Proof One: Gun Grabbers Selectively Ignore Mass Shootings, Conceal Patterns

Any time you find a cover up, you necessarily have a conspiracy to contend with, because a cover up requires multiple parties to work together for criminal benefit. So I wonder: why do groups seeking gun control, including governmentals and liberal media, who should be using every opportunity to make their case for gun control, instead act as if the bulk of gun violence never took place? Why do they employ blinders and avoid publicizing fully?

Are there any patterns in mass shootings?  

by H. Michael Sweeney  

copyright © 2014, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this notice and byline, are included. Please comment any such repost to original posting.

 Is there any proof mass shootings are not random?

What you will learn reading this post of the posting series

•  media, government, and gun grabbers consistently conceal more shootings than they tell you of;
•  they are also willfully spreading mis/disinformation;
•  were they to tell you all, the patterns would be easier to spot — a defacto cover up.


Proof One: Gun Grabbers Selectively Ignore Mass Shootings, Conceal Patterns

Is there a mass shooting conspiracy?

Gun grabbers, generally speaking, seem to have a sympathetic voice in government circles and, especially, mainstream media. If you look carefully at the actual wording of media reports and politicians, you frequently see evidence of their bias in favor of tighter gun control, if not outright calling for it, even including in some cases proposing an end to the 2nd Amendment.

From article on mainstream disinformation (CLICK)

Yet if you actually dig into a given key shooting event yourself, you start to realize media frequently deems to omit certain information which, by omission, flatters gun grabber ideology by willful ignorance of the greater truth. That includes a consistent unwillingness to consider that something besides random gunplay is afoot; they never ask the obvious questions. They get away with it, in part, because they are not telling you about all the shootings.

The discoverable cover up takes form in refusing to acknowledge the true and full scope of the problem… the true number of actual mass shootings. This post spotlights the matter and considers why they choose such silence. One has to ask why, if pro gun grab, there would be such concealment? The answer is revealing, though the full answer shows how easily the issue could become clouded.

If you scan the Internet with a search you will find most mainstream sources talk about roughly 62 or so mass shootings in 30 years time (1982-2012). While other numbers and periods of time can be found, you will also find many of those reports talking about it being an increasingly more frequent event. Neither are factually correct, at least as of 2012 when the bulk of those cited were ‘selectively reported’ in order to make their point. Moreover, the narrower and arbitrary date ranges employed do make it easier to portray increasing frequency claims as ‘valid concerns.’

Point is, there is no useful consensus as to the actual number, much less any resulting trends.

There is also actual disinformation and misinformation in play, either by stupidity or intent. Much of mainstream tends to cite the same two original resources, both of which are completely worthless in terms of accuracy, and full of what at least seems intentional deceit. Worse, they are easily detected if using your brain, but even the White House and former Presidents make false statements based on their data (choosing not to think, or having no brain, perhaps, but more likely, having an agenda well served, thereby). Mother Jones, which used to be an excellent investigative journal until it came under control of Mainstream Media Moguls, is one of the flawed sources, as detailed, here.

The worst source is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which maintains a huge database which is closer to mine in shooting event count than perhaps any other. However, it is so full of errors as to be useless. The same shooting can be cited as often as four times. Huge numbers of shootings have zero information which can be verified, their Web links no longer active or failing to lead the reader to the claim. Many other errors of this sort exist.

Worse, many Brady citations are not exclusively mass shootings at all, and though Brady’s use of the data does not directly claim the list is exclusively about mass shootings, they elsewhere imply it so and promote the list through dozens of Web venues without bothering to correct their wrongful assertion that it does. For example, consider a widely repeated/linked interactive map (one of three different flawed maps and data base engines based on the Brady material) citing the entire Brady list of 431 entries as separate mass shootings.

Trouble is, eliminating those with problems or not mass shootings, the actual number is closer to that of USA Today, who has the closest to an honest presentation. Even though they, too, reference Brady, they seem to have figured out the Brady problem and sought to remedy it. Note, however, that it is citing mass murders, inclusive of fires, stabbings, etc., — not exclusively shootings. This again makes it difficult for the average Joe to avoid a false impression. To their credit, they at least provide a button to filter by ‘shootings,’ which at the time of writing totaled 173 out of 227 mapped. That’s a full 100 more than the inventory cited in most reviews outside of Brady, and less than half of what Brady includes. But it still comes nowhere close to the truth.

Is media hiding something about mass shootings?

So what are the real numbers?

In my study, I elected to go back to the first known mass shooting widely publicized nationally, the Texas Tower shooting of 1966. This coincides in general with the time frame when CIA had perfected mastery of various Manchurian Candidate programs, notably the MK series. Now if you use that as a starting point and come forward, the frequency indeed increases, at least to a point, and it is indeed possible to select a limited time frame window where a range of shooting events reflect an increase… but it is also possible to find periods of decrease; fluctuation is common enough to at least support the notion of randomness which deters conclusions of increasing gun violence.

In general, national mainstream news has told us of about 100 shootings since the Texas Tower, spread out over roughly 50 years. Because where they used to only tell us about really big ones — perhaps one or two a year — they now tell us about almost each and every one, it SEEMS like there is an increase. Adding to the illusion, they talk about them days-on-end to hammer in the point, where in the past, ongoing coverage was spotty, at best, unless local, of course. But is this honest reporting of the truth? What do the real numbers say?

“NO!” is what they say. Take the 30-year number of 62. The actual count by my research totals 368, nearly SIX TIMES the number reported.

1988 – 5, 1 Postal, 2 Schools
1989 – 1
1990 – 0
1991 – 6, 4 Postal
1992 – 3, 1 School
1993 – 7, 3 Postal
1994 – 1
1995 – 2
1996 – 4, 1 Postal
1997 – 5, 2 Postal
1998 – 5, 1 Postal, 3 Schools
1999 – 8, 1 Postal, 1 School
2000 – 1
2001 – 2
2002 – 2
2004 – 5
2005 – 5, 1 School
2006 – 14, 2 Postal
2007 – 23, 3 School
2008 – 69, 5 Schools
2009 -88, 2 Schools
2010 – 47, 1 School
2011 – 35
2012 – 35, 5 Schools

Moreover, the numbers reveal something quite different than the ‘increase in random mass shootings’ being reported. Instead what you see are two periods of time where there were two distinct patterns. Before 2006 you see something approximating random distribution in low numbers, almost half of which are Postal, which I maintain are likely almost all programmable person events, the experimentation phase, if you will, where a government institution had tight control of those involved.

Note: 2006 becomes a pivot year, where the last Postal happens, and you start to get an explosion of ‘civilian’ shootings, three times as many that year, and even more in subsequent years after 2006. There we find not a steady increase, but a bell curve. What produces a bell curve? You get bell curves when you apply force to something; it starts moving slowly and gains speed, then once maximum energy has been accomodated, it coasts, and then starts to slow down. That alone implies intelligence behind the sudden spurt, and further implies we are almost at ‘End Game’ point in whatever plot is unfolding; we have precious little time remaining to thwart it.

In total, research thus far reveals more than 450 shootings through 2012, from among which media and gun grabbers can and have obviously cherry picked. There are easily another 100 which could not be plotted in my study because needed accuracy of details were not usefully available, and likely hundreds more that are simply not available through online research due mismatches in keywords; you don’t always know what to search on, and terminology used has evolved over time.

Why would media hide the truth about mass shootings?

Why disparity between media and truth?

How is it, then, that virtually all mainstream or government resources have elected to tell you of only 70(ish), or 200(ish), within select timeline widows useful to them? What are they electing to hide, and why? This is a question you must ask if you value truth and justice.

Every major city’s paper subscribes to every other major paper to keep abreast of what they are reporting. So for a major to under report mass shootings in order to proclaim a trend of increasing violence, is a willful lie. On the other hand, there are reasons for minor variations in what might be included in a given study, in case you are moved to cut some slack. I for one, am less inclined.

There is, however, a bit of a loophole through which concealment might be harder to prove or detect. A mass shooting is defined by FBI as four or more dead or injured in a shooting incident — by gunshot. Interesting then, that Brady elects to include any injury, including minor cuts and abrasions due to falling down or flying glass, etc. More manipulation of data for agenda’s sake, it seems, via hangnails.

However, FBI, despite giving it a category and definition, even breaking it down into sub groups (e.g., gang related, domestic violence, etc.), themselves fail to cite any statistics of their own, as they do in all other categories of crimes they track. To me, this proves that at the very least, government is participatory in perpetuating media myths by cover up through omission, and has a gun grabbing agenda. When a President quotes misinformation, you have even more such proof.

The FBI definition leaves us with this upshot: many drive by shootings qualify, as do tragic familicides, robberies, and so on, all of which tend to make local news. The previous article link offers other complexities which can impact on definition as to what constitutes a mass shooting, but none of these complexities seem to be impacting what media elects to include in their national coverage, and resulting limited counts; they include what suits their whim — those stories most likely to generate outrage or shock.

But, as every major community has its fair share of all defined forms of mass shootings, there is no need to elevate them all to national prominence unless there is some ‘marketing’ usefulness to the anti-gun crowd, such as if at a basketball game in a public park. Locals hear all of their local events, plus national, and the problem therefore seems sufficiently large and pervasive in support of gun control arguments, but insufficient to see any patterns; they do not know the full extent of what is happening in other communities.

This further drives them to think their own community especially dangerous (well, some are), and letters to the Editor and government authorities are dashed off seeking a ‘crackdown.’ But what if they knew the truth and realized their community was closer to normal, or understood that there was intelligent design at play? What would their letters to the Editor look like, then? Would they be calling for gun control, or Congressional Investigation into the intelligence community’s mind control research, or the power elite cultists? Would they be wanting guns to be collected, or would they be buying guns?

I’m not the only one to notice this under reporting. There has recently evolved an anti-gun group made up of loosely aligned members nationally who report ALL local mass shootings directly to their central Web page. They do use the proper definition of mass shooting, and their results underscore the problem for knowing the precise full count. They report 365 documented mass shootings in 2013 ALONE. That gives you an idea of how many shootings in prior years may simply not be on the Web in a form making them sufficiently easy to find. Therefore, even my larger numbers would seem inadequate (but as we will see, they still remain appropriate to the need).

Unfortunately, no one like them has been doing this for prior years, so once more, the ‘increase’ in shootings is seen as dramatic only due their improved full-reporting methods in ‘real time,’ but it can easily be argued as a false indicator. You can’t just go back in time and research, because unless the news source itself without reading every back issue of every daily newspaper in America. It’s damn hard to find those which have been earlier underreported.

Now, for my purposes, I elect to choose all which have available details useful for analytical purposes, which is again more than 450, less a good number of the 365 just mentioned, since that Web site was not discovered in my search until after I had stopped adding to my list. Understand, too, that anyone seeking to employ intelligent design would most likely need limit their own database to these same events, both because their own group of conspirators would face the same difficulties in finding underreported events, and more to the point, because it would be required that they be visible events to others in their NWO cabal — other competing groups.

But it is not these larger numbers which should concern us at the moment.

No. It is instead important to go back to my first attempt at looking for patterns, and much smaller numbers which were in hand. I made the mistake of trusting media and employed that list of 70 plus most cited shootings, only. It is important to note that even with that smaller data set, patterns were revealed, and further important to understand that a control group was also employed which compared favorably in verification of the method and findings as being scientifically sound. More on that, shortly.

The point is, in summary, that the patterns on this smaller group were subtly revealed, and only after exhaustive study. They would have been pointless to casual review, revealing nothing suspicious outwardly. But my unorthodox methods gave me an edge, thankfully. More so, of course, once the database grew to include the hidden shootings.

Once I realized and uncovered the full scale of event histories, the patterns became easier to find, and were quite overwhelming and more revealing of hidden information. Therefore, one very logical reason select gun grabbers with both a dark motive and the means to control media’s reporting have exercised restraint and employed confusion in their selective ‘complaints,’ is that full disclosure would increase the likelihood that someone like myself would come along and find the patterns, and expose them, perhaps even without my methods.

That perfectly defines a cover up. That, in turn, defines a conspiracy’s very existence.

Go back to Introduction

Go to Proof Two: Shootings Exist in Identical ‘Magical’ Categorical Clusters


About Author H. Michael Sweeney

Author of privacy/security/abuse of power, Founder Free Will Society, PALADINs (Post Apocalyptic Local Area Defense Information Network)

Posted on April 3, 2014, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. thetruthisstrangerthanfiction

    So what do you suppose accounts for the “bell curve” that we see beginning around 96? How exactly do you think the “pressure” was suddenly being applied in a way that was now distinct from the previous pattern of “beta-testing” programmed MK shooters? Do you have any theories, like, some kind of connections to SSRI’s or remote alpha-wave technology or something? Just curious. I am anxious to read the rest of your ten part series here, as this first installment was very well done. I totally agree that this type of suppression occurs, and can even be noticed anecdotally if one is halfway paying attention. Just recently I learned about the “Luby’s shooting” in Texas in 91, after hearing one of the victim’s describing the ordeal on a tv show called “I survived”. I thought it was rather odd that I had never even heard of this incident (although perhaps I was too young at the time…) For whatever reason, this situation didn’t seem to garner the same kind of lasting “Headline status” that others did, events which are now household names, that can be evoked and recalled with a singular word, such as “Columbine”, “Sandy Hook”, “V-Tech”.

    Anyhow, I am just now digging into the vast amount of information you have available on your site. Another aspect to the study of mass shootings and the MK/super soldier correlation is of the course the “suicide protocol”. I would be very curious to see how many of these mass shooters who you were able to list beyond the “official” numbers also ended their own lives before the police were able to close in and face possibly being taken into custody. I’d say this recurring statistic also points straight back to these being connected, orchestrated events at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: