Deanna's Background

First, before anyone makes the faulty assumption that I am targeting and criticizing the efforts of others who have "investigated" Sandy Hook or any other event, I wish to share a bit of my background so that one may understand why I look at videos and other data with a very critical eye. I believe that I have experience and a skill set that compels me to think critically and evaluate what others have claimed or concluded about such events. I am not an "expert" and I would never claim to be, although others have referred to me as such, but I do have some proficiency in a few unrelated fields, some of which require critical thinking and making accurate conclusions. Other activities that I have engaged in require precision and patience. As a geeky teenager, I developed a lifelong interest in family history research or genealogy. I am incredibly detail-oriented which lends itself well to that activity as well as other endeavors that I have pursued. People who engage in genealogical research, to be successful, must learn how to read official records which includes vital records (birth, death, marriage and divorce records), court, probate, estate, tax, voter's registrations, church, census, land, passenger lists and educational and group affiliation records. These are all primary sources, records that a researcher should access first because such records were created at the time of or very close to the time of the event. Secondary sources would include books, databases, newspapers, indexes (such as census index) and data that individuals, often paid employees, have put together, frequently without any verifiable sources. These sources regularly contain simple human errors; we all make them. Genealogical researchers also have to gain an understanding of which jurisdiction has custody of the specific record. For instance, counties, as soon as they were created, devised and had jurisdiction of marriage licenses. Later, some states assumed control of marriage records. Jurisdiction also depends on the state. New England states initially created records on a town rather than a county basis. One would not visit a state library to find vital records and most certainly should not expect to find recent vital records on the Internet due to privacy laws.

Essentially, there are two kinds of sources 1) primary or original and 2) secondary or compiled. Primary sources are records that were created at the time of the event. Secondary sources are typically compiled sources which are frequently based on hearsay or circumstantial evidence. Every researcher should cite their sources so that others might verify or access the very same information. Without verifiable sources, people may regard the information as hearsay or merely an opinion, which, like a smile, everyone possesses. Currently, one of the biggest collections of secondary sources include compiled data on Internet, some of which is presented by unknown entities, people who use pseudonyms, and some by people who actually identify themselves. Family historians should always use primary sources when they compile any kind of written account of their family. People who compile information about anything should use primary sources, whether they intend to refute or accept those records in total or in part. If one just compiles and presents a lot of "information" without citing sources or viewing any official records, then that person certainly cannot completely interpret an event. Naturally, there are many "official" records that are nothing but stacked commissions such as the Roberts Commission regarding Pearl Harbor, the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission wherein the federal government chose certain people on whom they could count on to arrive at predetermined conclusions determined by the consensus of the comprised members. Using my former but very basic criteria, I would categorize a commission as a compiled source: hearsay, opinion, or deliberately subjective information designed to influence/alter the perceptions of the public.

In order to gain proficiency, I took numerous classes and was very close to obtaining a official degree in this field of family history. Family circumstances prevented me from finishing the final two courses. For ten years, from 2001 to 2011, I was the director of a genealogical research center which had forty volunteers. I took a class at the local college in MS Access in order to create an integrated database of the records of that repository. During that 10-year period I taught numerous classes in beginning and advanced research as well as specialized areas such as probate or census records at the center and at various conferences where I was invited to speak. One of the key principles that I learned and taught was CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!! Otherwise, your work is just rumor or hearsay. For years I visited various courthouses, repositories such as state libraries around the country. I have spent a hundreds of hours in the National Archives branch in Chicago and other repositories looking at rolls of microfilmed records. I have also been to dozens of courthouses and state historical libraries and colleges throughout America. In as much as I
have some Quakers in my background, I attended one of the annual Quaker conventions at Quaker Hill in Richmond, Indiana. While there, I researched some of the Quaker records at Earlham College. Italian officials standardized the records in 1809 in a more easily-read format. Prior to that baptismal, marriage and other records were in "long form," obviously in Italian. Therefore, I attended an Italian language class two nights a week at a local college for a year so that I could read the microfilmed vital records from a particular area of Italy in which some of my husband’s ancestors had resided.

I had sewn most of my clothes from the age of twelve and knew a lot about fabric. As a young wife, and because of a limited budget, I took a tailoring class and learned how to make men's suits. I made several custom-tailored suits for my husband and of course sewed for my children and myself. I taught myself cake decorating from a book in order to make interesting birthday cakes and later gingerbread houses for the family. In the early 80s, under my then-married name, I made porcelain German and French, for which I designed heirloom clothes using antique laces. I was featured twice in Dollcrafter Magazine, once on the July-August 1987 front cover and in the March-April 1988 issue in an article about Machine French Hand Sewing. My background with fabric, sewing and design helped me get a job as a representative in the textile industry. From 1988 to 1994, I was a sales person/consultant and represented from five to seven companies. During that time, I created about 30-40 heirloom-style garments to promote the lace company that I represented. I created a replica of an 1890s wedding dress that I wore in several style shows and it appeared in a magazine. When I was on the road, traveling in the five-state area that I covered, I took my sewing machine with me so that I would have something to occupy my time in the evening. I took up quilting, then devised a new method of producing a particular style of quilt. I wrote two books, the first of which, because of the anticipation in the quilt world for this new method, sold out the first run in nine days. I designed thirty mathematically-intricate quilt patterns for each book. I then designed a quilt pattern line. I designed some patterns that I never marketed because of their difficulty but instead just made them for myself. I am very precise and tend to be a perfectionist. I have an A-type personality. In quilting, all of the fabric intersections should match and the quilting, some of which is 1/4 inch apart in this example gives motion and texture to the piece. In my porcelain work, the eyelashes and brows on a doll had to look like those on an antique. I studied old images and practiced until I could duplicate the look.

With regard to Sandy Hook, much of what is on the Internet was created before the official investigation concluded and before officials presented a report. That is not to say that one should not ask questions about the official conclusions or about the things that were omitted from the investigation and the report. I have many questions. T
he reason I have shared this history and some of my experiences is to give some understanding of my attitude regarding what I consider shoddy information that many people have put forth as "research." As I mentioned, I am obsessively detail-oriented as my activities might demonstrate. I have a lengthy history in actual on-site records research. I have filing cabinets full of documents and certificates that verify, not only my family history, but other subjects. In research, if one continues to work on a specific research problem, there is a natural progression if evidence exists. Now, if warfare has destroyed an area, then many records are lost. If one continues the research, going from question to question, verifying each and every clue, finding supportive evidence, not just circumstantial evidence, he/she may establish a fact. Research, if done properly, is NOT static. It is also not based on suspicions, suppositions, circumstantial evidence and outright fabrications. Because anyone may post their opinions on the Internet, people may post and promote nonsensical theories that many ignorant and/or gullible people accept because they lack research skills themselves.
People with integrity who are sincerely seeking answers to their questions readily accept evidence that addresses their issues, even if it contradicts their previously-held views. However, change agents whose objective is to impose their key talking points upon a gullible, suspicious population never change their positions. They ask questions, not because they want information but to generate a lack of confidence in public officials who admittedly often deserve our distrust. If people ask public officials for specific information that those officials have already provided in the formal reports, then there is no need for further queries, IF answers are the real objective. One might accusatorily suggest that the official reports associated with Sandy Hook are devised and deceptive. Then why ask for more information from the very people who ordered those reports to begin with if one fails to believe what is in the original reports? If the inquirer is really seeking information, the reports are quite adequate and more than satisfactory.

That leaves another possibility! Are some of the purported researchers actually cognitive infiltrators contributing to a virtual feeding frenzy known as the Sandy Hook hoax? Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in office from September 10, 2009 to August 21, 2012, suggested that the government should attempt to discredit the "truth movement," with preposterous propaganda disguised as legitimate information presented by seemingly credible people, only to be shown later for what they actually are. Then those who may have believed the fabrications would lose all confidence and faith in the so-called movement. They may then move on to believe in what the government wants them to believe, such as the Israelis did not attack the USS Liberty, and that the US government and Israel did not collaborate, along with some well-connected corporations using highly-developed weaponry, did not orchestrate 9/11 and other events. These provocateurs seem to be drumming up dissent, division, and distrust within the so-called “truth” movement. Repetition of those seemingly reasonable questions on various radio shows lends an air of credibility to them. Thus, change agents who never actually change their static positions, find it essential to have others embrace and redistribute those easily-remembered propaganda phrases. The already-answered questions, really talking points, remain the same, retaining the same basic implication that the officials have lied to the population and that astute truth-seekers need to courageously demand answers at all costs as if, officials had not previously supplied all of the answers.