Who is speculating the photos were staged? Please post links to discussions on this topic. Thanks.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke
- Thread starter MikeW
- Start date
Who is speculating the photos were staged? Please post links to discussions on this topic. Thanks.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
Somebody who by an unbelievable coincidence also chose the nickname "FalseFlag" does here:
http://911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=170820
FalseFlag said:
The phrase "Norman Mineta "didn't get the memo"" can be found here:
http://911blogger.com/news/2015-09-...g-out-aerial-attack-washington#comment-263228
I wonder if that is coincidence, too...kawika said:
Another truther who believes the photos may be staged goes by the handle "bio" at 911Blogger:
http://911blogger.com/news/2015-07-...termath-911-after-foia-request#comment-263041
bio said:
(What happened to the user "bio" here at ISF? Can't believe he hasn't been active here for 5 years now!)
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2007
- Messages
- 252
The link was posted up thread already, but let Oystein give you a hand with that.
Thanks for posting that link. I can't post links yet, so thanks for doing my work for me.
Yes, it's a coincidence. "Didn't get the memo" is a pretty common phrase, so don't read too much into it. I don't have any other screen names on forums dedicated to 9-11, and I only belong to this forum and the one linked above.
It is apparent that many people have seen my thread on that other forum, yet I have only received one response. My intent was to post a few of the pictures here to see if anyone would provide their opinion, but since you posted the link I don't have to.
I have read many of the posts here, and it's pretty obvious that the majority of the active posters on this forum are supporters of the official story. This is perfect. I am looking for people to tell me that I'm not seeing what I think I am. I am looking for as many opinions as possible, but so far I'm not getting any.
Please tell me why you think the woman standing in Cheney's office is definitely Mary Matalin on the morning of 9-11. Again, I'm intentionally looking for different opinions. I'm not doing this to argue with anyone. I'm doing this because I want someone to prove to me I'm wrong, and so far, that has not happened. Please tell me what you see that I can't. Thanks in advance to those who wish to share their opinions.
Yes, it's a coincidence. "Didn't get the memo" is a pretty common phrase, so don't read too much into it. I don't have any other screen names on forums dedicated to 9-11, and I only belong to this forum and the one linked above.
It is apparent that many people have seen my thread on that other forum, yet I have only received one response. My intent was to post a few of the pictures here to see if anyone would provide their opinion, but since you posted the link I don't have to.
I have read many of the posts here, and it's pretty obvious that the majority of the active posters on this forum are supporters of the official story. This is perfect. I am looking for people to tell me that I'm not seeing what I think I am. I am looking for as many opinions as possible, but so far I'm not getting any.
Please tell me why you think the woman standing in Cheney's office is definitely Mary Matalin on the morning of 9-11. Again, I'm intentionally looking for different opinions. I'm not doing this to argue with anyone. I'm doing this because I want someone to prove to me I'm wrong, and so far, that has not happened. Please tell me what you see that I can't. Thanks in advance to those who wish to share their opinions.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
Are you suggesting this is a Mary Matalin look-alike??
https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/19295977883/in/album-72157656213196901/
This picture was taken at 9:29am, Matalin is shown from behind the side, and out of focus. David Bohrer has quite a wide-angle lens on, so she is also somewhat distorted.
The next picture you present was taken not long after 2pm:
V1542-01
(This is the first photo of roll V1542. If you look at the arrangement of people around and things on the table - coffe cups, bottles... - you see that this has been taken in close temporal proximity to V1547-36, which is the last frame of film roll V1547. V1547-12 was taken at 1:57pm (TV image synched with archives). I'd estimate that V1542-01 was taken 2:15 or 2:25.
So - that's about 5 hours after the image in Cheney's office - very stressfuk 5 hours. Is it really surprising that the hair-do has deteriorated a bit?
I don't see longer hair. It's just not as freshly done.
Your next picture is V1542-09, mere minutes later. I still don't see that the hair is longer
Then V1558-07. Film roll V1558 can't be timed directly, but it precedes V1562 immediately: V1558-36 and V1562-01 are shot back to back, and V1562-14 is the first photo to contain Laura Bush, who arrived ca. 6:30pm. So Matalin in V1558-07 is seen perhaps sometime between 5:30 and 6:00 - another 3 hours later on a tough day.
Next, you show V1558-16 - not long after - toward 6pm perhaps.
You then note a "change in jewelry", comparing the gold bracelet on her left wrist with no bracelet in V1543-32 - but that's approximately 10:30am - conceivably they are watching the South Tower collapse on TV (in fact, I have seen claims on a couple of truther sites, including historycommons, that this was during the North Tower collapse, just before 10am, but that's impossible). So you are rewinding the clock by 7 hours!
Next up, you spot the bracelet on the other wrist, and no earrings, in V1547-09 - taken at 1:45am.
First, I am not convinced that there are no earrings - she is pictured small and with low contrast. Second, on the same film roll, both earlier (V1547-07) and later (V1547-25), she has her earrings on. Why would they stage single photos in that set, especially with so many people in it? No one would miss the photo if it weren't there, so why go to such great lengths to fake something that is entirely unnecessary?
You finally spot a "younger" Matalin in V1544-16. The end of the V1544 film is at 12:16: V1544-36. The earliest, V1544-05https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/19922013941/in/album-72157656213196901/ was probably shot not long after V1543-32 (~10:30). My guess would be that the "young" Matalin photo was shot closer to 11am than 12am. She doesn't look quite as "young" a bit earlier in V1544-10.
My take: She looks older in the center of her face. If you see her from behind, you don't see the emotions on her forehead and around her mouth. Simple as that.
The suggestion that there are "real" September 11 photos in the PEOC with the "real" Matalin, and also "faked" photos with a younger Matalin, done sometime later seems ridiculous to the extreme. Why on earth would the evil perpetrators need to fake Matalin into the Cheney office picures?
As for changing wrist jewelry: I know of at least three woman friends who do that all the time, especially with heavier, bulkier pieces.
In general, I think you are seeing ghosts. You badly want to spot inconsistencies. To me, the fact that those photos were snapped during many hours of a hard day, with changing light (distance from flash light; direction of flashlight; sometimes camera settings different), from different angles, sufficiently explains the differences in appearance.
By the way, if you want to know who some of the others are:
V1542-01 f.l.t.r: Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice, Lynne Cheney (hidden behind Rice), two junior staffers (the one in the dark suit perhaps Ethan Hastert), Nicholas Calio, Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Eric Edelman
I can provide more names, if anyone is interested.
Why does it matter? How does it fit with the delusional claims of 911 truth.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
First, I see no reason to fake it in the first place. There are many other means to determine Mineta's time line is off.
As far as the hair goes. Really, you really need to get out more. Hint, a woman's hairdo relaxes over time. It's not something that is paisted to her head.
Want to know where the bracelet is? It slid down her arm and is hidden by the sleeve of the coat. How do I know this? It's a loose fitting bracelet that was able to cover her watch in other pictures. Skinny arms and gravity should have lead you to it's whereabouts.
ETA: Just so you know............you never, ever talk about a woman's wrinkles.
Last edited:
I appreciate the response, but this argument does not answer my question. One does not need to prove why the photo was staged in order prove that it was staged.
Probably.
True. Hairspray loses its effect over time. Mary clearly states in later interviews that she briefly ran away from the White House when she heard other staffers shout "run run run". This means she was running and outside for at least a brief portion of the day. The problem is that no amount of running is going to change the length of a person's hair during the course of a few hours. It might certainly make it look messier, oilier, dirtier, and a different color, but it won't change the length.
Want to know where the bracelet is? It slid down her arm and is hidden by the sleeve of the coat. How do I know this? It's a loose fitting bracelet that was able to cover her watch in other pictures. Skinny arms and gravity should have lead you to it's whereabouts.
I stated in my original post that all of the jewelry discrepancies/differences are nothing more than oddities. They conclusively prove nothing, although they are worth noting.
ETA: Just so you know............you never, ever talk about a woman's wrinkles.
Except in this case where it might prove that the pictures were staged.
Thanks again for your responses. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for the response, but you didn't answer my question.
You know why this matters.
Possibly. That's why I am looking for as many other opinions as possible.
You have taken the time to give me a very detailed response, and I appreciate that. I wanted to post a short reply now to say, "Thanks." I need more time to review your answers, and try to see what you see. I will post my responses soon.
Again, thanks for your time and effort.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
True but, answering the question of motivation in this small case when it never really has been used as proof against the Mineta time line. It's an unnecessary complication that involves more people in the "cover-up".
Frankly, I don't see the difference in her hair length. It seems the same, just more relaxed.
Why? I looks more like you're reaching.
Again why stage it? The photos are insignificant. They were not released as an effort to discredit Mr Mineta. I personally don't see any need to discredit him. His testimony was useful and added to the understanding. He simply got the time wrong. No big deal.
No problem. I would like to know where you think you could be going with this?
Last edited:
I agree that the picture of Mary Matalin in Cheney's office was allegedly taken between 9:03 and 9:36am. How do you know it was allegedly taken at 9:29?
How do you know David Bohrer is using a wide-angle lens? What kind of camera was he using? What type of lens? The camera type and the lens type determine whether or not the lens is normal, wide-angle or ultra wide-angle. Unless the lens was ultra wide-angle, the distortion would be negligible.
If you look at the picture at full size and then put a straight edge between the far two window tops you will see the line is pretty straight. Yes, it falls off, or curves, at the far left edge, but this distortion is not enough to noticeably change Mary's appearance.
"It has never been used as proof against the Mineta timeline." This statement could not be farther from the truth. The Cheney office pictures are often used to "prove" Cheney was in his office until 9:36, thus discrediting Mineta. There are numerous examples, including post #6 in this thread. I can't post links yet, but there are many more.
Thank you. This is what I was looking for.
How am I reaching? I have stated twice that the jewelry issues are oddities and nothing more. They are there, and they can't be disputed. I admit, though, that they don't prove anything.
I respectfully disagree.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Prove in what context? On an internet forum? Why go to this length with no real public concern? A simple ignore would do.
Who exactly is paying enough attention to this to warrant this effort and potential risk.
If you look at picture V1557-11 (19916957735 if you use the URL) you will see CIA director George Tenet. In the background you see Bush giving his speech on the night of 9-11. The picture on the TV clearly says it is a "live" broadcast. This speech began around 8:30pm on 9-11 and it lasted less than 5 minutes. If you look at George's watch you can see the time is either 6:55 or 10:35. If George's watch is wrong, then all pictures involving clocks, watches or TV time stamps are suspect.
Let me say that again. If George's watch is wrong (doesn't match what is going on in the background), then all pictures involving clocks, watches, and TV time stamps are suspect.
Since all clocks, watches and TV time stamps are suspect, they conclusively prove nothing. Use them all you want, but they prove nothing.
My theory is that the picture of Mary Matalin in Cheney's office is either not of Mary Matalin at all, or, at the very least, it is not of her on the morning of 9-11. In order for the picture of Mary in Cheney's office to be legitimate, her appearance in all of the other pictures allegedly taken that day, regardless of time, need to reasonably match the first picture.
My contention is that Mary's hair is much longer in the PEOC pictures, and it is not possible for her hair to grow that much within a 12 hour period. Lighting, highlights, and messiness do not account for what I am seeing. In the first picture in Cheney's office there are three horizontal layers. The top, or outermost layer, does not extend to her ears. In the PEOC pictures you can clearly see her hair tucked behind her ear. This is not possible with the hairstyle that the Mary in Cheney's office has. It just isn't.
My opinion has nothing to do with 9-11. I would say the same thing if these pictures were taken out of the context of a 9-11 discussion.
Last edited:
Prove in what context? On an internet forum? Why go to this length with no real public concern? A simple ignore would do.
Who exactly is paying enough attention to this to warrant this effort and potential risk.
This argument is hilarious. You are a member of this forum and you post on this forum, yet you are implying that my posting of this issue on this forum is of no concern. If the Cheney office pictures are staged, then it is evidence of the crime of obstruction of justice. I'm pretty sure people should be concerned about that.
No one has noticed this, except me. That doesn't prove I'm wrong, and it does not prove that this issue is not worth pursuing. It only proves that no one else is paying attention.
No, it does not matter, and there will be no logical explanation of why it matter in context to 911,... not more than BS. As in a lack of understand perceptive, focal length, etc... , as already pointed out. Thanks for your non-response, guess it does not matter.
Was 911 a false-flag, FalseFlag? Is this a parody on the "realcddeal" kind of thing...? "this matters"... lol
Not really, they are not worth noting, it is BS which has no purpose related to 19 terrorists responsible for 911.
You forgot you said...
Why, oh, it was staged you want to say; OH, why does it matter, you will say... "You know why this matters"... and so it goes.
Which would mean nothing with respect to 911.
Why do you think it matters with respect to 19 terrorist doing 911 all by themselves. Or is this fall into the mind-reading column, the "You know why this matters" BS answer.
Your posts indicate a lack of understanding of photography, her hair looks the same. It was funny you are looking for curved things, that was funny. Then you leap to the full blown BS claim, if your staged photo is true, it must be an inside job, or what will you say? This=
How is it evidence of obstruction of justice? That is fantasy BS. Cheney was too late to impact the events of 911, and more late if the dolt terrorists on Flight 93 had acted earlier... in fact the pilots of 93 had just received the message to keep the cockpit secure when they were attacked and murdered, and heard on the Radio, ATC freq, screaming...
How does anything Cheney did before or during 911 rise to obstruction of justice; he did not crash the planes and his actions had nothing to do with the events of 911, since it was over before he could act.
The obstruction of justice BS is hilarious. A hilarious opinion, based on BS. And why is it obstruction of justice? I know... I know
Yes, you know I read minds... send me the million dollars
Pretend I don't...
Last edited:
Again, the "why" has nothing to do with proof that the pictures were actually staged.
My research proves otherwise. I asked several women if they brought different pieces of jewelry with them to work and changed it throughout the day. Here are a few of their responses:
"Never, and no one else I know does this."
"Never."
"Never. I would be afraid of losing my jewelry."
"I might take my earrings out during a long phone call, but that's it."
I admit my sample size was small, but not one person I asked said they took extra jewelry to work. Not one.
Again, the jewelry discrepancies prove nothing, but they are worth noting.
No, I don't want to see what I'm seeing. That's why I'm looking for other opinions. That is why I intentionally posted on this forum, which is hostile towards "truthers". I want someone to prove that I'm wrong, by showing me something that I can't see.
So far, I'm not seeing anything that changes my mind, but I have taken everyone's comments into consideration.
Your failures to answer my initial question and to post anything that even remotely resembles a cogent argument are more than enough for me to ignore your post.
Thanks for playing.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
There is no need to take the risk of faking these pictures. Why should I consider your "if"?
You really need to show a reason someone should consider pursuing it. These pictures are simply not needed. I know they were used as such but, that was just putting another nail in the coffin. At this point, there's more nails than wood.
Last edited: