“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Nine
By: “Dr. Eowyn” (aka Maria Hsia Chang)
Parsing through James Fetzer’s bullshit page by page has been a frustrating yet oddly satisfying process. So, it’s both a relief and a little disappointing when I come across a chapter that doesn’t require me to eviscerate yet another gross pile of lies—because someone else has already done such a stellar job of it. In this case, that someone is CW Wade from Sandy Hook Facts. CW has done an excellent job taking on “Dr. Eowyn” (real name Maria Hsia Chang), dismantling the nonsense in Chapter Nine so thoroughly that it would be a waste of my time (and frankly disrespectful to his work) to repeat the effort. You can find his takedown here and an excellent supplemental article here.
While CW’s work is meticulous, it’s a shame he didn’t delve deeper into how frequently the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) makes mistakes. This is a critical context, especially when Chang relies so heavily on it for her “research.” CNN reports that 1 in every 200 deaths is incorrectly entered into the SSDI’s Death Master File. An article from the Daily Republic about 3,000 9/11 victims missing from the MDF includes a quote from Social Security spokesman Mark Hinkle:
We make it clear that our death records are not perfect and may be incomplete or, rarely, include information about individuals who are alive. Because we do not receive reports for all deaths and cannot release all of the reports we do receive, the absence of a particular person [in the Death Master File] does not prove the person is alive. Our error rate is about 0.5 percent.
Nearly every SSDI search engine warns about these potential errors. GenealogyBank, which Chang relied on for her “research,” is no exception. Here’s what they have to say about the SSDI’s limitations:
GenealogyBank updates the SSDI database each week. The updates include corrections to old death records, as well as new names of the recently deceased. If a person is missing from the index, it may be that the SS death benefit was never requested, an error was made on the form requesting the benefit, or an error was made when entering the information into the SSDI.
In other words, Chang’s “research” is based on a source so notoriously flawed that even the organizations using it issue disclaimers about its unreliability. But sure, let’s treat it as gospel.
Next: Chapter Ten: “Sandy Hook: CT Crime Data Confirms FBI Report” by James Fetzer and “Dr. Eowyn”
Comment policy: Comments from previously unapproved guests will remain in moderation until I manually approve them. Honest questions and reasonable comments from all types of folks are allowed and encouraged but will sometimes remain in moderation until I can properly reply to them, which may occasionally take a little while. Contrary to what some of you think, losing your patience during this time and leaving another comment in which you insult me won't do much to speed up that process. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
The types of comments that will no longer be approved include the following:
1) Off-topic comments. An entry about The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine are not the place to ask about Hillary's e-mails or pizza shop sex dungeons. Stay on topic.
2) Gish Gallops. Don't know what a Gish Gallop is? Educate yourself. And then don't engage in them. They are an infuriating waste of everyone's time and there is no faster way to have your comment deleted.
3) Yearbook requests. Like I told the fifty other folks asking for them: I don't have them, and even if I did, I wouldn't post them. I'm not about to turn my site into some sort of eBay for weirdos, so just stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up. These items are unavailable to the public; exempt from FOIA requests; and in violation of Amendment 14 of the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8b of the Connecticut State Constriction, and Connecticut Public Act # 13-311.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered/making claims that have already been debunked. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it painfully obvious that you haven't bothered to read the site by asking a question that I've already spent a significant amount of time answering. I'll allow a little leeway here if you're otherwise well-behaved, but please, read the site. There's a search function and it works fairly well.