare that photo with the one in your book. Why did you and Powell deliberately choose to use a photo lower quality photo when in the report a better one is available?

    Your photo is Exhibit 48 on page 156. Compare that to the photo I posted. In my photo the tape is up and glass is broken. totally contradicting what Powell had in your book.

    Exhibit 27 page 148, Powell shows a photo and says the porta potty in the background was there before the event. Yet here are two photos of the lot from the helicopter footage and there is no porta potty visible:

    http://imgur.com/a/Mq16A

    http://imgur.com/a/AeDtV

    On page 141 Powell writes:

    “Unmarked FEMA vehicles arranged deliveries at the back door.”

    Here are the vehicles in question, notice anything on the doors?

    http://imgur.com/a/WBkUW

    “Images of the mortuary tent show an oak tree in the background, which has yet to lose all its leaves: the time of year is late October.” pg. 151

    Oak trees can have leaves into the winter, perhaps Mr Powell should have researched that first before writing that:

    http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/why-do-some-leaves-persist-on-beech-and-oak-trees-well-into-winter

    http://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/news/2012/winter-leaves-that-hang-on

    I can go on with more if you like.

    I'd like Mr Herman's comment on the info I have posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, jjis, you'd like me to comment after what now, 8 or so instances of you refusing to give what you see as reasonable odds that a group of 20 women would average a birth age of 36?

      You refuse to engage in THE CENTRAL SUBJECT of this article, only to deny that we can apply mathematics to determine the odds these particular woman are the moms they claim to be, and even to reject repeated offers to even acknowledge the unrealistic average that 1/4th of CT women could have birth ages of 36 or older, that would make the odds of their story being true only in the trillions to one rather than the more reasonable estimations documented in the article.

      As I stated above regarding home price sales recorded at $0, I will not comment upon topics I have not personally invested to research, with a key distinction of the difference between reading "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" to evaluate the factual claims at that level of scrutiny VERSUS the far more time-consuming professional analysis to have personal command of those claims.

      Importantly, jjis: have you read "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook"?

      If not, why not?

      If so, please write your leading three conclusions referencing the work.

      Delete
    2. I have read it and have already written my conclusions. Whether on purpose of by simple mistake Mr Fetzer has gotten many things wrong and contradicted the co-author's of the book.

      The big mistake is saying the crime scene or in Mr Fetzer's words the staging photios were taken the morning of the 4th. they determined that by the sunrise coming over the school. One big problem, those photos actually showed the sunset. So the and his co-author Allen Powell changed their story. Now claiming the "staging" photos were taken on the evening of the 1th.

      There is a photo of a car in the Sandy Hoo parking lot, with a what looks like a porta potty in the background. the books conclusion is that is was delivered before the shooting.

      Problem is that helicopter footage from the morning of the 14th show no porta potties in the parking lot. In fact there is a dash cam video that shows a porta potty being brought in around 1:30 on the 14th.
      In the book is hown a photo of the front of the school with police tape up. The book says it was taken before the shooting, becasue you can't see broken glass.

      the photo is not great quality and you can't see the window clearly. In the crime report there is a clear picture of the front, with police tape up and broken glass on the ground.

      That picture was available for Mr Fetzer to put in his book, but he chose a low quality, blurry photo instead.

      Delete
    3. "The big mistake is saying the crime scene or in Mr Fetzer's words the staging photios were taken the morning of the 4th"

      Meant the morning of the 14th

      Delete
    4. Where's your detailed data/evidence? Please provide it. However, you've gotten off topic of the purpose of this article. Show proof your ODDS/probability with calculations supporting your position that the information presented in this article in inaccurate.

      Delete
    5. I don't have any, never claimed to. I'm not a mathematician.

      I just pointed out Mr Herman were flawed because he didn't get specific enough. Race, income, education level, where you live all play a part in when couples have kids. With the age of women having their first getting older and older, couple with CT having one the highest ages of first time moms. Plus CT is a wealthy state, Fairfield is a wealthy county. Put all those together and having seven moms in Newtown having their first kid at an avg age of 36 doesn't seem so strange.

      There was more to the article than just the odds of the age of the moms.

      Delete
    6. 1. If you have no alternative data, then what you're doing is the fallacy of denial. This is rejected in any serious discussion.

      2. You're lying, jjis, when you say, "seven moms in Newtown having their first kid at an avg age of 36 doesn't seem so strange" when it's the average age giving birth for all 20 alleged mothers.

      3. You're lying in omission when you also reject odds that 1/5th or even 1/4th of CT women would average 36 years of age that are also astronomical, as I've repeatedly offered you. You saying "doesn't seem so strange" is absolutely refuted by those odds.

      4. There is more to this article, and that said, you reject the central topic.

      Delete
    7. I think it's funny that you guys are not commenting on the obvious mistakes in Fetzer's book. It's like you're avoiding the topic.

      Delete
    8. When you did you research for the article, did you take into account the Sandy Hook moms income and education levels? If you did, you should have mentioned it. If not, then you should redo the analysis.

      Delete
    9. BTW, since you did the research could you post the ages of each mom. Not their avg age, but the actual ages of each mom at the time they had their first child.

      Delete
    10. It's obvious jjis is a shill, so I will avoid reading it's comments as I don't know if jjis is male, female or some kinda bot - but its OK to have a different opinion. Nonetheless, I recommend all others to read Fetzer's books and many other authors to become enlighted. By doing so, you will see thru the shill's smoke and mirrors, and make up your own mind. Cheers!

      Delete
    11. I suggest reading it too, but then read the counterpoint on CrisisActorsGuild and make up your own mind about it.

      Delete
  9. The actual ages of each mom was included in the article, which suggests that jjis did hot even bother to research the issues on which she has been posting so energetically. Most are included in the video, "Sandy Hooks Elderly Parents", and the others in a note where I provided the ages of the other. More stunning proof that jjis is a shill would be difficult to imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The ages of each mom is not in the article. It's just their avg age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jjis: please read the first paragraph and note the *. At the end of the article are the individual ages.

      You either missed this or are attempting to deliberately disinform people. If you missed this basic documentation in the second sentence of the first paragraph, what else have you missed?

      Say and do what you want most in Life, jjis, you will receive the same quality in return.

      Delete
  11. Those ages still do not mention which ones had older siblings, thirteen had older children than the ones that were victims.

    Pozner had children from her first marriage for instance.

    Mr. Herman do you think the lies in Mr Fetzer's book were deliberate or honest mistakes?

    Such as saying the photos were leaked, when in fact they all came from the crime report. Not leaked at all.

    Saying the police tape was up when no windows were shot out. Even though the report has numerous photos of the glass on the ground with police tape up.

    Saying men are drilling holes in the window, even though you can't see anything of the sort.

    Saying there is condensation on the ground from an exhaust pie, proving the car was moved. Even though the puddle is on the left and the exhaust pipe is on the right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenny Hensel had another kid after Avielle. Again, women are having children older than ever now.

      It's grasping at straws at this point by you guys.

      Delete
    2. At this point, I recommend Professor Fetzer delete any further comments from you. I replied to your lie/mistake that the article didn't have the ages of the alleged mothers. You answer:

      "Those ages still do not mention which ones had older siblings" which continues to demonstrate either you're a paid shill to disrupt the comments, or not competent to hold a conversation about this topic.

      You lie in omission to repeat a request that I comment on the book when I've twice stated that this is their expertise (they've more wisely than I previously chose to remove themselves from conversing with you), and that such a request is ridiculous when you outright refuse all reasonable offers to comment upon the odds of the alleged mothers, which I am the author of that topic, and which is the subject of the article.

      Life is fair, jjis. You will receive what you care to work for. Be proud of your choices; that is totally in your control.

      My usual practice is to engage in comments until someone like you is thoroughly shown as either lying or incompetent to engage. I've accomplished that for all who can see. I will not respond further.

      Delete
    3. YOu say I lie, but then you ignore the lies in Mr Fetzer's book. Do you think it's fair to mislead people? That's what Mr Fetzer did with his book.

      On pg 147 hios book states:

      “This photo taken early on the morning of 14 December 2012 shows the school door open but no window blown out to gain access".

      But in the crime report, where the photos in Mr Fetzer's book came from, this photo appears:

      http://imgur.com/a/OZvtN

      Notice the ground? That would be broken glass.

      If Mr Fetzer is interested in telling the truth about Sandy Hook, why put a blatant lie such as that in his book?

      Delete
    4. Here is another one

      On pg 144:

      “The condensation drip of moisture from the exhaust pipe on to the car park surface indicates that the vehicle has only recently been driven to that location, probably within an hour.”

      Here is the car in question:

      http://imgur.com/a/pFvFn

      Puddle is on the left, exhaust pipe on the right. How does an exhaust pipe on the right side of a car make a condensation puddle on the left side of a car?

      Delete
  12. Searching for the Ultimate Dating Website? Create an account to find your perfect match.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BlueHost is ultimately the best hosting provider for any hosting plans you might require.

    ReplyDelete
  14. QUANTUM BINARY SIGNALS

    Professional trading signals delivered to your cell phone every day.

    Start following our signals today & make up to 270% per day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ever wanted to get free Google+ Circles?
    Did you know you can get them AUTOMATICALLY & ABSOLUTELY FREE by using Like 4 Like?

    ReplyDelete