It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People's thoughts on Mrs McClatchy?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com...

"Truthers" nearly ruined an innocent woman's life. Just wondering if there can be any justification in this.

-----------------------
Edited title to reflect topic

[edit on 11/9/07 by masqua]




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Every time I’ve done any stories it goes online and all these conspiracy theorists start up and they call me and harass me,” said Mrs. McClatchey, 51, who runs her own real estate company.

In numerous online postings, critics have ripped apart every element of the photo, and Mrs. McClatchey’s life. They accuse her of faking the photo, of profiteering from it and of being part of a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Flight 93 was shot down by the government.

They claim the mushroom cloud is from an ordnance blast, not a jet crashing; the cloud is the wrong color for burning jet fuel; the cloud is too small and in the wrong position.

www.nytimes.com...


Interesting story. I wonder why Mrs. McClatchy needs to deal with harrassment over helping provide the very thing that we are all supposedly searching for... evidence of truth.

A sad story and a reminder why it is so important to stem the urge to preconceptions and mean-spirited ignorant accusations.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by evanmontegarde
 

Who says she's innocent, the mainstream media?... The Fbi?

That photo is so fake that I can't believe she's not in jail now... The plume was shown to be half a mile wide and doesn't even line up over the crater...



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Could someone provide me with a link that provides information on this specific photograph and why it's being questioned.....
thanks



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 

I should have posted this the first time... Even her story stinks to high heaven.

Val McClatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud?


six

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by PandorasBox
 

Please tell me how you can determine from that photo that the impact crater and plume do not coincide?....you cant even see the crater from the picture due to the trees...hill...distance..etc...
What proof do you have that this poor lady is "in" on what ever your version of events that happened that day? HARD Proof. Proof beyond third and fourth hand information and statments that were misconstrued or made up for that matter , in the heat of the moment when there was not much, if any, information coming out that was right or accurate.
This lady came forth and presented this photo with honest intentions of helping, and now she is harassed, beyond belief, because you guys have some half cocked idea that she she had the idea to "fake" this photo in the seconds after the plane crashed for money or cover up for a great goverment conspiracy. Please show me how she has gained monetarily. Actions like that do not help your cause. Next thing you gonna tell me is that doent look like burning jp fuel...geez



[edit on 12-9-2007 by six]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 

Maybe you should read that link I posted... It's all there.

The plume is clearly too big and not above the crater.

The time Mrs. McClatchey gave to when she took her photo, "about 5 seconds", was shown to not jive because the shockwave from the explosion she claimed to have been jolted by wouldn't have reached her house until about 8 seconds.


six

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PandorasBox
 

And again from a 1.5 mile distance ..Just how can you tell that the plume is not above the crater when you cant even see the crater? The artical how, with 2.1 mega pixal camera, the FBI could see debris flying in the air. Well it works both ways...How can you seen the detail you state the picture shows? Times are approximate, for all the author knows it could have been longer.
Your experience with plane crashes is???? You know that the plume is too big how? What references do you have? Or do you just know its too big because someone with "professed expertise" says so? I am sorry, I just dont even see what you are talking about.
I will call into question the validity of your reference. In it it talks about the "supposed" cell phone calls that "couldn't" have been made...When it has been proven time and time again that it was entirely possible that the phone calls could have been made. Shame on the author for cheapening the last words of the passengers to their family members..Really really poor taste if you ask me..... And I will call into question his motives...What has he got at stake here??
Very very very flimsy evidence. Speculation for the most part with little/no evidence.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by six]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by six]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Very very very flimsy evidence. Speculation for the most part with little/no evidence.

You would have convinced me it was flimsy evidence if you would have typed out one more "very".


The evidence against that photo is solid... It's either fake, or it shows the result of a different explosion.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PandorasBox
 



Stick with Killtown and you will go far.... many people say it was he that was harassing her.

The picture was not proven fake, Killtown pulled figures out of his.. sphincter.

Funny how a woman that was supposed to be so wrong and evil, sold copies of her photo and donated the proceeds to the Todd Bermer Foundation. Yeah real evil.


six

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PandorasBox
 

Well if thats all it will take...allow me to oblige... Very very very, and last but not least, very flimsy eveidence. Just what evidence is "solid"? Again, I ask your qualifications for determining that the plume came from a different source.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObviousStick with Killtown and you will go far.... many people say it was he that was harassing her.

How exactly was he harassing her?


The picture was not proven fake, Killtown pulled figures out of his.. sphincter.

Which figures are you referring to oh juvenile one?


Funny how a woman that was supposed to be so wrong and evil, sold copies of her photo and donated the proceeds to the Todd Bermer Foundation. Yeah real evil.

How do you know?... If she is donating everything for charity, why is she suing the AP for over $100,000 and how is she keeping some of the profits to fight her lawsuit?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Just what evidence is "solid"? Again, I ask your qualifications for determining that the plume came from a different source.

You didn't read his blogpost where all the evidence is... did you?


six

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PandorasBox
 

Hmmmmm....Not paying attention are you????...If you read my above posts, they will give you a indication as to wether or not I read the blog...(P.S. to make it easy for you...I did...showed no "SOLID" proof)

Now back to my original questions which you ignored or failed to answer...Your experience with plane crashes is?..You expertise/and or reference to determine that the plume is too big for a plane in the neighborhood of 300,000 pounds? Have you not done ANY reasearch on your own? Are you taking as gospel the word/blog of someone that has already been throughly debunked and has a questionable reputation? What do you consider "SOLID" evidence in that blog? What is his expertise in these matters to tell us these things he reports are "facts"? Is he just speculating?....WHAT are his motives?



[edit on 15-9-2007 by six]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I'm no photo expert, but I do know from taking my own pictures that they can be very misleading. I once took a picture of an old fence, it was falling down basically and had wires sticking out everywheres, but that barely showed in the photos.

Had I been trying to show how bad that fence was based on those photos, I could not convinced anyone based on the photos, bottom line is I shot the photos at the wrong time of day and the wrong angle to give a clear view of how damaged the fence was.

It all depends on angles and lighting on what shows clearly and does not show, that is why good photographers gets paid the big bucks. A photo is a one dimensional view, it can't show what the naked eye sees; so while the eye sees certain details clearly a photo very seldom will show the exact same thing in that depth and detail, it can't. I would think smoke would be something difficult to get to show up correctly in a picture.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by goose]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join