Local says Val McClatchey photo is fake

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Local says Val McClatchey photo is fake; year anniversary of smoking gun call
Topic Started: Mar 29 2008, 05:28 PM (609 Views)
Killtown	Mar 29 2008, 05:28 PM Post #1
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Jeffrey Hill (a.k.a. "Shure") calls the Leverknights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuw0rbF2c0w (1:35) Quote: March 27, 2007 Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo. Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud. Jeff: It what? Ms. Leverknight: There was no mushroom cloud. Jeff: So it was a fake photo? Ms. Leverknight: Yeah. Jeff: Her photo's faked? Ms. Leverknight: Yeah. Jeff: For what? For money? Ms. Leverknight: Yeah. Jeff: Why, do you know that for sure? Ms. Leverknight: Yeah! http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/leverknight_032707.mp3 http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/shanksville-resident-says-val.html Skeptics, why would Ms. Leverknight say Val's photo is fake when you guys say it's not? Why would she say the original didn't have a mushroom cloud in it? Why would she say Val faked it for money? Why does she say she know's that for sure? http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/ Quote: A blur in the sky, then a firestorm By KEN ZAPINSKI © St. Petersburg Times, published September 12, 2001 STONY CREEK TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- Kelly Leverknight was watching news of the attacks on New York and Washington when she heard the plane. It sounded like it was flying low above her home in rural Pennsylvania, moving from west to east. It was an odd enough sound that she stepped outside to have a look. "I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down," said Leverknight, 36. "It was headed toward the school, which panicked me, because all three of my kids were there. "Then you heard the explosion and felt the blast and saw the fire and smoke." http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blur_in_the_sky__th.shtml Edited by Killtown, Mar 30 2008, 06:20 PM.



Killtown	Mar 30 2008, 06:20 PM Post #2
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Video of Shure's call added up top.



Killtown	Apr 3 2008, 06:34 PM Post #3
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Why are skeptics so silent about this? Oh wait, I know.



Killtown	Apr 8 2008, 12:24 AM Post #4
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	No comment skeptics? Where's the "will you stop harassing that poor innocent woman" comments? I usually get those when you can't logically explain the inconsistencies of Val's story and photo.



Bernie big shorts	Apr 8 2008, 06:29 AM Post #5
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	I can only guess that the young person on the phone is making mischief. At least two other witnesses describe the aftermath of the fireball as a mushroom cloud (Bob Blair and John Walsh). Your own analysis depicts a mushroom cloud - but darker, smaller and further right. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of Val's photo, if the photo didn't exist it wouldn't change people's understanding of the events of the day. In many ways Val's photo is insignificant. Sorry KT but I find your claims of fraud unconvincing and unimportant. Bernie
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


look-up	Apr 8 2008, 01:54 PM Post #6
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	it isn't the claim of fraud that is important to look into. the claim is that the photo's characteristics are IMPOSSIBLE if the crater and alleged crashsite are genuine. If the photo is genuine, then the crash site is faked. Vice versa. Take your pick. If YOU choose to say the crashsite is genuine, then YOU are claiming she is a fraud. If you claim that her photo is real, then YOU are claiming the crashsite was FAKED.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Andoo Inc.	Apr 8 2008, 02:04 PM Post #7
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	The debunking argument to that is that the plane was falling apart pre-crash, and thus a vortex plume was created. It still warrents more research in my opinion. Apparently a little bit of math completely solves the puzzle....



look-up	Apr 8 2008, 02:06 PM Post #8
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	then what of the crater? It doesn't look like a plane that fell apart from stress. and the plume in her photo looks like smoke coming from the ground, not that was flowing into the air as a plane descended. not even slightly. Edited by look-up, Apr 8 2008, 02:07 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Andoo Inc.	Apr 8 2008, 02:14 PM Post #9
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	well then we need a way to get R. Makey over here from, he considers himself a pro at this. He knows a lot about aeronautical thermodynamics or something.



Killtown	Apr 8 2008, 08:03 PM Post #10
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bernie big shorts Apr 8 2008, 06:29 AM 1. I can only guess that the young person on the phone is making mischief. 2. At least two other witnesses describe the aftermath of the fireball as a mushroom cloud (Bob Blair and John Walsh). Your own analysis depicts a mushroom cloud - but darker, smaller and further right. 3. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of Val's photo, if the photo didn't exist it wouldn't change people's understanding of the events of the day. In many ways Val's photo is insignificant. 1. So just a "coincidence" Ms Leverknight was "making mischief" on a call she was blindsided by? 2. So? 3. No, because if her photo is real, it shows a plume too big to have originated from the crater and if it is fake, fraud is NEVER "insignificant", especially when the FBI are involved. Wouldn't you agree? Edited by Killtown, Apr 8 2008, 08:04 PM.



Killtown	Apr 8 2008, 08:07 PM Post #11
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	look-up Apr 8 2008, 01:54 PM If YOU choose to say the crashsite is genuine, then YOU are claiming she is a fraud. If you claim that her photo is real, then YOU are claiming the crashsite was FAKED. Sorta. If her photo is real, it shows an explosion originating from a different location. Technically that only means that something caused a massive explosion closer to her house than the crater. If her photo is fake, it just means it's fake, however the FBI who confiscated her equipment and said her photo was "authentic" will have a LOT to answer for.



Domenick DiMaggio	Apr 8 2008, 09:29 PM Post #12
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Andoo Inc. Apr 8 2008, 02:14 PM well then we need a way to get R. Makey over here from, he considers himself a pro at this. He knows a lot about aeronautical thermodynamics or something. Oh, then I'm sorry. It appears I ran him off when he came here and attempted to debate flight 93 in the skeptics forum. My bad.
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Killtown	Apr 8 2008, 10:07 PM Post #13
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Apr 8 2008, 09:29 PM Andoo Inc. Apr 8 2008, 02:14 PM well then we need a way to get R. Makey over here from, he considers himself a pro at this. He knows a lot about aeronautical thermodynamics or something. Oh, then I'm sorry. It appears I ran him off when he came here and attempted to debate flight 93 in the skeptics forum. My bad. Somebody please go ask Mackey what happened to Flight 93's 5,500 gals of fuel at impact. PLEEEAAAZE!!!



Bongo Thud	Apr 8 2008, 11:51 PM Post #14
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Quote: *"I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down,"* Why do you simultaneously ignore this portion of her statement which is wholly contrary to your theory, whilst suggesting the rest of her statement is in support of your theory?



Killtown	Apr 9 2008, 12:21 AM Post #15
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bongo Thud Apr 8 2008, 11:51 PM Quote: *"I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down,"* Why do you simultaneously ignore this portion of her statement which is wholly contrary to your theory, whilst suggesting the rest of her statement is in support of your theory? How is it contrary to my theory? The "fake pic" theory does not necessarily have anything to do with the above theory.



Lin Kuei	Apr 9 2008, 12:48 AM Post #16
Posts: 1,312 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Andoo Inc. Apr 8 2008, 02:04 PM The debunking argument to that is that the plane was falling apart pre-crash, and thus a vortex plume was created. If this were true and the plane were broken up mid-air then how do they explain the tiny hole in the ground... so neatly cut as to suggest the wingspan of an airliner?
Posts: 1,312 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Bernie big shorts	Apr 9 2008, 09:13 AM Post #17
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	look-up Apr 8 2008, 01:54 PM it isn't the claim of fraud that is important to look into. the claim is that the photo's characteristics are IMPOSSIBLE if the crater and alleged crashsite are genuine. If the photo is genuine, then the crash site is faked. Vice versa. Take your pick. If YOU choose to say the crashsite is genuine, then YOU are claiming she is a fraud. If you claim that her photo is real, then YOU are claiming the crashsite was FAKED. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the photos characteristics are incompatible with the crash site. There is speculation that the smoke plume should be further right, darker and smaller but i don't find it convincing at all. I think the analysis of the photo is done by an amateur who was pre-determined to find something irregular in the photo. If the photo was analysed by an independent professional i would be much more interested. I don't see any reason to doubt that the photo is genuine.
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


Killtown	Apr 10 2008, 02:26 PM Post #18
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bernie big shorts Apr 9 2008, 09:13 AM I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the photos characteristics are incompatible with the crash site. There is speculation that the smoke plume should be further right, darker and smaller but i don't find it convincing at all. I think the analysis of the photo is done by an amateur who was pre-determined to find something irregular in the photo. If the photo was analysed by an independent professional i would be much more interested. I don't see any reason to doubt that the photo is genuine. I.e. "I can't debunk the claims against this photo, so I have to type some meaningless dribble to try to cast doubt against the conspiracy theorists".



Bernie big shorts	Apr 11 2008, 07:18 AM Post #19
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	You're right, i cant personally debunk the claims against the photo. The reason I find your claims unconvincing is I remember when i was shown the cctv images of the 7/7 bombers, at first i was taken in by the argument that the images were faked because there appeared to be a railing behind one of the bombers that ran across the body of one of the suspects, it looked like his image was superimposed on the picture. It was only when i learnt that this was typical cctv residual image overlap that i realised i had been misled. I don't want to be misled by amatuer analysis again. My feelings are that a professional will be able to offer an equally rational explanation as to why the crater isn't where you expect it be. You should get an analysis from professionals, who can provide answers to your troublesome questions. If an expert confirms your suspicion many people will take notice. Edited by Bernie big shorts, Apr 11 2008, 07:18 AM.
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


Killtown	Apr 13 2008, 01:45 PM Post #20
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	None of the "experts" at JFER could debunk my claims.



Killtown	May 15 2008, 11:45 AM Post #21
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	So why do you think this Shanksville local says Val's photo it fake skeptics? Just ANOTHER "coincidence" surrounding 9/11?



sap-guy	May 15 2008, 02:26 PM Post #22
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Killtown Apr 8 2008, 10:07 PM Domenick DiMaggio CIT Apr 8 2008, 09:29 PM Andoo Inc. Apr 8 2008, 02:14 PM well then we need a way to get R. Makey over here from, he considers himself a pro at this. He knows a lot about aeronautical thermodynamics or something. Oh, then I'm sorry. It appears I ran him off when he came here and attempted to debate flight 93 in the skeptics forum. My bad. Somebody please go ask Mackey what happened to Flight 93's 5,500 gals of fuel at impact. PLEEEAAAZE!!! It created a huge mushroom cloud that was photographed.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Killtown	May 15 2008, 04:04 PM Post #23
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	sap-guy May 15 2008, 02:26 PM It created a huge mushroom cloud that was photographed. Please describe in detail how it exactly did this when the plane reported struck the ground at a blistering 580mph and barely any of the grass surrounding the crater got singed.



hbgtruth	May 15 2008, 06:50 PM Post #24
Posts: 102 Group: Members Member #482 Joined: 04/08/08	Killtown Mar 29 2008, 05:28 PM Why does she say she know's that for sure? I'm sure Ms. Leverknight has evidence that Val faked that photo for money, right? Or is the plan to just take her at her word and present this audio to the authorities and expose the cover up?
Posts: 102 Group: Members Member #482 Joined: 04/08/08


Killtown	May 15 2008, 07:16 PM Post #25
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	hbgtruth May 15 2008, 06:50 PM 1) I'm sure Ms. Leverknight has evidence that Val faked that photo for money, right? 2) Or is the plan to just take her at her word and present this audio to the authorities and expose the cover up? 1) Why are you asking me and not her? 2) Who said that's the plan?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2