Why not stop Val McClatchey JREF?

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
…
7

Why not stop Val McClatchey JREF?; Flight 93 photo fraud scares you?
Topic Started: Jan 25 2008, 04:19 PM (3,723 Views)
Killtown	Jan 25 2008, 04:19 PM Post #1
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Since when do FBI agents go over to people's houses and confiscate camera memory cards and computer hard drives over a "legit" photo? (Yes, approx 7 football fields wide* and 250yds SE from the crater in "about 5 seconds" according to Val and the FBI.)* Perhaps when someone takes a photo of something they weren't supposed to? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud. Jeff: So it was a fake photo? Leverknight: Yeah. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/ http://www.wittycomics.com/comic/34318 Say hi to Biscuits for me. Edited by Killtown, Jan 26 2008, 06:18 PM.



Deleted User	Jan 25 2008, 04:48 PM Post #2
Deleted User	Okay so you've been quarrantined. I have a question then - presuming for a moment this photo really is faked. What exactly does that prove? Has it been ruled out McClatchey didn't just do it herself to make the scene more dramatic than the one she saw. I mean 9/11 was huge! That plume was so wimpy... copy - new layer - expand 400% - feather edges... Sorry if I'm terribly behind.
Deleted User


Kaiya	Jan 25 2008, 05:17 PM Post #3
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08	Killtown Jan 25 2008, 04:19 PM Since when do FBI agents go over to people's houses and confiscate camera memory cards and computer hard drives over a "legit" photo? because it didn't have a mushroom cloud. Police collect evidence after a crime or at a crime scene? Any reason this does not make sense? Are you supporting the claim that the picture was taken about 5 seconds after the crash, (or when the crash noise reached her home)? How do you decide when to believe the FBI and Mcclatchey anyway? Have you ever believed anything someone said that did not support your line of reasoning? Why do you believe Leverknight’s daughter when she says it was faked because it was not a mushroom cloud? Thanks Kaiya
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08


Killtown	Jan 25 2008, 09:11 PM Post #4
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Caustic Logic Jan 25 2008, 04:48 PM 1) Okay so you've been quarrantined. 2) I have a question then - presuming for a moment this photo really is faked. What exactly does that prove? Has it been ruled out McClatchey didn't just do it herself to make the scene more dramatic than the one she saw. I mean 9/11 was huge! That plume was so wimpy... copy - new layer - expand 400% - feather edges... 3) Sorry if I'm terribly behind. Caustic, one of my favorite LIEHOPers! 1) Quarantined? 2) The clue lies with the 3 FBI agents who confiscated her stuff. You really think Val could do such a fake job? 3) http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/



Killtown	Jan 25 2008, 09:59 PM Post #5
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Kaiya Jan 25 2008, 05:17 PM Killtown Jan 25 2008, 04:19 PM Since when do FBI agents go over to people's houses and confiscate camera memory cards and computer hard drives over a "legit" photo? because it didn't have a mushroom cloud. 1) Police collect evidence after a crime or at a crime scene? Any reason this does not make sense? 2) Are you supporting the claim that the picture was taken about 5 seconds after the crash, (or when the crash noise reached her home)? 3) How do you decide when to believe the FBI and Mcclatchey anyway? 4) Have you ever believed anything someone said that did not support your line of reasoning? 5) Why do you believe Leverknight’s daughter when she says it was faked because it was not a mushroom cloud? Thanks 6) Kaiya Kaiya 1) Why would they need to take a person's hard drive when they took their camera memory card? That makes NO SENSE unless they had something the FBI didn't want them to have, wouldn't you agree? 2) Val and the FBI said she took her photo "5 seconds" after the crash. That's what THEY are saying. 3) Well I don't believe them when NONE of the evidence fits their story. Do you? 4) See #3. Do you ever not believe a story our gov't gives us? 5) You saying it's just an incredible coincidence that I found, based on basically common sense analysis, that her photo is most likely to be a fake and someone from her very small town, where word gets around and secrets are hard to keep, says her photo is a fake too? 6) I know, the top left corner of each of your posts says that.



Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 25 2008, 10:41 PM Post #6
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Killtown Jan 25 2008, 09:59 PM Kaiya Jan 25 2008, 05:17 PM Killtown Jan 25 2008, 04:19 PM Since when do FBI agents go over to people's houses and confiscate camera memory cards and computer hard drives over a "legit" photo? because it didn't have a mushroom cloud. 1) Police collect evidence after a crime or at a crime scene? Any reason this does not make sense? 2) Are you supporting the claim that the picture was taken about 5 seconds after the crash, (or when the crash noise reached her home)? 3) How do you decide when to believe the FBI and Mcclatchey anyway? 4) Have you ever believed anything someone said that did not support your line of reasoning? 5) Why do you believe Leverknight’s daughter when she says it was faked because it was not a mushroom cloud? Thanks 6) Kaiya Kaiya 1) Why would they need to take a person's hard drive when they took their camera memory card? That makes NO SENSE unless they had something the FBI didn't want them to have, wouldn't you agree? 2) Val and the FBI said she took her photo "5 seconds" after the crash. That's what THEY are saying. 3) Well I don't believe them when NONE of the evidence fits their story. Do you? 4) See #3. Do you ever not believe a story our gov't gives us? 5) You saying it's just an incredible coincidence that I found, based on basically common sense analysis, that her photo is most likely to be a fake and someone from her very small town, where word gets around and secrets are hard to keep, says her photo is a fake too? 6) I know, the top left corner of each of your posts says that. 1) I agree. I imagine that they were extremely concerned that perhaps Mrs. McClatchey captured something in her image that she shouldn't have. Perhaps a white drone plane..... 2) True, that is their claims. 3) There is definitely good reason to be highly skeptical of this image. The smoke is not black as one would expect to see in a jet fuel based explosion, it appears as though the mushroom cloud does not line up properly with the crater location, & it is extremely anomalous that such smoke would vanish before anyone else could photograph it or Mrs. McClatchey could take a 2nd photo. I have a hard time believing her explanation for not being able to take more pictures of it with her digital camera.
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Kaiya	Jan 26 2008, 12:16 AM Post #7
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08	Killtown Jan 25 2008, 09:59 PM 1) Why would they need to take a person's hard drive when they took their camera memory card? That makes NO SENSE unless they had something the FBI didn't want them to have, wouldn't you agree? 2) Val and the FBI said she took her photo "5 seconds" after the crash. That's what THEY are saying. 3) Well I don't believe them when NONE of the evidence fits their story. Do you? 4) See #3. Do you ever not believe a story our gov't gives us? 5) You saying it's just an incredible coincidence that I found, based on basically common sense analysis, that her photo is most likely to be a fake and someone from her very small town, where word gets around and secrets are hard to keep, says her photo is a fake too? 6) I know, the top left corner of each of your posts says that. 1) I'm not sure why. Maybe they wanted another source for the digital photo in case the memory card failed before they got an image off of it. 2) Ok 3) I believe them when they make sense. 4) Yes, some things the government says I do not believe. I think you are avoiding giving a direct answer to my question. I was not talking only about the government. 5) I think your analysis leaves much to be desired. Leverknight's daughter is hardly an authority on photos, especially when she says Val's photo is fake because there was no mushroom cloud. She is hardly the authority to base photo analysis on. How did your common sense analysis determine the size of a smoke plume based on the crash? What other medium haul airliner high speed crashes did you compare it to? Kaiya
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08


Bongo Thud	Jan 26 2008, 12:44 AM Post #8
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	All this time and you still have not had a PROFESSIONAL PHOTO ANALYST look at the photo? Killtown, apparently you aren't very confident that it's fake.



Andoo Inc.	Jan 26 2008, 12:17 PM Post #9
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	Bongo he is more than confident that it's a fake.



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 01:55 PM Post #10
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Jan 25 2008, 10:41 PM 3) There is definitely good reason to be highly skeptical of this image. The smoke is not black as one would expect to see in a jet fuel based explosion, it appears as though the mushroom cloud does not line up properly with the crater location, & it is extremely anomalous that such smoke would vanish before anyone else could photograph it or Mrs. McClatchey could take a 2nd photo. I have a hard time believing her explanation for not being able to take more pictures of it with her digital camera. Don't forget the biggest anomaly about the photo is that we are supposed to believe the plume grew to an ASTOUNDING 700 yards wide in a couple of second even though "most of the fuel went underground" according to some JFERs! It's also hard to believe Val "didn't even aim," yet took a photo as if it was taken on a tripod and then she conveniently "dropped her camera" and than more conveniently her "battery door became ajar". And who can forget that she "forgot" about this incredible photo she had just taken "for days"! I wonder if she has any photos of the "barbecue" she put on that day for all the responders?!



Bongo Thud	Jan 26 2008, 01:58 PM Post #11
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Andoo Inc. Jan 26 2008, 12:17 PM Bongo he is more than confident that it's a fake. So what's the explanation for the complete lack of expert analysis to back up such an outrageous claim?



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 02:08 PM Post #12
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Kaiya Jan 26 2008, 12:16 AM 1) I'm not sure why. Maybe they wanted another source for the digital photo in case the memory card failed before they got an image off of it. 2) Ok 3) I believe them when they make sense. 4) Yes, some things the government says I do not believe. I think you are avoiding giving a direct answer to my question. I was not talking only about the government. 5) I think your analysis leaves much to be desired. 5a) Leverknight's daughter is hardly an authority on photos, 5b) especially when she says Val's photo is fake because there was no mushroom cloud. She is hardly the authority to base photo analysis on. 6) How did your common sense analysis determine the size of a smoke plume based on the crash? 7) What other medium haul airliner high speed crashes did you compare it to? Kaiya 1) You... really... believe... that... ? 3) What about Val's photo or story makes sense? (wait let me guess, everything because you REFUSE to believe there could be part of some govt conspiracy?) 4) See #3. 5) Such as? 5a) If Val's photo was fake and word was getting out locally, wouldn't that make PERFECT sense why a local, like Ms. Leverknight, would say it's fake? 5b) Well if Val's original photo did not have a mushroom cloud on it... (I'm sure you're intelligent enough for me not to have to finish my thought.) 6) http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/plume-analysis.html 7) What would be the point?



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 02:10 PM Post #13
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bongo Thud Jan 26 2008, 01:58 PM So what's the explanation for the complete lack of expert analysis to back up such an outrageous claim? What claim is so outrageous JFER and why?



Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 26 2008, 03:29 PM Post #14
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Bongo Thud Jan 26 2008, 12:44 AM All this time and you still have not had a PROFESSIONAL PHOTO ANALYST look at the photo? Killtown, apparently you aren't very confident that it's fake. I'm curious since you believe it to be authentic, do you believe based on the color of the cloud that this was a jet fuel based explosion?
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Bongo Thud	Jan 26 2008, 03:48 PM Post #15
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Jan 26 2008, 03:29 PM Bongo Thud Jan 26 2008, 12:44 AM All this time and you still have not had a PROFESSIONAL PHOTO ANALYST look at the photo? Killtown, apparently you aren't very confident that it's fake. I'm curious since you believe it to be authentic, do you believe based on the color of the cloud that this was a jet fuel based explosion? You can't determine the cause of an explosion based solely on color.



Bongo Thud	Jan 26 2008, 03:49 PM Post #16
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Killtown Jan 26 2008, 02:10 PM Bongo Thud Jan 26 2008, 01:58 PM So what's the explanation for the complete lack of expert analysis to back up such an outrageous claim? What claim is so outrageous JFER and why? Classic Killtown Redirection! Just answer the question, why do you avoid having an actual expert validate your claims?



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 05:43 PM Post #17
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bongo Thud Jan 26 2008, 03:49 PM Classic Killtown Redirection! Just answer the question, why do you avoid having an actual expert validate your claims? Oh hi Hotdumb Bun! I've missed you. How's my favorite LIEHOPer? My analysis is public for any "expert" to validate. So far, NO ONE has been able to debunk my claims. Why? Because they CAN'T. Why do you think the local news around Val's area hasn't come to her defense by debunking my claims that her photo is a fraud? Cause they KNOW her photo is a fraud. Your turn. Let's here why my claims about her photo are "outrageous".



Andoo Inc.	Jan 26 2008, 05:59 PM Post #18
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	killtown, post your overhead shot



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 06:20 PM Post #19
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/plume-analysis.html



Andoo Inc.	Jan 26 2008, 06:24 PM Post #20
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	yeah that has to be one of my favorite pictures ever.



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 06:35 PM Post #21
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Andoo Inc. Jan 26 2008, 06:24 PM yeah that has to be one of my favorite pictures ever. Thank you. I plan on re-doing them since my graphic skills have improved and Google Earth has new aerials of that area.



Andoo Inc.	Jan 26 2008, 06:42 PM Post #22
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	what was their claim of your photo, that the barn was further back or some bullocks like that?



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 06:52 PM Post #23
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Andoo Inc. Jan 26 2008, 06:42 PM what was their claim of your photo, that the barn was further back or some bullocks like that? The JFERs have said my width dimensions and plume location are wrong, but have never proved that they are wrong.



Andoo Inc.	Jan 26 2008, 06:58 PM Post #24
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	so where does that leave us. Seriously how can you have these dimensions without someone clearly pointing out the faults?



Killtown	Jan 26 2008, 07:14 PM Post #25
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Andoo Inc. Jan 26 2008, 06:58 PM so where does that leave us. Seriously how can you have these dimensions without someone clearly pointing out the faults? Well I've always questioned why the "big boys" of our movement never jumped on this when it has been one of our BEST opportunities to prove a deception which could very well put a crack in the damn. I doubt most people are going to believe that the FBI wasn't involved if the photo is proven a fraud in the eyes of the mainstream and just imagine the press we would get when one of the most famous 9/11 photos is proven not to be an aftermath of Flight 93 crashing. Edited by Killtown, Jan 26 2008, 07:15 PM.



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


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

Pages:
1
2
…
7