Friday, September 1, 2017

Sandy Hook Scam: Why the Mothers' Ages Matter


Jim Fetzer

In a previous study about Sandy Hook, "New Angle on Sandy Hook Shooting Hoax", Carl Herman observed that the average age of the 20 women who purport to be parents of the purported child victims at Sandy Hook was 36 years of age at giving birth, which is 10 years older than the average of 26 across the nation. He calculated the improbability of that occurring by chance at 109.4 quadrillion to one! In other words, their children ought to be about 10 years older.


In order to present the most accurate and scientific studies of Sandy Hook, we are responsive to communications from other students of this elaborate scam, including some who have arrived at different results in calculating the improbability of the mothers' ages. Paul Majchrowicz, for example, arrived at a different estimate--which is documented below--that it is 812,043,102 more likely that the children were born in 1996 than in 2006, as the official account maintains.

That, of course, remains a very substantial improbability and strongly supports the inference that something is wrong. Why does it matter? Because from the beginning, the photos of the children looked as though they were wearing clothing that was about 10 years out of date. And we had other grounds for suspecting that the children were fictional characters created out of photographs of other children when they were younger. Here an image from a video illustrating the point:


What's wrong with this picture? The four kids in the foreground are the same as four of the older kids in the background when they were younger! Can you spot them? The specific claims made here--including that one of the “dead kids”, James Mattioli, attended his own funeral--are less important than knowing that you could be presented with photos of kids and be told they are dead with no convenient means of verification, since even death certificates can be faked, as in the case of Noah Pozner:


video

The case we have studied most extensively, however, is that of Noah Pozner. As those who have downloaded the free pdf of the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015), will be aware, Noah is a most unusual little boy, having died in Newtown on 14 December 2014 and having died again in Pakistan on 16 December 2016. Moreover, Lenny sent Kelley Watt a "death certificate" for Noah that is a fabrication, combining the bottom half of a real death certificate with the top half of a fake:


Notice the top portion has no file number and the wrong ETD ("Estimated Time of Death") as 11 AM, when the shooting purportedly took place between 9:30-9:35 AM. Obviously, had Noah actually died, Lenny could have sent Kelley a real death certificate. Remarkably enough, Kelley also noticed a rather striking resemblance between "Noah" and his purported older step-brother, Michael Vabner, which led us to undertake a thorough study of her conjecture, which we published here:

The piece de resistance was provided by Larry Rivera, who has done brilliant work proving that Lee Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the motorcade drove past--the darkest secret the government has striven to keep from the American people--including a series of superimpositions in the form of gifs. He confirmed that "Noah" was indeed a fictional character created out of images of his older step brother, Michael Vabner, by superimposing their images:







This has to be one of the most powerful proofs yet that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Lenny had already been outed by having sent Kelley Watt a "death certificate" for Noah Pozner that turned out to be a fabrication. If Noah had died at Sandy Hook, Lenny would not have had to fake it. This is another example of the power of collaborative research using the internet--and further proof that Sandy Hook was an elaborate charade. And you can stop scratching your head over why the mothers' ages matter.

So we now see how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. The women are too old to be the parents of six and seven year old first graders. During interviews, some of which have become rather infamous, they don't react as though they had actually recently lost children because they hadn't. Which also explains why the parents were not allowed to see their dead kids but identified them on the basis of photographs. There were no dead kids to see. They only existed in photographs. It was a scam.

APPENDIX

Paul Majchrowicz











































Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. Special thanks to Carl Herman and to Paul Majchrowicz.

Charlottesville Sham: The Deafening Silence of the University of Virginia


Jim Fetzer

Having taught at the University of Virginia (twice) and having done my homework on what really happened in Charlottesville, where it resides, I thought it would be appropriate to share the results of (collaborative) research with appropriate responsible parties at "Mr. Jefferson's University", as it is affectionately known to students, faculty and townies alike.

The Charlottesville production was divided into three parts: Act I (Friday, 11 August) featured physical assaults on UVA students participating in a torch-lit campus rally to draw the public's attention to the stage for the next act; Act II (Saturday, 12 August) had the local police stand down so the state police and national guard could channel the protestors into  violent confrontation.


Act III (same day) was at an intersection several blocks away, where the actors were set and the vehicles in place for dramatic--and very carefully contrived--video footage, in confidence that the faculty and staff of the university would not realize that they had been played. The most important of the images sent around the world was photoshopped with banners and stuntmen in the air. 

I not only wrote to the President, the Provost and the Vice Provost, but to 75 members of the Department of History, which I assumed would be responsive to evidence-based studies of what had taken place. Imagine my astonishment when I received five automatic notices from faculty on leave but only one reply from a member of the faculty who had received it.

She was not a happy camper, who, rather than appreciate the evidence I had provided, expressed dismay: "I am embarrassed to hear you have any connection with this university.  Do not send me any more email." My thought is that would be those of us who have supposed Mr. Jefferson's University stood for something. What do you think?   


Here are the videos themselves. Did I misjudge the faculty of (which was ranked as the) #1 public university in the United States at the time of my appointments? Am I wrong to think that the Department of History ought to be alarmed that their silence is allowing the nation to be played by a fabricated event involving the Mayor, the Governor and other miscreants?








Because as I see it, when the President, the Provost, the Vice-Provost and 75 members of the Department of History have been provided verifiable proof that the Charlottesville event--which even The New York Times characterized as "White Nationalists March on the University of Virginia"--and they do nothing to set the record straight, they have not only betrayed the institution but the nation at large.

I entreat anyone who has the ability and the motivation to contact faculty and staff at the University, where contact information is available on line. I have been patiently waiting for them to speak out about this disgusting, fabricated event that is being used to destroy icons of American history and to sow violence and dissent across the nation. They have completely disgraced Mr. Jefferson's University.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. He taught at the University of Virginia (twice) as Visiting Associate (1977-78) and as Visiting Professor (Spring Semester, 1984-85).