Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software

[Killtown]

(For those who don't know who Val McClatchey is, she took the infamous "End of Serenity (http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html)" photo (which she copyrighted in Jan. '02 (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2002/01/end-of-serenity-is-copyrighted.html)) that's of a smoke plume supposedly from Flight 93 crashing in Shanksville, Pa. If you are wondering what the big deal is about her and her photo, see my blogpost (Val McClatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud? (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html)) which will show you that the plume in her photo doesn't line up where the crater is, it would have been about 7 football field lengths wide if it was near the crater, or that this photo is a fake and what Val's motives could have been for being in on it.)



Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/10/val-mcclatcheys-camera-identified.html)


Val is shown here in a recent photo in an article by the Tribune-Democrat (Photo under fire; Local woman forced to defend shot's integrity (http://www.tribune-democrat.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_252234421.html)) about my photo fraud blogpost showing her clutching a digital camera that it is assumed was the one she used to take her smoke plume photo:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/val-mcclatchey-td.1.jpg

This camera she is clutching has been identified as a HP PhotoSmart 315:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/hp315-front-back.0.jpg

Few interesting things about this camera:


1. It had a MSRP of $299.

(Remember that Val also had just purchased a new computer right before 9/11 at a time when Val said her and her husband were in severe financial trouble (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/08/mcclatchey-interview-from-windsor-park.html) in which they filed Chp 11 on their saw mill business 9 days after 9/11 and then had to close it down on Dec. 31th. She also mentioned they might lose their house and talked about major health problems in the family and major expenses the family had coming up soon.)

2. It's only 2.1 mega pixels.

3. It does NOT have optical zoom, only digital zoom (up to 2.5x).

4. It uses 4 AA batteries, not one.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/320/hp315-batteries.jpg

(A Post-Gazette article (Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo is fake (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm)) said the reason she only took one photo of the plume is that she dropped her camera after her one and only shot and that it "jolted the battery loose" implying that the camera only had one battery.)

5. It came with PHOTO-ALTERING (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?cc=us&docname=bpy00301&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN) software!

(Funny, that same Post-Gazette article said "The camera and computer were new, and she didn't have access to Photoshop or any other photo-altering software.")


Now it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo and I'm not trying to claim she photoshopped that plume on her photo, but just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

Btw, if her photo ever comes out that it was faked, don't forget about the three FBI guys that came over her house and took her camera's memory card and possibly her computer's hard drive back with them because they claimed to have seen "debris flying out from the cloud" when looking at her photo being displayed on her computer's screen. See here (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/08/mcclatchey-interview-from-windsor-park.html) for all that.


PS - Read and watch Val calling me out on a Pittsburgh TV station here (http://kdka.com/911/local_story_253090222.html)!

[David Wong]

You just opened my eyes, man.

Thanks.

[qarnos]

Oh crap, not this Courtesy, if you please. again.

Val is shown here in a recent photo in an article by the Tribune-Democrat (Photo under fire; Local woman forced to defend shot's integrity (http://www.tribune-democrat.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_252234421.html)) about my photo fraud blogpost showing her clutching a digital camera that it is assumed was the one she used to take her smoke plume photo:

Assumed by whom? YOU?!?!?

The tsk, tsk. who also assumes the "reasonable" size of explosions.

[Bandersnatch]

I was under the impression that most digital cameras come with image processing software.

[jhunter1163]

Hell, they ALL come with image processing software. And this is sinister.... how?

[Killtown]

Hell, they ALL come with image processing software. And this is sinister.... how?

Um, go back and read under #5.

[Bandersnatch]

Viruseses. They'll haxor your Gibson.

[Killtown]

Assumed by whom? YOU?!?!?

So that camera she's clutching wasn't the one she used to take her plume photo?

[Bandersnatch]

Who knows. Are you assuming it is?

[Killtown]

Who knows. Are you assuming it is?
Well let's see, that digital camera came out before 9/11, she's displaying it for an article written about her photo and how she took it and with what, hmmm, now why would I assume that camera she's clutching was the one she used to take that photo?

[jhunter1163]

[QUOTE=Killtown;1984372][I](
5. It came with PHOTO-ALTERING (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?cc=us&docname=bpy00301&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN) software!


<snip>
Now it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo and I'm not trying to claim she photoshopped that plume on her photo, <snip>

Bolding mine.

So... you yourself admit you have no proof that the photo was edited, but you're trying to pass off the fact that she claimed she didn't have such software as sinister. My own theory is that she never even looked at the software on the thing, just figured out how to take pictures, pointed and clicked, and everything else happened just as she said. The end. We can close the thread now.

[LashL]

It came with Adobe PhotoDeluxe, which only does stuff like removing red-eye and cropping.

FFS, stop making accusations against people when you have zero evidence of wrongdoing.

[Killtown]

[QUOTE=Killtown;1984372][I](
5. It came with PHOTO-ALTERING (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?cc=us&docname=bpy00301&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN) software!


<snip>
Now it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo and I'm not trying to claim she photoshopped that plume on her photo, <snip>

Bolding mine.

So... you yourself admit you have no proof that the photo was edited, but you're trying to pass off the fact that she claimed she didn't have such software as sinister. My own theory is that she never even looked at the software on the thing, just figured out how to take pictures, pointed and clicked, and everything else happened just as she said. The end. We can close the thread now.

What part of "just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said" did you not understand?

[bjb]

1. It had a MSRP of $299.

If you add the '2' to the last '9', you get 911. PWNED!

[jhunter1163]

Reading for comprehension just isn't your thing, Killtown. I told you that my theory is that she never even looked at the software on it. And Lash very clearly pointed out that the software would NOT have been capable of adding the plume. This allegation is a non-starter for you. Go back to Camp Freedom and see if you can come up with something better.

[qarnos]

Well let's see, that digital camera came out before 9/11, she's displaying it for an article written about her photo and how she took it and with what, hmmm, now why would I assume that camera she's clutching was the one she used to take that photo?

What makes you think it is?

You don't think it's possible (if not probable) that it was a "prop" provided by the reporter for the sake of the photograph?

You have no basis for making the claim that it is "the" camera.

FFS, just leave the woman alone. You're obsessed.

[Killtown]

Reading for comprehension just isn't your thing, Killtown. I told you that my theory is that she never even looked at the software on it. And Lash very clearly pointed out that the software would NOT have been capable of adding the plume.
You are not either because that software program Lash mentioned wasn't the only one it came with.

[Bandersnatch]

Have you bought many digital cameras?

EDIT:
Interesting note. I decided to check if my computer had any imaging software, and surprisingly, I have ArcSoft Photoimpression suite, the program provided by HP.

[Killtown]

You have no basis for making the claim that it is "the" camera.

Ha ha ha!!!

[qarnos]

You are not either because that software progash Lash mentioned wasn't the only one it came with.

Well, what were the others, then?

[jhunter1163]

But you still have no evidence that the photo was faked. You admitted as much. Leave the poor lady alone. Go back to the Oneonta Onanists.

[LashL]

Killtown, I had a HP PhotoSmart 315 back in 2001, you pathetic troll. Leave the woman alone already.

[steve s]

My niece recently asked me about improving some pictures she took. I suggested she crop the pics so that the subject would be larger in the frame. She asked how she could do that and I asked "Didn't the camera come with some software?" She said "I don't know. I don't think so." So we checked the box it came in and there was a disc with some software on it.

If a reporter had asked her (prior to her asking me) if she had access to image editing software, she certainly would have said no. Is that a conspiracy? Or just a mistake.

Steve S.

[Killtown]

If a reporter had asked her (prior to her asking me) if she had access to image editing software, she certainly would have said no. Is that a conspiracy? Or just a mistake.
As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

[Bell]

It was a holographic smokeplume!

And Killtown isn't on this forum either. The NWO PhotoShopped him in.

[steve s]

As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

And as I said, is this all part of some grand conspiracy, or is it an honest mistake on the part of someone who probably didn't even know she had access to the software?

Steve S.

[Killtown]

And as I said, is this all part of some grand conspiracy, or is it an honest mistake on the part of someone who probably didn't even know she had access to the software?
You tell me.

[Bell]

You tell me.

No, you do. You brought this up.

[LashL]

Well, what were the others, then?

He won't tell you because he knows that the software it came with was not like PhotoShop and that one could not convincingly insert a fake smoke plume into a photo with the software it came with - if at all.

It came with some prebundled software, none of which were sophisticated. I believe it included Adobe PhotoDeluxe, Arcsoft PhotoImpression 2000 and Arcsoft PhotoMontage 2000.

[qarnos]

Killtown,

1. What software, by name, did she have access to which was capable of doctoring an image to this extent?

2. How is all of this relevant to 9/11 CTs?

[gtc]

I have ArcSoft Photoimpression suite, the program provided by HP.

Killtown, I had a HP PhotoSmart 315 back in 2001, you pathetic troll.

OMG! You guys both did teh :jaw-dropp 911 :jaw-dropp

[Killtown]

Killtown,

1. What software, by name, did she have access to which was capable of doctoring an image to this extent?

2. How is all of this relevant to 9/11 CTs?
Jeez, go back and look at the link in #5.

[LashL]

Jeez, go back and look at the link in #5.

As usual, you don't provide any straight answers to simple questions; instead, you just try to get people to visit your pathetic conspiracy blogs.

FFS, you already owe Ms. McClatchey a huge apology. Just leave the woman alone already.

[chacal]

PS - Read and watch Val calling me out on a Pittsburgh TV station here (http://kdka.com/911/local_story_253090222.html)!

Killtown are you proud to be mentioned on tv as an anynomous creep who posts accusations online too afraid to use your real name? If you believe your "evidence" why don't you present it outside the anynomity of the internet? Or are you a covard like Val says.


P.S. You have got yourself new fans at the main Finnish Truther site. They posted your BS analysis of the photo (oct.6.06). It's right there on the frontpage between Nuclear bombs and fake al-Qaeda videos. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/

[Killtown]

As usual, you don't provide any straight answers to simple questions; instead, you just try to get people to visit your pathetic conspiracy blogs.

Um, does somebody want to tell Lash, or should I?

[Killtown]

Hey, when's arkanwolfshade going to finish "debunking" me?...

http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!299.entry

:D

[Killtown]

Also something of interest I just found:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/eos-pl-jan02.gif
http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2002/01/photo-benefits-crash-victims-penn.html


Notice who this Penn Lines article tells people to make their check out too. But don't worry, Val uses the honor system (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/08/conspiracy-theorists-blog-that-flight.html) to forward the proceeds to the Beamer Foundation.

[R.Mackey]

Good grief, not you again.

So, after being comprehensively roasted about your claims that the smoke plume was "impossible," and demonstrating your utter lack of scientific understanding, even an inability to perform basic arithmetic... you come back.

And this is the best you can muster:

5. [Her camera] came with PHOTO-ALTERING (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?cc=us&docname=bpy00301&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN) software!
Big deal.

I suspect that, being a resourceful woman, she would have access to "editing software" even if it wasn't bundled with her camera. So, for that matter, do I. And she happens to be a realtor, for whom pictures are an important part of doing business. Gosh, how suspicious is that.

Better yet, even you admit this argument is useless:

Now it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo and I'm not trying to claim she photoshopped that plume on her photo, but just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

Well, since you're not claiming that, then the following post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1860144#post1860144) of yours is in effect.

So apologize.

And stop wasting our time. Get a life, you might enjoy it.

[qarnos]

Jeez, go back and look at the link in #5.

Sorry Killtown, that is not what I asked for. I asked you to tell me which piece of software you believe was capable of doctoring the plume photo.

The fact that you can't do that tells me you have no idea what the listed software is actually capable of.

As R.Mackey has asked, will you now fulfill your promise to apologise to Val?

[Killtown]

1) So, after being comprehensively roasted about your claims that the smoke plume was "impossible," and demonstrating your utter lack of scientific understanding, even an inability to perform basic arithmetic... you come back.

2) And this is the best you can muster:

Big deal.

I suspect that, being a resourceful woman, she would have access to "editing software" even if it wasn't bundled with her camera. So, for that matter, do I. And she happens to be a realtor, for whom pictures are an important part of doing business. Gosh, how suspicious is that.

1) Ha ha ha!!! Now I know your daytime job; a comedian! Are you and Abby Scott a team?

2) You should be thanking me for correcting the article's mistakes!

[Killtown]

you have no idea what the listed software is actually capable of.
Um, what part of "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo" did you not understand?

But I think I have the solution for some of you:

Removed hotlink.

[R.Mackey]

1) Ha ha ha!!! Now I know your daytime job; a comedian! Are you and Abby Scott a team?

2) You should be thanking me for correcting the article's mistakes!
This is supposed to be a counter-argument? I'm the comedian?

No, tough guy, I'm not thanking you. You have apparently made it your life's work to accuse an innocent woman. Your reason for doing so is that you believe it to be true, and you are so woefully educated that you can fool yourself into believing her story is impossible.

Why would anyone, humanity, Val, least of all me, ever thank you?

[Gravy]

Are those the glasses that make you see the "truth" about the Holocaust, and that make Photoshopped feces on the graves of 9/11 murder victims "Funny" ?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.

[Killtown]

2) This is supposed to be a counter-argument? I'm the comedian?

2) Why would anyone...ever thank you?
1) Yeah, because that part about "being comprehensively roasted about your claims that the smoke plume was "impossible," and demonstrating your utter lack of scientific understanding, even an inability to perform basic arithmetic" was frickin hilarious!

2) So correcting mistakes in news articles is not worthy of a thanks?

[Killtown]

Are those the glasses that make you see the "truth" about the Holocaust, and that make Photoshopped feces on the graves of 9/11 murder victims "Funny" ?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.
Hey, it's the liar and Breach of Membership Agreement removed.Gravy!

Hey, I heard you think there was no scheduled hijacking drill on 9/11, is that true?

[CFLarsen]

Killtown,

From your blog:

Also, I do not know at this time if the editing software that came with her camera could be used to photoshop a smoke plume on her photo and I do not know if Val, or her husband have photoshopping skills.

Don't you think you should do a little legwork on this, before you start getting all excited?

[qarnos]

Um, what part of "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo" did you not understand?

But I think I have the solution for some of you:

http://www.cosanostra.net/~astarte/glasses.jpg

Then explain why it is relevant whether or not she had the required software? What is your point apart from hassling this poor woman with some kind of personal vendetta?

Additionally, when you respond to a post, can you address all the points raised, and not cherry-pick the ones you want to respond to. I will repeat from my previous post:

Will you now apologise to Val?

See, folks; This is why you should always supervise your children when they are on the 'net.

[R.Mackey]

1) Yeah, because that part about "being comprehensively roasted about your claims that the smoke plume was "impossible," and demonstrating your utter lack of scientific understanding, even an inability to perform basic arithmetic" was frickin hilarious!
Yes, it was "frickin hilarious." Except the joke was on you.

Here's the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1841211#post1841211). For any "fans" of Killtown who may be reading, it's a long one.

In this thread, it is revealed that Killtown thinks (a) that wind wouldn't affect the smoke plume until it had risen, and then the wind would transpose it without changing it; (b) a B-52 airshow crash (photoshopped by Killtown) and a thermobaric bomb video are somehow highly relevant examples; (c) that the smoke plume couldn't have gotten bigger than "three times" its original flash size, at which point it freezes I guess; and, most spectacularly, (d) this all time classic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1859207#post1859207), where he demonstrats that he can't even add two numbers correctly, and then can't understand why.

Yes, it was hilarious. It's even more hilarious that you still don't understand -- or at least it would be, if it wasn't so sad.

2) So correcting mistakes in news articles is not worthy of a thanks?
No. You have to redeem yourself before you are worthy of any thanks. I believe even you can understand that crusading to smear a woman's name because she took a picture is somewhat more relevant than finding typos or vagaries in a small-town newspaper story.

Get to apologizin', Stalltown. You said that you would.

[Killtown]

Don't you think you should do a little legwork on this, before you start getting all excited?
Hey, I'm just pointing out all the mistakes in that article.

Would you rather me no point out these mistakes?

[Zygar]

Um, does somebody want to tell Lash, or should I?

I can't believe I just read all this crap. Killtown, if you honestly believe in your theory, then stand behind it enough to defend it rather than evading every question you are asked.

If you aren't willing to defend your own opinions with facts and answers then your threads are of no value whatsoever.

[Killtown]

1) Then explain why it is relevant whether or not she had the required software?

2) some kind of personal vendetta?

3) Will you now apologise to Val?
1) Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.

2) I don't have any.

3) for what?

[Blackadder_no]

Hey, I'm just pointing out all the mistakes in that article.

Would you rather me no point out these mistakes?

Go away, despicable being.

/ignore Killtown

[qarnos]

1) Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.

So you are now stating she did have the required software to fake the plume image???? :dig:

2) I don't have any.
Sure seems like it

3) for what?
For starters you can apologise for releasing her address and phone number on various forums.

So, KT. How long are you gonna hang around for this time before you go running off like a little girl again? (with apologies to all the little girls of the world).

[CFLarsen]

Hey, I'm just pointing out all the mistakes in that article.

Would you rather me no point out these mistakes?

Of course not. But you are doing a hell of a lot more than "just pointing out all the mistakes in that article". You are clearly insinuating that the photo has been doctored by Val McClatchey.

Before you do that, you should at least have something to hang your hat on. As it is, you don't even have a hat.

[Killtown]

In this thread, it is revealed that Killtown thinks (a) that wind wouldn't affect the smoke plume until it had risen, and then the wind would transpose it without changing it;
(b) a B-52 airshow crash (photoshopped by Killtown) and a thermobaric bomb video are somehow highly relevant examples;
(c) at which point it freezes I guess;

1) No. You have to redeem yourself before you are worthy of any thanks. I believe even you can understand that crusading to smear a woman's name because she took a picture is somewhat more relevant than

2) finding typos or vagaries in a small-town newspaper story.
a) I said that???
b) yeah, "crazy" me!
c) that's your guy's theory, it froze and drifted 250 yards!

1) :rolleyes:
2) Post-Gazette is a small town newspaper?

[Killtown]

1) So you are now stating she did have the required software to fake the plume image???? :dig:

2) For starters you can apologise for releasing her address and phone number on various forums.
1) Go back and read.

2) What do you mean by "releasing"?

[Killtown]

Of course not. But you are doing a hell of a lot more than "just pointing out all the mistakes in that article". You are clearly insinuating that the photo has been doctored by Val McClatchey.

If one is going to claim two conclusions, one being it may be a fake, shouldn't they provide evidence to both possible conclusions?

[R.Mackey]

a) I said that???
Uh huh. You said it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1847324#post1847324), among other places.

b) yeah, "crazy" me!
You mean you still don't understand the difference between Flight 93 and the MOAB? Really? wow.

c) that's your guy's theory, it froze and drifted 250 yards!
No, that's your theory. I double-dog dare you to prove that's our theory.

Oh, and I like how you conveniently ignored responding to my point about you not being able to do simple arithmetic. So,

Killtown, do you deny that you added 580 MPH to 125 feet to get 705 feet in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1859207#post1859207)? Yes or no?


2) Post-Gazette is a small town newspaper?
Ducking the point will get you nowhere. And yes, it is.

[CFLarsen]

If one is going to claim two conclusions, one being it may be a fake, shouldn't they provide evidence to both possible conclusions?

But you admit that you have no evidence that she faked her photo.

[qarnos]

1) Go back and read.

I did. It went like this:


Um, what part of "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo" did you not understand?

Then explain why it is relevant whether or not she had the required software? What is your point apart from hassling this poor woman with some kind of personal vendetta?

Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.

Bolding mine.

2) What do you mean by "releasing"?

Publishing with malicious intent.

[Matthew Best]

you added 580 MPH to 125 feet to get 705 feet

That is hilarious!

[Darat]

To all participants. You all all agreed to abide by your Membership Agreement - if you cannot make a response without breaching your Membership Agreement then you should not be responding.

[Gravy]

Hey, it's the liar and Breach of Membership Agreement removed.Gravy!

Hey, I heard you think there was no scheduled hijacking drill on 9/11, is that true?
No, Killtown, there was one scheduled, but it wasn't run because of the terrorist hijackings. As always, your sources are wrong.

Your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if her photo was photoshopped. I've asked you many times and you've refused to answer: do you have a single shred of evidence that it was?

If not, why have you behaved so horribly to this victim of 9/11? What, exactly has she done, Killtown?

[Gravy]

That is hilarious!
In a horribly sad way. Like a clown being run over by a circus car full of clowns.

[sleahead]

Killtown,

From your blog:

Also, I do not know at this time if the editing software that came with her camera could be used to photoshop a smoke plume on her photo and I do not know if Val, or her husband have photoshopping skills.

Don't you think you should do a little legwork on this, before you start getting all excited?

Oh, I'm pretty sure he has done the legwork. His conspiranoia would not pass up the opportunity to prove that the software could produce the plume in the photo. My guess is that he has found an answer he doesn't like and so he prefers to leave the question hanging in the air with the statement "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo".

[Shrinker]

Middle aged woman found guilty of not understanding the poxy software that came bundled with her new camera! To the gallows with her!

Well done Killtown, the world's a safer place. (For everyone except Val of course.)

[CFLarsen]

Maybe she thought the CD was a free coaster? :)

[WildCat]

Wake up you sheeple! Don't you know that all $300 cameras come bundled w/ pro photo editing software that would cost $800 on its own?

[defaultdotxbe]

you state she was in financial trouble, and yet had a 300 dollar camera, well as previously stated, she is a realtor, as such im surprised her camera was that cheap

also, it appears according toy ou post she and/or her husband owned another business, yet another reason to own a good camera


Notice who this Penn Lines article tells people to make their check out too. But don't worry, Val uses the honor system (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/08/conspiracy-theorists-blog-that-flight.html) to forward the proceeds to the Beamer Foundation.
what evidence do you have she uses the "honor system" she asks that all checks be made out to the todd beamer foundation, this is pretty mucht eh opposite of the "honor system"

1) Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.
1: its doubtful she ever even looked at the software
2: its HIGHLY doubtful the software is capable of making the edits you seem to be implying it did
3: you have no proof she was ever even in possession of the bundled software, are you certain this wasnt her helicopter freinds camera she was borrowing? or maybe she got it second-hand or as an open box item and it didnt come with the disc

[FramerDave]

As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

Yeah, ok. You've done that. Now the $64,000 question: So what?

Hey, I'm just asking questions.

[WildCat]

So I guess that Killtown is now conceding there was no "ordnance plume" at Shanksville, because he now believes the picture was photoshoped.

[defaultdotxbe]

So I guess that Killtown is now conceding there was no "ordnance plume" at Shanksville, because he now believes the picture was photoshoped.
nah truthers can have as many conflicting theories as they want because they are "just asking questions"

although if it was photoshopped it begs the question, how does this implicate the government? and if it was them, why did they make it look so unlike a jet crash (as shown by killtowns previous "research")

[Stellafane]

...why have you behaved so horribly to this victim of 9/11? What, exactly has she done, Killtown?

Excellent question, one which I've wondered about myself. It sure seems like our K-boy has what you might call a certain fixation on Mrs. McClatchey. After all, it isn't like her photo proves much one way or the other -- even if it were totally faked (something for which K-boy has yet to provide a single atom of evidence), so what? It isn't like the whole official explanation of 9/11 would come crumbling down. Instead, it looks like he harbors something personal against the poor woman. Like maybe she represents something in his life that he really resents, and is now punishing by taking it out on her.

[T.A.M.]

I own a PC, and we know that every computer comes with Windows, and all windwos packages come with photo editing software (paint at the verfy least)

Not to mention....what exactly is your point Killtown. I know you listed several numbered points, but what is your point for posting this over all...what is your motive behind it?

TAM

[MarkyX]

As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

Software that come with digital cameras could never replace photoshop. As already mentioned before, they either deal with cropping, the image, color tones (black and white, etc), removing red-eye, or simply resizing the ENTIRE image.

None of the programs listed on the HP Photosmart page could even match up with Photoshop. Basic Windows XP even comes with some pseudo-image manipulation.

To even suggest that she managed to alter the plume with this software is laughable and shows your ignorance when it comes computers or media. What was the point of this post again?

[CFLarsen]

you state she was in financial trouble, and yet had a 300 dollar camera, well as previously stated, she is a realtor, as such im surprised her camera was that cheap

I'm not. She's a realtor, not a professional photographer. She probably just wanted something that she could point and click, and where it is easy to get the photos out of the computer.

Woe to the realtor that doesn't provide photos of the real estate she is trying to sell.

Which furthers the idea that she isn't computer savvy enough to use the software - or perhaps were simply not interested in it.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm not. She's a realtor, not a professional photographer. She probably just wanted something that she could point and click, and where it is easy to get the photos out of the computer.

Woe to the realtor that doesn't provide photos of the real estate she is trying to sell.

Which furthers the idea that she isn't computer savvy enough to use the software - or perhaps were simply not interested in it.
ive done a lot of PC work for realtors, they all seem to have very fancy and expensive cameras, not sure why, a cheaper model would do them just as good, but whatever, lol

[Babylon Sister]

If not, why have you behaved so horribly to this victim of 9/11? What, exactly has she done, Killtown?

I've wondered about this too.

Why this particular obession?

Why the apparent need to make this woman's life a misery?

Are you jealous that it wasn't you who took the picture?

What's in it for you?

[CptColumbo]

Are you jealous that it wasn't you who took the picture?


IMO that's exactly it, in most cases. This historic event is of such importance, that everyone wants to be a part of it and achieve some measure of immortality. Some look at the people involved, and see that they are just ordinary people (like them), and are a part of 9/11 history only because of their closeness (geographically and through family) to the event. To compensate for their lack of involvement they try to horn in where they can, and belittle and/or demonize the people genuinely involved (whether they deserve it or not). Some want only their 15 minutes (or 24 hours in 5stargenerals case), others want to be written about in a hundred years (Alex Jones, Dylan Avery) and don't care who they hurt to get it.

What sickens me (and I wrote about this elsewhere) is when they try to compare their sitting at home (or work) typing a blog or on a forum as equal to what many sacrificed on 9/11. Do they think this poor woman expected this to happen when she took those photos? She probably thought she might get her name in the paper and make a few bucks. I don't know if she was listening to the radio in her car and knew this was connected to the WTC and Pentagon, if she did she might have thought about the importance of getting early pictures of this crash. However, I'm pretty sure she didn't think she would be accused of being a part of mass murder and have her home address and phone number posted on a site where wackos frequent (JREF included).

Killtown, go out and do some actual good in the world. Donate blood, create a playground for families, plant a tree in a park, join a volunteer fire department, or (better yet) donate your computer to a school (they'll probably do something more important with it than you). You may not achieve historical signifigance, but you might make someone's life a little better and be remembered by them at least.

[Foolmewunz]

I've wondered about this too.

Why this particular obession?

Why the apparent need to make this woman's life a misery?

Are you jealous that it wasn't you who took the picture?

What's in it for you?

The obsession is because this is his one brief shining moment. Why Dylan himself chucked him under the chin and said "Attaboy!". :D I think he then tossed him a fish!

Killtown found his little puzzle and went all pixel-ated, and tried to make a huge deal of it so he could hang out at the cool kids' table in the cafeteria. He'd found something the Big Men on Campus had missed, by golly! He'd show them!

They bought it (not having the combined intelligence of a Romper Room graduating class), and now he's going to defend his asinine, mean-spirited, idiotic premise until the end of time. If he doesn't, Dylan's going to make him scrape the gum off the seats in the auditorium, and the bigger boys are going to go back to giving him wedgies and making fun of his acne! :eek:

Jeez - I go play on another forum for a day, and I come back to find The General has arrived and Killtown is back. Can't I leave you guys alone for even a single day without you messing up the family room? :cool:

[CptColumbo]

Jeez - I go play on another forum for a day, and I come back to find The General has arrived and Killtown is back. Can't I leave you guys alone for even a single day without you messing up the family room? :cool:

Don't look at me, I was upstairs watching TV in my room. I think Gravy invited them over, and TAM brought the keg.

[CurtC]

Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/10/val-mcclatcheys-camera-identified.html)

Since your interest in this thread (according to you) is simply to correct the technical errors in the Post-Gazette article, perhaps you can provide the info necessary to actually make your point. What was claimed in the article? IIRC, Val claimed that she didn't have access to software that would let her insert a smoke plume into another image. You've shown that her camera came with software that would allow her to crop, enhance the contrast and color balance, and remove redeye. It still looks to me like she wouldn't have access to high-end software like Photoshop.


4. It uses 4 AA batteries, not one.

(A Post-Gazette article (Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo is fake (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm)) said the reason she only took one photo of the plume is that she dropped her camera after her one and only shot and that it "jolted the battery loose" implying that the camera only had one battery.)

Sorry, you lose on this point. The Post-Gazette was correct. You see, a single AA cell is properly called a "cell," and a combination of multiple cells is called a "battery." You're wrong, the Post-Gazette's account, and Val's account, were technically correct.

It looks to me like you're wrong on both points. Yet again. That's become a habit for you, hasn't it, Killtown?

[sophia8]

From http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm:Mrs. McClatchey was taken aback by the personal criticism by those who, she said, "hide behind their aliases."

"This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."....... (The blogger identified only as Killtown could be reached only via e-mail. He or she agreed to be interviewed without ever revealing identity and never got in phone contact with this reporter.)

<sarcasm>Bravo Killtown!! You've really nailed this cowardly dispicable woman and made it possible for everyone to visit her or call her up and tell her what a fraud she is!</sarcasm>
Now, how about letting us know your name and address? If a mere woman can take it, so can you!

[DavidJames]

Now, how about letting us know your name and address? If a mere woman can take it, so can you!Don't count on it, his mommy and daddy would be very upset with him.

[T.A.M.]

Don't look at me, I was upstairs watching TV in my room. I think Gravy invited them over, and TAM brought the keg.

Well you know us canucks. we love our beer. Besides, Its thanksgiving weekend here in Canada, so its all turkey dressing and beer here.

TAM:D :D

[T.A.M.]

Mrs. McClatchey was taken aback by the personal criticism by those who, she said, "hide behind their aliases."

"This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."....... (The blogger identified only as Killtown could be reached only via e-mail. He or she agreed to be interviewed without ever revealing identity and never got in phone contact with this reporter.)

She is a kinder, more forgiving person than me. Had he done such to myself, I would go out of my way to find out his personal information and then sue his ass so he and his parents would be putting my children through college.

What an assh*le.

TAM

[Killtown]

Uh huh. You said it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1847324#post1847324), among other places.


You mean you still don't understand the difference between Flight 93 and the MOAB? Really? wow.


No, that's your theory. I double-dog dare you to prove that's our theory.

Oh, and I like how you conveniently ignored responding to my point about you not being able to do simple arithmetic. So,

Killtown, do you deny that you added 580 MPH to 125 feet to get 705 feet in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1859207#post1859207)? Yes or no?


Ducking the point will get you nowhere. And yes, it is.
Um buddy, most of that was not what I think, but when I was trying to help you guys formulate YOUR theory of what happened. Derrrr.

[Killtown]

But you admit that you have no evidence that she faked her photo.
I hold the possibility that the photo is fake, I don't really care whether she, or her husband faked it, but more interested in the FBI who take her memory card and possibly her hard drive back with them because they saw "debris shooting out from the plume." And there is plenty of evidence the photo is fake.

[CFLarsen]

I hold the possibility that the photo is fake, I don't really care whether she, or her husband faked it, but more interested in the FBI who take her memory card and possibly her hard drive back with them because they saw "debris shooting out from the plume." And there is plenty of evidence the photo is fake.

Your actions belie your words.

You do care - a great deal - if she faked this photo. Otherwise, you wouldn't go through all this trouble.

[Oliver]

I hold the possibility that the photo is fake, I don't really care whether she, or her husband faked it, but more interested in the FBI who take her memory card and possibly her hard drive back with them because they saw "debris shooting out from the plume." And there is plenty of evidence the photo is fake.

Hey, Killy - the whole world is a fake.
Nothing is real. It´s just a big blurry La-La-Land.
And now be a nice guy - stop smoking weed and
go home to Mum. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074527eb9578326.gif

[R.Mackey]

Um buddy, most of that was not what I think, but when I was trying to help you guys formulate YOUR theory of what happened. Derrrr.

Answer the question, Killtown:

Killtown, do you deny that you added 580 MPH to 125 feet to get 705 feet in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1859207#post1859207)? Yes or no?
Given this startling lack of competence, the very notion that we needed your help to formulate our theory is utterly ridiculous.

[CptColumbo]

I hold the possibility that the photo is fake, I don't really care whether she, or her husband faked it, but more interested in the FBI who take her memory card and possibly her hard drive back with them because they saw "debris shooting out from the plume." And there is plenty of evidence the photo is fake.
The second sentence just contradicted what you wrote in the first sentence.

So you ruined this woman's life, but you "don't really care" if she faked the photo.

You are quite the piece of work.

[Killtown]

1) No, Killtown, there was one scheduled, but it wasn't run because of the terrorist hijackings. As always, your sources are wrong.
2) Your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if her photo was photoshopped.
3) I've asked you many times and you've refused to answer: do you have a single shred of evidence that it was?
4) If not, why have you behaved so horribly to this victim of 9/11?
5)What, exactly has she done, Killtown?
1) My sources are wrong on what???

2) As always, your sources are wrong.

3) See my blog.

4) Victim of 9/11? who did she loose?

5) If her photo is fake, or it's real and she knows this explosion didn't originate from the crater, which I proved it didn't originate from the crater, you still think she innocent?

[Killtown]

1) I did. It went like this:

2) Publishing with malicious intent.
1) no, you didn't read what I said in my starting post.

2) Um, where you do you think I got her info?

[mortimer]

Killtown in Mama's basement, formulating his "theory".

3440

[Stellafane]

1) My sources are wrong on what???

2) As always, your sources are wrong.

3) See my blog.

4) Victim of 9/11? who did she loose?

5) If her photo is fake, or it's real and she knows this explosion didn't originate from the crater, which I proved it didn't originate from the crater, you still think she innocent?

C'mon K-boy, 'fess up -- what's the real deal with your unhealthy fixation with Val McClatchey? Does she remind you of someone, maybe that 3th grade teacher you had a crush on that made you stand in the corner in front of the whole class, and they all laughed at you but you knew then that you'd make them all sorry one day? Or do you figure this is the only way you're ever going to become part of any woman's life?

[Overman]

Killtown,

Thank you, That first post was one of the funniest things I have ever read. You are seriously implying that some random person who took a picture of a plume of smoke is in on some grand conspiricy.

Oh Man LOL!!!!!

[Pardalis]

Killtown, if you had any shread of decency, you should apologize to Val and treat her with respect.

You have no evidence to back your claims, none what so ever. Your blog is damaging someone's reputation and honor. It is gratuitous diffamation of character of the lowest kind.

This lady just happened to make a picture of a plume of smoke in the sky. Stop harrassing her and leave her be. Instead of doing a real investigation on your government, the ones that you say are the real guilty ones, you are attacking this one defenseless and innocent lady. You are trully pathetic.

[Killtown]

1) you state she was in financial trouble, and yet had a 300 dollar camera, well as previously stated, she is a realtor, as such im surprised her camera was that cheap

2) also, it appears according toy ou post she and/or her husband owned another business, yet another reason to own a good camera

3) what evidence do you have she uses the "honor system" she asks that all checks be made out to the todd beamer foundation, this is pretty mucht eh opposite of the "honor system"


1: its doubtful she ever even looked at the software
2: its HIGHLY doubtful the software is capable of making the edits you seem to be implying it did
3: you have no proof she was ever even in possession of the bundled software, are you certain this wasnt her helicopter freinds camera she was borrowing? or maybe she got it second-hand or as an open box item and it didnt come with the disc
1) she bought a new camera and computer. Was it for her new career in real estate? Possibly, but she says she didn't start taking real estate classes until after the New Year.

2) Um, owned a business that was about to go bankrupt. Obviously you didn't read my beginning post very well:

were in severe financial trouble in which they filed Chp 11 on their saw mill business 9 days after 9/11 and then had to close it down on Dec. 31th.

3) Go read my linked blogpost.

1. Your guess.
2. 100% sure of that?
3. LoL! What part of her "month-old" camera do you not understand?

Btw, no one thinks it's fishy she had her camera ready by the door waiting for a helicopter flyby?

And what about her hearing/seeing the jet fly over her house in the near opposite direction Flight 93 supposedly flew in?

[Killtown]

So I guess that Killtown is now conceding there was no "ordnance plume" at Shanksville, because he now believes the picture was photoshoped.
Essentially.

[Killtown]

although if it was photoshopped it begs the question, how does this implicate the government?
Didn't you read the part about the 3 FBI guys who autographed a shirt for her?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/fbi-sigs.2.jpg

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

[mortimer]

Essentially.

And your evidence for this so far is:

1. The camera that Val is holding, whether it was the camera used on 9/11 or not, comes with photo editing software prepackaged.
2. ???

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Was the camera purchased new or used?
If used, was the software still bundled with the camera?
Was her PC/Mac capable of running the software?
Was the software installed on her PC/Mac?
Are there any artifacts/evidence of digital manipulation on the photo?


ETA

What are the available editing functions of the different pieces of software in the bundle?

[Killtown]

To even suggest that she managed to alter the plume with this software is laughable and shows your ignorance when it comes computers or media.
You a 100% sure the software that came with her camera couldn't photoshop that plume on there?

[Pardalis]

Since you concede that the plume of smoke wasn't an ordnance plume, then why don't you at least remove this theory off your blog? Why would you want to keep this misinformation posted?

[Killtown]

Which furthers the idea that she isn't computer savvy enough to use the software - or perhaps were simply not interested in it.
Well what about her husband?

[Pardalis]

Well what about her husband?

And what about her dog?

[Killtown]

Sorry, you lose on this point. The Post-Gazette was correct. You see, a single AA cell is properly called a "cell," and a combination of multiple cells is called a "battery." You're wrong, the Post-Gazette's account, and Val's account, were technically correct.

Ha ha ha!!! :D

[Hellbound]

You a 100% sure the software that came with her camera couldn't photoshop that plume on there?

I am.

The software provided with her camera was not capable of photoshopping in a smoke plume without leaving obvious digital traces.

A question that anyone who was actually interested in investigating to find the truth could have answered with a few minutes of looking at the software capabilities.

Of course, this requires integrity, and is admittedly a few more minutes of work than making up something to support pre-concieved slander.

[defaultdotxbe]

1) she bought a new camera and computer. Was it for her new career in real estate? Possibly, but she says she didn't start taking real estate classes until after the New Year.
very well, point conceded

2) Um, owned a business that was about to go bankrupt. Obviously you didn't read my beginning post very well:
that doesnt necessarily mean anything, business expenses dont always translate directly to personal expenses

not to say val did this, but befroe my mom declared bankruptcy she maxed out all her credit cards because she knew once she filed she wouldnt have to pay them back

3) Go read my linked blogpost.
i did, we went over this before

1. Your guess.
is your guess any better than mine?

2. 100% sure of that?
you clearly never owned a digital camera

3. LoL! What part of her "month-old" camera do you not understand?
what part of "open-box item" do you not understand? personally i think #1 is the most likely answer

Btw, no one thinks it's fishy she had her camera ready by the door waiting for a helicopter flyby?
no, besides what difference does it make? if there were no photos youd be saying "no one thinks its fishy this plane crashed and no managed to get a picture of it?"

And what about her hearing/seeing the jet fly over her house in the near opposite direction Flight 93 supposedly flew in?
sounds doesnt always travel in a straight line, it echoes, it can appear louder from one direction, even if thats not the direction it comes from (this can be because of an open window on that side of the house, diffrences in soundproofing/insulation, and what room val was in when the plane flew by)




so seriously killtown, why dont you lay out exactly what you thinkl happened in shanksville that day, detail for detail, all you CTers liek to poke holes in the official story, but can you provide an alternate explanation with fewer holes?

[Killtown]

You do care - a great deal - if she faked this photo. Otherwise, you wouldn't go through all this trouble.
Well I always care if somebody's running a scam, don't you?

But I'm more interested in the connection with the FBI. If her photo is found fake, you think the FBI had nothing to do with it?

[Killtown]

Answer the question, Killtown:

Given this startling lack of competence, the very notion that we needed your help to formulate our theory is utterly ridiculous.
What is this relating to?

[Pardalis]

I suggest that Killtown's threads should be safeguarded for posterity, in any case Val Mc CLatchey decides to sue Killtown for diffamation of character.

[Anti-sophist]

Am I going to need to bust out my protractor and debunk your ridiculous claims, like JDX's?

[Killtown]

Was the camera purchased new or used?
If used, was the software still bundled with the camera?
Was her PC/Mac capable of running the software?
Was the software installed on her PC/Mac?
Are there any artifacts/evidence of digital manipulation on the photo?


ETA

What are the available editing functions of the different pieces of software in the bundle?

Why do you think I would know?

Here, ask her: stooge@shol.com


PS - when you going to finish "debunking" me on your blog site? Funny how you just stopped in the middle of it!

[Killtown]

Since you concede that the plume of smoke wasn't an ordnance plume,
That's not what I conceded to. Go back and read.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why do you think I would know?

Here, ask her: stooge@shol.com

You need to know the answers to those questions in order to substantiate your claim.


PS - when you going to finish "debunking" me on your blog site? Funny how you just stopped in the middle of it!
Yes, I was writing up a summary of the thread on the forums. However, I put that on the back burner to address Hoffman's claims of 60 microns. Your point?

[LashL]

Well I always care if somebody's running a scam, don't you?

Then you'd best be taking down your blog as it is a complete scam.

But I'm more interested in the connection with the FBI. If her photo is found fake, you think the FBI had nothing to do with it?

As usual, you have everything bass ackwards.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the photo is fake.

Unless and until there is, you are doing nothing more than accusing by insinuation an innocent woman of nefarious deeds on the basis of nothing but your twisted conspiracy-addled imagination.

That is truly despicable.

[Killtown]

that doesnt necessarily mean anything, business expenses dont always translate directly to personal expenses

You do remember her talking about they may lose their house, right?

Your other stuff was so amazingly stupid that I'm not even going to bother responding, especially about the "echoing" plane!!!!

[LashL]

I suggest that Killtown's threads should be safeguarded for prosperity, in any case Val Mc CLatchey decides to sue Killtown for defamation of character.

That's a good idea. Be sure to keep the IP records as well so that he cannot later claim that someone else was impersonating him.

[defaultdotxbe]

edit: double post

[Killtown]

Am I going to need to bust out my protractor and debunk your ridiculous claims, like JDX's?
Sure! It's about time someone did some actually science and not insults.

[Pardalis]

That's not what I conceded to. Go back and read.

You said "essentially", which means in essence, you concede that the plume of smoke wasn't an ordnance plume.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's a good idea. Be sure to keep the IP records as well so that he cannot later claim that someone else was impersonating him.

Or be pro-active and let her know that this information is available; she may or may not know of this forum and if she does not would not know to contact the admins for information.

[Killtown]

1) You need to know the answers to those questions in order to substantiate your claim.

2) Yes, I was writing up a summary of the thread on the forums. However, I put that on the back burner to address Hoffman's claims of 60 microns. Your point?
1) What are my claims?

2) just curious when you are finished "debunking" me, that's all.

[Anti-sophist]

A few notes:

Can edit does not imply did edit.
Saying something false does not imply lying.

You need to prove, including in any court of law, that not only did she have editing software, but she KNEW she had editting software, to prove she was lying. Furthermore, you would need to prove she both had the oppurtunity, and took it, to edit the photo.

As far as I can tell, you've found that she was in possession of editting software that she was unaware of, at worst. You need more proof.

[T.A.M.]

If he was doing anything close to this level of harrassment, in real life, not on the net, she would have a restraining order on him. You are nasty KT.

TAM

[LashL]

Sure! It's about time someone did some actually science and not insults.

Says the guy who makes accusations against innocent people without doing the ten minutes of research required to ascertain whether it's even possible for his unfounded accusations to be true.

Unbelievable.

[Killtown]

you concede that the plume of smoke wasn't an ordnance plume.
That's not what I conceded to. Go back and READ.

[R.Mackey]

We've already beat this paranoid delusion of Killtown's to death and beyond.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1898095#post1898095), poster Arkan_Wolfshade shows the geometry of the crash. The impact crater, the extent of foliage burned, and the debris field are all consistent with Val's photograph.

The photograph is also consistent with the aircraft's true direction of travel and the prevailing wind direction, but not consistent with the direction of travel made up by conspiracists, as shown in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1899292#post1899292). Their claim that the aircraft was travelling due west is a result of quote-mining. The FDR and radar data all support the official direction of travel.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1858054#post1858054) I summarized two calculations (done by people who can add numbers properly) that independently showed the smoke plume size was completely credible.

I could go on, and on, and on.

We know that Flight 93 crashed there. Tons of debris were found. Many people witnessed the crash. The cloud of smoke created and seen is right where, when, and how Val McClatchey's photograph says.

And we're supposed to be impressed that she had access to editing software.

Killtown, you have a vendetta against Val McClatchey. You libel her on your website, and here. Your actions are borderline criminal.

But please, go on posting. It only serves to further undermine you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) What are my claims? You have accused her of being involved in a scam.

2) just curious when you are finished "debunking" me, that's all.
That already happened here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61633)

[CFLarsen]

Well what about her husband?

Now you are being dishonest. If you want to insinuate that she has doctored the photo, you can't bring up her husband.

It is either her or someone else. When you continue to implicate her in something sinister, you are smearing her name.

Why are you so darn interested in attacking her? She's a human being, who witnessed a terrible event, costing many people's lives.

Have you no decency?

[Pardalis]

That's a good idea. Be sure to keep the IP records as well so that he cannot later claim that someone else was impersonating him.

And I should have written "posterity", instead of "prosperity"...

How embarrassing :o

[Bell]

Sure! It's about time someone did some actually science and not insults.

Be our guest.

[defaultdotxbe]

Your other stuff was so amazingly stupid that I'm not even going to bother responding, especially about the "echoing" plane!!!!
so you think echoes are a conspiracy too?


personally i think everything that spews out of your mouth is amazingly stupid, but i still take the time to respond, whats your problem?

so, whats your theory on what happened in shanksville?

[Killtown]

1) but she KNEW she had editting software, to prove she was lying.

2) Furthermore, you would need to prove she both had the oppurtunity, and took it, to edit the photo.
1) Where did I ever say she was lying about not having editing software? Apparently "JREF" is an acronym for "I can't read very well".

2) I did prove she had opportunity along with motive.

[Pardalis]

2) I did prove she had opportunity along with motive.

So are you actually accusing Valeria McClatchey, of Indian Lake, Pennsylvania, to have personnally doctored her picture intitled "End of Serenity"?

[LashL]

As always, this moron smears by insinuation and innuendo so that he can play word games and claim that he's just JAQing off.

I'd suggest not giving him the audience that he so obviously craves, but I know how compelling it is to watch him contradict himself and bury himself deeper and deeper in the eternal morass of his paranoia.

[defaultdotxbe]

Didn't you read the part about the 3 FBI guys who autographed a shirt for her?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/fbi-sigs.2.jpg

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html
what does that have to do with anything? i have an autographed picture of leonard nimoy on my wall, does that make me jewish?


...actualyl youd probably think it does

[LashL]

what does that have to do with anything? i have an autographed picture of leonard nimoy on my wall, does that make me jewish?


...actualyl youd probably think it does

I have an autographed Johnny Bower jersey, an autographed Darcy Tucker stick, an autographed Tragically Hip jersey, and an autographed Johnny Depp photograph. Does that make me a hockey playing, rock star/actor?

[Killtown]

1) In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1898095#post1898095), poster Arkan_Wolfshade shows the geometry of the crash. The impact crater, the extent of foliage burned, and the debris field are all consistent with Val's photograph.

2) The photograph is also consistent with the aircraft's true direction of travel and the prevailing wind direction, but not consistent with the direction of travel made up by conspiracists, as shown in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1899292#post1899292).

3) Their claim that the aircraft was travelling due west is a result of quote-mining. The FDR and radar data all support the official direction of travel.

4) In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1858054#post1858054) I summarized two calculations (done by people who can add numbers properly) that independently showed the smoke plume size was completely credible.

5) We know that Flight 93 crashed there. Tons of debris were found. Many people witnessed the crash.

6) The cloud of smoke created and seen is right where, when, and how Val McClatchey's photograph says.
1) :boggled:

2) :boggled:

3) Where did I say due west?

4) How many gallons was that based on?

5) :rolleyes:

6) Except about 250 yrds off, or 2 1/2 football field lengths and that's if the plume was 7 football fields wide. :jaw-dropp

[Pardalis]

Killtown, are you accusing Valeria McClatchey, of Indian Lake, Pennsylvania, to have personnally doctored her picture intitled "End of Serenity"?

[Killtown]

1) You have accused her of being involved in a scam.

2) That already happened here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61633)
1) Where?

2) Where specifically in that thread?

[Killtown]

1) If you want to insinuate that she has doctored the photo, you can't bring up her husband.
Where did I insinuate that?

[Arus808]

As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.


and this is "sinister" how?
my sony came with a sony image program. All it can do is crop, add borders to make stupid frames to a photo, remove red eye, resize and do some "color" adjustments (like turning a photo black and white or sepia tone) or imporve color balance, white balance, and contrast.
It definitely cannot do what the you are proposing or making it seem to do.

[defaultdotxbe]

Where did I insinuate that?
in your freaking thread title

[Killtown]

so, whats your theory on what happened in shanksville?
No 757 crashed there. 757's don't burrow all the way underground, even if the soil is "spongy".

[R.Mackey]

1) :boggled:

2) :boggled:

3) Where did I say due west?

4) How many gallons was that based on?

5) :rolleyes:

6) Except about 250 yrds off, or 2 1/2 football field lengths and that's if the plume was 7 football fields wide. :jaw-dropp
Since you can't add, you've reverted to the time-honored scientific tradition of "argument by smiley?"

We've done the work, Killtown. You saying "it ain't so" is insufficient.

I also note, humorously, that the "football field" remains the standard unit of length in your own personal system. Further evidence, as if any was needed, that you have no scientific training whatsoever.

Your argument remains refuted. You are, therefore, in breach of your own agreement that you would apologize to Val if you couldn't prove your point. Yet here you are, still libeling her. I therefore state, with the weight of evidence behind me, that you are a liar and a charlatan of the absolute worst kind.

[Killtown]

So are you actually accusing Valeria McClatchey, of Indian Lake, Pennsylvania, to have personnally doctored her picture intitled "End of Serenity"?
No, go back and read.

[Killtown]

what does that have to do with anything?
Guess you missed the part where they took her memory card and possibly hard drive back with them.

[realitybites]

That's a good idea. Be sure to keep the IP records as well so that he cannot later claim that someone else was impersonating him.
I don't think that would be a concern. KillTown's arrogence is unique, even for a conspiracy nut. It would take a special kind of sociopath to replicate it.

[Killtown]

and this is "sinister" how?
Photo may be fake, she had editing software, hmmm.

[defaultdotxbe]

Guess you missed the part where they took her memory card and possibly hard drive back with them.
if thats your point why bring up an autograph?

and BTW, "no 757 crashed there" is not an explanation of what happened in shanksville, an explanation would involve what DID happen, not what didnt

[Killtown]

in your freaking thread title
my title just states facts.

[defaultdotxbe]

Photo may be fake, she had editing software, hmmm.
the software she had was not capable of performing the photomanipulation you attribute to it

liek saying there was a guy on the grassy knoll with a pellet gun, HE must have shot kennedy


my title just states facts.
seriously, cut the crap, everyone knows what you are implying

Photo may be fake, she had editing software, hmmm.
why bring this up unless you want to make some point with it...hmmm

[Killtown]

Since you can't add, you've reverted to the time-honored scientific tradition of "argument by smiley?"

We've done the work, Killtown. You saying "it ain't so" is insufficient.
Care to answer questions 3 and 4?

[Killtown]

1) if thats your point why bring up an autograph?

2) and BTW, "no 757 crashed there" is not an explanation of what happened in shanksville, an explanation would involve what DID happen, not what didnt
1) further proof they were there.

2) Only in JREF world.

[Bell]

Photo may be fake, she had editing software, hmmm.

Maybe the photo shows a missile hit? You know, like the one that hit WTC1?

Hey Killtown! I can answer your question nr. 3!

Yes, it DOES look like a Boeing 757 crashed there!

Look at this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888645023818899cd.jpg

I don't believe a 767 crashed in the WTC, so can't compare it. I do think a missile crashed there, so maybe it IS a good comparison!

Plus, you really think Val's plume was 7 football field length wide???

:bwall

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2462

[CptColumbo]

In one post you accuse Mrs. McClatchey of performing the edit, in the next (and in some cases the same) post you say it was the FBI, then you accuse the husband. One common trait of liars is inconsistancy.

[Killtown]

the software she had was not capable of performing the photomanipulation you attribute to it
Your proof of that?

[Killtown]

In one post you accuse Mrs. McClatchey of performing the edit, in the next (and in some cases the same) post you say it was the FBI, then you accuse the husband. One common trait of liars is inconsistancy.
Can you prove all this?

[CFLarsen]

Photo may be fake, she had editing software, hmmm.

...and???

Is that really all you got? Man, you are desperate to smear another person.

What has she done to you? I simply refuse to believe that you pick this woman and start attacking her, based on such desperate speculation. There must be something else.

Don't you realize how much harm you do?

[NoZed Avenger]

Derrrr.

That's perfect.

I mean, I kind of picture you saying that a lot when presented with facts, but to actually type it out really brings home the whole "chimpanzee looking at the schematics for the Space Shuttle" type of sound that I will perpetually associate with your name.

[defaultdotxbe]

2) Only in JREF world.
wish id known that when i was a kid and my mom asked why my room was a mess, i could have just told her "well it sure wanst an elephant" and been off the hook


Your proof of that?

youve been told several times what the software is capable of, if you think it could have made the image get a copy, and use it to create a similar image

[CptColumbo]

Can you prove all this?
Yes.

[Killtown]

youve been told several times what the software is capable of, if you think it could have made the image get a copy, and use it to create a similar image
You want me to take the word of a Jrefer? :boggled:

[R.Mackey]

Care to answer questions 3 and 4?
Sure.

Question 4 was regarding initial fuel size. Of the two calculations I presented, the first was based on 10,000 gallons. The second did not consider fuel as an independent variable. As we showed over and over, the plume width for those amounts of time is a strong function of the fuel distribution at ignition, not the total amount of fuel. We beat this to death as well, and you didn't get it. You may recall me attempting to explain volatility (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1896231&highlight=aerosolize#post1896231) and aerosol effects to you.

Question 3 is regarding the aircraft's direction of travel. Arkan's post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1899171#post1899171) is an overlay of a picture taken from your blog. Note, carefully, the blue arrow.

Val, in fact, did not ever say or even imply that the aircraft was heading west, the direction of your arrow. All she said is that she heard it "overhead." Since it was flying, this should suprise no one. Nonetheless, you and your brethren chose to misinterpret her, all for the sole purpose of casting maximum doubt and misdirection on her story.

Now that I've answered yours, you answer mine. Did you make that horrible, unbelievable math error, or no?

[Killtown]

yes
Ok, waiting.

[defaultdotxbe]

You want me to take the word of a Jrefer? :boggled:
then prove us wrong, get the software and fake a picture smart guy

[CptColumbo]

You want me to take the word of a Jrefer? :boggled:

You want us to trust the word of a person who made unfounded accusations against an innocent woman, then disrupted her life and livlihood.

[CptColumbo]

Ok, waiting.

You first.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) Where?

2) Where specifically in that thread?

RE 1: Post 111 of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1985859#post1985859)

RE 2: The thread, as a whole, addresses, and debunks, your claims.

[jhunter1163]

I wonder if Val would pursue a libel suit if I could get her a lawyer pro bono.

[Killtown]

1) Of the two calculations I presented, the first was based on 10,000 gallons.

2) Question 3 is regarding the aircraft's direction of travel. Arkan's post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1899171#post1899171) is an overlay of a picture taken from your blog. Note, carefully, the blue arrow.

3) Val, in fact, did not ever say or even imply that the aircraft was heading west, the direction of your arrow. All she said is that she heard it "overhead." Since it was flying, this should suprise no one. Nonetheless, you and your brethren chose to misinterpret her, all for the sole purpose of casting maximum doubt and misdirection on her story.

4) Did you make that horrible, unbelievable math error, or no?
1) How many gals did official say 93 crashed with?

2) I thought you said wind direction too. I concede the wind direction as P.M. has it.

3) Wrong... http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html

4) math error on what?

[R.Mackey]

I wonder if Val would pursue a libel suit if I could get her a lawyer pro bono.
She apparently issued a cease-and-desist letter once before, so I think it's possible that she would.

Keep in mind, though, there is some evidence that Killtown is a minor.

[Killtown]

RE 1: Post 111 of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1985859#post1985859)

RE 2: The thread, as a whole, addresses, and debunks, your claims.
1) what part of "if" do you not understand?

2) No it doesn't.

[LTC8K6]

MSRP of $299 means it sold for a lot less than that.

[CptColumbo]

I wonder if Val would pursue a libel suit if I could get her a lawyer pro bono.
First you would have to find a private eye who would work pro-bono to find his/her actual identity, since he/she is apparently too much of a coward to put his/her actual reputation where his/her blog is.
But that isn't too difficult.

[Killtown]

MSRP of $299 means it sold for a lot less than that.
Derrrrr.

[Hellbound]

She apparently issued a cease-and-desist letter once before, so I think it's possible that she would.

Keep in mind, though, there is some evidence that Killtown is a minor.

IMHO, all the more reason to do this. Makesure the parents know what their child is doing, and if they already know then they should be held responsible for it.

[Regnad Kcin]

You want me to take the word of a Jrefer? :boggled:Please grow up. Everyone will be happier, including you.

[Pardalis]

She apparently issued a cease-and-desist letter once before, so I think it's possible that she would.

Keep in mind, though, there is some evidence that Killtown is a minor.

Sometimes I don't think Killtown is even human. He's like those automated response softwares.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) what part of "if" do you not understand?
Phrasing accusations as questions does not diminish the fact they are accusations.

2) No it doesn't.
"nuh-uh" is not a valid counter-argument once you are past the fourth grade. You will have to do better.

[Hellbound]

First you would have to find a private eye who would work pro-bono to find his/her actual identity, since he/she is apparently too much of a coward to put his/her actual reputation where his/her blog is.
But that isn't too difficult.

Actualy, I suspect that some of the blog/email sites would be able to provide the needed info if subpoenaed.

[jhunter1163]

I realize he's probably poor, but I think a little peace and quiet for Val would be a good thing. Even if he's a minor, he has to abide by a C&D order. I'll put out some feelers.

[CptColumbo]

Keep in mind, though, there is some evidence that Killtown is a minor.
If in the US shouldn't he/she be in school.

[R.Mackey]

1) How many gals did official say 93 crashed with?
How about you tell us? Hint: It was over 5,000 gallons. Another hint: This doesn't change our conclusions, read the post and stop grasping at straws.



2) I thought you said wind direction too. I concede the wind direction as P.M. has it.
Thank you. Thus you admit your blog was in error posting that picture. Point for me.

3) Wrong... http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html
You talking about this?

Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.
That's another example of quote mining. She lives in Indian Lake. Obviously there was a roar above Indian Lake. I mean, it wasn't below the town, now was it?

Are you attempting to extrapolate that she claims a direction of travel from this?

4) math error on what?
Still hiding? What, I didn't use a big enough font?
Killtown, do you deny that you added 580 MPH to 125 feet to get 705 feet in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1859207#post1859207)? Yes or no?
Now answer, please.

[defaultdotxbe]

Actualy, I suspect that some of the blog/email sites would be able to provide the needed info if subpoenaed.
i would be more than happy to provide killtowns IP address should he be investigated :p

[jhunter1163]

Maybe we could subpoena LTW, kill two birds with one stone.

[Darat]

I am closing this thread whilst I seek some advice regarding the unsubstantiated allegations made by Killtown. The subject is also "out of bounds" for the time being and any attempt to continue the discussion in other threads will result in further action including suspension or banning.

I will try to get back to you all as quickly as possible.

Thank-you for your co-operation.

[CptColumbo]

Actualy, I suspect that some of the blog/email sites would be able to provide the needed info if subpoenaed.

I believe in tort/civil law that the plantiff is supposed to do their own investigation. If it was a criminal investigation there would be no problem. So if, for example, Killtown was violating a cease and desist order, he/she could be found in contempt of court and it would become a criminal matter. That is if the order was in effect.

Someone more familiar with US law can correct me if they like.