17 Thoughts on “Debunking Claims Made About The Child Victims Of Sandy Hook

  1. Stephen Waddock on October 30, 2016 at 11:14 pm said:

    Kinda makes you wonder what Appleton’s claims to “expertise”, is? It’s obvious, when you REALLY examine the photos of Lenie and Avi, they ARE two different people.

    • Shill Murray on October 31, 2016 at 7:45 pm said:

      Much like he has done with his own resume, Halbig has straight-up lied about Appleton’s experience. He’s an A/V guy, and his website says as much. I don’t even know how Halbig found him, to be honest. Appleton’s court appearances have been slip and fall cases; I can’t find one instance of him being brought in to do any kind of anthropometry, facial biometrics, etc. And I can’t find any relevant education of experience anywhere on his resume. Not surprisingly, the whole thing is a sham. Hilariously enough, I believe I saw Jim’s son say that Halbig never paid him for this whole ordeal. So he made a fool of himself and got stiffed in the process.

      I asked both Appletons (Jim and his son) to clarify a couple of things regarding this situation. I wanted to know where Jim learned how to identify and compare faces, and I also wanted to know how the hell he could screw up so badly. They look nothing alike. The elder Appleton never replied to me and his kid immediately blocked me on Twitter. So if they want to complain that I’m sullying their good name by screwing up the story, they have no one to blame but themselves.

  2. Carla williams on November 12, 2016 at 3:37 am said:

    Actually.. look at the eyebrows again one on left is curved one on right has a peak then a part kind of cut out.. weird. They look the same.

    • Shill Murray on November 12, 2016 at 3:45 am said:

      The left (our left) eyebrows look nothing alike. The shape, height, length, etc. are all very different. The peaks you speak of on the right (again, our right) eyebrows don’t even line up with one another. This is just one of the many differences in these eyebrows, most of which I think are immediately clear. They do not look the same. And again, the shapes of the eyes are completely different. These are obviously two different girls. But don’t take my word for it; please feel free to read my latest update.

      • Patrick Lange on January 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm said:

        Hey, I am no photoshop expert. Hoaxer claimed that the one with the family standing in front of the christmas tree is photoshopped. I gave him this link in an argument, but he gave me this picture. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSwSaV4VQAIRvP6.jpg

        He told me “Inconsistent error level. Some areas as bright and even brighter than the shopped on circle. Other areas abnormally dark. Shopped Photo” Can you please explain this?

        • Shill Murray on January 10, 2018 at 8:13 pm said:

          I’m happy to explain, despite the fact that the clown making these claims couldn’t be bothered. But seeing as how they’re clearly talking out of their ass, I can’t say I really blame them for keeping it so short. They want you to believe that any bright color in an error level analysis means that a photo, as a whole, has been manipulated (beyond the simple addition of the circle), and is therefore fraudulent. That’s not only an overly simplistic of how ELA works, but it’s just not true.

          First and foremost, I think it’s important to stress that error level analysis is not something that is taken very seriously by professionals. Actual image forensics expert Jens Kriese has previously described ELA as “subjective and not based entirely on science. This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it” as well as “a method used by hobbyists” which “does not provide clear results”. And Professor Henry Farid has said that it “incorrectly labels altered images as original and incorrectly labels original images as altered with the same likelihood”. So even if this person had interpreted the results of the ELA correctly – and spoiler, they didn’t – well, so what? If people like Jens Kriese or Hany Farid don’t take it seriously, then why shoud we?

          But still, what is ELA? How does it work? Or how is it purposted to work? Unfortunately we can’t answer any of these questions without first getting at least a little technical.

          In case you’re unaware, JPEGs – which is what we’re working with here – make use of lossy compression to reduce overall file size by discarding (or losing) data. These images will continue to lose data and degrade as they are saved, re-saved, and then re-saved again. What error level analysis does is show the levels of degradation within these lossy images. And since pixels in unmodified images will degrade at the same rate, the end result is a consistent error level. However, in modified images, the altered (or modified) portion(s) will appear bright white, demonstrating a higher error level than the rest of the image. Now we’ve already run into our first problem with this guy’s claim here as there are no bright white areas anywhere in the Avielle Richman photo, which again is indicative of modification. The colors (different from bright white) that we do see are simply the result of high contrast edges. These are especially noticable in areas that face the sun, which is coming in from the right. This is all expected and normal behavior, and that is according to every piece of information regarding error levels and error level analysis that I could find on the Internet. I’ll post these sources at the end of my reply for anyone that is interested… or maybe doesn’t believe me.

          Now in images that have been subjected to ELA, the sections that are black correspond to the areas that have not been changed. This indicates a good level of compression with minimal error levels. This exposes another problem with our anonymous friend’s analysis, and this one really demonstrates their ignorance on the matter: there is no such thing as “abnormally dark” when you’re talking about error levels. Again, black – which is about as dark as you can get, I think – indicates minimal error levels. This is exactly what you want to see when you’re looking at an unmodified image as it shows uniform degradation.

          So that’s the technical explanation, but there are also a couple of ways in which this claim makes absolutely no sense whatsoever from a logical perspective as well:

          1) The only part of this photo that would have had to have been edited in order for it to stand as evidence that Avielle Richman was 5-6 years old in December of 2011 would be the cookbook, which shows up as black in the ELA. As we’ve already learned, that means that it is unmodified.

          2) Given how error levels work, in order for something to be “brighter” than the circle, it would have to have been added after it. And seeing as how this photo is still available on Jeremy Richman’s Facebook page – without the circle that I personally added – this is absurd, if not impossible. If anything was added after the circle, then it wouldn’t exist in the version available on Mr. Richman’s Facebook page. So I’d invite anyone that is still skeptical to compare the two.



        • Shill Murray on January 10, 2018 at 9:17 pm said:

          Let me further demonstrate with some photos. Feel free to follow along at home.

          Here is the original Avielle Richman Christmas photo, as it appears on Jeremy Richman’s publicly available Facebook page:

          Notice that the cookbook is there and that there is no circle surrounding it. If we download that photo and then run an error level analysis on it using this site, we see the following results:

          Mostly black (indicating no modification) and some colors in areas of high contrast. Knowing what we now know about error levels and error level analysis, nothing here stands out as suspicious in the slightest.

          Now we’ll take my version of this photo – which has the circle around the cookbook – and run an error level analysis on it using the same site:

          Finally, let’s compare the results of these two photos:

          Outside of the circle and additional compression artifacts – the result of further image degradation, wholly expected with subsequent saves – there is no difference. There are no bright white areas indicative of tampering. Outside of the circle in the second/right photo, which I obviously and admittedly added myself, there is no evidence of “Photoshopping” here. The claim is total nonsense.

          • Patrick Lange on January 11, 2018 at 7:03 am said:

            Thanks for clearing that up! That guy who sent me that is clearly ignorant.

          • Shill Murray on January 11, 2018 at 9:41 pm said:

            One last demonstration, and I think this one may be the most useful:

            Using a stock photo, I “Photoshopped” (or added) a cat onto the dog bed in the Richman Christmas photo, as seen here:

            Not too bad, right? Then I ran an error level analysis on it, using the same online tool I used earlier. Here are the results:

            The cat very clearly stands out and is the bright white color we should expect now that we actually know how error levels and error level analysis works. Compare these results to the original photo as well as the photo in which the circle has been added and the differences are crystal clear. The Christmas photo has not been “Photoshopped” in the sense that any information was added to it.

  3. Patrick Lange on January 5, 2018 at 2:54 am said:

    I’ve tried to post this link in an argument, but the hoaxers believe the photos are fake and photoshopped.

    • Shill Murray on January 9, 2018 at 6:00 pm said:

      This is exactly what deniers do: if they haven’t seen a particular piece of evidence, then it doesn’t exist. But if said evidence ever does appear, then they’ll simply dismiss it as fraudulent, usually without any explanation whatsoever. Rinse, repeat. Here’s a perfect example: deniers previously claimed that a lack of publicly available death certificates of the victims was proof of a hoax. But once they learned that literally anyone could order a copy from the town clerk for $20, and people started posting scans online, they claimed they were all faked, without any legitimate supporting evidence. It’s par for the course.

  4. EyesOpen on February 24, 2019 at 4:56 pm said:

    Misdirection. I’ve been doing a lot of research and the anti hoax side is clearly misdirecting people on purpose. They can never provide proof to debunk said thing. So example I bring up A as proof it’s fake. The anti should only worry about A. But instead they say look at S. That proves conspiracy theorists are crazy. No it doesn’t! Wolfgang exposed a TON of evidence and I have yet to see it debunked. And that’s just one truther. We have even these same tactics with 9/11, Obama’s birth certificate, etc. And the truther is always met with extreme anger, threats of violence, some cases lawsuits, etc. Then we have YouTube deleting hundreds of videos. That says COVERUP.

    Sorry I am not buying any BS being peddled on this website. Too much else out there and too many questions that still remain.

    • Shill Murray on March 26, 2019 at 7:37 pm said:

      What “misdirection” are you talking about? You have not bothered to provide a single example to back up your claim. And the post you’re commenting on no longer even exists as it has been heavily updated and revised. That entry – available here – absolutely, positively directly addresses very specific claims. So I truly have no idea what you’re referring to.

      Too much else out there and too many questions that still remain.

      Here’s a novel idea: if there is some sort of lingering question about Sandy Hook that has not been answered, then just ask the question. Someone may have an answer, but you need to be prepared to accept it or refute it.

      • World Stage on March 3, 2022 at 2:48 am said:

        He doesn’t need to show an example of this is old news not to mention most of the examples have been purged from the Internet. But I will give you one example go on the FBI website and look up 2012 and how many people died in that county you will see the number zero.

        And I still can’t get past the coroner saying I hope you guys get away with this on camera and I have very good photographers and something before that I forget was very suspicious. Or The Robbie Parker video is shocking. Apologies it’s been a long time since I’ve seen the footage and looked into it

        • Shill Murray on March 8, 2022 at 1:26 pm said:

          He doesn’t need to show an example of this

          Of course he needs to show an example (i.e. actual evidence). Do you not understand the burden of proof? Or do you simply believe conspiracy theorists have been absolved? They made the claim, which means they’re on the hook to back it up. That’s how it works. But I guess this is how people become Sandy Hook deniers, isn’t it? No proof necessary. Unless of course it’s in support of the official story. Because Sandy Hook deniers are also unrepentant hypocrites.

          not to mention most of the examples have been purged from the Internet.

          How convenient.

          So there is, by your own admission, zero evidence to support these claims? It’s all somehow been purged from the entirety of the Internet forever?

          This isn’t even a good excuse. The Internet is forever. I can use it to obtain school attendance reports from 2008 yet this person can’t find a shred of evidence that one of the worst mass shootings in modern history, one that presumably involving hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators, was faked? Who do you think you’re fooling with this nonsense?

          But I will give you one example go on the FBI website and look up 2012 and how many people died in that county you will see the number zero.

          First of all, you don’t even have the claim right. Newtown is in Fairfield County, which reported 34 murders in 2012. Check page twenty-seven of Connecticut’s UCR data from 2012.

          More importantly, your one example is easily disprovable bullshit, which I wrote – and extensively debunked – six years ago. So you’ve had at least six years to learn the truth and you actively chose not to. You just took some baloney you saw on the Internet at face value because it jibed with your previously held beliefs and decided that was good enough.

          Do you really believe the FBI, after all that alleged preparation, would just readily admit the whole thing was a hoax in a public document? Come on.

          And I still can’t get past the coroner saying I hope you guys get away with this on camera

          Maybe you can’t get past it because he never actually said that. More disinformation that you happily bought hook, line, and sinker. What he actually said was:

          “But this probably is the worst I have seen or the worst that I know of any of my colleagues having seen. And that all the more makes me proud and grateful to our staff who to a man have just behaved most professionally and strongly and I hope they and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later about you.”

          You could have easily searched for this information yourself. There’s a transcript on CNN; it’s literally the first result when you search for “dr carver sandy hook press conference transcript”.

          Again, do you honestly believe that Newtown’s veteran chief medical examiner, who would have had to have been a co-conspirator himself, would admit to the hoax during a press conference? Use your head.

          and I have very good photographers and something before that I forget was very suspicious.


  5. EyesOpen on February 24, 2019 at 4:57 pm said:

    Also the fact you moderate comments? Proves also your want to hide something. Let’s see if you post my earlier comment.

    • Shill Murray on March 26, 2019 at 7:45 pm said:

      I posted your earlier comment, so what now?

      Before you accused me of censoring comments, did you bother to take even a cursory look around the site? Because it’s full of approved, critical comments, most of which I have personally replied to. In fact, there are currently there are 750 approved comments, with over 300 replies from me. Do you honestly think that they are all full of glowing, hand-picked praise? Get real. I have never hesitated to engage a Sandy Hook denier and there is proof of that all over this website.

      As for moderation, anyone not moderating their comments in 2019 is a fool, especially anyone that deals in content like this. The amount of Spam, anti-Semitic garbage, etc, is nearly insurmountable, and I’m not going to allow it to junk up my website while I’m not paying attention.

      What really matters is what I do with moderated comments, and in the years and years that I’ve been running this website, I’ve probably deleted less than a dozen of them, max (not including Spam, of course). And I’ve probably deleted more in the last year than the previous 3-4 years or however long it’s been because they’ve only gotten more disgusting and stupid and I’ve only gotten older and less tolerant of everyone’s bullshit. But as long as you abide by the rules, which posted above the comment box in every entry, your comment will be approved once I actually get around to them. You know, like this one was.

      Wolfgang Halbig has absolutely deleted my comments on his now defunct Facebook page. That’s a fact. William Tyndale deleted a post on one of his YouTube videos in which I debunked him. But of course we know both of those clowns really do have something to hide.

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 allowed and encouraged but will sometimes remain in moderation until I can properly reply to them, which may occasionally take a little while. Contrary to what some of you think, losing your patience during this time and leaving another comment in which you insult me won't do much to speed up that process. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

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

1) Off-topic comments. An entry about The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine are not the place to ask about Hillary's e-mails or pizza shop sex dungeons. Stay on topic.
2) Gish Gallops. Don't know what a Gish Gallop is? Educate yourself. And then don't engage in them. They are an infuriating waste of everyone's time and there is no faster way to have your comment deleted.
3) Yearbook requests. Like I told the fifty other folks asking for them: I don't have them, and even if I did, I wouldn't post them. I'm not about to turn my site into some sort of eBay for weirdos, so just stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up. These items are unavailable to the public; exempt from FOIA requests; and in violation of Amendment 14 of the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8b of the Connecticut State Constriction, and Connecticut Public Act # 13-311.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered/making claims that have already been debunked. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it painfully obvious that you haven't bothered to read the site by asking a question that I've already spent a significant amount of time answering. I'll allow a little leeway here if you're otherwise well-behaved, but please, read the site. There's a search function and it works fairly well.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation