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from the beginning, the photos of the children looked as though they were wearing clothing that was about 10 years out of date.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:

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.


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.

Please follow and like us:

17 thoughts on “Sandy Hook Scam: Why the Mothers’ Ages Matter”

  1. Enjoy casino games.
    บาคาร่าออนไลน์ Online casino games are popular with many players. The online casino games have entertained the players easily and comfortably. With our online casino games on the Internet. Online casino games created for you to play with. With the style of online casino games that are easy to understand. And online casino games that allow players to bet on the online casino. Fun in the risk of playing online casino games to entertain the players in real life. Not only this, our online casino games give you real money to play, enjoy playing on the mobile screen or your computer is constantly enjoying. Earn money and create riches with online casino games that give you more. A new way of betting with online casino games that meet the needs of players. Online casino games service standard. Many popular games will lead you to the best bet. And to make a profit to the player. รูบี้888

  2. 1. Rolling a die 20 times is likely to produce an average of 3.5. This is one way averages work, and similar to saying the average number of hits the Boston Red Sox have over 20 games is 9.2.

    2. Your argument is false, and provably so by taking it to an extreme: if the 20 females claiming to be SH moms averaged 60 years of age giving birth, or 6 years of age, would you also reject this model as requiring each and every age to invalidate the official story?

    3. My teaching credential includes teaching Advanced Placement Statistics.

    4. I appreciate the choice you offer to interested readers whether your model and comments are valid. People need to think this through for themselves.

  3. Dude, YOU don't have a "statistical model". You're treating things that are different as if they're the same. It's like saying everytime you roll a die you get three and a half. You're simply wrong. Your article should be titled "Why I Wrongly Think The Average of the Mothers' Ages Matters and I Throw Data Away to Make the Arithmetic a Little Easier".

    But I give up. THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS.

    BTW, the birthday problem is something everyone taking even one college level course on probability (i.e. not YOU) has seen. The answer is 50%. I take your rejection of it as an admission of incompetence.

  4. Argue all you want, but unless you have a better statistical model, both your examples of a 54 and 18 year-old mother averaging 36, and your dice example both demonstrate the validity of averages. In your dice model, if we said the average dot number for a rolled dice over 20 attempts was 1.2, we could calculate odds similar to the impossible age claims of SH alleged mothers.

    I reject your question to discuss birthdays as an obvious distraction.

  5. You're not doing statistics here, you're doing probability. Using an AVERAGE is itself changing the data. You need to use the "mothers'" ACTUAL ages at time of their (first????) child's birth. None of these kids had older siblings?

    Example: if you roll a fair six-sided die an infinite number of times there will be an even distribution across the results. But the average would be 3 and a half. You simply cannot treat the "mothers'" ages as if they are all 36.

    If you're as good at what you call "statistics" which is actually probability, you'll be able to explain off the top of your head the probability of at least two of the "mothers" sharing the same (month and day since even you admit they were not all born in the same year) birthday. You should not have to look this up, and it does not involve averages.

  6. You're arguing against two scenarios that make the SH mothers' ages impossible to match the "official" story.

    Ok. Fine. Good luck with that.

    If you want to do a more detailed analysis with the birth ages, have at it. In general, the professional use of mathematical statistics uses averages exactly as I do here.

  7. 1. With all respect, bro: you're totally wrong on this point. If you make a factual claim, it's your job to provide the data.

    2. Ok. The data is there for whatever point you're referencing and open to anyone to draw whatever conclusions they see best.

    3. How is 36 not the average age? I didn't change that data. Wrong result? You have a burden proof to show the "right" way to do this if you claim it's wrong.

    3b. (sigh) Again, the ball is in your court to show how I changed the data of average birth age of 36, and the more "tedious" math to do this correctly.

    My comment: Really? You really find the age of mothers credible??? You don't need to argue about the data because I see no way for you to win this argument, but you're entirely welcome to believe anything you wish even if the odds make your belief impossible.

  8. You just proved my point. If we consider a 54 year old and an 18 year old as both being 36, IT CHANGES THE DATA. You really should go back and do the analysis correctly, you obviously have the data otherwise you couldn't have CHANGED IT.

  9. 1. It's not my job to research data for you. Why not go back to the CDC or Pew Research Center and ask them?

    2. You linked to this article which says nothing of the sort. Your original does, however. On the other hand, the average age in your original article is said to be 27 for ANY child (not 26) which suggests the average age for first child is lower.

    3. You average all the ages of the "mothers" to come up with 36. In other words, YOU CHANGED THE DATA, so you necessarily came up with a wrong result. You need to multiply the individual probabilities, not just 1/9 (your ESTIMATE) 20 times.

    3. Here's how professional probabilists work: THEY DON'T CHANGE THE DATA to get out of slightly more tedious math.

  10. Thanks for being on the record that you found nothing.

    So let's look together:

    1. What data are you citing (please provide a source) for "non-Hispanic married whites." Since you're claiming this data exists, where is it?

    2. The article, with specific link below, is explicit in its very first paragraph to take into account the odds for mothers who may or may not have this child as their firstborn. Please tell us, how did you miss this in the very first paragraph?

    3. Here's how professional academics works: I've presented my data, along with revisions for a more reasonable range in the comments here (sorry, I didn't provide that link before):

    So, the ball is now in your court to provide a more reasonable estimation.

  11. I did look, and there is no evidence that you factored it in. Neither did you use the average among non-Hispanic married whites, instead using a nationwide average.

    Further, you appear to assume that every supposed child in the class is their parents' firstborn. I see nothing to support that assumption.

    See? It's really NOT as simple as flipping a coin 20 times. And I say that as someone convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax. But bad probability analysis is not helpful.

  12. I do factor this in. Please read the previous article linked at the first sentence, then consider that data.

    Then, read the comments where I respond to the same argument you have. Even the most ridiculous accommodations to that idea reduce the odds from 109 quintillion to one, down to 95 billion to one.

    It is the big deal we point to with the data. But you'd have to look if you want to see.

  13. Note: adults rarely appear in pictures with Noah Pozner. Why?

    Statistics-wise, you need to factor in educational level and income level. Poor people tend to reproduce sooner, rich people later. It may not be as big a deal as you make out.

  14. Thanks, Jim, for ongoing leadership to present the facts that refute such "official" stories always linked to agendas for the US empire to continue unchallenged. In this case of Sandy Hook, US "leadership" spins for gun confiscations EXACTLY as the British attempted in 1775 when they recognized enough Americans recognized their own government's destruction of promised rights and using the public to maximize .01% profits. In US history at that point, favored oligarchs had exclusive "rights" to maximize profits through mercantilism, with today's mechanisms to annually loot trillions from Americans as the topic we discussed a few weeks ago:

    The US rogue state empire will continue with staged false flags in desperate attempts to prevent .01% arrests for OBVIOUS crimes centered in ongoing lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, looting of trillions, and constant lying through "official" political and corporate media voices. The public can help by the elegantly powerful actions to think, speak, and take actions in the integrity of truth.

Leave a Reply