Perhaps, maybe for the first time in this site’s ten month history, I rushed a post. “Debunking Claims Made About The Child Victims Of Sandy Hook”, to be specific (thought I still recommend you read that one first). While it still took me a handful of days to get everything just the way I wanted it (larger entries – such as the full chapter debunks – can take me weeks), the end result would have been significantly better had I waited just a little while longer.

Unlike the willfully ignorant clowns that populate the Sandy Hook denialist cult, I like to know what I’m talking about before I run my mouth. Because that’s how it’s supposed to work. What that translates to is days or weeks spent researching a claim before addressing it. Of course, in that time, ten new claims have entered the fray since they’re almost always made out of total ignorance, but there isn’t a whole hell of a lot I can do about that. So when it came time to finally drop trou and shit all over the absurd notion that the child victims of Sandy Hook not only faked their participation in the attack, but magically changed appearance, aged three years, and then performed at Super Bowl Super Bowl XLVII two months later. This unbridled insanity has resulted in the coordinated stalking of one young girl in particular, led by Wolfgang Halbig and Tony Mead of Absolute Moving in Plantation, Florida, and I needed to be sure that I had an actual understanding of anthropometry (defined as “the scientific study of the measurements and proportions of the human body”) and facial analysis to debunk it, since that’s what this goofball claim is based upon. Next to going back to school for an extended period of time and spending gobs of money in the process, I figured the best way to do that would be to pick up a book on the subject, the most relevant and comprehensive of which I found to be “Face To Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs” by Joelle Steele, released in 2013, and based on her more than thirty years experience in the field.

Admittedly, I did not finish the book. At least not yet! Not because it wasn’t good or interesting (I found it to be both), but because after reading just a small chunk of it, I felt comfortable enough with the concepts presented therein to move forward with the post, confirming what most of us have known for years now: that these were absolutely, positively not the same children. And here’s where some patience would have paid off.

Shortly after I hit the Publish button, I reached out to Joelle, who offers a facial comparison service through her website, which is used primarily to authenticate old family photos, etc. Even though I have never asked for or accepted donations (let alone rake in six figures, like Wolfgang Halbig has done in the past), or so much as earned a single red cent from this website, I was willing to pay Joelle out of my own pocket for her expert opinion on whether or not Sandy Hook victim Avielle Richman and the aforementioned young girl who performed as part of the Super Bowl choir were one in the same. After all, I couldn’t find anyone more qualified than the woman who quite literally wrote the book on the subject.

When I contacted Joelle, I introduced myself as a blogger who spent a lot of time researching the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. I wasn’t sure if she was aware that the shooting was the subject of a number of conspiracy theories (most people aren’t), so I explained the situation, and the Super Bowl angle in particular, to her. This was done in order to avoid any legal and/or ethical issues. And while I made it clear as to where I stood on the subject, I told her that I wanted her honest, unbiased opinion, and that I would gladly pay her for it up front. Joelle wrote back and said that she was willing to do the work, but would need at least three high-quality photographs of each subject so that she can enlarge them for analysis, as is her standard procedure. In return, I sent over the absolute best photographs that I could find – three of each girl – for her approval:

Shortly thereafter, Joelle wrote back. This is her reply, in its entirety:


From: Face Comparisons
Subject: RE: Hi, Joelle. Some questions…

This is a real no-brainer. I don’t even have to measure anything to tell you these are not the same girl. I can see at a glance how far off they are in terms of appearance. And age has nothing to do with this comparison at all. The face lengthens and teeth can change with age, but those are irrelevant in this comparison. Here’s what I immediately see:

Ears don’t match in shape, pattern, and placement on head.
Jaws don’t match, most evident in smiling views.
Chins don’t match and don’t look alike either.
Eyes don’t match in orbits and lids.
Pupil distance proportions don’t match.
Forehead proportions don’t match.
Nose length and width proportions don’t match.
Brow ridges don’t match.

With the exception of the ears, these are all based on the bones, the infrastructure of the face. If they don’t match, it’s not the same person. Period. And I would rule out a match based on ears alone, but the overwhelming number of non-matches back that up.

And that about says it all, doesn’t it? Here we have a true, verifiable expert on the subject of facial analysis and comparison (unlike Jim Appleton, whose specialty is video production), who took one look at these girls and immediately saw that the difference between the two was so crystal clear, she wouldn’t even take my money. She turned down an easy payday.

I thanked Joelle for her time and honesty and asked her if it would be okay for me to publish our correspondence here, which she approved. Joelle is a true professional, and I would certainly encourage anyone looking for an expert facial analysis and comparison to get in touch with her via her website, I would also encourage anyone with an interest in the subject of anthropometry to pick up her book, “Face To Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs”, which is available in paperback, as well as for the Kindle. I would even encourage Wolfgang Halbig to reach out to Joelle with any requests for facial comparisons; I would just ask that he not stiff her, much like he did with me.

Lastly, I’d like to leave you with the following tweet from James Appleton’s son, describing his father’s dealings with Halbig:

48 Thoughts on “An Actual Expert Weighs In On The Sandy Hook Super Bowl Choir Conspiracy Theory

  1. Thank you for your work. Getting things right is much more work than getting things wrong.

  2. CW Wade on November 2, 2016 at 5:06 am said:

    Thank you for doing this. The comparison is obvious of course, but awesome to get THE expert to confirm it and also to have her quantify the differences we can instinctively see, but perhaps not really know how to verbalize.

  3. Love it, love it, love it!!!! What more can I say?

  4. You should say how you decided that the pics of the two alleged Avielle Richmans had the best likenesses among all the possible candidates for comparison, and which pics you sent to Joelle.

    • Shill Murray on November 5, 2016 at 3:23 am said:

      That’s fair. I was intentionally vague in regard to the source of the photographs out of concern for the living girl’s privacy.

      In order to do a comparison, Joelle requires high quality photographs that clearly show all facial features, especially the eyes. Full-face, straightly aligned photos are highly preferable, and she’ll reject the work if the submitted exemplars are not up to her standards. Luckily, I was able to locate three photos for each girl (or six photos of the same girl separated by four years, if you’re a wild-eyed conspiracy goof) that ticked all of those boxes. I believe one of the photos of Avielle was of one the same photos Halbig submitted to alleged expert James Appleton. Another was of Avielle with her parents, and the third was of a slightly younger Avielle, alone at a table. All were high quality photographs, taken head-on and showing the entirety of the face. One of the photos of the other girl was taken at the Super Bowl, and was the only one I found that put her front and center. Joelle prefers solo photographs. The other two were taken from the Newtown Bee. Again, all three met or exceeded Joelle’s requirements, and all six photos were the absolute best photos publicly available.

      I can certainly share the photos of Avielle that I sent over for analysis, if necessary, but I will not do the same with the photos of the other girl. While they are public – available to anyone able to find them – I just don’t feel comfortable sharing them knowing full well that they will likely end up in the hands of these stalkers.

      I’m not Wolfgang Halbig, James Fetzer, Tony Mead, etc. What I mean by that is that I don’t mislead anyone, and I certainly don’t falsify evidence. I have no reason to.

      Hope that helps clear things up.

      • kberken on February 8, 2017 at 4:43 pm said:

        This is great. I never heard of this woman before this and I will check out her site.
        Just wondering if she has looked at all the other kids’ pics to compare them to the Super Bowl pictures and video. Wouldn’t that add even more credibility to your claim?
        I looked at the video and then the supposed match up for maybe a dozen children. I saw a few similarities but some were really a stretch. I’d love to see what Joelle thinks of the rest. Thanks for your work.

        • Shill Murray on February 8, 2017 at 6:51 pm said:

          I don’t believe that she has. I know that I haven’t asked her to. Please remember that this is a service she normally charges money for (somewhere around $70, I believe), and she was nice enough to provide me with this assessment for free. Now I’ve never asked for or received a single cent in exchange for what I do here, so any further analysis would have to be paid for by me, with that money coming directly out of my pocket. And after she so emphatically dismissed the absurd idea that Avielle Richman is the girl who performed at the Super Bowl (whose name I know is out there, but I prefer to keep private), I just didn’t see the point. It was over. That’s what these goofballs were hanging their hat on, and it was shown to be total hokum, so anything beyond that was superfluous. That ends up being especially true when the kinds of people making these claims won’t be deterred, no matter how many times you show them to be wrong.

          By the way, I would hesitate to call this “my claim”. This is just the reality. It is, on its face, a ridiculous idea. Not only do the children barely look like one another, but they aren’t even the same age! So I’m not making a claim here, simply stating the obvious.

  5. What a great site! I have a good friend who is a devoted Sandy Hook denier who cites Wolfgang and Fetzer and CrisisActor (youtuber) incessantly. The school was closed, the school was moldy, the parents were all actors, there are no photographs of the kids, no helicopters were called, etc. I get tired of slapping down all of his insanity so now I can just direct him to this site!

    • Shill Murray on December 6, 2016 at 9:09 pm said:

      Thanks, David. Absolutely, share the site with him. Not even Sandy Hook denier is a lost cause (though a good many of them are). The only one of those talking points that happens to be true is that no Life Star helicopters were called. They didn’t need to be; they’re not a given for every emergency.

    • Ripper on June 13, 2019 at 2:08 am said:

      Sandy hook was a hoax, even a student who was on doctor phil admitted to it.

      • Steve on June 13, 2019 at 2:14 am said:

        No it wasn’t and nobody ever “admitted” anything.

      • Shill Murray on June 13, 2019 at 2:32 pm said:

        I was wondering how this nonsense made it out of moderation, but then I saw that I had approved another one of your stupid comments a few months ago so that I could reply and of course you never bothered to address it. Of course that’s usually what happens when you challenge someone’s zombie talking points, so I can’t say that I was at all surprised.

        The interview you’re referring to has already been discussed. You may have missed it because the interview actually happened on Dr. Oz’s show, not Dr. Phil’s. So you don’t even have the basic facts right. Regardless, here’s exactly what I had to say about this the last time:

        Dr. Oz’s show is not aired live; shows are taped in advance. Hell, even shows that are aired “live” are on a tape delay. So the idea that someone on Dr. Oz’s show could slip-up, say something that they weren’t supposed to say, and then have it actually make it to air, is absolutely absurd. Furthermore, how incriminating can the clip really be if it is still available on Dr. Oz’s website?

        The interview in question is with Sandy Hook third-grader Louis, his mother Lindsay, and grandmother Cathy. Dr. Oz asks Louis – at the child’s request – what he remembers from that day. Struggling quite a bit, Louis replies:

        I remember that a lot, a lot of policemen were in the um school. Um. [Big exhale] Well, a lot. I was like [big exhale] like (I’m under/I remember) when it, when we were having a drill, we were hiding under like…

        Louis again exhales deeply (which is something only actors do, according to Sterling Harwood) and then pauses. Clearly picking up on the fact that his guest is having a very difficult time re-telling this story, and attempting to keep the show running, Dr. Oz tells him to take his time and then asks him a much easier question: “Let me ask you: what would you like to say to your teachers about Friday?” Louis continues to struggle – because he’s a child – as is partially coached through his answers by Dr. Oz as well as his mother. His answer regarding his teacher is also cut a bit short as he’s a child and, as such, not a particularly gifted storyteller.

        Since Louis says “when we were having a drill”, I think it’s likely he’s remembering an actual drill from a different day and attempting to relate it to this experience. Or maybe his teacher went into lockdown and told their students that it was only a drill in order to prevent them from panicking, which is exactly what library clerk Mary Anne Jacobs did with the fifteen students she and two co-workers huddled into a storage closet. From a story published in the Washington Post:

        They were children in a place built for children, and the teachers didn’t know how to answer them. They told them to close their eyes and to keep quiet. They helped move an old bookshelf in front of the door to act as a makeshift barricade. They wondered: How do you explain unimaginable horror to the most innocent?

        “It’s a drill,” said a library clerk named Mary Anne Jacobs.

        Drills they knew. Drills they understood.

        Other teachers read to their students (which is part of their lockdown procedure, as documented in Book 5, 00002236.pdf; Book 5, 00039513.pdf; Book 5, 00256442.pdf; Book 5, 00258279.pdf) or played games with them (Book 5, 00006236.pdf; Book 5, 00260314.pdf) in order to keep them calm. Or maybe Louis was explicitly told that they were in a lockdown and conflated that with a drill. Who knows? It’s tough to tell exactly because (again) he’s a young kid, and he’s obviously distressed.

        Also, don’t you nitwits believe that the school was abandoned? Like for years? So when this kid talks about police being “in the school” and going under something (likely his desk), what do you think he’s referring to?

  6. Tom Wheeler on December 8, 2016 at 3:37 pm said:

    According to the hoax playbook, play 1A is to release a new piece of dis-information that, once it gains traction, can be easily debunked, thereby calling into question the facts which are unable to be refuted. Good luck with this but transparent.

    • Shill Murray on December 8, 2016 at 3:46 pm said:

      Jeez, how convenient for you and your buddies: everything is an irrefutable fact until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be absolute twaddle, and then it becomes “disinformation” placed there by… shrug! Please. Get over yourself. Nearly four years and countless spooky YouTube videos later, the Sandy Hook denier movement is in its death throes. No one is sitting around, wasting their time by planting disinformation in order to make you all look stupid. You’ve all done a fine job of that on your own.

      This particular nugget – the spectacularly stupid Super Bowl claim – has been circling the tank for years now, and conspiracy theorists have enthusiastically latched on to it and bandied it about as one of their best pieces of evidence. If it so easy to debunk, what does that say about the people who continued to propagate it? Let me guess: they were “disinfo agents” all along, right? Isn’t that how this works?

      “the facts which are unable to be refuted”

      Hah. Try me.

    • Tom, who is releasing disinformation? Where did the Wheeler/Aldenberg claim come from? Who introduced the school closed since 2008 claim? The Superbowl kids? No kids evacuated? Who took Carvers comment out of context, where he hoped the trauma of the event didn’t come crashing down on his staff or on the people of Newtown? I know who debunked these claims, but who put them out there?

  7. Can we please see the pictures you sent?

    • Shill Murray on February 28, 2017 at 2:39 am said:

      All of the photos I sent over to Joelle – all six of them – are publicly available. It took a bit of digging to find photos that were of high-quality and that provided clear, head-on views of each girl, but they’re certainly out there. That said, please keep in mind that the living girl – the girl who was falsely accused of being Avielle Richman – has been relentlessly stalked by some of these folks (including Wolfgang Halbig and Tony Mead). So the idea of sharing photos of her makes me incredibly uneasy.

      If you don’t believe me or the outcome, I would invite you to dig up a few high quality photos of each girl for yourself and send them over to Joelle, along with payment for her services. In fact, I invite all deniers to do this, and of course they’re more than welcome to do this with every single child that performed at the Super Bowl. Even though the truth will do very little to dissuade them (because they’re mentally ill), it’ll be easy money for Joelle.

      • April Prichard on March 1, 2018 at 2:52 pm said:

        oh clever! It saddens me that most people will not realize that you just discredited yourself with this response. Of course there are photos available to the public, but how are we to know which photos you had analyzed if you will not share that with us? You could have sent photos of the superbowl choir and your niece for all we know.

        And again with the hypocrisy! You really must work on that if you expect to be a valid debunker! It’ extremely disingenuous for you to admonish people for not researching fully and in the next paragraph admit to doing the same…but what could we expect from someone who openly admits to being a shill?

        • Shill Murray on March 5, 2018 at 8:02 pm said:

          Of course there are photos available to the public, but how are we to know which photos you had analyzed if you will not share that with us?

          As I’ve already explained, I will not share the photos of the older girl that I sent to Joelle out of respect for her privacy as well as concern for her safety. This girl is already living with this nonsense, incessantly stalked by Internet goons, and I will not further contribute to her misery by continuing to associate her with these manics and their delusions. Even if never use her name, her pictures will still be here, forever tying to what has to be one of the worst episodes of her young life. It’s inhumane, and there is absolutely no advantage to betraying that position. Anyone who doubts me will simply continue to do so. For example, you yourself said, “they could have been pictures of your neice”. But even if I were to host these photos here, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you (or anyone else) from claiming that they’re not the pictures I sent to Joelle. I could then post copies of my e-mails to Joelle, including all attachments, but then I’d be accused of fabricating the e-mails. It never ends. Once people have convinced themselves that not only did the victims of Sandy Hook survive, but when on to perform at the Super Bowl – as older, different children – then there’s nothing I can do or say that will convince them otherwise.

          That said, there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from finding a few high quality photos of both Avielle Richman as well as the older girl seen performing at the Super Bowl and sending them to Joelle for analysis. I’d actually encourage it, and I think she’d be more than happy to take your money just to tell you what she’s already told me.

          It’ extremely disingenuous for you to admonish people for not researching fully and in the next paragraph admit to doing the same…

          I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to here. If you’re talking about not finishing Joelle’s book, so what? As comprehensive as it is, this one book does not represent the entire sum of knowledge on facial features, so I had no problem doing plenty of research on the subject without it; certainly more than enough to write a bit about it in my previous entry on the Super Bowl gobbledygook. Additionally, when I wanted to explore it a bit further, I actually engaged the author directly and asked for her assistance. Not surprisingly, her opinion and her conclusion lined up with mine. This is not the same as someone making an outrageous claim, based on nothing more than a fever dream, and failing to do even the most cursory research on the matter.

          For the record, I’ve since finished “Face To Face”.

          but what could we expect from someone who openly admits to being a shill?

          You folks sure are a humorless lot.

          Besides, how do you know my birth name isn’t Shilliam Murray?

  8. John T Mauldin on March 21, 2017 at 3:29 pm said:

    I like it when folks come together and share views. Great site, stick with it!

  9. Ricky on August 8, 2017 at 8:33 am said:

    I realize this is old and I don’t revel in the reignition of this topic for any of you, but I was wondering if there is an explination for Keith Alexander’s responses to questions posed to him by mr.wolf in their hearing. I don’t understand anyone within the hoaxer community’s insistence on attempting to compare photos of children as evidence of anything. The notion that the photos prove anything is ridiculous and honestly not worthy of the time you devoted to refuting it. Regardless, I am concerned about the questions mr. wolf posed to Mr. Alexander in their hearing. Specifically regarding his responses. It’s equally puzzling to me that the school board minutes from the time period surrounding the Super Bowl do not include the subject. Is there something I am missing here? Would love to have this cleared up for me.

    Link to the hearing in question:

    -Thank you in advance

    • Shill Murray on August 8, 2017 at 1:54 pm said:

      Hi Ricky,

      Which responses specifically are you concerned about?

      As the Super Bowl trip was arranged and paid for by an anonymous donor (rather than a “field trip” organized by the school), I’m not sure how much discussion it would warrant from the Board. It wouldn’t present them with any budgetary or logistical challenges. And while they don’t mention the Super Bowl specifically, the February 14, 2013 minutes include a statement praising the Sandy Hook Chorus as well as the Children of Newtown Choir for their work in the aftermath of the shooting. You have to assume that this includes the Super Bowl. The statement reads:

      Item 1 – Communication Regarding the Children of Newtown Chorus

      MOTION: Mrs. Roche moved that the Board of Education accept and distribute the following statement:

      The Newtown Board of Education greatly appreciates the efforts of those who have helped our community on the path toward healing. Many individuals and groups, near
      and far, have made every effort to celebrate the lives of those lost too early and remind us daily that, regardless of the events that occurred on December 14th, Newtown is a beautiful community that pulls together in time of need. We are grateful for their efforts. The Board is proud of the volunteer efforts of many students from our district going on each day in Sandy Hook and Newtown. The Sandy Hook Chorus and the Children of Newtown Choir are two of the groups that demonstrate the resilience of our community. Their beautiful voices have shown the world that, while Newtown is mourning, we are strong. They show the world that we are Newtown and we choose love. We are grateful for the funds they have raised for the United Way and the Newtown Youth Academy, which will support us as we move forward by providing much needed on-going services for our community. We support them in their efforts moving forward and know that their voices will help to heal our hearts on this Valentine’s Day and in the months and years to come.

      If you don’t believe Halbig’s theory that the children not only survived the shooting, but magically aged five years in two months, changed their physical appearance, and then performed in front of the whole world at the Super Bowl (and good on you for not buying into that one, because it is absolutely insane), then why does anything about the choir’s appearance bug you? What sort of conclusion are you leading to here?

      • Truth seeker on December 7, 2017 at 8:40 pm said:

        They didn’t age the original pictures of the alleged victims were old.

        • Shill Murray on January 19, 2018 at 9:34 pm said:

          Where did I say that they aged the original pictures? Furthermore, how does either scenario make any more sense than the other? They’re both ludicrous in theory as well as practice. The facial features do not match and, as seen in my other entry on this nonsense, older photos show some of the children surrounded by or wearing items that lock their age into a very specific time-frame. For instance, in order for Avielle Richman to be 9-10 years old at the time of the 2012 Super Bowl (the age of your average fourth grader), then she would have had to have been between 8-9 years old when the photo of her and her family in front of their Christmas tree – again, available here – was taken. This photo would have to show Avielle Richman roughly one year removed from her alleged appearance at the Super Bowl, and that is very obviously not the case.

      • Julie Nickel on August 5, 2018 at 1:31 am said:

        The superbowl kidso and parents flew on air force one. Obama said plane

  10. They look the same to me, some of the boys are identical even still, its quite a coincidence to have all these lookalikes in the same place. I don’t think the suggestion is that they aged 3 years I think the suggestion is they used old photos to fabricate people who never existed

    • Shill Murray on October 14, 2017 at 7:42 pm said:

      Mike, I’ve conclusively shown that they are not – and cannot be – the same person. Joelle Steele, who does this for a living, thought the idea was so preposterous that she wouldn’t even take my money to tell me so. So whether or not you personally think they look the “same” is irrelevant. They are not. That is a fact. As for the idea that “some” of the boys are “identical”, well that’s just beyond absurd. Beyond very superficial similarities common in most Caucasian children, they look nothing alike. But feel free to tell me which children you think are “identical” and I will happily tell you how they are not.

      I don’t think the suggestion is that they aged 3 years

      Of course that’s not the suggestion, because that would be impossible. But we’re still being asked to believe that first-graders in December somehow became fourth-graders in February. And because that is impossible, deniers were forced to either abandon their goofy Super Bowl claim (impossible as they would never admit they were wrong about anything) or somehow make it fit, and they attempted to do that by cooking up the absolutely batshit idea that everything we’ve seen thus far – from photographs to documents, etc. – are actually older than we’ve been told. But that’s also impossible, because not only do we have photographs full of time-stamped evidence (please see this entry for some of these photos), but we’ve seen copies of Noah Pozner’s birth certificate, death certificate, etc, further proving that not only was he an actual human child, but that he was only six years-old at the time of his murder. As were the other victims. And we have never seen a shred of evidence to the contrary, but it’s extremely important to people like Halbig to continue living the lie because it’s one of his main sources of income.

      • Julie Nickel on August 5, 2018 at 1:42 am said:

        This JoElle didn’t take your money because she doesent stand by her findings professionally. If she took your money and said they don’t match, she’d loose all credibility(because they DO match), She have to say they matched if she was really being paid for her services but this would be suicide because professional people DON’T HAVE THE GUTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

        • Shill Murray on August 5, 2018 at 1:56 am said:

          This JoElle didn’t take your money because she doesent stand by her findings professionally.

          And what proof do you have of this slanderous nonsense?

          If she took your money and said they don’t match, she’d loose all credibility(because they DO match)

          First of all, it’s “lose”, not “loose”. Secondly, Joelle – a true professional – explained exactly how and why they do not match. Simply saying “no, they DO match” is a very poor refutation. If you have found actual fault with her work, outside of your own delusions, let’s hear them (though you may want to have someone proofread them first).

          She have to say they matched if she was really being paid for her services

          This is barely English, but if you’re saying that she would “have to say they matched if she was really being paid”, then by all means pay her. I’ve already provided a link to her website – – above. Put your money where your mouth is.

          • Julie M Nickel on August 5, 2018 at 2:10 am said:

            Thank you for the spelling. I knew it was wrong but because I couldn’t spell it I couldn’t find the correct way on the internet. Also, thank you for responding so quickly.

            Look, this whole situation is just awful. If this really is a hoax, then our whole world has changed. It’s crazy because things like this can’t happen. I honestay in my heart say Sande Hooks was real. But honestly in my brain. I know what the evidence says and it says this was 100 percent purchase evil lie.. This devastated me and I still cry. WE MUST ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS. ALWAYS.

            THANK YOU

          • Shill Murray on August 5, 2018 at 2:29 am said:

            If this really is a hoax

            It’s not, though.

            I know what the evidence says and it says this was 100 percent purchase evil lie.

            There is absolutely no evidence to support this absurd idea.


            There is nothing wrong with asking questions and I would never suggest that there is. That’s how I ended up here, creating this site. People don’t seem to understand that.

            So the problem isn’t with asking questions, but in ignoring the answers due to confirmation bias. And your comments on this entry couldn’t be a better example of that. If you were truly asking honest questions and interested in the truth, then the definitive word of an actual expert in facial comparisons should be a sufficient answer. But instead, you questioned her integrity and said nope, she’s wrong, all while withholding any evidence of your claims; anything that may give anyone any reason to believe you over a professional like Joelle Steele.

  11. Julie Nickel on August 5, 2018 at 1:46 am said:

    Mike, I’ve conclusively shown that they are not – and cannot be – the same person. Joelle Steele, who does this for a living, thought the idea was so preposterous that she wouldn’t even take my money to tell me so. THESE WORDS CAME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. YOU JUST SUMEd IT UP. Shill is it?. Lol lol lol lol

  12. I turned off the predictive text so that I may hopefully not speak whatever language I was using previously. I have a question… can you tell me what evidence you have that shows Sandy Hook DID happen? Also, some people need to know the Who and why before they will ever investigate on their own.

    • Shill Murray on August 29, 2018 at 3:07 pm said:

      Julie, sorry for the delay in response.

      I think of myself as a skeptic, not a contrarian, so I don’t automatically believe the total opposite of everything reported by the media. I may, for any number of reasons, take some of it with a grain of salt, but I certainly don’t dismiss it all outright as that is absurd. So when I hear, from every major news organization on the planet, that a shooting has happened in Connecticut and that twenty-six people have been murdered, I have no reason to disbelieve it until I see some sort of compelling evidence that I should. And in the nearly six years since the shooting, that evidence has never materialized. In fact, conspiracy theorists have, in that time, knowingly and unabashedly engaged in the type of sinister behavior that they accuse the mainstream media of engaging in, from misrepresenting the truth to outright lies. If they are to present themselves as an alternative news source, then they’re doing a miserable job of it. And it was in my investigation of these claims from these conspiracy theorists that I found information that only strengthened the official narrative surrounding Sandy Hook. Just for starters, we have witness statement after witness statement from real people who have served the public for decades, all telling the same heartbreaking story. And these people don’t have a singular political agenda, either. Newtown’s former Chief of Fire Police, Karl Sieling Sr., is a good example. Karl was somehow accused of being Dr. Wayne Carver at one point, but the guy’s a staunch Republican who has always hated Barack Obama, so what makes anyone think he’s going to be complicit in some sort of elaborate scheme, taking place in his hometown, designed to confiscate firearms? Even Mark Mattioli, the father of victim James Mattioli, has also made it very clear that he didn’t support pursuing any sort of gun control legislation following the shooting. And they’re not the only ones. So how am I supposed to believe that these people have been roped into some sort of imaginary, sprawling plot to take everyone’s guns when there isn’t even a unified front here?

      Beyond the voluminous final report, there have been hundreds of news articles and photos published by a number of sources over the years that show the school existed and was open at the time of the shooting. The children (as well as adults) are all listed in the Social Security Death Index, and these listings show that they were all six or seven years old at the time of their death, which took place on 12/14/2012. There are the 911 calls. I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard of Occam’s Razor, but it is a commonly misunderstood problem-solving principle that states that the solution that requires the fewest assumptions tends to be the right one. And for this ridiculous, labyrinthine conspiracy theory – and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists often can’t even decide on one single, cohesive narrative – to work, you need to make a ludicrous number of incredible assumptions. Just looking at the examples above, you have to assume that people who have served the public for decades, all from different sociopolitical backgrounds, came together to try and get guns out of the hands of civilians. You have to assume that these same public servants, medical personnel, educators, etc. were willing to falsify hundreds and hundreds of phony official documents, often acting out the actions described in them. You have to assume that even the Social Security Death Index has been compromised. You have to assume that actors spent hours or even days staging 911 calls. Again, those are just some of the assumptions you’d have to make, based on the examples I’ve given, and these assumptions would require you to implicate hundreds, if not thousands, of people, all workings one common goal and working in secret for over half of a decade now. And that is the absolute height of absurdity to me. Remember, three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

      • Julie M Nickel on September 2, 2018 at 2:32 pm said:

        Thank you cor this thought out reply, I can tell that you are willing go actually care about people who reply to your blog. I have a question, Are you able to change hour mind? We all think we can but in truth it can be hard to let go of what we become passionate about. I can change my mind if some information presented explains or excludes my perspective. For example, there was a Portrait of Noah Pozner being shown as a victim in Pakistan. This is proof of nothing for me, i think it said somewhere that the person put the picture there to show how horrible school shootings. This is a third party situation and Sandy Hook hzs no control over that. QUESTION 2. If I put together the reasons why I believe it was a “Hoax” WOULD YOU GIVE IT A LOOK AND let me know what you think? I am open to anything that will bring us all closer to the truth.
        Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon

        • Julie M Nickel on September 2, 2018 at 2:34 pm said:

          Oh no, I really need to proofread don’t I?

        • Shill Murray on September 4, 2018 at 9:01 am said:

          Hi, Julie. Am I able to change someone’s mind? Some people, absolutely. I know that I’ve changed some minds because a number of people have reached out to me either here or on Facebook to tell me that they had been a believer in these silly theories or maybe just on the fence until they found my site. But I certainly don’t think I’m capable of changing everyone’s mind, unfortunately. There are a large number of people who, when confronted with facts, will double-down on their original, incorrect assertion. I’m actually currently reading a book about this phenomenon titled “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)” in an attempt to better understand this mindset and some of the folks I’ve encountered since starting this site. It’s an interesting read thus far.

          If you’re asking if there’s any possibility that I would ever or could ever change my mind in regards to Sandy Hook, it’s doubtful. You have to follow the evidence – real evidence – and see where that takes you, and while I’ve seen a mountain of evidence that clearly supports the official story, I’ve never seen a single piece of actual, empirical evidence that lends any credibility whatsoever to any conspiracy theory. Whatever you have that you think will sway me, I’ve likely seen it already, and there’s a good chance I’ve already debunked it on the site. But if you have something that may be new to me, feel free to share it.

          I think I’ve said this before, but most people don’t understand that I’m just a regular guy who saw one of the early “Sandy Hook hoax” videos on YouTube, watched it (admittedly with plenty of skepticism), and decided to independently investigate the claims being made, which is what I believe everyone should do. And the more I looked into the content of the video, the more I realized that it was just poorly researched nonsense; a total joke. But then I found that when I shared my thoughts and research online, I was bombarded with replies from people who would offer up new theories – ones that hadn’t made it to the video – and then I’d find myself researching those. Rise and repeat, ad nauseam. So I’ve seen a lot in the last six years, and it has all failed to impress me.

          As far as the Noah Pozner thing goes, Snopes did a write up on that claim a few years back and I certainly can’t explain it any better than they can. Their entry on it can be found here.

  13. One question that hasn’t been asked. So a government or official parties unknown fake a mass shooting. They go to an awful lot of effort
    to plan well in advance, placing “actors “in the town several years before the event like some sort of false flag sleeper cell, execute the plan, then place the same kids who’s faces have been all over the press after the shooting ,in front of millions of viewers at a Super bowl. Apart from tonnes of photographic evidence that disprove almost every crass theory, are we really expected to believe conspirators would use the same children. Yet another absurd idea by the CT brigade. Every theory can be torn to shreds, all the dated school photos being an example of how easy it is.

  14. Jblack on August 27, 2018 at 12:01 am said:

    This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy. Specifically it was a Gish Gallop, and asked a number of questions that have already been answered. Please review the comment policy before trying again. – SM

  15. Shill Murray, lol – SHILL. You are just that. Here it to hoping you are shot and killed for your pathetic lies. May you and your family burn in the eternal fires of hell forever.

    • Shill Murray on September 1, 2018 at 9:06 pm said:

      Shill Murray, lol – SHILL. You are just that.

      Another thought-provoking rebuttal from the satire-challenged denier cult.

      I feel like this must be the millionth time I’ve explained this, but calling me “shill” when I’ve made it part of what is obviously a satirical and fictitious name (my birth name is not Shilliam Murray) is not at all insulting. It really couldn’t be any less so because you’re simply repeating my name back to me at that point.

      Here it to hoping you are shot and killed for your pathetic lies.

      How would that even happen? Obama took all the guns.

      May you and your family burn in the eternal fires of hell forever.

      Charming, but I’m not dumb enough to believe in hell. So this one doesn’t bother me, champ. Sorry.

  16. J Scott on September 4, 2018 at 9:06 pm said:

    Fourteen of the Twenty-four children in the choir have striking similarities. Good work, Shill, finding the one that didn’t make a good match.

    • Shill Murray on September 5, 2018 at 8:28 am said:

      Fourteen of the Twenty-four children in the choir have striking similarities.

      Except that they really don’t. These children are also three years older. So there’s that.

      I’m currently working on a much longer article covering this goofball theory in detail since so many of you whackadoos, for whatever reason, really, really won’t let this one go. So don’t worry, I’m not done with this one yet.

      Good work, Shill, finding the one that didn’t make a good match.

      Give me a break. This is same kid that Wolfgang Halbig, Tony Mead, Maria Chang, et al, have been focusing on for years. This is the one that they were absolutely certain of, and as a result they stalked her to the ends of the Earth. Feel free to poke around on their wretched blogs for any mention of her name, if you don’t believe me. So I’m not cherry-picking anything. I never do when I talk about this pap; I work with what I’m given. But this is always how it is: every claim is the single biggest, most important piece of bombshell evidence that has ever existed until someone like me comes along and debunks it, exposes it for the nonsense it is, then y’all disavow it and act like it never should’ve been taken seriously in the first place.

      Look, if you think there’s another kid here that’s a better match, then I would invite you to do some work yourself. Gather up a few high-quality exemplar photos of the child as you believe they appeared at the Super Bowl, a few of the victim you believe it actually is, and then reach out to Joelle and ask her to work her magic. I dare you to.

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