Certainly any sane and rational human being would find themselves struggling to choose the single most batshit insane component of the thoroughly preposterous and repulsive “nobody died at Sandy Hook” conspiracy theory. And it’s because there are a whole lot of them – many of which contradict one another – and they’re all just so, so stupid. “It was a real shooting, but carried out by ‘Mossad death squads’!” That was what James Fetzer originally wanted everyone to believe, at least until he abruptly abandoned the notion, likely after realizing that it wasn’t outrageous enough to flesh out into a full-length book. “Adam Lanza never existed, and all photos of him are simply doctored photos of H.P. Lovecraft!” That’s a real one, I swear! Google it!

Personally, I believe the profoundly stupid claim that some of the victims – or, as the story goes, the child actors that played them (aaand then somehow disappeared forever) – magically aged five years in two months and then performed alongside Jennifer Hudson at Super Bowl XLVII is the clear-cut winner here. Hands down. The whole thing is just too bonkers, top to bottom. But coming in at a very close second for me is another absurdity that has a lot in common with the Super Bowl babble, such as logical gaps so large that you could drive a couple of bucket-wheel excavators through them, side-by-side; a healthy dose of Prosopagnosia; and of course the nonsensical belief that the Obama administration – or whichever bogeyman is alleged to have been responsible for orchestrating such incredible theater – was able to rope hundreds if not thousands of people into their grand scheme, only to risk it all by re-using “actors” in different, prominent “roles”. And that is the claim that David Wheeler, father of six year-old victim Benjamin Wheeler, played the part of both grieving father and FBI Special Agent on the day of the shooting. Ridiculous on its face, the myth has somehow endured, even in spite of a wealth of actual facts to the contrary.

Like many of the goofball claims that have come before (and after) it, this one began with a photo:

Despite having many of his identifying features – such as his eyes, chin, jawline, forehead, and hair – obscured by his helmet and sunglasses, conspiracy theorists were immediately and absolutely certain that this man was not a real Agent from the FBI, but Mr. Wheeler, seen here with his wife, Francine:

Once again ignoring the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the space cadets that make up the Sandy Hook denier cult chose not to do even the most rudimentary research and instead immediately began their usual campaign of spamming YouTube with their usual slanderous twaddle:

And that’s just one example. There are of course plenty more to be found on YouTube, where lax monetization policies make it all too simple for these lying schmucks to make a couple of bucks peddling their fairy tales. But the truth, while less exciting and therefore much less popular a subject on the video sharing platform, couldn’t be any easier to find. That is assuming that you actually want to find it.

Is this David Wheeler?

No, of course not.

So then who is it?

Towards the end of this video, taken from Getty Images and used by a great number of conspiracy theorists (although they often very mysteriously cut the footage just before this point), we can see this Agent’s last name printed on a patch, located on the back of his uniform:

It reads:
ALDENBERG
NH-24

As it turns out, this less-than-mystery man is William B. Aldenberg, a legitimate Special Agent employed by the New Haven (hence the NH in NH-24) division of the FBI. Special Agent Aldenerg is a fifteen year veteran of the force who has been involved in a number of high profile investigations involving everything from drug trafficking to public corruption.

How do we know that William Aldenberg responded to the shooting at Sandy Hook School that day?

In July of 2014, Special Agent William Aldenberg was one of 300 people honored by the Connecticut State Police for their help in shooting’s aftermath. He is listed here, under “Law Enforcement Support Personnel (State Police Troopers & Dispatchers, FBI, paramedics)”:

Law Enforcement Support Personnel (State Police Troopers & Dispatchers, FBI, paramedics)

FBI Special Agent William Aldenberg

William Aldenberg’s presence that day is further corroborated by TFC Daniel Jewiss of the Connecticut State Police in his statement, included in the state’s final report (00251204.pdf):

How do we know William Aldenberg is a real FBI agent?

In addition to his inclusion in the aforementioned ceremony, there is abundant evidence of his employment with the FBI all over the Internet, freely available to all:

February 2nd, 2005:

“FBI Special Agents Robert E. Bornstein and William B. Aldenberg took the lead as the wiretaps progressed from lower level street dealers to what O’Connor called the ‘big fish’.”

July 20th, 2005:

“According to lengthy affidavits filed by FBI Agent William Aldenberg, the two men and suppliers with whom they spoke via cellphones used code words to mask their transactions. The drugs were referred to alternately as ‘rice,’ ‘rice and beans,’ ‘roosters,’ or ‘bling bling’.”

September 14th, 2007:

“The FBI calls it a difficult case.

‘Essentially,’ says Special Agent Bill Aldenberg, ‘the man just disappeared off the face of the Earth.'”

August 12th, 2011:

“Ward, who now lives in Kentucky, spent hundreds of hours investigating the case. When the FBI got involved Ward said he shared all his information with FBI agent Bill Aldenberg, and was immediately shut out of the case.”

This 2011 document lists Agent Aldenberg as a member of the FBI Violent Crime/Gang Task Force, having participated in “Operation Northern Strike”:

FBI Violent Crime/Gang Task Force
FBI Special Agent Bill Aldenberg
FBI Special Agent Genaro Medina
FBI Special Agent Ryan James
FBI Special Agent Christian Roccia

May 30th, 2012:

“I, William B. Aldenberg, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New Haven Division, having been duly sworn, state:

I have been employed as a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) since July 2002. While being trained as a Special Agent of the FBI, I have received training on how to investigate matters of public corruption, including attending the FBI’s basic public corruption course at the FBI Academy located in Quantico, Virginia. Furthermore, I have assisted other FBI Agents on public corruption investigations, to include interviewing witnesses and suspects, and executing arrest warrants and search warrants.”

June 2nd, 2012:

“A federal affidavit filed Thursday by FBI Special Agent William Aldenberg laid out details of the undercover operation”

June 12th, 2012:

“Indications to that suspicion are contained in FBI Special Agent William Aldenberg’s affidavit filed May 30 in support of Braddock’s arrest. In it, Aldenberg disclosed that, on April 26, an unnamed co-conspirator began recording phone calls for the FBI.”

June 19th, 2012:

“An affidavit filed by FBI Special Agent William B. Aldenberg claims at least $20,000 in fraudulent campaign donations was funneled through Braddock.”

June 19th, 2014:

“The Financial Fraud and Public Corruption Unit Award was presented to FBI Special Agents William Aldenberg, Stacy Bowery, Matthew McPhillips, and Jeffrey Waterman, whose investigative efforts led to the successful prosecution of eight individuals who engaged in a scheme to direct illegal contributions into the campaign of a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.”

October 30th, 2014:

Special Agent Aldenberg is listed as a media contact in a DOJ press release announcing a telephone hotline for election fraud.

How do we know someone wasn’t impersonating Special Agent Aldenberg that day?

Back in 2007, Special Agent Aldenberg sat down for an interview with the “Early Show” on CBS to discuss the case of missing person William Smolinski Jr. The video of this segment is still available online. Here are a couple of stills, giving an almost entirely (save for the glasses) unobstructed view of his facial features:


Please keep in mind the fact that this interview took place somewhere around five years before the events of December 14th, 2012, so if you think he looks a little young to be the same Agent – say by maybe five years or so – well, there’s your answer.

Now that we know what Special Agent Aldenberg of the New Haven division of the FBI looks like, we are able to compare him to the Agent seen at Sandy Hook. Starting with a cropped version of a frame taken from the CBS interview, we can place it side-by-side with another cropped photo of the Agent in question. The latter is of middling quality, but is significant because the perspective of the head is very similar:

Even with the unfortunate quality – which is still significantly better than most of the intentionally blurred photos propagated by deniers – this is about as “apples to apples” as we’re going to get, and it’s a pretty clear match.

How do we know that David Wheeler isn’t a character played by Special Agent Aldenberg?

As we’ve seen elsewhere on this site, and as we’ve learned from author Joelle Steele in her book “Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs”, ears are nearly as unique to each person as fingerprints. So when comparing faces in photographs, if the ears do not match, then there can be no doubt that you’re looking at different people. The comparison can stop there. And in this case, it doesn’t take an expert like Joelle to realize that the ears do not match. Let’s take a closer look.

First, the Special Agent from Sandy Hook, cropped from the very first photo and coupled with extreme close-up of his right ear:

Now let’s add David Wheeler’s right ear – cropped from this photo – for the sake of comparison:

The pictures speak for themselves; these ears clearly differ in a number of significant ways that should be immediately obvious to everyone. These differences are most noticeable in the lobe and antihelix (see this diagram for an explanation of ear anatomy). David Wheeler has a much smaller lobe that sticks closer to the head while William Aldenberg’s is larger, substantially more round, and extends away from the head. William Aldenberg’s antihelix has a softer curve and is more c-shaped while David Wheeler’s is almost triangular, like a backwards “l”. It is not the same ear, therefore it is not the same person. It’s impossible, and no mentally sound individual could argue otherwise.

So there is simply no way that it’s David Wheeler. But is it the same Special Agent William B. Aldenberg that we saw on the “Early Show”? Are his ears a match? Of course if you’ve been paying attention for any length of time, then you already know how this one is going to play out:

While we never get a clear view of William Aldenberg’s right ear in his “Early Show” interview and are therefore forced to use the left for comparison, the similarities – again particularly in the lobe and antihelix – are striking. These ears do not belong to the same person. And while these differences are conclusive, that’s not even the end of the physical evidence.

The noses and mouths of these two men, which are not obscured in our exemplar photographs, are quite different in ways that cannot be explained away by lighting or angles. And as seen in his “Early Show” interview, William Aldenberg has a crease or scar between his chin and his lower lip, on the right side of his mouth. We can see this same mark in the photos of Special Agent Aldenberg at Sandy Hook:

David Wheeler, on the other hand, has a mole on the right side of his face that is nowhere to be found on any photo of William Aldenberg:

Also, in case you haven’t noticed by now, William Aldenberg is bald. We can see this in the “name tag” photo (look at the area between his helmet and his strap), his “Early Show” interview, and in the following video still, taken from the Wall Street Journal and showing Aldenberg and another agent gearing up in the parking lot of the Newtown Senior Center:

David Wheeler, of course, is not bald.

And while not as scientific as the previous points (due to issues with perspective, etc), it also appears as if David Wheeler is quite a bit shorter than William Aldenberg. For reference, here’s a photo of David and his wife Francine with Oprah Winfrey:

Oprah Winfrey’s height is listed as 5’7″, and David Wheeler does not appear to be all that much taller than her. Here’s another photo showing that Mr. Wheeler is not all that much taller than his wife:

But Special Agent Aldenberg appears to be fairly tall, or at least of above average height. Here he is towering over”Early Show” reporter Bianca Solorzano:

Granted it is entirely possible – though I would argue unlikely – that Bianca Solorzano is an incredibly tiny person, thus giving the mere impression that William Aldenberg is much taller than he actually is. But it’s clear from pictures taken at Sandy Hook on December 14th that Special Agent Aldenberg is clearly of above average height, taller than many of his counterparts. For example, take another look at the very first photo posted in this entry. Look at his size in relation to his sniper rifle, etc; he is obviously taller than David Wheeler.

So there you have it. This man is Special Agent William B. Aldenberg of the FBI, and positively not David Wheeler. As much as I would love to believe otherwise, this will not be the last see of this particular zombie myth. While some Sandy Hook deniers are simply naive, most of them are very seriously mentally ill. And some of these folks have managed to spin these delusions into a lucrative side business by creating videos, writing books, and fundraising, ad infinitum. So they are extremely unlikely to ever abandon this nonsense, but what I have presented you with are the facts and they are indisputable. That’s why most of their counterarguments boil down to “well, I still think that this guy looks like David Wheeler, therefore he is David Wheeler”. Or “I don’t think he’s holding his gun correctly!” Etc. In their attempt to make sense of what happened on December 14th, 2012, they’re grasping at straws, but they continue to come up empty.

14 Thoughts on “Did Sandy Hook parent David Wheeler play an FBI agent on December 14th, 2012?

  1. christian on August 29, 2016 at 7:57 am said:

    are you dumb?

    • Shill Murray on September 6, 2016 at 2:43 pm said:

      Are you asking me if I’m “dumb” because I have looked at all of the available evidence (as well as utilized common sense) and accepted the well-established fact that this is veteran FBI agent William Aldenberg – a man who not only looks identical to the man seen wearing Aldenberg’s tactical gear in the photos and videos from that day, but was recognized by the Connecticut State Police for his role in the response to the shooting – and not David Wheeler?

      • Jeff Cramer on February 11, 2017 at 8:01 am said:

        I would to see a photo of FBI agent William Aldenberg! I have seen CNN interviews with some of the parents the day of incident and seen parents ask the TV crew if the looked sad enough as if it was a complete acting job. I’m not a gun activist or anyone who wants to take gun away. I truly believe that our government lies and uses any means to distort the truth. I do also think that this would be very difficult to keep so many people silenced. I guess there are not enough truthful people left in this world. I have lot all faith in the media and the government.

        • Shill Murray on February 11, 2017 at 8:37 pm said:

          You’ve already seen multiple pictures of William Aldenberg, because he’s the one that responded to the shooting. That is plainly him, and his presence there they day is corroborated by the final report. But here’s another clear photo of him, with his name spelled out for you on the screen, from the Early Show:

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E9f7jVxhqVc/VoNdp70E1UI/AAAAAAAAB7w/i3Wsv4NRs-Q/s1600/aldenberg25.PNG

          I’m not sure what else you want or need at this point. In a theory that really hinges upon the absurd, the idea that they had to “reward” David Wheeler by allowing him to assume the identity of an actual, verifiable FBI agent, and then allow him to be photographed in such a state (and all of this after already paying him millions, as the story goes) is one of the more preposterous, probably second only to the fairy tale about the victims performing at the Super Bowl (while magically aging four years).

          So you don’t believe a single thing that the “media” – the entirety of the world’s media outlets – has to say, but you believe discredited hucksters like Wolfgang Halbig, who can barely form a coherent English sentence? Or James Fetzer, a man who believes every event throughout history, including the moon landing, has been faked (and can sell you a book about it in the process)? Or Alex Jones? Why? Based on what? And do you similarly refuse to believe the dozens of eyewitnesses, those who lost children in the shooting, the statements of the responding officers and emergency personnel, etc? Again, why?

          Speaking of the media, I would like to see this clip of “parents” asking a television crew if they appear “sad enough”. Because it sounds entirely made up.

      • Markus Allen on May 8, 2017 at 8:23 pm said:

        Wrong! There is a brief exposed video clip that indicates David Wheeler and William Aldenberg. Regardless of what you believe or what your agenda is and my actual view (as I can see this as plain as day) That this means that by your statement Aldenburg is jeopardizing by-standers by his mishandling a firearm. Maybe he was tired? Are you for real? That is about the most absurd shill remark I have yet to see on any blog! An idiot making excuses for mishandling a sniper weapon. ROFFL. Safety 2nd. Rest comes first. You moronic shills are fling around here like dog dick gnats! Fuckin pathetic to say the least.

        • Shill Murray on May 10, 2017 at 2:47 am said:

          There is a brief exposed video clip that indicates David Wheeler and William Aldenberg.

          The video indicates them? Are you sure you don’t mean implicates? Because that certainly makes much more sense. And where is this mystery video? Does it explain why the two men very clearly have different facial features (remember that ears are nearly as unique as fingerprints, and their ears do not match), body types, hairstyles (as in one has hair and the other does not), etc? Does it explain how it has been confirmed that there is an FBI agent by the name of William Aldenberg who is on record (as per the final report) as having responded to the shooting? Does it explain how that William Aldenberg looks exactly like the man in the photos/videos? Probably not, because if it did, you likely would have shared it. Or maybe you were too caught up in crafting these sick burns (what is with you types and schoolyard insults?) that you simply forgot.

          Regardless of what you believe or what your agenda is

          What I believe and my agenda are one in the same: the truth.

          That this means that by your statement Aldenburg is jeopardizing by-standers by his mishandling a firearm.

          Which bystanders? And how is he jeopardizing them? His finger is not on the trigger. When I spoke to former Marine Chris Hernandez – who served in Afghanistan – about holding a weapon in this manner, he said, “His hand is wrapped around the magazine well and front of the mag. Lazy, but still believable.” Are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that law enforcement has never been lazy, therefore this man can’t possibly be in law enforcement (despite the fact that we know for a fact that he is). Is that your argument? Is this militia man not holding his rifle in the same exact manner?

          http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Citizen-militia-undeterred-by-shooting-incident-5729635.php#photo-6643862

          Maybe you’ll tell me that’s also David Wheeler!

          You moronic shills are fling around here like dog dick gnats! Fuckin pathetic to say the least.

          Typical denier numbnuts: short on facts, long on schoolyard insults. Why make an attempt to refute what I’ve written here when you can just carry on like an angry child?

  2. Why is an FBI agent carrying an M4 by the magazine? Why is a sniper wearing a groin protector off a chest rig?

    • Shill Murray on February 28, 2017 at 3:20 am said:

      Nobody can move goalposts like a Sandy Hook denier. Prove that it’s not David Wheeler, and the conversation shifts to gun safety or some other nonsense. I was even told it couldn’t be an FBI agent because he’s wearing sunglasses. The insanity never ends.

      Why is an FBI agent carrying an M4 by the magazine?

      Maybe he’s tired. Maybe he’s lazy. Seeing as how he’s carrying his sniper rifle with his other hand, maybe it made the most sense at the moment. I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him? His name is William Aldenberg. I know a couple of you goofs managed to call him at his office, so his number can’t be all that difficult to find. Are you suggesting that no one in law enforcement or the military has ever carried their weapon in such a way? I know that when I spoke to author Chris Hernandez – a 22 year police officer, former Marine and recently retired National Guard soldier with 27 years of military service – he didn’t seem all that alarmed. “His hand is wrapped around the magazine well and front of the mag. Lazy, but still believable.” is what he said. I’d certainly be curious to know what your resume looks like since you seem to be a bit of an expert yourself. But about that…

      Why is a sniper wearing a groin protector off a chest rig?

      His groin protector appears to be in the right spot, based on everything I’ve seen, which includes the FBI’s own “Tools of the Trade” website. Again, Mr. Hernandez agreed. In regards to the groin protector, he said, “The groin protector is absolutely normal. It’s almost the exact thing we used overseas. You can find millions of pictures of troops in the war on terror using them.”

  3. XeiDaMoKa on May 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm said:

    why does he notice hes being filmed at1:40 and look away , again at 1:48 he really tries to hide his face but you make it hard with the notes x’DDDD

    • Shill Murray on May 23, 2017 at 11:35 pm said:

      Those are not my notes, you dipshit. I did not make this video. Furthermore, they’re YouTube annotations, and you can very easily turn them off.

      You’re editorializing based on your goofball theories. Is he supposed to lock eyes with the camera, which is off to his right, the entire time he’s walking forward? There are multiple photos of this man – William Aldenberg – taken from straight on, with him as the central focus of the photograph. Are you suggesting that this is actually David Wheeler (it’s not), and he allowed a complicit media to photograph him, in high resolution, from straight on, but had to “look away” from a distant news camera, just in case someone recognizes him? Or, if he had never intended on being filmed, why would they allow this footage to even make to to air? And then remain available on the Internet for years? Get a clue.

  4. M RIley Junior on June 9, 2017 at 7:55 am said:

    Goofballs is right,not one logical consistent theory amongst all these oddballs.”Locks eyes with camera” It is unlikely he even saw TV cameras as they were all positioned at a distance using zoom lenses.

    • Shill Murray on June 10, 2017 at 1:53 am said:

      Glancing up and looking in the direction of the camera becomes “locking eyes”. Dinks like this will use anything as evidence. If he hadn’t seen the camera, it would have been “why is he avoiding looking at the camera?” If he had looked at it too long, it would have been “he’s waiting for his cue!” You can’t win when the enemy is not bound by truth, honesty, logic, or reason.

  5. Deafchihuahua on June 13, 2017 at 3:49 am said:

    There is one problem; David Wheeler has a mole on the right side in the photo and Bill does not. Also; you can see dark hair under the helmet. If you take the eyebrows and blow them up; they are a perfect match to David Wheeler. You can see through the glasses and if you blow up the picture and look closely you can see he has deep bags under his eyes. Bill does not. Bill’s face is rounded and full, David’s face is longer. I think when the perpetrators saw we noticed wheeler; the conjured Bill (a look alike) up and doctored some paperwork to make him legit and even gave him a news briefing on film. Bill is NOT a professional agent because no one would ever carry a gun the way he did or duck every time he saw a camera. I don’t know what is happening but something is rotten in Denmark. The fact that almost ALL the parents were in some kind of acting, musical or entertainment business is very strange.

    • Shill Murray on June 14, 2017 at 3:05 am said:

      Which part of “if the ears do not match, then there can be no doubt that you’re looking at different people” do you not understand? That should really be the end of this discussion. Furthermore, you haven’t bothered to address the other very clear differences between these men, such as their height, the scar present on William Aldenberg’s chin (which is not seen on David Wheeler), or the prominent mole on the right side of David Wheeler’s face (which is not seen on William Aldenberg). And I didn’t even spend any time discussing the differences in the noses or the lips (David Wheeler barely has any upper lip; William Aldenberg’s is about twice the size). But rather than attempt to refute any of those points, you chose to focus on far less significant details, most of which are at least partially obscured by sunglasses (such as his eyebrows or “deep bags”).

      There is one problem; David Wheeler has a mole on the right side in the photo and Bill does not.

      That’s not a problem, because it’s total nonsense. In fact, there are two moles visible on the left side of Bill Aldenberg’s face, and we can see them located in the very same position in both his “Early Show” appearance as well as the photo of him in Newtown:

      The mole on the left side of David Wheeler’s face isn’t even in the same location; it’s higher as well as closer to his mouth.

      Also; you can see dark hair under the helmet.

      No, you absolutely, positively cannot. Because there isn’t any hair anywhere under that helmet. In the video of William Aldenberg changing in the parking lot of the Newtown Senior Center, you can plainly see that he is as bald as a pool cue:

      I’m pretty sure that what you’re talking about is a shadow. I can see how you’d be confused: you’re an idiot.

      look closely you can see he has deep bags under his eyes. Bill does not.

      You are comparing a still from a television program taken somewhere around five years before the events at Sandy Hook with a man wearing dark (prescription) sunglasses. Get a grip.

      I think when the perpetrators saw we noticed wheeler; the conjured Bill (a look alike) up and doctored some paperwork to make him legit and even gave him a news briefing on film.

      I have to say that this is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest sentences I’ve ever encountered in all of my time dealing with Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. Just absolutely astounding in its stupidity and insanity. Are you seriously suggesting that, once a small handful of Internet clowns falsely accused David Wheeler of pretending to be an FBI Agent, “they” then somehow went back in time, planted eight news stories in various newspapers, and filmed a television interview on a well-known morning program in order to cover for it? And if time travel wasn’t involved, then how did they manage to publish these stories across numerous news outlets as well as film an appearance before 2012? Or are you suggesting that the October 12th, 2007 edition of the “Early Show” was actually filmed after December 14th, 2012? If so, they really nailed that mid-2000s aesthetic and did a phenomenal job making Julie Chen and Bianca Solorzano look five years younger. Kudos to hair and makeup. But what about this real estate transfer notice in the April 5th, 2000 edition – the print edition – of the Wilmington Town Crier (page 48), that details David Aldenberg and his wife, Deanna, purchasing a home in Lynnfield? What kind of sorcery was involved in making that happen?

      Bill is NOT a professional agent because no one would ever carry a gun the way he did

      Except he is and he did. He held it by the magazine for what was likely a very brief period of time. So what? His hand wasn’t on the trigger, so there was no risk to anyone. Do you honestly believe that no law enforcement or military personnel has ever held a weapon in such a fashion? What is that based on? Scroll up a bit and you’ll see that I spoke to a former Marine about this very issue, and he said, “His hand is wrapped around the magazine well and front of the mag. Lazy, but still believable.” Surely your credentials surpass those of a combat veteran, right? I also posted a photo of a militia man holding an assault rifle in the very same manner. So it is, at worst, lazy. If you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with his boss over at the FBI.

      duck every time he saw a camera

      So the other guy claimed that Special Agent Aldenberg simply “looked away” after spotting a camera. But according to you he’s ducking. I suppose the next numbskull is going to tell me that he broke into a sprint in order to get away from the cameras that were everywhere that day. The same cameras that took he allowed to take the high resolution photograph we saw earlier. And even though you claim they can craft an elaborate backstory for a phony agent (while possibly traveling through time in order to plant numerous bogus news stories as well as film a television interview), they can’t manage to pull these allegedly incriminating videos from sites such as the Wall Street Journal? After all, if the footage was potentially so incriminating that he had to “duck” away from the cameras, why leave the footage (as well as the photographs) up for all these years? Isn’t the media complicit? What sense does that make, even to a fractured individual such as yourself?

      The fact that almost ALL the parents were in some kind of acting, musical or entertainment business is very strange.

      I love how these goalposts have moved from “all of the parents are actors!” to “most of the parents are involved in entertainment in some fashion! Those devious jazz musicians!” So of the fifty-two parents (of the twenty-six victims), you’re saying that “almost all” (let’s say ~75%, which I think is generous) are involved in “acting, musical, or entertainment business” (whatever that entails)? I imagine you’re going to gladly back up that claim by naming the thirty-six parents (again, 75% of fifty-two is thirty-six) involved in the entertainment industry and what their involvement is, correct? Show your work. Put up or shut up.

Leave a Reply to Jeff Cramer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation