The claim that no one died at Sandy Hook School on December 14th, 2012, and that it was all just a “drill”, presents nearly endless logistical complications, most of which have been hand waved away by deniers. But one issue that they have attempted to tackle, albeit in their own special way, is: what happened to the twenty young victims? Where did they go? If they’re all still alive, why hasn’t anyone seen them in the nearly six years since the shooting? Well, many of these doofuses will happily tell you that we have, and at Super Bowl XLVII, of all places.

Less than two months removed from that terrible day in Newtown, an anonymous donor generously paid for twenty-five members of Sandy Hook School’s fourth grade choir to travel to New Orleans to perform “America the Beautiful” alongside Oscar and Academy Award winning performer Jennifer Hudson during the pre-game ceremonies. It was a touching moment… or at least it was for most normal, sane people. For delusional Sandy Hook deniers, it was proof positive that the victims were alive and well, brazenly trotted out in front of over 108 million American television viewers, plus the over 70,000 in attendance, as some sort of… plan… to… well, who the hell knows? That’s just another one of those sticky logistical issues, though it’s not even the most egregious, not by a long shot.

In addition to the fact that almost none of the choir members bear even a passing resemblance to the victims they are alleged to be, they also somehow aged three to four whole years (this being the fourth grade choir while the child victims were all in the first grade) in the seven weeks that passed between the shooting and the performance. This is of course totally inconceivable. So how on Earth do complete nutters like Wolfgang Halbig and Maria Chang explain this? By stating that all available photos and video of the twenty adolescent victims are actually three to four years older than we’ve been told, and that it’s also perfectly normal for children to drastically change appearance in that time. Of course. But what proof do deniers have of these outrageous claims? Absolutely none, of course, but their theory is dead in the water without making such incredible leaps. And while most people will immediately recognize it as a ludicrous and even offensive question, what evidence exists that these children were real people and that they were indeed only five or six years old – rather than eight or nine as they would need to be to perform at the the Super Bowl – at the time of their untimely death at the hands of Adam Lanza?  I mean besides nearly endless witness testimony, death certificates, SSDI entries, etc.? I’d say that there’s plenty, and it’s my goal here to not only provide high-quality photo comparisons so that anyone who understands even basic facial composition will immediately recognize that these are not the Sandy Hook victims performing at the Super Bowl, but to prove – at least to any reasonable human being – that it would be not just extremely unlikely but flat-out impossible that these are the same children.

But before we plug our noses, hold our breath, and swan dive right into this rubbish, let’s start with an extremely high resolution photo – something you’ll never see from deniers – of the entire Super Bowl choir, taken on February 3rd, 2013 at Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans. I’ve circled five children not at random, but because they were the most easily identifiable across all three reference photos of Sandy Hook’s 2012-2013 fourth grade choir that I will be using in this entry:

The remaining two photos capture the very same event – a fourth grade concert which took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 12th, 2012 – but come from different sources. The first was printed in the December 21st, 2012 edition of The Newtown Bee…

“Sandy Hook School’s Fourth Grade Winter Concert was held on Thursday, December 13, but before the big event, fourth grade students also performed their Winter Concert for their fellow students during a school assembly on Wednesday, December 12, under the guidance of music teacher Maryrose Kristopik.”


While the second photo of the December 12th assembly comes from Dawn Hochsprung’s Twitter feed:

“Sandy Hook students enjoy the rehearsal for our 4th grade winter concert – a talented group led by Maryrose Kristopik!”

By locating and highlighting these same five children across all three photographs, we see that at least some of the choir members seen performing with Jennifer Hudson in New Orleans are demonstrably the very same children that had been performing with the choir for many months, with photographic documentation of some members dating back to November 12th, 2012, when the choir performed for Sandy Hook’s annual Veterans Day Breakfast (an event Wolfgang Halbig claims never happened, and as such still owes me $1,000):

Admittedly this alone isn’t bombshell evidence of anything – and it isn’t meant to be – though it does further solidify the fact that not only was the school open and functional well into late 2012, but that the photos available on both Dawn Hochsprung’s Twitter as well on The Newtown Bee’s website are accurately timestamped, and not from years earlier, as is often claimed.

Sandy Hook deniers, in images and videos spammed across the Internet ad nauseam, have asserted that these five highlighted children are actually the following Sandy Hook Elementary School students:

1) Anna Mattioli
2) Jessica Rekos
3) Olivia Engel
4) Jack Pinto
5) Daniel Barden
6) Avielle Richman

Of that bunch, the only choir member they were successful in identifying is Anna Mattioli, who is the older sister of victim James Mattioli. However, in doing so, they’ve taken tremendous strides in debunking their own gobbledygook…

Take a look at the following photo of James and Anna:

Although we’re seeing it from behind, the lone candle on the cake – which reads “Happy Birthday James” – is in the unmistakable shape of a 6, placing this photo on or very close to James’ sixth birthday, which would have been on March 22nd, 2012. Remember that the absurd Super Bowl claim hangs on the idea that the victims of Sandy Hook were actually nine years-old at the time of their reported deaths in 2012, and not six. But if that were true, then this photo would have to have been taken in March of 2009, and all it takes is one look at Anna to realize that couldn’t possibly be true. No sane person who has ever spent any time around an actual child would compare Anna’s appearance here, at her brother’s sixth birthday party, to her appearance at Super Bowl XLVII and believe that three whole years (as opposed to eleven months) had passed:

Even more damning is this photo of James and Anna at Sandy Hook together, posted to Dawn Hochsprung’s Twitter feed on October 18th, 2012:

Deniers have doubled-down on this embarrassing blunder by also successfully identifying Nate Wheeler, the older brother of six year-old victim Benjamin Wheeler. This is especially puzzling because they also somehow believe that a now nine year-old Ben performed right alongside him, as seen in the following image:

Like the Mattioli siblings, Nate is about three years older than Ben, which is something that is rather apparent in photos of the two boys together:

However, according to the denier fever dream, Ben Wheeler miraculously caught up to his older brother in age as well as size just in time to join the fourth grade choir and perform on one of the largest stages in the world:

Surely this would constitute some sort of record growth spurt, right? But what may be even more incredible than that is the fact that while his brother is plainly still the same child, this Ben Wheeler (who is in reality definitely not Ben Wheeler) no longer even looks like himself. Compare the “Benjamin Wheeler” alleged to have performed at the Super Bowl to three publicly-available photos of the real Benjamin Wheeler:

And here’s a birthday announcement from The Newtown Bee, published on September 7th, 2007, that corroborates Ben’s age at the time of his death:

Now let’s do some quick and easy math (my favorite kind!): if Ben Wheeler turned a year old on September 12th, 2007, that would make him six years old on December 14th, 2012.

Another pair of siblings alleged to have performed together at the Super Bowl are six year-old victim Caroline Previdi and her older brother, Walker:

Similar to the Mattioli and Wheeler siblings, Walker is also roughly three years older than his sister. Here are a couple of photos of them together, demonstrating an obvious difference in age and development:

Yet we’re asked to believe that somehow, in February of 2013, at Super Bowl XLVII, the Previdi siblings are now magically the same age, with Caroline having aged three whole years while Walker barely looks a day older than he does in the above photos:

Shockingly, conspiracy theorists have thus far failed to explain these obvious disruptions to the space time continuum. And it’s only one of many.

If Caroline Previdi was actually nine years old at the time of the Super Bowl, then any photos of her as a six year-old would have had to have been taken sometime between September 2009 and September 2010. But if that were the case, how did an obviously five year-old Caroline manage to find herself in a photo with a newspaper reporting on an incident that didn’t take place until December of 2011?

If the conspiracy theorists are right – and let’s never forget that they are not – then she would have been eight years old at the time of this photo. It’s poppycock.

Of course this isn’t the only evidence we have that Caroline Previdi was six years old at the time of her death.

During the summer of 2011, Newtown’s C.H. Booth Library hosted weekly craft programs for children aged 4-9. As reported in the August 5th, 2011 edition of the Newtown Bee, Caroline – five years-old at the time and only one month away from her final birthday – was in attendance for the second-to-last event of the year:

“Ellie Boni, left, and Caroline Previdi created Mardi Gras masks during the library’s Crafts Around the World program on Monday, August 1.”


The above photo’s Exif data shows that it was taken on August 1st, 2011.

Here is another photo of Caroline, posing with her friend and classmate, Catherine Hubbard, in the now familiar and ever-changing lobby of Sandy Hook Elementary:

Notice the dry erase board in the back shows the date as Wednesday, June 20th, 2012. This was graduation day for the school’s Kindergarten students, and we can see a diploma/certificate rolled up in Catherine’s right hand. A very similar diploma/certificate can be seen in this photo of Charlotte and Joel Bacon, taken the very same day:

Note the date, location, and caption of the photo.

Of course Charlotte Bacon is another girl alleged to have performed at the Super Bowl as a fourth grader (a little more on that later), yet we have proof of all three girls graduating from Kindergarten at Sandy Hook Elementary School in June of 2012.

Here’s yet another photo of Caroline Previdi (back row, second from the left), and it’s her Kindergarten class photo, taken during the 2011-2012 school year:

Along with a number of other victims alleged to have performed at the Super Bowl as nine year olds in February of 2013, we can see Noah Pozner seated on the right. Noah is wearing a red “Ready 4 Games” shirt by Nintendo, which was trademarked and sold in 2011:

That means that this class photo, which features what is unmistakably a group of five year-old Kindergarten students, could not have been taken at any point prior to 2011. Yet again, this preposterous theory cannot work unless these children were 7-8 years old at the time that this photo was taken.

And just in case the above wasn’t enough (and if that’s the case, I doubt one more photo will sway you because you’re likely just nuts), here’s a birthday announcement for Caroline from the Newtown Bee, published one week after Ben Wheeler’s, on September 14th, 2007:

I’ve already done the math once, don’t make me do it again.

While she is not alleged to have performed at the Super Bowl (and it is never quite explained why this luxury was only extended to some of the children), the above class photo also features a five year-old Catherine Hubbard. For further proof that Catherine was in fact six years old at the time of her death, we turn to The Newtown Bee’s “Bee Lines”, a recurring, weekly feature in which reporters ask Newtown residents, including schoolchildren, some fairly mundane questions. “Bee Lines” (which we’ll see again shortly) caught up with Catherine and her mother in April of 2012, and asked them what they think makes people turn out to vote:

“Newtown Bee: What do you think makes people turn out to vote? Jenny Hubbard and Catherine Hubbard, right: The issues.”


The photo’s Exif data confirms the photo was taken on April 24th, 2012.

Taken just a couple of weeks later, this photo shows Catherine and her mother at a Sandy Hook school function. The date on the whiteboard behind them indicates it is May 9th, 2012:

Catherine would also celebrate her final birthday less than one month later.

Some of the more deranged and dangerous members of the Sandy Hook cult (such as nearly sixty year-old Tony Mead of Absolute Best Moving in Florida) have focused their attention on one member of the fourth grade choir in particular, harassing the pre-teen girl and her family. They insist that she is actually murdered first-grader Avielle Richman, now alleged to be living under a new name. Again, this is in spite of a three year age difference as well as a great many physical differences. But these lunatics march on unabated, steadfastly maintaining their position that all photos of Avielle are actually three years older than claimed. This is of course total bullshit, and can be proven as such with a single photo, showing a five year-old Avielle with her parents around Christmas of 2011:

That is plainly not a nine year-old girl, but how do we know that this photo was taken in 2011? Simple: The Williams-Sonoma “The Cookbook For Kids” shown on the floor, which we can reasonably assume was given to Avielle as a Christmas gift, was not released until February of 2011:

That makes it an extremely unlikely gift for Christmas of 2010 (unless they were celebrating six weeks late), and sadly, young Avielle did not live to see Christmas of 2012. That means that this picture could only be from Christmas of 2011, or less than a year before the shooting. Of course that won’t be enough for some people, and they’ll claim that the book was “Photoshopped” in, while providing zero proof of such an accusation.

Not that there’s any evidence they’ll ever accept, but they’ll certainly have a tougher time explaining away the physical differences between the two girls.

First, instead of comparing a photo of a five or six year-old Avielle to those of a girl that’s at least three years older and asking you to imagine how a child may age, how about we just compare photos of the two girls at approximately the same age?

Obviously that’s Avielle on the left and the girl from the Super Bowl choir on the right. It’s crystal clear that these are not the same children, but let’s break it down further:

Like fingerprints, human ears are unique, and are still used as a means of forensic identification to this day. And while two people may have very similar features (not even identical twins look 100% alike), if the ears do not match, then they cannot possibly be the same people; you do not have to waste your time by looking any further. And if you know what you’re looking at, then there can be no question that Avielle’s ears (left) are markedly different from those of the girl in the choir (right, and whose name you will not see here as I have no intention of enabling these psychos):

This is not a 100% perfect view, but it is absolutely good enough for a solid comparison. Now, for reference, let’s take a look at the anatomy of the outer ear:

As we can see, the ear on the left – which belongs to Avielle Richman – is much less prominent (closer to the head) than the one on the right. The ear on the right also has a much rounder antihelix, and the shape as well as size of the earlobe – or lobule – is very different. Those are the most obvious, most striking differences, though I’m sure that you can more. These are unmistakably different ears and therefore they belong to different children. No reasonable argument can be made to the contrary.

While the demonstration above is more than enough to dismiss this one outright, we can also compare the eyes of these two girls and (again) see that there are again a number of major differences:

Avielle’s (top) eyes are almond-shaped, whereas the eyes on the bottom are downturned. The difference here is not subtle. There’s also a much more prominent crease in the lid of the eyes on the bottom. Lastly, the face on the bottom also has wider-set eyes, different brows, and freckles (which Avielle does not have). I’m sure those who stand by this claim will say that they were tattooed on later, because nothing is too outrageous for these nitwits.

And while I’m confident in my analysis and ultimately my conclusion, I wanted an expert opinion, so I reached out to to Joelle Steele, anthropometrist/biometricist, and author of “Face To Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs”. In addition to literally writing the book on the subject of identifying people through photographs, Joelle offers a paid facial analysis service through her website, which is something I thought I could take advantage of.

When I initially 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. And while I felt it was important that I tell Joelle where I stood on the subject, I also told her that I wanted her honest, unbiased opinion, and that I was more than happy to pay her up front for it. 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 six of the absolute best, publicly-available 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.

Pretty damning stuff, I think.

Next up is Olivia Engel. In addition to Catherine Hubbard, The Newtown Bee’s “Bee Lines” spoke to little Olivia twice, first in November of 2010:

“Newtown Bee: With Thanksgiving coming up, what are you thankful for? Olivia Engel: My blanket.”


The Exif data for this photograph, published in the November 19th, 2010 edition of the paper, shows that it was taken on November 12th, 2010. This means that Olivia would have been four years old at the time this photo was taken, and not only does she look like a four year-old, but it’s clear that she is being photographed in her preschool classroom. Furthermore, her “Born To Dance” shirt is from Gymboree’s fall 2010 “Dance Team” collection, which of course wouldn’t have been available prior to that:

The same month Olivia appeared in the Newtown Bee, the Engels participated in their annual family photoshoot, which took place at the Saugatuck Harbor Yacht Club in Westport, CT. Out of respect for the photographer, I will not republish their work here, but there were over two dozen photos taken that day:

If you’d like to view them for yourself, they can be found here, at this blog entry on the photographer’s site (which has been archived here, in case it goes down), which was published on November 13th, 2010. And as you look through these photos, please keep in mind that if conspiracy kooks such as Wolfgang Halbig, et al., are to believed, and the Sandy Hook victims were actually fourth graders aged between 8-9 years old when they performed at the Super Bowl, then Olivia would be somewhere around 7-8 when they were taken. But no one in their right mind would ever believe this. Furthermore, most of these photos also include Olivia’s younger brother, Brayden. And if Olivia was seven years old at the time of this photoshoot, then Brayden, who was three years younger than his sister, would have been four years old. How many four year olds do you know that can’t walk? Or that actually look a whole lot more like two year olds?

Of course conspiracy theorists will say that the date has been fudged, and that these photos were taken much earlier than November of 2010. However, in the fourth photo from the top, you can see a 2011 registration sticker on the boat on the right:

Doubters can also purchase these photos from the photographer and check the Exif data for themselves. They won’t, but they can.

A little over a year after the photoshoot at the yacht club, “Bee Lines” spoke to Olivia for a second time, in December of 2011:


While there’s no caption included for this photograph, the Exif data shows that it was taken on December 6th, 2011. That would make Olivia five years-old in this photo, which again checks out. But those pushing the fantastical Super Bowl theory would prefer you believe that this picture shows a seven or maybe eight year-old girl. They would also really love for you to believe that, a little over a year later, she became the girl on the left (for comparison, an actual picture of Olivia from 2012 is included on the right):

These girls have unmistakably different noses, eyes, eyebrows, cheeks, foreheads, hairlines, etc. The girl on the left has freckles, visible in a number of photos that I was able to find after identifying her (and I’m never going to share any of her personal information, so don’t waste anyone’s time by asking):

But there are no freckles visible anywhere on any photo of Olivia. There are also Olivia’s very prominent dimples, which are absent on the other girl. Other photos show that they also have different ears, most noticeable in the lobes (Olivia’s are what’s called “free” and stick out from her head while the other girl’s are attached):

When comparing ears, this kind of difference is insurmountable.

Now here’s one that I really can’t wrap my head around as it manages to contradict an entirely different claim made by these same goofs; one that also appears in the pages of James Fetzer’s fetid book.

Those who subscribe to this Super Bowl malarkey want you to believe that this is victim Emilie Parker as she appeared on February 3rd, 2013:

However, on pages 78-79 of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, “Dr. Vivian Lee” heavily implies that it was actually Emilie, and not her four year-old sister, Madeline, who met with President Obama on December 16th, 2012, just seven weeks before the Super Bowl:

This claim is more explicitly made on page 108, by some numbnuts named Paul Preston, who doesn’t even seem to know the names of the victims he’s desecrating:

“And I’ve see a lot of the pictures and so on, and some of the pictures don’t match up, especially the one of the Parkers in the White House. And it looks like to me that’s Sarah Parker sitting there that’s, you know, supposed to be a victim.” pg. 108

Sarah Parker? How in the world does anyone ever take these boobs seriously?

So if this is actually an undersized Emilie Parker shown meeting with Obama, and the same Emilie Parker performed at the Super Bowl less than two months later (again, both claims made within the pages of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”), how do James Fetzer, “Dr. Vivian Lee”, Paul Preston, and the rest of the Sandy Hook denier camp square the two events?

  • Did a very small six year-old Emilie Parker meet with Barack Obama in December of 2012, but then age three years within seven weeks in order to perform along the Sandy Hook fourth grade choir at Super Bowl XLVII?
  • Did Barack Obama dye his hair grey and pose for photos with a very small six year-old Emilie Parker (as well as a very small four year-old Madeline Parker) back in 2009 in order to sit on the photo for three years?
  • Or did Barack Obama dye his hair grey and pose for photos with a four year-old Emilie Parker and her two year-old sister Madeline all the way back in 2007 – two years before becoming President – so that, should he win the election, they could then use the photo in 2012?

I’d honestly love to know the answer to this one. But even if you were to ignore this impossibility, you’re still left with the fact that these are obviously not the same children:

Different ears (just look at the lobes) noses, eyebrows, eye shapes, etc. Even in situations where confirmation bias demands you see a resemblance, from a purely anatomical perspective, it is outright impossible that you are looking at the same child in both photos.

Moving on, take a look at this photo of Daniel Barden with his sister and mother on 96th Street in Stone Harbor, New Jersey:

Note the boarded-up windows behind them, specifically those in front of Fralinger’s Salt Water Taffy (with the green apron) which have been spray painted with “No Candy 4 Irene”. This is in reference to Hurricane Irene, which Stone Harbor would have been preparing for back in late August, 2011, making Daniel five years-old at the time of this photo. And he certainly looks five years-old. But again, for this nonsense theory to work, Daniel would instead have to be somewhere around eight years old here, as this picture was taken a year and a half before the Super Bowl. Now take a good look at the above photo and ask yourself how in the world that child, in just eighteen months time, could look like this:

Of course those are just some of the children who have been subjected to this hogwash. While I was unable to find the same breadth of material seen above for all of them, there are enough high quality photographs available online to at least do some quick side-by-side comparisons for the remaining victims:

Here’s Jessica Rekos on the right (just in case it wasn’t obvious), as well as the choir member alleged to be her on the left:

Come on! They don’t look anything alike! They don’t even appear to have the same eye color!

Next is a child who is absolutely, positively not Jack Pinto compared to the actual Jack Pinto. These are two more children who really couldn’t look any less alike; just take a quick glance at their ears. And then literally everything else:

But what if you are so naive or detached from reality that you somehow believe these differences, as substantial as they are, are simply the result of three years worth of childhood development (or maybe you know that’s a ludicrous suggestion but it’s what you’re going to pitch in the comments anyway because you’re an awful person)? Surely if we were able to locate some photos of this boy from 2009, when he was six years old, it would be obvious that he really is Jack Pinto, right? Oh wait, I was able to do exactly that, and the results are as expected:

Yup, definitely still not the same kid.

Not Chase Kowalski and the real Chase Kowalski. Look at the nose, the chin, the lips, the upper ear, and the distance between the eyes:

Additionally, we know that Chase love sports and participated in the “Kids Who Tri Succeed” children’s triathlon in August of 2012, sixteen weeks before the shooting and twenty-three weeks prior to Super Bowl XLVII. Chase’s parents have publicly shared photos of their son from this event, and it’s abundantly clear that they do not depict the same boy alleged to have performed with the fourth grade choir less than six months later:

Unsurprisingly, Chase competed in the 4-6 year-old age bracket (and not the 9-11 year-old bracket, as one would expect from a fourth grader) and his age is confirmed by the triathlon results, as published on the Kids Who Tri Succeed website:

Notice the bib number – 92 – matches the one seen in the photo above. Chase can also be seen competing in the swimming portion of the triathlon alongside the other 4-6 year-olds in his bracket:

Does that look like a fourth grader to you?

A girl who is not Allison Wyatt and Allison Wyatt:

Ignoring the very different ears (particularly the lobes), noses, eye shapes, etc, these are two more kids that don’t even have the same eye color. How blind do you need to be to think that these are the same girls, separated by any length of time?

Just because this girl is wearing glasses doesn’t mean that she’s Josephine Gay, a child who suffered from Autism, global apraxia, and apraxia of speech, which would make her a very unlikely candidate to perform at one of the largest sporting events in the world:

A young lady who is very clearly not Charlotte Bacon and the actual Charlotte Bacon:

In addition to the photo we saw earlier of Charlotte at her June 20, 2012 kindergarten graduation, there is also the following photo of Charlotte celebrating her sixth birthday at the American Girl Café:

You can see the distinctive American Girl “It’s My Birthday!” sticker on Charlotte’s shirt, as well as the cafe’s signature pink bow napkin holder on the table, both of which can be matched to items seen in this photo taken from an eBay listing for “American Girl Place Café Girls Pink Bow Hair Ponytails Napkin Holder Stickers”:

Of much more importance is the doll seated at the table with Charlotte. This doll is American Girl’s “Marie Grace Gardner” doll, which was not released until late 2011 (thank you JC for this information):

Therefore, it is impossible for the birthday photo of Charlotte to have been taken any time prior to late 2011. It was undoubtedly taken either on, or very close to, Charlotte’s actual sixth birthday, on February 22nd, 2012, which would mean that less than a year passed between these two photos:

Additionally, what happened to the distinguishing freckle on Charlotte’s nose?

This freckle is nowhere to be found on the girl from the fourth grade choir that performed at the Super Bowl, again alleged to be victim Charlotte Bacon:

Someone who is not Madeline Hsu and Madeline Hsu:

Much like many of the other choir members, I had a relatively easy time finding additional pictures of them online, including the following photo of the girl on the left taken back in 2010, when she would’ve been six years old. I’ve placed it side-by-side with Madeline’s school photo, just in case it wasn’t already obvious just how different they look:

Here are two photos of a child alleged to be Jesse Lewis juxtaposed with two photos of the actual Jesse Lewis:

No disrespect to the boy on the left as he’s just a kid and he’s likely had to deal with some real-life harassment from the denier cult, but just look at those teeth. How broken does your brain need to be in order to believe that this is the same child?

Additionally, here’s a photo of a five year-old Jesse attending the 2011 Veterans Day breakfast with his grandfather, Bob Comfort:

Originally published by the Newtown Bee, not only does the photo’s Exif data confirm that it was taken on November 11th, 2011, but the Highlights “Puzzles & Games” 2012 wall calendar seen in the display case behind them would not have been sold at any other time. However, for Jesse to have appeared at the Super Bowl as a nine year-old fourth grade student, he would have been eight years old here.

Finally, here’s a young woman who is not and Grace McDonnell. There is a world of difference here in facial shape alone:

An older, clearer photo of the girl on the left that I was able to find on social media again compared to the real Grace McDonnell, for good measure:

Of course Grace could not have been nine years old in February of 2013 anyway as she turned six years old on November 4th, 2011, a fact which is corroborated by The Newtown Bee in a birthday announcement posted that same day:

23 Thoughts on “Did Any Of The Children Killed At Sandy Hook Appear At Super Bowl XLVII?

  1. Hi Shill. I’ve skimmed what you’ve written about the Sandy Hook tragedy. I’m a scholar of mass casualty event triage. You refer to the triage that was done on scene, sourcing a “Book 6,” which I assume is part of an after-action report. I want to know more about the triage that occurred. Can you email me a full reference with pages that will open (I have gotten some “404 not founds”)?

    • Shill Murray on September 28, 2018 at 7:10 pm said:

      Hi, Dave. I’m not sure which links you followed that resulted in 404s, but if you can remember and let me know, I’ll make sure I update them. I try and get ahead of any busted links when and where I can.

      As for “Book 6”, that’s included in Connecticut’s reports on the shooting, available here: (I just tested that link and it works fine). Book 6 can be found in CFS 1200704559. It’s a rather large (720MB) download, but it includes 740 files.

      • Fables on April 12, 2019 at 10:18 am said:

        Good work! PROBLEM is [Avielle]…

        You say (Above): “First and foremost, while the photo of Avielle (top) is a bit more washed out, these eyes don’t even appear to be the same color,” THAT’S YOUR QUOTE. ¹ In reality, Her Eyes are EXACTLY the SAME COLOR! To state that- “they are Not” (like you did) is pure Lunacy! ² Her eyebrows are also very similar. As are Her teeth, which You don’t catalog. Hmmm? They’re So similar you refuse to show A ‘before & after’. I assume that is because, it’s extremely difficult to argue that [she is] anything but an exact duplicate…..

        Furthermore, How can You seriously ‘sht on’ anyone who simply points out pecuilar SHH facts?
        • Like the alleged shooter (Lanza) dead @9:30 AM. & Yet the police, using A Local -time stamped- Helicopter are chasing suspects in the woods @12:26 PM. Hmmm…

        • The Giant sign outside the main road / fire barn (just before the SH school). Which read “ALL GUESTS MUST CHECK IN”. Which was up within 85mnts after the the initial gun-shots wrang out!? Who was so QUICK to think of that !?

        • SH father, Leonard Pozner; spends thousand$ of dollars of legal fees. And Yet He pecuilarly drops his Lawsuit against WolfHailbag !? Never the less on the same deposition day the judge was going to grant discovery (and open Q & A).

        Lastly, ask yourself self this- since there is such an obvious abnormal amount of strange SH “happenings” that don’t add up.. Isn’t it even more strange, that NONE of the parents– who lost children on that dark day; Care enough, to ask the same questions any observant, passionate person has? I thought SH was A Tragedy. An yet NOT ONE SH parent seems to care ….
        How Uncanny.

        • Shill Murray on May 7, 2019 at 7:42 pm said:

          Good work! PROBLEM is [Avielle]…

          You have… a very interesting way of composing your thoughts.

          You say (Above): “First and foremost, while the photo of Avielle (top) is a bit more washed out, these eyes don’t even appear to be the same color,” THAT’S YOUR QUOTE. ¹ In reality, Her Eyes are EXACTLY the SAME COLOR!

          You know what? I agree with this. I wish I could chalk this up as a simple mistake on my part – maybe an errant copy and paste meant for later in the article – but I don’t believe that to be the case. So I’m not sure what I was thinking. Maybe the argument could be made that the older girl’s eyes are a little lighter, but let’s just say that brown is brown (which, at nearly 80%, is by far the world’s most common eye color). There are too many variables in photography and the color is at least similar enough that the point is moot. In retrospect, I’m not even sure why I threw that in there as there are plenty of other differences, so why muddy the waters? So I’m going to remove that bit, but I want to acknowledge that I agree with you and that when I’m wrong, I’m willing to admit it and make the necessary corrections.

          Her eyebrows are also very similar.

          “Similar” does not mean “the same”, and close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. This is especially true when there’s so much else about the eyes that simply do not match up (just look at Joelle’s e-mail). Sure, the left brow peaks in similar spots on both girls, but anything else is a stretch. The right brows are noticably different.

          As are Her teeth, which You don’t catalog. Hmmm?

          I didn’t “catalog” them because frankly that’s ridiculous. As Joelle says in her e-mail, “teeth can change with age, but those are irrelevant”. So why bother? That said, I’m not sure which specific photos you’re using at a guide, but remember that children start to lose their baby teeth at approximately age six, beginning with their central and lateral incisors. So if you’re comparing any photo of Avielle to a photo of the older girl taken at the Super Bowl, then that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as many of the most visible teeth would no longer be the same.

          Certainly when comparing a photo of the older girl at around age five (which I managed to find online, albeit in black and white) to a photo of Avielle at roughly the same age, their teeth are different:

          There’s a noticeable gap in between the two front teeth of the older girl while no such gap exists on Avielle. Also the right lateral incisor looks quite different. Everything else is just… teeth. So if you really want to ignore all of the other differences and demonstrate how you came to the conclusion that the teeth are a match, knock yourself out, but they’re just not the same girl. Though if the opinion of a woman who literally wrote the book on comparing faces in photographs isn’t enough to sway you, I’m obviously just wasting my time.

          They’re So similar you refuse to show A ‘before & after’.

          Before and after what? After Avielle’s murder? I really have no idea what you’re referring to.

          And the only thing I’ve ever refused to show here on this site is any sort of personally identifying information for these poor Super Bowl kids as I’m not going to do anything that may make it any easier for them to be stalked and harassed by grown men – dangerous men – who believe everything they read on the Internet.

          Furthermore, How can You seriously ‘sht on’ anyone who simply points out pecuilar SHH facts?

          You can curse here, my dude. I do it all of the time.

          Like the alleged shooter (Lanza) dead @9:30 AM. & Yet the police, using A Local -time stamped- Helicopter are chasing suspects in the woods @12:26 PM. Hmmm…

          Which live, time-stamped helicopter footage are you referring to? The only footage that I know of that shows police running into the woods is from WABC, and that footage is not time-stamped. I even looked for it on conspiracy YouTube channels and had no luck. Certainly the way it’s described across various interviews throughout the final report (take Officer Flynn’s, for example), it does not sound like it took place nearly three hours after officers arrived on the scene. Even if the “chase” (in quotes as I don’t believe the folks in the woods were ever described as running away by anyone credible) did occur closer to 12:30, what does it matter? Even after discovering Adam’s body, they still continued to look for a potential second shooter. They did not immediately and absolutely know that he worked alone, so of course a couple of people in the woods surrounding the school would be treated suspiciously, at least until they found out who they were and what their story was. That’s not just common sense, but it’s spelled on page three of the Sendensky report:

          “Individuals located in the wooded areas surrounding the school as the searches and evacuations were taking place were initially treated as suspect and handled accordingly (including being handcuffed) until their identity could be determined.”

          The Giant sign outside the main road / fire barn (just before the SH school). Which read “ALL GUESTS MUST CHECK IN”. Which was up within 85mnts after the the initial gun-shots wrang out!? Who was so QUICK to think of that !?

          So an hour and a half isn’t enough time to call in an electronic road sign without it seeming fishy, yet three hours after the shooting, police should’ve stopped treating people skulking around the woods behind the school as suspicious?

          Anyway, this bit about the sign is demonstrably false. I’ve covered this in this post and using a number of photos was able to establish a rough timeline. The sign appeared on the 15th, in the late afternoon.

          SH father, Leonard Pozner; spends thousand$ of dollars of legal fees. And Yet He pecuilarly drops his Lawsuit against WolfHailbag !? Never the less on the same deposition day the judge was going to grant discovery (and open Q & A).

          As far as I know, Lenny got what he wanted, which was the removal of his personal information from Halbig’s site. That was the whole reason for the suit, and is outlined in the initial complaint, which is still up on the web. Halbig removed the information, but the court case continued. According to Pozner, it went nowhere after that point as Halbig – who really wanted the case dismissed, by the way – refused to comply with discovery (a similar situation is unfolding in Connecticut now), so he dropped the case as it became a waste of his time. That’s all according to Pozner. That’s really all I know. And unless you can prove otherwise, all of this nonsense about the judge granting discovery and opening Lenny up to Q&A or whatever exists solely in Halbig’s head, because there is nothing in the case details that supports it.

  2. Scott on April 4, 2019 at 5:10 am said:

    Thanks for making this! You didn’t have to, but you did. RIP to those poor kids.

  3. Christ Wins on September 18, 2019 at 3:58 pm said:

    It makes sense why you don’t allow public discussion here, openly admitted shill. That’s okay, this is more of a personal question directed to you: Do you really believe Satan’s lie that what you are doing here will not have the most dire eternal consequences for you in eternal hellfire? …I won’t be awaiting your response, sellout shill.

    • Shill Murray on September 18, 2019 at 4:22 pm said:

      It makes sense why you don’t allow public discussion here

      There are over 900 comments approved and published across seventy-five entries. Do you truly not understand what moderation is and why it is important on any message board in 2019? Otherwise they end up flooded with nonsense like this. Even James Fetzer moderates his comments. I know because he’s chosen not to approve a number of mine.

      openly admitted shill

      Ah, I see you also struggle with satire.

      Do you really believe Satan’s lie that what you are doing here will not have the most dire eternal consequences for you in eternal hellfire?

      …the fuck?

      I won’t be awaiting your response, sellout shill.

      Then why did you ask me a question?

      I swear y’all get loonier by the day.

  4. Antwan Thomas on October 1, 2019 at 8:33 pm said:

    Olivia Engel has a Instagram account, a dog as a photo. She’s a grown woman.


    She has a Facebook account and is from West Banbury, Connecticut.

    Allison Wyatt is a mother and has red hair, live in Virginia Beach.
    Jesse Lewis lives in Chesapeake.

    Will the undead of Sandy Hook pull a Bray Wyatt-The Fiend move and reveal themselves to us? How about Adam Lanza? He’s not dead.

    • Shill Murray on October 17, 2019 at 3:42 pm said:

      Olivia Engel has a Instagram account, a dog as a photo. She’s a grown woman.


      She has a Facebook account and is from West Banbury, Connecticut.

      Allison Wyatt is a mother and has red hair, live in Virginia Beach.
      Jesse Lewis lives in Chesapeake.

      Will the undead of Sandy Hook pull a Bray Wyatt-The Fiend move and reveal themselves to us? How about Adam Lanza? He’s not dead.

      This is honestly one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever had to moderate. Top three, at least. I almost didn’t approve it, not because it contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation, but because it’s so stupid that I didn’t want to make people think I posted it myself in an attempt to make Sandy Hook deniers look like absolute dipshits. Not that y’all need the help. This is so dumb that I have a difficult time believing that this isn’t actually pitch-perfect satire.

      You do understand that more than one person can have the same name, correct? Because I’m not entirely sure you do. Or do you believe that Abraham Lincoln walked out of Ford’s Theater that night in April and is now seventy different people living across the United States? I guess it’s possible you do. So maybe you think it makes total sense that Olivia Engel could’ve been photographed numerous times as a young child in 2010-2011 (including a photo of her in a shirt that was released in the fall of 2010), performed at the Super Bowl as a fourth grader and under a different name in February of 2013, and is now a thirty-three year old woman – one of approximately forty Olivia Engels in the United States, by the way – with a birthmark on her upper lip that has never appeared in any photo of Sandy Hook’s Olivia Engel. Maybe they tattooed it on to alter her appearance, but didn’t bother changing her name or even having her move out of state, right? And surely the baby photo the adult Olivia Engel from West Hartford (there’s no such thing as “West Banbury, CT”) posted on Instagram – the one that looks nothing like Sandy Hook’s Olivia Engel – is a computer-generated fake designed to throw serious Internet researchers such as yourself off the trail:

      P.S. – I hate to be the guy to break this to you, but professional wrestling is not real.

  5. Sandy Hooker on January 18, 2020 at 9:05 pm said:

    It doesn’t matter if the children died or not, it matters they were killed Thursday December 13 and it matters Adam was killed himself.
    It matters the FBI, Social Security Administration and Funeral Director all said Sandy Hook happened December 13th.

    • Shill Murray on June 12, 2020 at 11:52 am said:

      This is all of course totally irrelevant to the article you are commenting on. I really wish y’all would at least pretend to read the rules. But anyway…

      Ignoring the fact that you are basing all of these claims off of a couple of obvious mistakes (I believe the funeral director originally screwed up Adam’s death certificate, which led to the SSA mistake. That’s assuming I’m remembering my conspiracy theories correctly. I don’t know for sure since you provided zero sources), what would even be the point of claiming the shooting happened a day later? And they are alleged to have spent years planning this but can’t even get the day straight? Come on. Are you really so desperate to reject the official narrative that you’re going to cling to something so nonsensical?

  6. Chris on May 3, 2021 at 9:39 pm said:

    I stumbled on this site and just wanted to let all the, “no children died” folks know that many children did die that day. It may or may not be the way it was reported, but show a little respect. I knew a mortician in Danbury at the time that was traumatized during that event and could barely speak about what she went through that day. Yes I do live in Connecticut and yes children did lose their lives tragically that day.

  7. Catherine on May 27, 2021 at 10:25 pm said:

    You’re employing the same methods used to expose the fake shooting by focusing on photos of people that were pulled out of a hat

    • Shill Murray on June 3, 2021 at 12:16 pm said:

      You’re employing the same methods used to expose the fake shooting by focusing on photos of people that were pulled out of a hat

      So… you’re admitting that at least some of the information used to “expose” this “fake” shooting has been pulled out of a hat? Is that right? If so, at least we agree on something.

      I can only assume you’re suggesting that the photos of the real choir kids that I’ve published here for comparison’s sake have been similarly “pulled from a hat”. If so, that’s 100% false, and demonstrably so. Unlike the ghouls that continue to propagate this nonsense, I’ve done my research. Probably dozens of hours, cumulatively, on this claim alone. And I stand by it fully. Someone like Wolfgang Halbig doesn’t know real research from reflux. Whenever he sees a photo of a group of young girls together – and I don’t know why he’s looking at so many random photos of young girls – he posts it online with zero supporting evidence and says it’s the kids from Sandy Hook. It’s laughable. But I can back up all of my claims and would be more willing to show the full scope of my work if it didn’t involve almost assuredly exposing these kids to additional harassment by sharing their names/social media profiles/etc. I’d much rather have some dope on the Internet call me a liar than do that. Not that you’d need that information if you were truly serious about the truth. All you really need to do is compare facial features to see that they’re obviously the same children.

      In fact, tell you what… if you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, give me one photo/child that I’ve “pulled out of a hat”. The most egregious example, in your opinion. I will prove that they are the same child who performed at the Super Bowl. And when I do, you have to donate $50 to the site. If I can’t do it, I’ll donate $50 to a reputable charity of your choosing, as long as they accept anonymous donations. Don’t bother if you have no intention of stepping up and being the first honest Sandy Hook denier.

  8. Smoothbrain Chickenshit on January 20, 2022 at 5:46 am said:

    The Honr (sic) Network is working really hard to defend that the shooting occurred as per the media description. It was a two day drill. I have copies of the FEMA manual that proves it was a drill.

    • Shill Murray on January 27, 2022 at 2:40 pm said:

      It was a two day drill.

      No, it wasn’t, and the “FEMA drill” fairy tale is completely nonsensical.

      I have copies of the FEMA manual that proves it was a drill.

      No, you don’t. That means you are either a liar or a sucker. So which one is it?

  9. Anonymous on August 15, 2023 at 1:12 am said:

    Hey Shill,
    First of all I would like to thank you for your excellent work on this site. It has been instrumental in helping me, and I’m sure many others, debunk the myths and sift through the lies that the conspiracy quacks like to tout. I have found the most dangerous part of all of these conspiracy theories is the part where they plant a seed of doubt. Enough to make you question things and doubt your own judgement. It’s a very dangerous position to find yourself in, and it can quickly lead to falling down the rabbit hole of dangerous lies. With how many lies are out there about this particular tragedy (thanks to Wolfgang Halbig, Alex Jones, and the like) I even found myself start to question things at times. After seeing the evidence for myself, and the debunking from this site in particular, I quickly became aware how utterly nonsensical these hoax theories were. I even found myself debunking things. So I salute you, sir, for your service, and for putting up with the gobbeldy-gook peddlers of misinformation. I have a few pieces of evidence myself. I found a photograph of Charlotte Bacon on her sixth birthday, taken February 2012:×720.jpg
    The interesting part about this photograph is the doll. As an avid enjoyer of American Girl dolls as a child, I instantly recognized the doll as Marie Grace Gardner. This particular doll wasn’t released until 2011:
    That means this photograph could have been taken no earlier than early 2011, making it impossible for the super bowl girl to be an older Charlotte Bacon. No child ages that much that quickly, even in (max) 2 years.

    One theory I found the most disturbing is the idea that it is really Emilie, and not Madeline, meeting with Pres. Obama in 2012. I accidentally stumbled upon a photograph that blows that theory open once and for all. First of all, here is Emilie at the funeral of her grandpa, Doug Cottle, in October of 2012:
    And here is a photo of Emilie, her two sisters, and their cousins after the funeral:
    As we can see, Emilie is in the centre of the photo, still in her blue dress with her red pouch. But we can also see her hugging her sister Madeleine, who is, in fact, wearing the very same dress she later wore to meet with president Obama, and the dress Emilie wore in 2010. Therefore, we can see that the dress fit Madeline in 2012, that she’d worn it before, that it would not have fit Emilie, and that it clearly could not have been Emilie in the famous Obama photograph.

    You can do what you want with this info, just thought it would be interesting to share.

    • Shill Murray on August 17, 2023 at 3:31 pm said:

      Thank you! I’ve put a lot of time and effort (as well as some money) into this website, but whenever someone takes the time to leave a comment like yours, it reminds me that it’s all been worth it.

      I’ve read quite a bit a few books on misinformation and conspiracy theories, and you’ve hit the nail on the head in regards to how they rope you in. That little nugget that sounds totally plausible. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on how to best combat it, but thankfully what I’ve done clearly has had some effect. And honestly, while I’m happy that this site has helped you to see Sandy Hook conspiracy theories for what they are, I’m downright thrilled that you’ve started doing your own research, even finding things that I may have missed. That’s exactly how I got started, and believe me, the world needs more of “us” doing just that. So please, keep it up. I will review your evidence and I will include it with my work, with your permission, of course. I’d also love to give you credit, but you’ve posted anonymously. Please let me know if there’s a name you’d like me to use. If not, that’s fine too.

      • Anonymous on August 19, 2023 at 2:27 am said:

        Hi Shill,
        Thanks for replying, I appreciate it. I would be honoured to have my work included, but i don’t need any credit for it. If you need to credit someone, you can just put JC. Thanks again for your work!

        • Shill Murray on August 19, 2023 at 3:45 pm said:

          Thank you. I’ve already amended this entry with your findings (and of course gave you credit). While I couldn’t find an exact release date for the Marie-Grace Gardner doll, everything points to a late 2011. The book that I assume accompanies the doll – in this case “Meet Marie-Grace” was first published August 30th, 2011. That of course shortens the window between the doll first becoming available and the Super Bowl considerably. 1 year, 5 months, and 4 days if the doll was purchased the day the book came out.

          • Anonymous on August 21, 2023 at 5:35 pm said:

            Thank you for the credit, and of course for your work here. I am still finding new information and doing some more research/compiling evidence. I’ll probably share some more in the future if I find more evidence (i.e. photos, articles) later. Thanks again for everything! 🙂

          • Shill Murray on September 1, 2023 at 3:14 pm said:

            Please do. You can continue posting them as comments and of course I’ll see them that way, or you can contact me directly. You can use the contact form.

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