Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
However...[. . .]Salazar [of Infowars] may be unaware that the FBI does not itself gather crime-related data. Rather, the FBI obtains its data from participating states, which in turn collect localized data from within their jurisdictions. The FBI’s 2012 UCR data contains the Newtown “0” data entry simply because Newtown reported that figure. This raises the question as to why that happened.
The answer is that it has to do with the way the state of Connecticut accounted for the Newtown event. Connecticut happens to issue its own Uniform Crime Reports, and you can access the 2012 version by clicking here. If you scroll to page 415, you will note that the state accounted for the 27 Newtown/Sandy Hook murder “victims” by including them under the “Agency or Area” heading “State Police Misc.”, which is obviously not Newtown. In fact, if you go to page 245, you will see that, like the FBI UCR, the Connecticut UCR also lists 0 murders for the “Agency or Area” Newtown.
There could conceivably be real issues as to why the Sandy Hook murders weren’t scored in the Newtown “Agency or Area” even if it is true that the Connecticut State Police managed the “investigation.” But the fact remains that the Newtown event was scored under the “State Police Misc.” heading, and since the FBI received the data from Connecticut, it placed a “0” in the Newtown row just as the state of Connecticut did. Thus, the claim that the FBI says nobody was killed at Newtown is unsupported by the FBI’s UCR Newtown “0” data point. ...[emphasis Capstone's]
So, the issue remains far from settled.[. . .]...there does appear to be a different, and potentially critical, issue concerning the Sandy Hook event and FBI data. In a 9/10 USA Today article, we are told:
“The records are voluntarily submitted by police agencies, and FBI officials say the Connecticut State Police and Aurora police departments initially provided the information on the year’s two largest killing incidents – only to request that it be deleted.
In Aurora, Sgt. Chris Amsler says his department provides data to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations monthly. The FBI database contains information on 18 other homicides in Aurora in 2012.
“We checked our records and found that all data related to the theater shooting was submitted,” he said, adding that investigators were still trying to figure out why the incident was later deleted from FBI records.Connecticut’s homicide count is correct, but the FBI’s detailed supplementary material includes only the shooting of Adam Lanza’s mother at her home in December 2012, just before Lanza went to the elementary school. Lt. Paul Vance says his department submitted a six-page report on the Newtown school victims to the FBI but later identified a mistake. Updated data was provided too late to be reflected in the database, Vance says, but the information should be added soon.”
The missing Aurora data is disturbing, and could conceivably connect to the Sandy Hook event at some point, but we’ll have to bypass that possibility here in order to focus on the issue at hand.
So moving along, it is utterly bizarre—for reasons that will become clear shortly—that, according to FBI officials, the Connecticut State Police “initially provided the information…only to request that it be deleted.” We should couple this information with Lt. Paul Vance’s claim that “his department submitted a six-page report on the Newtown school victims to the FBI but later identified a mistake” and his claims that “updated data was provided too late to be reflected in the database, Vance says, but the information should be added soon.”
What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, makes no sense at all. Really: it makes no sense at all. To see this, it might help to know (in case you don’t already) that the “supplementary material” referred to in the above quote is actually “Supplementary Homicide Report” (SHR) data. That data is simply a spreadsheet that contains very simple information reported to the FBI by states and their agencies. Thus, viewing the SHR data allows one to determine, for example, what the race of the offender was, how old the offender was, the number of victims, the ages of the victims, and other data of more or less equal simplicity. SHR data does not involve very complex forensic issues, witness narratives, and so forth. None of these types of things are included in the SHR. In fact, the vast majority of data points included in the SHR are so simple that they can be represented by a just a single letter or number.
Therefore, when the FBI says it deleted Sandy Hook SHR data upon having been requested to do so by the state of Connecticut on the alleged grounds that Vance’s department made a “mistake”, we must ask:
what sort of “mistake” (and please note that the singular was used by Vance, although given the simplicity of SHR data that doesn’t matter terribly much) could possibly have been made that would justify deleting every single, simple, data point other than those pertaining to the Nancy Lanza killing?
Following from (1), why wouldn’t Vance have simply requested that the FBI delete only the data point he thought was inaccurate (remember he says “mistake”, not “mistakes.”) After all, he allowed the FBI to keep the Nancy Lanza related data points. And even if Vance made more than one mistake, again, why not simply tell the FBI to keep the correct data points?Remember that what we are talking about here is data like the age of victims. So if Vance’s “mistake” was, for example, that someone in his department indicated that a victim was 7 when they were in fact 6, it could have been fixed forthwith without deleting the rest of the victim ages, victim gender, and all of the rest of the very simple data Vance says he gave the FBI in the first place.Notice also that these observations totally scotch the preposterous “it was too late to make the corrections” assertion, completely aside from the fact that if it was too late before to fix the problem, why isn’t it too late now?Could Vance be banking on an implicit lie to the effect that SHR data is contextual and sophisticated, so that just one mistake could in principle taint the entirety of the non-Nancy Lanza data if it is not corrected, thereby requiring deletion of all of the data until corrections are made? And what’s taking so long to make what are necessarily very simple—given the very nature of the SHR data—corrections?
Remember too that researchers are analyzing SHR data, and have not been told by the FBI in its SHR material that the non-Nancy Lanza Newtown data are missing—and so the scientific enterprise has been needlessly compromised.
It’s too bad for Vance that the SHR data is not sophisticated; it’s very simple. Therefore, there is no legitimate excuse for his request that the entirety of the data (other than the Nancy Lanza data) be deleted. Since per the FBI’s statements and dataset the data were nonetheless deleted, we have one more truly compelling set of reasons to consider the Sandy Hook event fraudulent.
As for the USA Today “journalist”, I will be charitable and suppose that these issues simply never occurred to her. ...[emphasis Capstone's]
The best explanation I've seen so far:
[. . .]
Global Research is hardly a credible source. The data was likely compiled by an office worker. They make mistakes. A clerical error is hardly cause to doubt Sandy Hook no matter how badly one needs to.
GR is one of those websites that come with a disclaimer that the website is not to be held responsible for the views expressed in the forum.
In other words, anyone can say anything just looking for a sucker to read and repeat it.
GR's editor made Terry O'Neill's 2006 version of Canada's nuttiest professors (Western Standard -- Canada s nuttiest professors) -
MICHAEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, Professor of Economics, Univ of Ottawa - As overseer of the anti-U.S., anti-globalization website GlobalResearch.ca, Chossudovsky has manufactured a long list of eyebrow-raising accusations that often read more like wild-eyed conspiracy theories than serious political discourse: the U.S. had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks ("Of course they knew!"); "Washington's New World Order weapons have the ability to trigger climate change"; the U.S. knew in advance about the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, but kept it to themselves (apparently so they could ride to the rescue of devastated coastal regions); big banking orchestrates the collapse of national economies...
You forgot to post a link to that "explanation."
You forgot to post a link to that "explanation."
Try clicking on the word "explanation", Numbnuts.
The GR article was credited to Dr. Jason Kissner, an associate professor of criminology and a contributing author at that site.
You forgot to post a link to that "explanation."
Try clicking on the word "explanation", Numbnuts.
The GR article was credited to Dr. Jason Kissner, an associate professor of criminology and a contributing author at that site.
Coming from someone like you, I can imagine no greater endorsement for that website!...Totally without credibility.
Coming from someone like you, I can imagine no greater endorsement for that website......Totally without credibility.
Text book ad hom response. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.Typical circular CT thought process. The fact that GP comes complete with a disclaimer which the editor uses as a shield would tell any rational person to proceed with caution but not one such as you, of course.
This couldn't be any simpler, Sayit. The FBI data anomalies remain to be explained, whether you accept Kissner's explanation and observations or not.
Look back in this thread and you should discover that I suspected a clerical error or the censorship actions of CT. state officials (which is exactly what accounting for the Newtown murders under "State Police, misc." amounts to, BTW). While that might explain the "0" data-point entry, it doesn't touch the strange deletions of the previously submitted 2012 SHR data from the Aurora and Newtown incidents.Building ones CT around what is most likely a clerical error isn't just lame, it is intellectually dishonest. ...
And out comes the text book again. Anyone and everyone with the audacity to question the officially authorized story, whether the facts on the ground support it or not, are liars or lunatics....Sandy Hook was not a hoax and those who continue to push such an idea are either liars looking for some attention or very, very sick.
which message? the one you wish was true or the one that disproves the first.Text book ad hom response. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.Typical circular CT thought process. The fact that GP comes complete with a disclaimer which the editor uses as a shield would tell any rational person to proceed with caution but not one such as you, of course.
Doesn't change the fact that Kissner's assessment is supported objectively by the facts on the ground.
The "potential issue" I'm referring to is that it seems unlikely that some of the amateur investigators involved in parsing these stats have been trained in statistical analysis and are therefore prone to misinterpretation. I'm not saying Fetzer's analysis in the quoted instance is definitely wrong, but in looking at the "Arrest Statistics for 2012" [emphasis mine], I'm not convinced that the numbers in the "Murder" column are referring to victims, nor is it clear that the numbers in some of the other columns necessarily support interpreting the far left column as the ages of victims (or offenders, as the case may be). Of course, I'm an untrained amateur myself, so take my $.02 for what they're worth.[. . .]Go to “Crime in Connecticut COMPLETE for 2012″ and on page 26, you will find the data that I am publishing here. At the intersection of MURDER and <10 (below 10 years of age) for 2012, you will find the number “0″! But that does not quite settle the matter, because the number “27″ appears under the heading, “State Police Misc.” buried on page 415: ...
I'm personally inclined to suspect that a clerical error was made or that the draconian censorship effort from CT state officials somehow prevented the deaths from registering on someone's ledger; primarily because, in light of other evidence, I sincerely believe that some number of children and adults were actually killed in Newtown in December of 2012.
But let's wait and see...
Looks like the explanation might be more in line with the other thing I mentioned, doesn't it.Clearly a clerical error!!!! ...
Accounting for the Newtown homicides under 'State Police, misc." is precisely what "prevented the deaths from registering" in the "Newtown" column on the state's UCR, which in turn prevented the deaths from showing up on the FBI's report. The question as to why the state chose to account for them in that anomalous manner is, as far as I know, still open to speculation; but, since the censorship efforts of Ct. state officials have been so well documented, censorship seems as good a candidate as any for a working hypothesis....or that the draconian censorship effort from CT state officials somehow prevented the deaths from registering on someone's ledger; ...
It seems there's a sound basis for suspecting that the reportedly "previously submitted" then deleted SHR data had never really been submitted in the first place and that the deletions/deletion requests didn't happen either.[. . .]The main thesis of this article is that it is most reasonable to believe that the Connecticut State Police never relayed the supposedly deleted Sandy Hook data to the FBI, and that this implicates a secretive group within the Connecticut State Police as participants in a fraudulent Sandy Hook operation. Of course, this is not the only possibility, and it implies that the FBI’s claim that the Connecticut State Police made a deletion request is, to put it diplomatically, a lie. The main thrust of the rest of the article is devoted to argument in favor of the thesis, but before doing that it is important to reinforce another conclusion of the previous article, which was that the “0” Newtown entry in Connecticut’s UCR, which was echoed by the FBI, in and of itself provides no evidence that the FBI asserts that no killings took place in Newtown.[...][emphasis Capstone's]
FBI mdash Table 11 - ConnecticutIm laughing.......FBI statistics released yesterday.......town by town murders/manslaughter in 2012.
#'s for Newton Ct.???
zErO
Must be a clerical error!!!
FBI mdash Table 8 - Connecticut
