Sandy Hook and Social Security Death Index

One of the lies the hoaxers like to tell is that the victims didn’t appear in the Social Security Death Index or Death Master File (DMF).  This particular lie appears to have started in a Chemtrails article by Livingonplanetz.  Mr. Planetz claims “Manual search of the Social Security Death master file lists reveals no deaths and no victims in the alleged Sandy Hook murders.”  Planetz goes on to claim that death records available in on-line searchable ancestry databases were compromised and the victim’s death records were nefariously inserted. “It was this variability that led us to perform a search of the unaltered, original archived version of the MASTER file.”

Remember those adjectives.  Unaltered.  Original.

He goes on to claim that “In this document, you will see the results of a painstakingly thorough search of the ORIGINAL Social Security Death Master File.”  Original.

We find a link to a PDF file at the top of the article which, at 107 pages, is the apparent result of the painstakingly thorough search.  And at the bottom of the article, you’ll find he lists two resources:

RESOURCES:

 

That’s right, as any good scholar would, he lists his sources.  Since the 107 page PDF document only contains those entries in the DMF of people with names similar to the Sandy Hook victims, and some editorial comment, we know the PDF file isn’t the original, unaltered, DMF.  The two sources Livingon lists must be the original, unaltered, social security death master files, right?

No.  Livingon’s sources are the exact same 107 page PDF file duplicated in two separate files on archive.org.  Think about that.  He’s worse than a lazy 7th grader who makes up sources.  Both are counting on the fact that fact that the reader will never bother to verify the source, but at least the lazy 7th grader has to make something up that sounds like a source.

Nowhere in Livingon’s article is there a source to the original DMF, just his claim that PDF document is the result of a thorough search of the DMF.  And dozens of sites reblogged it.  And nowhere on any of these websites can I find a link to the original archived version of the DMF file.  I can only find links to the 107 page PDF file.

Let’s take a closer look at this document.  Remember, the hoaxers claim that this document was created after an exhaustive search of the original, unaltered DMF.

 

page one ssmf

In a brief introduction, the author tells us the “originating website uses a purchased copy” of the Social Security Death Master File.  Nowhere in this document can you find a reference to what that originating website is.  However, on page 107, the author tells us that the 106 pages of “previous results” are from the “intact Master File.”

He also invites you to look for yourself.  But since he gives you no source, the only place he’s suggesting you look is in his very own document.

So let’s take a look at the document and those so-called intact results from the master file:

details ssmf

Now think.  For yourself.   Does this look like it came from an intact, unaltered, original copy of Social Security Administration’s death master file?   Now, I didn’t know exactly what the DMF should look like, so I checked with the US Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS, the people who make the DMF download available).  According to NTIS, the DMF “includes the following information on each decedent, if the data are available to the SSA: social security number, name, date of birth, and date of death.”

Did you get that?  Social Security number.  Name.  Date of Birth.  Date of Death.

Now look closer at the purported unaltered DMF results.  We are getting birth information, census information, marriage and childbirth information.  In those first 6 listings on page 1, there is not one iota of death information.  And the hoaxers want you to believe this document was produced after an exhaustive review of the original, unaltered, death master file.

Scanning through the records, you’ll even see multiple entries for a single person who had more than one child. But again, no death information, at least not on these line items.

dupes ssmf

Do you notice anything else that seems amiss?  Those underlined blue words are hyperlinks.  You know, a link on a website or document that takes you to another website or document.  Yeah, the original, unaltered, Social Security Death Master File would not contain hyperlinks.

So what is the source of the information in this PDF file? The answer is a relatively unknown site called SortedByName.com.   SortedByName, as described by the site creator is “A collection of links to genealogy details mentioned on other websites.” That’s why we see the birth, marriage and census information.  That’s why we have the source hyperlink.  The administrator of this database is aggregating data from multiple sources, including but not limited to the DMF.  

Go ahead and visit SortedByName.com. Search it yourself and check out your results.  You’ll see they look exactly like those in the PDF file that claims to be the unaltered, original DMF. And if you search this site for the Sandy Hook victims today, you will find them there.

Now, when you search SortedByName for the Sandy Hook victims, the source attributed to the data item will be ssdmf.info, because this is how the administrator sources the DMF.  Not to be disparaging, but the site is a little clumsy to use.  If you follow the source link and then look for the link to download the Death Master File, you’ll eventually get to this page  http://ssdmf.info/download.htmlHere the site creator gives links to DMF files dated November 30, 2011.

He also links to a second site, CancelTheseFunerals.com for the more recent May 2013 edition.

The full downloads from 2011 and 2013 are sets of three very large files.  CancelTheseFunerals even has the a links to the monthly updates issued in 2013, including the January 2013 Monthly Update which includes all of the Sandy Hook victims. These, my friends, are the original, unaltered, intact Social Security Death Master files, containing exactly what NTIS said they’d contain: social security number, name, date of birth, and date of death.  How about that?

Sites like SortedByName and other genealogy sites, all use the DMF to keep their records updated.  It’s not known why the Sandy Hook victims weren’t listed on SortedByName at the time the PDF file was produced.  Had the site simply not loaded the most recent updates?  Maybe.  My guess is there was an upload problem which was not immediately detected.  SortedByName warns, “We have found that three of the entries contain stray quotation marks, which can cause problems when they are interpreted by your program as field delimiters.”  As other data geeks know, an extra quotation mark in a quote delimited file would throw off a whole data import.

Interestingly,  at the time the 107 page PDF file was created, the author verifies that other genealogy sites did contain information on the victims.  If you go to page 107, the author actually provides screen shots verifying that he was able to find death records for the victims on another website.  Again, he doesn’t identify the website, but I believe it’s DOBsearch.com, and here’s his screen shot:altered ssdi

The author claims the results on this database are altered:  “In light of the previous results from the intact Master File, however, the following are now known to be fake.”

Remember, those previous results included census data, marriage records, child birth information, and sometime death information.  By no stretch of the imagination are the records pulled into this PDF file the results of analysis of the “intact Master File.”  If you fell for this, the hoaxers got you again.

Now, by no means am I the first person who has figured this out.  And I hope not to be the last.  Check out these links of other brave souls who have tried to explain this topic to the cognitively challenged:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-sandy-hook-victims-not-in-social-security-death-index-ssdi-official-death-records.t3186/

http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/09/sandy-hook-victims-not-listed-in-social.html

And for those who prefer video:  Sandy Hook Victims not in Social Security Death Index Debunked

And finally, an interesting little exchange between FOTM and a reader named Amanda, who has access to the DMF using Microsoft’s SQL Server Management Software (SMSS), I’m presuming through her work.  What I find interesting is that FOTM demands proof that the data is really from the DMF.  It’s too bad they don’t apply that same standard to all evidence they review.  http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/26/no-one-died-in-sandy-hook-testimony-from-social-security-death-master-file/comment-page-1/#comment-391828

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Other FEMA School Shooting Manual

Back in January of 2014, I published an essay titled The FEMA School Shooting Handbook.  You see, back then, no one had invented Sandy Hook FEMA School Shooting Manual so the hoaxers were pushing a document produced by Pottawattamie County, Iowa for use in a particular drill as “the” authoritative FEMA handbook on school shootings.  It wasn’t until 10 months later that some wild-eyed hoaxer created the phony Sandy Hook document.

My original post still gets a lot of hits, and I’ve been meaning to come back to this topic for quite some time.

As the youngest child in my family, I learned early that if I put off a task long enough, someone will eventually do it for me.   Click here to read Sandy Hook Facts & Research latest debunk and find out all the reasons why the latest FEMA School Shooting Manual is a fake.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Creative Thinking

Back in college, I took an elective creative writing class.  As a frequent assignment, the professor would pass out pictures— obscure historical photographs, current news photographs, or photos of famous artwork.  Our assignment was to write a fictional story inspired by the image.  If the photo was of a current news story, the idea was to imagine something other than the news story with which we were familiar.  My classmates and I spun our tales, sometimes based on known truths of historical events with our imaginations filling in the details.  Other times, students would invent a totally fanciful account of what might have been happening in the picture.  Realistic or absurd, it didn’t matter.  It was a creative writing class.

I am reminded of those short stories when I read the thoughts of Sandy Hook hoaxers.  They may pride themselves on their superior critical thinking, but what they are actually doing is creative thinking.

There is a big difference between creative thinking and critical thinking.  Creative thinking can be part of the critical thinking process.  Not only do creative thinkers give us important literature and art, creative thinking leads to inventions in all areas of life from science to business to the arts.  It’s how we solve problems with new ideas.  But in order to be successful, creative thinking must be combined with critical thinking.  And that’s where the hoaxers fall flat.

Creative thinking is generative.  It’s goal is to create new ideas.  Critical thinking is analytical.  A critical thinker looks at the data and analyzes the probability not just the possibility of an outcome.  Critical thinking demands logic and reason to come to a single answer.  Creative thinking relies on speculation and intuition to come to a possible answer.  And critical thinking is linear, that is, the answer must consider all available data to lead to a single conclusion, eliminating elements that are irrelevant, unlikely and false along the way.  Creative thinking is associative, that is, it correlates multiple things to the same starting point whether they are causally related or not,  and it does not require the elimination of the unlikely or impossible. (For fun, see why understanding causal relationships is important when drawing your conclusion http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations.)

For example, consider the two famous “conga” line photographs of the children exiting Sandy Hook.  Hoaxers have invented all kinds of creative stories that go along with the photo. Some say the same children, or at least two, appear in both pictures.  Others imagine that the photographer actually appears in one of the pictures.  Just as we did in that creative writing class, the hoaxers are inventing creative stories to go with a picture.
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wrong Again, Naturally

In a recent blog post on the website Sandy Hook Justice,  Wolfgang Halbig once again demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding the law and school policy despite his background in school administration and police work.  In the unwieldy titled post “Wolfgang W. Halbig Files Civil Rights Complaint For Federal Civil Rights Violations on a former Florida State Trooper, US Customs Inspector, US Military Veteran, Teacher, Coach, Dean, Assistant School Principal, Principal of an Alternative School, Director of School Safety and Director of Risk Management” (1) Mr. Halbig shares a letter he wrote to the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice informing them of FERPA violations.  Mr. Halbig asserts that the publication of photos of children evacuating Sandy Hook elementary was a violation of FERPA laws.

“On December 14, 2012, minor children were used for monetary and political gains.  These acts are serious violations of the federal FERPA laws.”

FERPA has nothing to do with protecting minor children from being used for monetary and political gain.  FERPA is a federal law (read about it here) that protects the privacy of student education records.  It applies to public schools and other schools that receive federal funds.  It prevents the school from releasing grades and test scores among other things without parental consent.  It’s that same law that keeps grades off limits to the tuition-paying parents of college students.  But  I don’t see where the FERPA law addresses using children for monetary or political gains.

“The federal FERPA laws protect minor children’s faces and their identifiable facial features from being published.”

FERPA does not protect minor children’s faces and their identifiable facial features from being published. Again, it’s about things in the educational record.  From what I can gather, a student ID photo potentially could be part of the educational record.  But photos a reporter takes of a bus unloading on the first day of school are not part of the educational record. FERPA would require parental consent in order for a school administrator to release a photo of the valedictorian’s final report card.  However, it does not prevent the press from publishing a photograph of the valedictorian delivering the commencement address.

To be fair, Mr. Halbig isn’t the only current or former school administrator who doesn’t understand what FERPA protects and what it doesn’t.  The Student Press Law Center has a whole website that fact checks FERPA cases and hands down a decision on whether the law was applied appropriately.

“The Connecticut Newtown bee newspaper violated the privacy rights of every minor child that you see in my attached photos as well as the privacy rights of their parents on December 14, 2012.”

If there is a law prohibiting the publication of images of minor children at a news worthy event, I couldn’t find it.  Regardless, it certainly isn’t FERPA.  There are laws restricting photography on private property or where there is an expectation of privacy (e.g., a public bathroom).  There are copyright laws which should prevent people like Mr. Halbig from swiping someone’s photo and reproducing it on a website.  And then of course, there is an ethical argument.  Common decency may cause an individual or news organization to blur the faces of minors, or opt not publish such a photograph in the first place.

But if The Newtown Bee did violate the privacy rights of those children in the evacuation photo, isn’t Mr. Halbig violating those rights too?

 

(1)  Don’t confuse the above referenced article with the article titled “Federal Civil Rights Violations on a former Florida State Trooper, US Customs Inspector, US Military Veteran, Teacher, Coach, Dean, Assistant School Principal, Principal of an Alternative School, Director of School Safety and Director of Risk Management.”

Posted in Critical Thinking | 8 Comments

The curious case of hoaxers inability to search a license database

The latest nonsense going around is that Hartford Trade Services, the funeral home that cremated Adam Lanza’s body, is not a licensed funeral home.  This leads hoaxers to conclude the shooter’s body was not cremated, therefore never died, therefore hoax.

People, how hard is it to click a link to the CT license web site and see if there is any truth to the claim before propagating misinformation?  Here, try it yourself.

https://www.elicense.ct.gov/Lookup/LicenseLookup.aspx

Both Hartford Trade and Kevin Davidson have active licenses. 

See how easy that was?

It’s curious that the original author was unable to use the search feature effectively. Also curious that the author chose to link to the license site’s home page, giving the reader the impression you must login to execute the search.

https://www.elicense.ct.gov

So, I will ask you once again. Who’s hoaxing who?

For more on this topic:

http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/hartford-trade-service-fellowship-of.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cinderella Misses the Ball

The writer at Cinderella’s Broom has recently left a mess of bread crumbs on the internet. Cindy has published screen shots of Newtown Public Schools 471 application that lists both Sandy Hook Elementary and Chalk Hill as schools within the Newtown district. Her screen shots show the same data for the two schools. Claiming the application was submitted prior to the start of the 2012 school year, Cindy deduces that Sandy Hook students were being schooled at the Chalk Hill site in the fall of 2012, if not earlier.

It was easy to initially assume this was fabricated evidence, since Cindy only shares screen shots of the 22 page document she claims was the source of her information. And quite strangely, it appears that someone cut and pasted form headers into an Excel spreadsheet to produce one of the screen shots she displays.  But as a critical thinker, I pushed my cognitive dissidence aside and went to search for the Newtown’s form 471.

In case you aren’t familiar with the 471, this form allows schools all over the country to apply for discounts on internet and telecommunications services. The FCC designated the non-profit USAC to administer this program and one may manually complete the application or apply on-line via their website. http://www.usac.org/default.aspx

The website has other useful links as well. You can find previously filed 471 applications by using this link . All you need is the 471 application number which Cinderella provides in her screen shot (826523). Don’t worry about not having the security code, you don’t need it. This tool lets you scroll through the application sections or even view the application in its entirety.

USAC search main screen

Pay special attention to the Current and Original radio buttons. Pretty self explanatory, but the original radio button will take you to the original application filed by Newtown schools which was postmarked on 3/13/2012. Here’s what Block 4 looked like in the original application:Newtown 471 app

Notice that Chalk Hill was not listed in the original application.

Don’t believe me? I encourage you to check it out for yourself.

Now, if you go back to the main screen and request the current application, you will see the most recent application from the funding year 2012-2013. Below is a screen shot of the Block 4 tab on the USAC site.

471 revised with CHS

Now, I’d like to direct your attention to the funding year line. The 2012 funding year runs from 7/1/2012 to 6/30/2013. Now can anyone tell me what happened between those dates? That’s right. The children moved from Sandy Hook to Chalk Hill. This meant that USAC needed to revise form 471 so that Chalk Hill was listed as a Newtown school.   And, not surprisingly, the enrollment data is the same because the entire population of Sandy Hook students transferred to Chalk Hill midyear.

(USAC provides another tool to extract raw data here. If you scroll down and select data points, ask to see commitment remarks before you extract the data, you will see the notation “MR1: USAC has added the Chalk Hill Middle School (BEN 5788) to the Block 4 Worksheet” in your report.  If you think my interpretation of the data is wrong, make sure you add the people at USAC to your list of co-conspirators.  That list must be getting mighty long.)

Now, Cinderella, please sweep up your mess.

Posted in Sandy Hook, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Fact Checking Fetzer

Anyone who is buying into the garbage the hoaxers are spewing should check out the blog  Crisis Actors Guild where the author examines, chapter by chapter, the claims made in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.  Welcome back to sanity. 

http://www.crisisactorsguild.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment