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:

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 Tracy Smith of the “Early Show” on CBS to discuss the case of missing person William Smolinski Jr. Video of this segment was available online when I had originally written this entry, but now appears to be gone. Here are a couple of stills from the appearance, giving an almost entirely (save for the glasses) unobstructed view of Mr. Aldenberg’s 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:

He also has two distinctive moles on the left side of his face:

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:

Both men also have very different nasolabial folds, also known as smile or laugh lines. These lines are very short on the agent seen at Sandy Hook, matching those seen on William Aldenberg:

The smile lines on David Wheeler extend all the way down to his lips:

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.

Update: On May 23rd, 2018, Special Agent William Aldenberg joined thirteen other plaintiffs in filing a defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones, InfoWars, Wolfgang Halbig, Cory Sklanka, and five others for their roles in perpetuating this nonsense. You can read the text of the lawsuit here. Here are the portions relevant to this entry and Mr. Aldenberg:

Page 3:

28. Plantiff William Aldenberg was a first responder to Sandy Hook Elemetary School on December 14th, 2012, and was depicted in iconic photographs and video footage from those events. He has been antagonized by some of the defendants and their followers, who claim that he is a crisis actor. He resides in Worcester County, Massachusetts.

Page 8:

D. It also published images, texts, and video asserting that plaintiffs Williams Aldenberg and David Wheeler are in fact the same person, who is a crisis actor.

Page 8:

72. Halbig has also published Facebook posts containing images and texts asserting that plaintiffs William Aldenberg and David Wheeler are in fact the same person, and that person is a crisis actor. His Facebook page continues to display those publications.

In addition to my previous points, this surely presents a dilemma for those who still desperately hold onto the belief that either A) William Aldenberg never responded to the shooting and his identity was stolen by David Wheeler (who is also a plaintiff in this case), or B) William Aldenberg doesn’t exist and is simply a character played by David Wheeler . If either were the case (and of course they’re not), how in the world do you explain William’s involvement as a plaintiff? And alongside Wheeler, nonetheless.

45 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:


          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?


          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?

      • Normal Cy on August 15, 2018 at 1:45 pm said:

        This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. The InfoWars lawsuit brought me here. I’m glad I didn’t read through this nonsense in full, but just the fact that you are comparing ears between two photos is hilarious in the sickest way possible. It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that the agent’s helmet strap is pushing his ear out from behind, as well as distorting his face slightly in the front. This is logic, not conspiracy. Those guys put those helmets on tight. Secondly, a good childhood friend works for the FBI and was there the day of the shooting. I spoke to him afterwords and he was extremely disturbed. He couldn’t really talk about it, but it was one of the most troubling things he had ever experienced in his career. Of all the things to get worked up over, I seriously don’t get this one. I hope those families bleed Alex dry, and I hope they come after this site and sites like it.

        • Shill Murray on August 15, 2018 at 7:49 pm said:

          I’m glad I didn’t read through this nonsense in full

          Maybe you should try, because I’m not sure you get it.

          the fact that you are comparing ears between two photos is hilarious in the sickest way possible

          Ears Could Make Better Unique IDs Than Fingerprints”

          Ears: The New Fingerprints?

          “7 Surprising Biometric Identification Methods”

          It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that the agent’s helmet strap is pushing his ear out from behind

          1) That’s not how these tactical helmets work. They do not push your ear forward. Look at photos of the other agents wearing helmets; the straps do not even touch their ears.
          2) Do you believe William Aldenberg to be wearing some sort of invisible tactical helmet that is “pushing his ear out” during his “Early Show” appearance? How else would you explain the fact that his ear lobes are exactly as they appear in the SWAT photos?
          3) How would a strap “pushing your ear out” also change the appearance of the antitragus and antihelix? And change them in such a way that they would perfectly match the ears of another man?

          as well as distorting his face slightly in the front

          Right. Did this magical strap also add two moles to his face as well as shorten his nasolabial folds?

          Secondly, a good childhood friend works for the FBI and was there the day of the shooting. I spoke to him afterwords and he was extremely disturbed. He couldn’t really talk about it, but it was one of the most troubling things he had ever experienced in his career.

          Definitely sounds legit.

          I hope those families bleed Alex dry, and I hope they come after this site and sites like it.

          Why would they come after this site? Again, maybe you should’ve read the entire article, but you do realize I’m debunking these conspiracy theories, correct?

  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.

  6. Hey, what about this one?
    http://letsrollforums.com//imagehosting/1468358b994d29b100.jpg. I don’t think that has been debunked yet. If that’s not Mark Barden, who is it?

    • Shill Murray on January 12, 2018 at 9:45 pm said:

      Just because we don’t know who it is, doesn’t mean that it’s Mark Barden. What we do know is that he’s more than likely one of the agents listed here:


      Now if you want to look each one up (although you can skip William Aldenberg, for obvious reasons) and figure out who it is, knock yourself out, although I don’t know how much time anyone should spend debunking a claim that someone else has made without any supporting evidence whatsoever. I don’t consider two shitty, low-quality photos placed side-by-side worth much of my time, to be totally honest.

      With that said, I was able to find a halfway decent photo of the agent in question on the Getty Images website. It’s of significantly better quality than what has been offered up by deniers. So, using a similarly high-quality photo of Mark Barden that I was easily able to find online, I made my own comparison:

      While many of the agent’s identifying features are covered up by a beanie (a clear view of his ears would have been particularly helpful), I think there’s enough here to demonstrate that they are not the same person. The eyes and overall facial structure jump out at me as the most obvious. And while a case could also be made for the nose and mouth areas, the agent’s photo is a bit too washed out for me to argue them with much confidence. Not much I can do about that one; I have to work with what I can find.

      Lastly, I think it’s worth pointing out that much of the “evidence” used to claim that David Wheeler also played an FBI agent are not present here. We’re told David Wheeler wore sunglasses to disguise himself, yet this agent is not wearing sunglasses. Why not? We were also told there was no way that the agent allegedly played by Wheeler could be a real FBI agent because he didn’t have an FBI patch on his uniform, yet this agent has the patch. Etc.

  7. A. Overstreet on January 18, 2018 at 9:10 am said:

    Shill (if that is your real name :p),

    I looked up all of the FBI Agents on the list. Several have no photographs available.

    So, obviously it must be Mark Barden…

    These people are so desperate. What about the other agents that are visible in the photos. They’re white guys whose names we don’t know soooo…they must be ACTOR Neil Patrick Harris.

    Semper Fidelis

  8. A. Overstreet on January 18, 2018 at 9:52 am said:


    As We The People know this was a massive conspiracy, involving an entire town, several police agencies, the federal government, at least one victim’s parent who openly opposes gun control efforts (that he hasn’t blown the whistle is clearly evidence of a conspiracy because Jews and reasons and Obama), the NFL’s halftime coordinators, the guy who designed sets for Batman movies and, lest we forget, the FEMA owned porta potty company (the key to it all, of course) and so on and so on.

    All that being true to those of us SMRT enough to see through the act and all of the BS from you paid shills:

    Why did this grand conspiracy of thousands (or even if only hundreds) require some actors to play two parts? If “they” paid out millions to the town and many more millions to buy everyone’s house as a Christmas gift (how very Christian, rather than the “holiday gift” one would expect from the secular liberals who set this up), why would “they” not hire two more actors?

    Can anyone answer this? Just asking questions, right?

    As a former Marine, I have done some lazy sh-t with my rifle, too. No one is perfect.

    Semper Fidelis

  9. Real FBI agents walk around in circles carrying 2 rifles? repeatedly walked in circles. the ear being pushed out by the chin strap being shaped differently is thin proof or the author’s argument. why did the head cop threaten researchers with jail? debunk the mortgage payoffs. frankly, too many changes in the official story makes this the most suspicious of all these events. saying first a handgun and then changing that story to the AR. A SHOTGUN WAS MENTIONED BEFORE IT WAS FOUND. FEMA exercises nearby some of these suspected hoaxes appears too coincidental ALSO. Just like 9-11, the main questions go unanswered. Watch the helicopter video of the firehouse as the mass of participants wander in CIRCLES.

    • Shill Murray on February 28, 2018 at 1:53 am said:

      Real FBI agents walk around in circles carrying 2 rifles?

      “Real” FBI agents can only carry one weapon at a time? And this is according to whom?

      repeatedly walked in circles.

      Provide proof of this claim. Show me William Aldenberg walking in circles at Sandy Hook.

      the ear being pushed out by the chin strap being shaped differently is thin proof or the author’s argument.

      First of all, while important, the ears do not represent the entirety of my argument, most of which you’ve completely ignored. Secondly, the ears are absolutely not being pushed out by the chin strap. That’s not how these helmets work. Even if it was (and it isn’t), that still doesn’t explain the obvious differences in the antihelix and antitragus. That is, unless you personally believe that the pressure from an improperly worn chin strip would be so great that it would not only dramatically alter the anatomy of the ear, but do so in such a way that it somehow becomes identical to the ear of a known responding FBI agent.

      why did the head cop threaten researchers with jail?

      I’m going to go out on a limb and say that no one was ever threatened with jail time simply for doing “research” into Sandy Hook. Please provide a source.

      debunk the mortgage payoffs.

      It was already debunked. Four years ago. Why would I waste my time repeating someone else’s work simply because you’re too lazy to do the research for yourself?

      frankly, too many changes in the official story makes this the most suspicious of all these events.

      Right. It’s almost like new, more accurate information became available, and the story was updated to reflect that, making it no different from any other major event throughout history. The propagation of misinformation by the media, particularly in chaotic, breaking situations such as mass casualty incidents, has been a problem for a very long time. Hell, even after the Titanic sank, multiple newspapers (such as “The World”) reported that no lives were lost. And that was in 1912, long before the advent of the twenty-four hour news cycle or social media, which have arguably made things much worse. Those in the legitimate media understand this, and when it happens, they apologize and make corrections. That’s far more than anyone can say for the conspiracy theorists who hold everyone but themselves to this impossible standard of 100% accuracy at all times.

      Of course the alternative is to believe that, even with years of planning at the highest levels of government, no one involved in these manufactured, false flag events can ever their stories straight.

      saying first a handgun and then changing that story to the AR. A SHOTGUN WAS MENTIONED BEFORE IT WAS FOUND.

      Provide a source for these claims.

      FEMA exercises nearby some of these suspected hoaxes appears too coincidental

      Even if this were true, so what? FEMA holds exercises, drills, courses, etc, on a fairly consistent basis. Looking at their calendar, there are twenty-six of them scheduled for today alone. And this happens every couple of days! So as long as there’s no real limits on what constitutes “nearby”, or if you straight up lie about the content of these FEMA events (much like Sandy Hook deniers did when they claimed that a “nearby” FEMA course on natural disasters was actually a mass casualty drill), then sure, you can tie anything ever to one of these innocuous FEMA events. Of course explaining their relevance is another matter entirely, as I’m still waiting for conspiracy theorists to do just that.

      Watch the helicopter video of the firehouse as the mass of participants wander in CIRCLES.

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you’ve been duped: someone took the infamous Channel 12 helicopter footage, looped it, put some spooky music behind it, and uploaded it to YouTube, where the rubes have eaten it up. Deanna from Spingola.com already tackled this one, back in 2014:

      Someone extracted and looped a portion of that film, added music and variable video speeds to make it appear that people were aimlessly walking in circles and published it on January 30, 2013. Both Smallstorm and Klein (Video 2) used the first part of that video to “prove” that all of the people were “actors” and were simply milling around with nothing to do. Smallstorm observes that people were not interacting with each other. See the two images from their videos below. People can easily ascertain that Sandy Hook Hoax ~ Walking In Circles Around Sandy Hook Firehouse is a looped video. Click the link and view the repetitive motion of the silver vehicle in the upper left-hand corner of the video from 1:13-1:32, 2:40-2:50, 4:13-4:23, 4:52-5:02, 5:07-5:18, and 5:27-6:14 minutes.

  10. richard mullins on April 20, 2018 at 11:06 pm said:

    Isn’t it ironic that this guy’s name is “shill murray” and also claims to be presenting the truth? Pull the other one.

    • Shill Murray on April 27, 2018 at 11:52 pm said:

      You know that’s not my birth name, right? I chose it to be satirical, much like the name of the site. Goofballs like you are going to call me a “shill” anyway (it’s certainly a lot easier than refuting the central point, isn’t it?), so I may as well beat y’all to the punch. It’s sort of like how you call yourself Richard knowing full well that everyone is going to call you a dick.

    • MikeJ on April 28, 2018 at 3:37 am said:

      but yet you hoaxers can’t debunk anything from this site. However we can easily debunk your nonsense! You hoaxers are so pathetic.

  11. ANDREW on April 30, 2018 at 9:03 pm said:

    Wow Murray! The most astounding element in all of this is your willingness to stick with this dialogue amid such delusions. As you already stated, it takes a certain measure of mental illness to believe this conspiracy shit. Unfortunately you can’t successfully address such delusional thinking on the same plane in which it presents. Such a break from reality can’t be fixed merely by presenting reality. But my hat is off to you.

  12. SubRosa BlackWidow on May 30, 2018 at 12:04 am said:

    You’re very brave to come up against these delusional, conspiracy mongers. My only hope is, as you’re using a WordPress CMS, you were also able to log all these commenters IP’s. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are indeed Russian trolls. They usually perpetuate and spread online conspiracies like this to degrade relationships the American public have to media and politicians/government.

    They gather other ignorant people, Americans, conning them/grifting them into believe they’re “doing good”, by protecting their fellow Americans by spreading these delusional, conspiratorial theories. Not sure if I’m able to share links in this comment area? But I’ll try, if not just search topics/article titles (and no it didn’t, makes sense, more secure, so topic articles):

    What Should Students Know about Russia’s Enemies? Conspiracy Theories in Russian Geopolitical Textbooks. And from Open Democracy, similar article.

    They appear to also be using sock accounts, from what I can see from my end, console/inspect elements etc./backend. Which is pretty common with Russian trolls. And they will stalk, harass, defame, lie, often hack, and terrify targets, anyone that gets in their way. Called the 4D Approach: dismiss, distract, distort, and dismay. For more info on that, look up Ben Nimmo and his information.

    They’re known for flooding social media platforms and blogs with this nonsensical crap. I notice in a number of these responses from commenters here that they’re making obvious English grammatical and spelling and errors. Why? I don’t believe their first language is English. It’s Russian.

    Often too, so many of them have fake blogs and accounts going where they have to post so many idiotic comments and push certain Putinist-Duginist conspiracy laden agendas online, to “divide and conquer” and “pollute the well”. It will get worse with them online, I’m writing this post the US enacting Magnitsky sanctions, and almost every other Western nation has also enacted these sanctions. So Russian trolls will get more abusive and violent online too.

    But the good thing is, blogs like yours who were brave enough to notice something wasn’t right, and address these fake news purveyors and disinformation conspiracists have shown everyone exactly what they’ve (Russia) been up to online for years now. So hopefully we’re able now to stop their cyberterrorism and abuse online quicker and protect Americans/America and its allies better from this information cold war they’ve waged against all of us.

    Also, you should be commended on the amount of research, work, your writing, and fact checking you did, plus you made it easily understandable for all. Your humor and patience with these idiots, totally mind-blowing, haha. I don’t think I would’ve been able to handle some of the nuttery you’ve put up with in your comments section from them.

    In short, very brave. And your work is really well done. Now to impeach their useful idiot/Trump they put into power via Russian troll bots on Twitter and stolen American identities on Facebook. Hopefully you consider writing/starting another website on that issue too…? 🙂

    • Shill Murray on June 19, 2018 at 2:15 am said:

      Thank you for the kind words. I really appreciate it.

      I’ve been following the investigation into Russian disinformation/troll “farms” (such as the Internet Research Agency) since the election, though not as closely as I probably should be, seeing as how disruptive it has been to our democracy. I have thought about scanning comments for obvious Russian trolls, but by the time it occurred to me, the site had already accumulated hundreds and hundreds of comments, and it would have been a hell of an undertaking. Unless there’s some sort of plug-in that will do it for me.

      • Joe Smith on August 3, 2018 at 1:26 pm said:

        So you’re on here peddling conspiracy theories while trying to debunk a “conspiracy theory”

        You’re clearly a left wing crank. Give us evidence that the Russian Government “hacked” John Podesta’s e-mails. I’ll wait…

        • Shill Murray on August 15, 2018 at 6:54 pm said:

          How rich: a guy who believes Sandy Hook was a hoax doesn’t believe the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections. It’s apparently the one and only “conspiracy theory” deniers refuse to believe.

          While beyond the scope of this site, here you go:


          But – let me guess – the indictment of 12 Russians behind the spearphishing campaign that ultimately led to John Podesta’s password being compromised is “fake news”, right?

          • simple-touriste on August 22, 2018 at 7:38 am said:

            Can you describe how “the Russians” interfered in US elections?

          • Shill Murray on August 22, 2018 at 5:26 pm said:

            Again, this is beyond the scope of this discussion and even this site. But this is from page six of the indictment that I just posted in response to the dope who asked for “evidence that the Russian Government ‘hacked’ John Podesta’s e-mails”:

            The object of the conspiracy was to hack into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

            I’m sure there’s more to come, though I’m sure these goalposts have wheels. Of course you won’t be discussing any of it here, because you can either stay on topic or hit the bricks.

    • simple-touriste on August 22, 2018 at 7:42 am said:

      “I have a sneaking suspicion that they are indeed Russian trolls”

      Typical anti-conspiration people see Russian everywhere. The only conspiracy theory allowed by the fakestream media.

      • Shill Murray on August 22, 2018 at 5:06 pm said:

        Yet it’s the only “conspiracy” that conspiracy theorists don’t believe.

        Disinformation campaigns originating from Russian intelligence are well-documented. They’ve masqueraded as everything from Black Lives Matter to American religious organizations. Facebook has nuked hundreds of these accounts after they were traced back to Russia’s Internet Research Agency. Just yesterday Microsoft announced that they had seized a number of spearphishing sites meant to ensnare people who believed they were following links from the Hudson Institute or the International Republican Institute. These sites have been linked to Russia’s GRU. The only person denying this sort of meddling at this point is Donald Trump.

        the fakestream media.


  13. SubRosa BlackWidow on May 30, 2018 at 12:17 am said:

    Oh it did post it with the links 🙂 My apologies for the double posting LOL But at least you’re probably thankful it wasn’t another Russian troll banshee screeching nonsensical conspiracies out at you again… I hope o_O

  14. MikeJ on June 1, 2018 at 11:11 pm said:

    Seriously Hoaxers are proof that the movie idiocracy is becoming a reality. It’s scary that way too many stupid people believe in all of this hoax garbage Even though it has been clearly debunked. Sometimes I feel like that I’m in the minority who don’t believe in all of this hoax garbage. That’s SCARY!

  15. wayne silva on July 16, 2018 at 3:55 pm said:

    Hundreds of lies, falsehoods, fakes, have kept the debunkers busy. Why would one event like this pose some many questions? Hundreds of questions about statements made, photo’s, video’s, etc. etc. I am appalled at normal people in here trying to do the work of the officials by “debunking” everything…too many lies, or inconsistencies to be true. Quit trying to debunk everything….if the event was real, it wouldn’t need debunking…but everything from Gene Rosen’s lies to Robbie Parkers inability to cry make people shake their heads and say “wait a minute.”
    Quit debunking everything and show the casualities…show the bloody carnage, show Adam Lanza laid out with his gun(s)…I’m sure we’ve seen worse. Everything was covered up in a shroud of darkness…Lanza’s body was rushed to get cremated and poof it’s gone…the school torn to the ground in a hurry. Lies damnit, all lies!!! Sick of being lied to. Shame on you debunkers for attempting to cover up their work. You shills believe that 9-11 wasn’t an inside job too?

    • Shill Murray on August 28, 2018 at 3:20 pm said:

      if the event was real, it wouldn’t need debunking

      So this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand (which would be the claim that William Aldenberg is David Wheeler, which must be one of the “hundreds of lies” you’re talking about), but I’d still like to explain to you how silly this idea is…

      First of all, the number of Sandy Hook “debunkers” out there sadly pales in comparison to the number of folks propagating (and often profiting from) this nonsense. I only know of a few, tops. And I won’t speak for anyone but myself, but I do it for what I assume is the same reason you believe those that push the denier narrative do it: because I encountered bullshit and I wanted to correct it, because I believe facts matter. It started with one or two obviously false claims that I had found online and just snowballed from there. That’s all there is to it.

      Furthermore, if you’re going to suggest that there’s some validity to these outlandish theories based on nothing more than the fact that there are people like myself out there who are interested in eradicating misinformation, then what’s to stop someone from turning that idea around and saying that, based on the number of conspiracy theories surrounding this event, then the official story must also be true? If the mere existence of opposing viewpoints and contradictory information is proof of anything, and that standard is applied universally, then the sheer number of results one would get when Googling “sandy hook hoax” or something similar proves that the shooting happened.

      I’m also curious whether or not you believe the Earth is flat. After all, there are a large number of people out there debunking flat Earth theory; just look for them on YouTube. Does this mean that Flat Earthers are correct? Surely if the Earth were round, then we wouldn’t need so many people reminding us that it is, right?

      • wayne silva on September 26, 2018 at 12:33 pm said:

        Shill – You make very good arguments and I enjoyed listening (reading) what you have to say. I have come to believe recently that I don’t know everything. I have been a believer that Sandy Hook was a hoax since day one…right now, I just don’t know…that pains me to say, I just don’t know. I’d like to kick it with you on this, but the debate would be lengthy. You asked me about the flat earth…I have an open mind, let’s leave it at that for right now. What about the Boston Marathon Bombing…thoughts?

        • Shill Murray on September 26, 2018 at 1:13 pm said:

          Thanks, Wayne. I wish more folks who were curious about this stuff were as civil and as level-headed as you are. I’m no fan of lengthy debates, but if there’s something specific that’s still bugging you, you can reach out to me at smurray at crisisactorsguild.com. I don’t check that account daily, but at least a couple of times a week. There’s also a good chance whatever you’ve read about the case may have already been addressed here, on the site, so I’d make use of the search function.

          I haven’t read a whole lot about the Boston Marathon Bombing, but I don’t have any real reason to doubt that the Tsarnaev brothers weren’t responsible. That’s to say I haven’t seen any compelling contradictory evidence, but I also do not spend a whole lot of time searching it out, because that just means I then have to determine whether or not that piece of information is bogus, and of course that just snowballs from there. I can say with absolute certainty that many of the claims I’ve seen from serial hucksters like James Fetzer (such as fake injuries and fake blood in water bottles, etc) are pure nonsense, but what else is new?

  16. Joe Smith on August 3, 2018 at 12:56 pm said:

    His chin strap is pushing his ear back you idiot, his lobes aren’t “different”


    You lie almost immediately when attempting to “debunk” the claims.

    You are a total and complete moron.

    • Shill Murray on October 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm said:

      How is that even possible? His chin strap isn’t even touching his ear. That’s not how tactical helmets work, and you can actually see the space between the strap and at least his right ear. And in photos that show the other agents with their heads turned more to the side, you can very clearly see that the straps do not push on their ears.

      Here are some more examples of how tactical helmets fit:

      Where do you people get this stuff?

      Now I recently stumbled upon a high-quality photo of David Wheeler, which I had never seen before, that better replicates the angle seen in the Sandy Hook FBI photo. Take a look at the following, which shows Agent Aldenberg’s right ear on the left, and tell me if these ears really look the same to you:

      Of course I’m fairly certain that you didn’t use your real name and/or e-mail address when leaving either of your enlightening comments (brave!), so sadly I’m unlikely to ever be blessed with a reply. Bummer.

  17. Anyone who uses the term “hoax” and/or the implication there were no deaths in these rituals should be sued!

    However that does NOT mean it was not a ritual ‘false flag’, if you will; in rituals people are murdered without hesitation and few have more clear meta-data of being a ritual than “Sandy Hook”.

  18. MyNameIs on September 11, 2018 at 11:28 pm said:

    That people still believe it’s the same person (David Wheeler), even though it’s been thoroughly debunked, is ludicrous. Then again, that’s par for the course with hoaxer nonsense. Show factual evidence against a hoaxer claim and it doesn’t matter. They still buy the claim. Some people have less sense than a tree stump.

Please read before commenting.

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 encouraged and allowed but will often 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.

The types of comments that will no longer be approved include the following:

1) Off-topic comments. Articles 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? Then Google it. And then don't engage in them. They are absolutely infuriating 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 stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it obvious that you haven't 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 pretty well.

Leave a Reply to Shill Murray Cancel reply

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

Post Navigation