Sandy Hook Kids-The Teeth Tell The Truth — unless they are digitally altered

Look Mom–I have magic teeth!”

Determining the exact age of the students as depicted in the Sandy Hook shooting is complicated by the absence of dates on key photographs. It is bad enough that many photo’s of these kids were already on foreign media sites, long before the incident itself, only to find that the class pictures are also blatant misrepresentations of their actual ages. To prove this however with facts, and not just guess work, requires verifiable evidence along with asking the logical question: can the teeth be used as a determination of age as photographed? That answer is yes, but a good conclusive answer means having enough photographs of the subjects to establish a real record of that subjects age. Without such photographs making a determination will remain an educated guess.

Here is a dental chart to provide a basic measure of age to teeth development:


With this chart as a guide it is now possible to build a quick truth table which can then be used as a guide to determine hard facts which can identify real age progression regardless of photo manipulations as used.

The class pictures as released have something in common besides being poorly done digital frauds. Both pictures make it impossible to accurately judge the ages of the students by their true facial features— this was done on purpose:


Every blue arrow points to a digital defect in the photograph. There were so many I only pointed out the most unusual. So long as the photo is viewed in low resolution the defects are just obscure enough not to catch the eye. Enlarging the photo produces digital deformations to such a degree the finer details are lost. It is not immediately noticeable that Avielle’s right leg is actually dis-connected from her lower legOr that a pink piece of left-over material [probably from the girl who was actually in this photo previously] is still there to be seen. Every arrow points to a defect without disturbing the defect itself. All I did was increase the size of the photo using the highest quality settings.

The lower individual close-ups show just how bad the picture quality is even with modest size enhancement. What is also very clear is not a single set of eyes or mouths can be used for actual identification of age. Which of these kids have blue eyes? Are those real teeth in those four smiles or just blurry, cartoon like fill ins?

If the Soto class photo, like the “claimed” Rousseau class photo, is all there is to go on— no real identification of these students can actually be made, or even used as a criteria, for judging other photo’s. Bad images are not useful for judging good ones, except as a reminder, as what not to do, as a photographer who wants to remain in business. After all, is not the point of taking these class images to preserve for the families a long lasting memory? But in this case we do not see the original only the results of poor quality photo manipulation.

To establish a baseline for identification of age to teeth is simple enough… look for a picture where all baby teeth ares still present and then look for the pictures which capture the progressive loss of baby teeth. A child obviously cannot re-grow their baby teeth and once the permanent teeth erupt this too should be obvious in their photo’s.

My first example of digital alterations I did not expect is of Daniel Barden. I did not notice his teeth were digitally altered until I went to enlarge the picture and it became quite obvious the entire picture was a digital fake. His teeth were changed. Now why would someone change his teeth? Think about this carefully…. not one single, rational reason came to mind for deliberately altering his teeth unless.. to confuse the viewer as to his real age and when the photo was actually taken… no meta-data for this photo was found.


This is hard proof the teeth do indeed matter and extra effort was taken to alter a photograph to deceive the viewer of this image into assuming Daniel, has not lost his front baby teeth. Now why is that so important? Look at his lower lip. Note the arrows pointing to the squared edges… this was no minor effort… but the workmanship is very poor… look at the tiny squares all around his head— transparency layer— he was added to the beach scene with altered teeth.

This also demonstrates why every photo of Daniel Barden is now suspect and as I will show by example why this was used to falsify his age for a reason.

The next example I found was of Ben Wheeler:


His alteration was much more professional and is not apparent until the photo is enlarged sufficiently to see the cut lines. Are those baby teeth? Are those upper or lower front teeth? I doubt this boy has naturally square teeth.

The problem with dating Daniel Barden by his teeth is complicated by the fact his photo’s are altered to hide the real state of his natural teeth. What I did not expect was to find his famous missing tooth shot aka 1st grade photo is itself a digital portrait:


This is an expert level digital painting not a real photograph.

Take note of the fact his lower front teeth were already gone in early photo’s which is why some of his later photo’s were altered to disguise this fact, but somebody must have lost track of what images were altered and screwed up big time. His lower front teeth were photographed as erupted, but not fully grown. His upper front teeth are missing across a time span far longer than normal.

His other portrait for comparison:daniel-barden-close-up- 3

The digital painting did not capture his mouth very well. Note the gums. This is a real picture not a digital fake. Note the natural quality of his eyes as well.

This next example shows the difference to the mouth area, using the digital as an over-lay using his real picture. This helps to distinguish his real teeth/features from the red-colored digital alterations:

daniel-barden-close-up- 3a

There was a noticeable difference in the size of his eyes and the relation of them to his other features, as to give him the “Bambi look” and provoke a more empathic response. The next frame shows why his teeth had to be removed to make him look “older” and yet out of his real age sequence:

daniel-barden-close-up- 3c

The pink colored teeth are restored to their proper positions.

The next example is a transition stage with his digital eyes more obvious, as well as, how his face was thinned slightly:

daniel-barden-close-up- 3d

The digital version had to change his lower teeth, remove his top two, make his eyes/pupils un-natural and altered his face size. Big difference in skin tone as well.

This next image is a large composite of many of the students. The top row has pictures where dates were included with the photo. Most of them had no meta-data at all. Not all of the students are in the photo, just enough of them to make key observations about the actual ages of the students.

Sandy Hook students-comparison-teeth-1

Another surprise was the digital alteration of a Hockley photo:

Mass Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, America

Another photo which shows no signs of alteration for comparison:


Another example is the baseball photo of Jack Pinto, which was expertly done:


Were it not for the tiny blue square whose top edge is clean all the way across, I would have went on to another image to study. The gums lines also look un-natural. This alteration was done to blur the distinction between baby teeth and permanent teeth. The simple truth is losing baby teeth is a natural stage of age progression and most kids are quite happy to be getting older and no longer in the baby stage. Going back to the large composite picture one has to ask just how long was Daniel missing his upper front teeth in addition to the lower front teeth?

Another example of M. Hsu,  portrait also showing the signs of digital alteration:

madeline-hsu-shows alterations

Her cornea are squares with edges above the eye-lid… quite un-natural. This means her photo is fake as well. No wonder the class photo was a washed out figure, this girl seems to be a composite as the large smoothed out area under the chin has squared edges. Now why was this necessary? To establish a false identity and or to depict her as younger to confuse the time factor.

The portrait photo of Hubbard also looks to be fake:


The alterations are quite subtle and are not apparent unless the photo is sufficiently enlarged to notice the flaws in the digital work.

A photo of a young Grace shows digital alterations as well:


I was not expecting to find anything, but after enlarging I noticed her eyes— not possible by pixel distortion– look at her teeth– I doubt pixel distortion makes a positive lower and negative upper eye-tooth—left side.  Using Xnview, or a similar picture viewer, it is really easy to check any defect by reduction not just enlargement. Scroll down to ten% and back out to 800%— the defects remain exactly the same.

Another of Grace which looks almost normal:

Grace-Capture-2aThe left ear looks quite wrong and yet the rest of the image shows no other deformations.

This example using Noah shows what a very high quality photo is supposed to look like regardless of size:


 This example of Josephine also shows major digital alterations:

Josephine-Gay2aNote the frame of her glasses–the transparency left-overs— sloppy work.

This problem of determining the correct “time” for these students meant looking for independent examples to correlate, if possible, when pictures were actually taken of the students.

Thus, to help establish the time-line are these two photo’s of a school visit:

Polacco2 Polacco14

The author Miss Polacco visited the school on 9-15-2011 and that red-haired girl being pointed to has to be Catherine Hubbard. Note that Dawn now has a short hair style. The crucial question for Catherine is when did she lose her front teeth? If her 1st grade picture shows her with baby teeth… and yet she is shown in a later photo without her front teeth? She had to lose her upper baby teeth before the class photo and so her permanent teeth had to have come in or she too would be without front teeth like Daniel.  So the assumed 1st grade picture of her has to be of a previous grade-time… but the k-picture with Caroline also looks to be of a slightly, different hair style and she looks a tad bit younger. Did she lose her upper teeth in kindergarten? No picture of her smiling, but it is very unlikely considering her later photographs. She too appears to be a second grader for the 2012-13 year.

According to the chart cited typically, kids do not usually lose their upper front teeth until age six and up. But some also lose their lower front teeth first which makes it difficult to use one rule for every child. So the chart is just a guide, but only helps if the child is actually smiling. Another good reason to release only shots where the child is not smiling to hide their tooth stages.

Complicating the dating of some of these students is the mystery class photo:

sandy hook mystery class photo

sandy hook mystery class photo

There is no rational reason to deceive the public by switching out the students, or to be using older kids, yet portrayed as younger, to fool the public into believing a terrible crime occurred. Unless there was no crime at all or it was described quite differently than what actually happened. The suspect has no control over any photo, or any use of such materials to aid him; so any action not under his control is only possible by somebody else who has access to the materials as required. To have any photographs already to go before the incident proves the actual crime was planned well in advance of the so-called suspect suddenly going bat-shit crazy and taking innocent lives. Or lives are indeed taken and the suspect is just a patsy.

I tried one more compilation of Daniel, using a shot of Jack and Dylan to help establish a time-line of baby teeth to permanent front teeth.

barden-tooth-loss-- 1

Well, that is the problem… his teeth do not match his age progression. His near perfect last portrait should show his teeth in the correct stage, but instead the lower front teeth are wrong. Did he loose them in kindergarten or the 1st grade?  The Rousseau class picture is so bad that question cannot be answered. His face is too babyish, in the digital fake as well and his head is in an unnatural position in relation to his shoulders. It really appears a whole year is missing, which means he too is a second grader. All that tooth action did not happen over the summer. After all, one of those pics was at Xmas time.

With so many images showing significant digital alterations of the teeth it is clear the real cons of this crime were well aware of the need to disguise the real ages of the students. It is quite possible many of them were going into the second grade, but with no real images of them it is impossible to prove with firm evidence. If this crime occurred as claimed there is no need for such manipulations.

Another picture of Grace shows her with her permanent upper teeth, but I have not come across any images of her in the transition stage.


She too appears to be a second grader for the 2013 year— or she lost her baby teeth in kindergarten and grew in her upper teeth over the summer? Maybe this is why her class portrait photo is so different only Europeans were allowed to see it… and the Rousseau class image was just a digital wash-out.

Call it a hunch— I doubt the real dental records of these kids will ever see the light of day.

[Update] After looking through some more images I found more examples of digital processing. I use a rather complicated technique I have developed over the many years to essentially pull out of an image “other” qualities of an image not normally visible. First up in this category is a picture of Noah and his twin sister. This photo was already significantly altered, but I found some very weird things due to the use of transparent layers:

Note hairline of Noah.

Note hairline of Noah is not from a Barber.

From the looks of the digital trail left behind this is a totally fabricated image.  So long as it is viewed in the original size the picture looks normal. When sufficiently enlarged the odd factors become quite clear, at least to the practiced eye. Both of them have had some teeth work, especially Noah. What struck me as really strange was the illusion of numerals in his hair line. And his teeth are quite un-natural.

The next filter stage helps to show the area around his lower neck/shirt line where his skin is missing.


In the next stage I increased the brightness and adjusted gamma and contrast so the transparent checker-board layer can be seen more easily in his hair and his sisters, as well as, the figure in the back.


Now why it was necessary to produce this altered image? One assumes the parents have lots of pictures of their kids and do not need to resort to such tricks as used in say…..  media productions.

The next example is really very sad for a number of reasons:


The candles on this cake give only the tiniest hint of photoshopping…. and what kind of cake is this exactly? Are those really sprinkles?


Compare with this one— :

6th Birthday 091

Zoom in… and even at full magnification marvel at the detail still crisp and clear. Why is the cake in the photo so un-natural looking up close? This implies Allison was not looking at a birthday cake on that table. People celebrate birthday’s with their kids unique to themselves and their own sense of personal tastes or traditions. Even if the cake was real why no “Happy Birthday” or other personal details? Why no friends, her sister, grandparents etc visible along with wrapped presents or a mere hint something is actually being celebrated? Now maybe the shot was cropped to exclude other family members and or guests, but the area behind her which is quite dark, has no identifiable items one might expect such as a media center or furniture.


Her smile is a clever illusion— up close her mouth actually looks computer generated. Her lips and teeth are simply one and the same. Look carefully at the jaw-line from the ear down. Her skin is missing along the edge. And yet she looks like a real living child… just like that generic cake looks real enough to have a slice. This is why they call this quality of deception the “Art” of illusion. So long as the viewer accepts the illusion it works. When the illusion stops working only tough questions remain.

Phylax has brought up an interesting point about the “punkalotta” picture which has a good example of a natural illusion. Missingarmdaniel

This picture shows the students in a class configuration of fifteen kids when all three public photo’s are compared. The extra-wide shirt sleeve makes it look like Daniel is missing his right arm. If you look at the front of his shirt you see that a lower section is pushed over just above the shoulder of Josephine. Daniel has very skinny arms and this shirt is perhaps a size too big — lots of over-lap and bigger sleeves than his arms can fill. The line segment  ‘c’  was measured from his visible left arm and when placed on the right side show that his arm CAN be inside the width of the shirt sleeve  ‘a’  and still not be visible. I found no  evidence of digital tampering.

Unlike this picture of Ana:green- 1

In high-magnification she has square pupils and her mouth area shows the tell-tale signs of digital changes to her teeth. Unless of course she has a dual colored tongue.

There is a picture of Ana and her family which I noticed some time ago due to the deformities of the hands and eyes which were not explainable by photographic defects. That would be this picture here:


What caught my attention was the fact the Mom’s hand is right under the left-hand of Ana, but her hand is mangled and deformed as seen in this screen capture:


Now look at the top portion:


And compare the capture to an enlargement:Ana-Mom-2a

In reduced size this picture looks normal enough until one looks at it in full view. In the next example I increased brightness and gamma to make it easier to see what the arrows are pointing to defect wise in the image.

Ana-Mom-Dad 1a

I see four fingers not five and I do not see a way of explaining this due to a photographic defect. The only way these defects can be present is if the image was altered digitally. Why did the “digital artist” decide to remove a finger from the Mom’s right hand and just mangle the left hand of Ana? Low wages maybe..? Why is Ana missing her finger resting on her Mom’s shoulder? This image was “produced” to convey a false impression, but why was this necessary? Are they not already a family? Do they not have pictures of themselves as a family?

If whole figures are placed into a base image the eyes or mouth are not going to need any work, unless they were attempting to place light reflections… otherwise there is no reason to screw up the eyes and ruin the authentic quality of what is presented. This is a wide-spread image and the defects will be on all of them. I used two in this set of examples. The top image is a fuller shot [feet are visible] than the other I used for a comparison for defects.

The next example compares the fathers hands, side-by-side, along with a close-up of the right hand of the brother which is also mangled into a lump of digital flesh. Why is there such a dramatic size difference of the Dads hands? Why is the right hand of the Dad so deformed as to appear to have only two fingers? And what is the deal with his left thumb? Does he have a backward knuckle joint? He is missing his pinky as well.

Ana-Mom-Dad 1b

Along with the funny ear of the brother this is one weird photo over-all.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Sandy Hook Kids-The Teeth Tell The Truth — unless they are digitally altered”

  1. gjordan741 Says:

    You will never see the dental records as they are incorporated into the autopsy protocols and these are sealed by the statute that H. Wayne Carver fought to get passed that declares all child autopsies to be secret. Prior to this, they were available to the public, which means for as long as autopsies were performed, and child autopsies I do not believe were any where near as numerous as adult autopsies. Secrecy would be extended to the records held by the dentists.

    The question is, since photo manipulation/alteration is apparent in all of these photos, one is compelled to ask why parents and siblings have not noticed these changes, particularly given the mature looking photo of Grace McDonnell that was available in Europe, but not here. Class photos altered when parents have copies yet no one says a word. Very strange and very inexplicable.


  2. Phylax Says:

    I checked my son’s first grade class photo – taken sometime in the early fall. In a class of 27 there was only one child whose teeth were not visible. The other twenty-six were evenly divided between those who had lost the upper front incisors and those who still had their baby teeth. There was one girl with upper front incisors that looked a bit large to be baby teeth – she may have been older than the other first graders.

    There are three children, including Daniel Barden, in the mystery picture with large, visible permanent teeth. The picture was taken in warm weather but, I think it highly unlikely that the picture was taken at the beginning of kindergarten, the end of kindergarten, or the beginning of first grade. In fact, I think the picture was an early composite discarded because the permanent teeth were not age- appropriate. In that photo Daniel Barden’s right arm is missing, suggesting that it was a work in progress. My question is how did Laura Phelps come by that unfinished composite?


    • megatronicsmedia Says:

      There were two other sources for the mystery class photo— so that makes three photographs not just one—Interestingly enough no parents have been photographed carrying around a Soto class photo or a Rousseau class photo…. I also checked Daniels arm under high magnification– it is there— the perspective plus the shirt sleeve position gives a false impression of being empty— I also think the evidence strongly suggests these specific kids were entering the second grade and the photo was taken of that class in Aug. or Sept. 2012… Grace looks old enough in her Aug. photo to be going into the third grade.

      The digital altercations of so many of these kids photo’s proves the real perps know teeth tell the truth of a child’s age and so they doctored those publicly released photos accordingly. Your child’s class sounds quite typical and if the public was being told the truth the class pictures would no doubt show similar factors of teeth to age in clear detail.


      • Phylax Says:

        I also magnified the “mystery” photo and while the flesh-colored pixels of Barden’s left arm are clearly visible there is no right arm; in fact, one can see the inside of the sleeve! If there are three parents who have the mystery photo why haven’t we ever seen a complete copy showing all the children? School pictures were taken at Sandy Hook in the fall and yet we have never seen a picture of any class, probably because it would be clear that both the Rousseau and Soto photos are fabrications and cannot be compared to other pictures taken by the same photographer on the same day. It is also strange that given the fact that school pictures are always ready for Christmas purchase that not a single family supplied their child’s current school photo to the press.


      • megatronicsmedia Says:

        I did a close up with line segments to show why the “appearance” of his right arm missing is possible. He has very skinny arms and the shirt sleeve is mis-leading… his visible arm portion is the length of line c… the total visible width of his shirt sleeve is line a…. line c shows his arm is so skinny it is not visible in the other half of the sleeve allowing for an optical illusion. There are no visible signs of digital alteration either. Put the image on a grid and measure as I did and you will see his arm Can be there and still not be visible in the shirt-sleeve.


      • Phylax Says:

        There are no flesh-colored pixels anywhere around the right armhole. Compare it with the small triangle of his left arm behind the red shirt. Compare it with the flesh tones of Josephine Gay and the girl’s arm on his right. Skinny is one thing but even a skin-covered bone would be flesh-colored.


  3. gjordan741 Says:

    I think I know who might be behind some of this forgery. When I was involved with them I knew they were idiots after awhile, but this is light years beyond any stupidity I dreamed them capable of.


  4. gjordan741 Says:

    It was just an agency I used to be affiliated with in my misspent youth. I don’t think it was them as I stated that the stupidity operating here is light years beyond any they showed when I was affiliated with them. I don’t think there has been an op this screwed up by any of the agencies and right from the very get-go. That is why all of this can be seen by people. It frustrates me that the people can’t see through it, so I lash out at times at every institution corrupted and no longer serving the people, and at the people themselves. Sign of getting old, I guess.


    • megatronicsmedia Says:

      Or a lot wiser…. I am also amazed at the amateurish quality of so may of these alterations… maybe they farmed out the work to a slave-wage graphics shop in China? That would explain a few things. Too bad people are not seeing the fraud as it really is and choose to ignore what is right there to be seen. Our institutions have long since departed from the road of integrity, or this kind of blatant fraud would be quite impossible.


  5. flyingtigercomics Says:

    THere’s definitely more than one “agency” involved. Some parts of the deception are super slick, other parts not so much. And then there is the arrogance of assuming that the corrosive effect of the lapdog media is powerful enough to essentially “fix” any screwups.


  6. ceseme Says:

    I have more than a passing interest in this photograph because two of the girls in the picture look exactly like two of my daughters. The girl in the exact middle and the girl next to Victoria Soto. Except that would have been from 34-40 years ago, not in the state, and my girls had a 5 yr difference in age. The fact that this is not a digital picture in this day and age makes it highly suspect. Also, where is the placard showing the school name, teachers name and class?


    • megatronicsmedia Says:

      The first question would have to be how would images of your girls, at that age become available to be used? Many of the kids and parents had their images already on a commercial model site, which is really a strange coincedence.
      The online versions of the class pictures are all very low quality on purpose. And yes, it is quite odd that the same standards of every other school pic’s, across the nation, going back decades; is missing from this one school, and perhaps only these class pics. These school pictures are fabrications to fool people. No shooter was or could be responsible for such fabrications ahead of time… and how would that be even possible? Faking class pictures to sell such an event as real is pretty damn evil… all other things so considered.


  7. ceseme Says:

    Maybe whoever did this had access to images somehow from Lifetouch National School Studios.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: