FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Flight 93 - the McClatchey Photo
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6473

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Flight 93 - the McClatchey Photo Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with evidence about the Flight 93
photo taken by Val McClatchey.


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.


Last edited by Fintan on Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2871
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm the first to admit that this evidence is not in any way
conclusive of government involvement, although it certainly implies
deliberate disinfo that is integral to the official Flight 93 scenario. The
government has never, to my knowledge, vouched for the veracity of this
photograph, just as they have never vouched for the infamous "5 frames"
from the Pentagon surveillance camera... or even that Osama bin Laden
was in any way responsible for the 9/11 attacks, for that matter. Still, in
the least, it is an interesting photo study that may implicate the
photographer in official gov't hanky-panky.

.................................................
The "End of Honesty"?

I recently did some photoanalysis of the famous "Flight 93 explosion"
photo taken by Indian Lake resident Val McClatchey. (All compiled
images here are my own creation, aside from Val's copyrighted picture.)

Here's the 'finished' photo (titled "End of Serenity") you can buy online
from Val for $20. (My sarcasm with 'finished' will be explained later.)



Here's a hard to find 'uncropped' version of the shot. Note the roof gutter
in the upper right corner.


Using that uncropped photo, you can pretty well approximate Val's position
in front of her house (facing due West) as she snapped the photo.



Then, using a satellite imaging service such as GoogleEarth, you can also
locate the "hole" the gov't claims Flight 93 caused when it crashed, as well
as the "burn spot" the crash is supposed to have caused, SW of the hole
and about 30 yards away. (Images from approx. 2004)



Now you can plot the positions to within a few feet. Note, Val's house is
2.55 KM (1.58 miles) from the "hole."



Laying the Val photo on top of the GoogleEarth clips, and plotting the
spacing between the markers, you can see that, in the least, this blast is
not coming from "the hole" or anywhere near it. If laid out to the same
distance, the ordnance blast (what I'll now use to describe this cloud) is
coming from considerably further South, somewhere near the large pond
about 1800' away (also where the gov't claims one of 93's engines was
found).



Once you've determined the positioning of the smoke cloud, you also
notice something else: it's far too large for smoke from a plane crash,
roughly 2200' across. Unless Flight 93 was carrying a Daisy Cutter in the
storage compartments, this blast should not be this large.



Therefore: the only 2 possible explanations for this are either (a) the blast
occurred from much closer to Val McClatchey than she thinks it did,
meaning she herself may have been duped...



...or, more simply, (b) this ordnance blast was photoshopped into the
picture, and Val is an accomplice to this sham, since she is claiming it is an
unretouched photo she took of the crash explosion.

"Lucy..... you got some 'splainin' to do..." Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."


Last edited by Rumpl4skn on Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1669
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: That's brilliant... Reply with quote

Quote:
Rumpl4skn's whole photo-analysis


That's *excellent* stuff. Good work!

I've heard no-one mention anything to do with this photo before, and
let's face it, the *only* photo of the incident, except for that mine-pit thing
they tried to say was a crash-site. And new 9/11 evidence is pretty hard to
come by, feels like I've been knawing the same-old raggedy bones for an
age, now.

I think we need to get this 'peer-reviewed', have someone who knows their
trig. and ang. and cameras confirm it. It looks about right to me, but P&A
maths wasn't my strong-suite, unfortuantely.

And no, it's not 'evidence'-grade proof of anything, but I think that it will
have a good chance in the waking people up department. It helps
break the official story.

Let's face it, it's the only 'photo of the 'crash', and I think that if you can
show ppl that it's a fake, it will help greatly in shaking their belief patterns
about what happened that day.

It says sad things about the way most ppls minds seem to work, but
nevertheless, I think that this is potentially mediagenic, moving stuff.

Regards,
C.

PS - Don't ppl out in the sticks have a likely access to dynamite or blasting
caps or whatever for huntin' shootin' and minin' and all that stuff? When did
she bring this pic forward? Did she have a chance to stage it in time, for
profit? Unlikely, I would have thought - exploding stuff up that near to a
buzzing 'crash scene'. Smoke's very hard to Photoshop, you see, and
I don't think a slack-jaw would be able to do it, certainly not convincingly,
so maybe this photo being faked (really well - except for the error you
found, Rump Wink and officialy endorsed could be persuasive
evidence of the invlovement of Higher Powers.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2871
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:09 pm    Post subject: Re: That's brilliant... Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
Smoke's very hard to Photoshop, you see, and I
don't think a slack-jaw would be able to do it, certainly not convincingly, so
maybe this photo being faked (really well - except for the error you found,
Rump Wink and officialy endorsed could be persuasive evidence of
the invlovement of Higher Powers.


Drawing smoke in Photoshop is a little difficult, but cutting and
pasting a military ordnance blast (which this definitely is, it's not burning jet
fuel, see below) is very easy when you have a pure blue sky backdrop.
It's almost a CGI bluescreen. All you need is a blast cloud that is lit from
the same direction as the scene you're pasting into.


(Photos courtesy Killtown)
Left is Flight 93, center is ordnance blast, right is jet fuel burning from a
crash.

Yes, deceiving people with Photoshop can be a lot of fun.



Laughing

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1669
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn said:

Quote:
Drawing smoke in Photoshop is a little difficult.... is very easy when
you have a pure blue sky backdrop. It's almost a CGI bluescreen.


Yeah. that's true. That sky it a *very* clean blue plate, isn't it? Bit of a colour
gradient (as you can see under your clone tool), but otherwise perfect.

Was the original photo digital or film? Be interesting to examine a high quality
negative (if it was film) or blow-up for edge-effects at the perimiter of the
cloud.

Regards,
C.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku


Last edited by Continuity on Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Authenticity of uncropped McCaltchey photo? Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Here's a hard to find 'uncropped' version of the shot.
Note the roof gutter in the upper right corner.



How did you find this photo, and can you verify that it's authentic?

If you believe the smoke may have been photoshopped, why not consider
that the gutter may have been photoshopped (and much more easily)?

I have no reason to believe the gutter is or isn't fake, but until you can verify
that the uncropped photo is authentic, your argument rests on a weak
premise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2871
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Authenticity of uncropped McCaltchey photo? Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:
I have no reason to believe the gutter is or isn't
fake, but until you can verify that the uncropped photo is authentic, your
argument rests on a weak premise.

The photo is copyrighted by Val McClatchey. It's from the Flight 93
Memorial website, and it's clearly attributed to her - they list her expressed
permission to use it.

The gutter simply allows you to pinpoint the photographer's precise spot.
But even without it, the driveway and roadway in front of her allow almost
as precise a location. It's not that big of an issue.

This photo and the "for sale" photo don't look identical enough to be the
same shot?

In anticipation of what could be your next question - if the alignment is off -
in order for the smoke cloud and "hole" to line up, she'd have to have been
standing about 30 yards into the woods to the left of her house.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Moussaoui trial exhibits incl. Flight 93 debris photos Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
I've heard no-one mention anything to do with
this photo before, and let's face it, the *only* photo of the incident, except
for that mine-pit thing they tried to say was a crash-site.
...
Let's face it, it's the only 'photo of the 'crash', and I think that if you can
show ppl that it's a fake, it will help greatly in shaking their belief patterns
about what happened that day.


The only photo of the crash? I presume you haven't seen the exhibits released during the
Moussaoui trial in Spring 2006
, including these photos:
Quote:

Exh. GX-P200057 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight
93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200058 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200059 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight
93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200060 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset
County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200061 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200062 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200063 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of debris found at the scene in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200064 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of debris found at the scene in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200065 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the cockpit voice recorder found at the scene in Somerset
County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200066 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the flight data recorder found at the scene in Somerset
County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200068 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the driver's license of John Talignani found at the scene in
Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.

Exh. GX-P200069 (intr'd: 04/11/2006)
Photograph of the personal effects of CeeCee Lyles found at the scene in
Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed.



Perhaps I should have posted this in a new thread. I think I will do that
now, and then edit this post with a link to the new thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Authenticity of uncropped McCaltchey photo? Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
macauleym wrote:
I have no reason to believe the
gutter is or isn't fake, but until you can verify that the uncropped photo is
authentic, your argument rests on a weak premise.

The photo is copyrighted by Val McClatchey. It's from the Flight 93
Memorial website, and it's clearly attributed to her - they list her expressed
permission to use it.

The gutter simply allows you to pinpoint the photographer's precise spot.
But even without it, the driveway and roadway in front of her allow almost
as precise a location. It's not that big of an issue.

This photo and the "for sale" photo don't look identical enough to be the
same shot?

In anticipation of what could be your next question - if the alignment is off -
in order for the smoke cloud and "hole" to line up, she'd have to have been
standing about 30 yards into the woods to the left of her house.


Clearly they're the same shot, but it seems inconsistent to consider that
the smoke may be fake without considering that the gutter may be fake.
That was my point.

Insofar as your argument is based on other signs of the photographer's
position, then the gutter becomes pretty much a non-issue, you're right. I
didn't examine your argument in great detail, yet, because there are quite
a few photos of the crash scene itself, which I suspect may be more useful
than the McClatchey photo in telling us what happened with Flight 93.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1669
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:23 pm    Post subject: Yes... Reply with quote

macauleym said:

Quote:
The only photo of the crash? I presume you haven't seen...


No - I have seen those photos - what I was trying to say was that it is the
only picture of the accident that's not of the scene alone. I dunno if
that makes any sense to you, or anyone else, maybe I should have 'just
said no' all those years ago. Wink

It's a media thing - i think that if this 'photo were proved fake, it'd
have a good 'wakeup potential' amongst the 'great unwashed masses'
(Tip'o't'hat to Fintan there Smile)

Like if you could prove one of the Mary Moorman 'photos was faked - it'd
prove nothing in itself about who did it, but it would make a lot of
people think again about how they saw things.

Regards,
C.

PS - Of the ones you linked to above - this is *my* favourite 'crash site'
photo:


http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200059-1.jpg

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku


Last edited by Continuity on Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:44 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

Continuity wrote:
macauleym said:

Quote:
The only photo of the crash? I presume you haven't seen...


No - I have seen those photos - what I was trying to say was that it is the only picture of the accident that's not of the scene alone. I dunno if that makes any sense to you, or anyone else, maybe I should have 'just said no' all those years ago.

It's a media thing - i think that if this 'photo were proved fake, it'd have a good 'wakeup potential' amongst the 'great unwashed masses' (Tip'o't'hat to Fintan there Smile)


Wake up to what? That the Flight 93 crash site was faked? Why would who have gone to all that trouble?

Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I can only guess what you mean about the McClatchey photos' "wakeup potential" if proved fake. If you have a case (I mean about Flight 93, not just whether the McClatchey photo is fake), present evidence and try to prove it. As far as I see, Occam's Razor suggests that no matter who planned/executed 9/11, the Flight 93 crash site probably contains the remnants of Flight 93 and its passengers, and if there's anything to hide, it's the possible fact that Flight 93 was shot down -- though this would still have to be proven.

I must be missing something, so pending your clarification, I'll refrain from asking why Exh. GX-P200059 is your favorite "'crash site' photo" of the ones I posted from the Moussaoui trial.

P.S. Now that I re-read your previous posts, I see that maybe you think the McClatchey photos' "wakeup potential", if proved fake, is simply in breaking the official story and encouraging people to question it. But I still don't see why the McClatchey photo might have been faked, or what the alleged fakery might conceal/reveal about Flight 93.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2871
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:37 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:

Wake up to what? That the Flight 93 crash site was faked? Why would who have gone to all that trouble?

My God, you're right.

Why would the government lie to anyone? I must be off my meds.

Sorry for the intrusion.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:51 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Why would the government lie to anyone?

Straw man. You didn't answer any of my questions. Especially: "Why would who have gone to all that trouble?" Re-read my post for context.

I re-read your posts in an attempt to understand your point, but I ultimately didn't understand, so I posted questions, hoping you would explain what you meant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2871
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:58 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

macauleym wrote:
Rumpl4skn wrote:
Why would the government lie to anyone?

Straw man. You didn't answer any of my questions. Especially: "Why would who have gone to all that trouble?" Re-read my post for context.

My question was the same style as your question - a vague, generalizing, psy-op: "Why would anyone go to such trouble?"

Why would anyone assassinate a President? Can't you get in trouble for that kind of thing? Laughing

Btw, Occam's Razor? I'd say faking 4 hijackings is infinitely simpler than hoping they all miraculously come off without a hitch.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: Yes... Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
macauleym wrote:
Rumpl4skn wrote:
Why would the government lie to anyone?

Straw man. You didn't answer any of my questions. Especially: "Why would who have gone to all that trouble?" Re-read my post for context.

My question was the same style as your question - a vague, generalizing, psy-op: "Why would anyone go to such trouble?"

Why would anyone assassinate a President? Can't you get in trouble for that kind of thing? Laughing


I didn't mean "why would anyone go to such trouble as carrying out 9/11", but rather "why would anyone go to the trouble of faking a plane crash when it would be easier to do the real thing?"

Kind of like, "If the CIA were going to perform a coup d'etat, why would they go to the trouble of faking an assassination and covering up the fact that it was faked, when it would be easier to actually assassinate the guy, since everyone's supposed to believe that he was assassinated?" That's what I'm asking with respect to Flight 93.


Rumpl4skn wrote:
Btw, Occam's Razor? I'd say faking 4 hijackings is infinitely simpler than hoping they all miraculously come off without a hitch.


If the planes were hijacked and piloted remotely, no miracle would be required. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about faking all the passengers, faking the hijackers, and deceiving (or shutting up) the eyewitnesses. You have a scenario as similar as possible to the "official story", and you make only those changes necessary (such as remote-control hijacking or something) to ensure, as you said, that it comes off "without a hitch" -- and, furthermore, to minimize your liabilities: stuff which needs to be covered up and which, if uncovered, could expose your plot.

I'm not sure if this addresses your comment, since I don't know quite what you have in mind by "faking 4 hijackings", or how that would be "infinitely simpler" than what.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.