911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

[beachnut]

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.

Your welcome, but her hair is still the same.

As expected, no explaining why it is obstruction of justice. Is it the inability to understand photography has interrupted and evaporated the evidence for obstruction of justice. Nothing you posted is evidence for obstruction of justice. Why is that? You are asking questions you should have answered already, like when you made up the BS claim of obstruction of justice.

 

[FalseFlag]

There is no need to take the risk of faking these pictures. Why should I consider your "if"?

I'm asking people to look for differences in Mary Matalin's appearance throughout the pictures. The responses I'm getting are not based entirely on her appearance. The responses I'm getting are based on why they would stage the pictures. The "why" has nothing to do with my initial question. The "why" is entirely irrelevant. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

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.

I don't need to show a reason why they would do this. I don't know how many times this needs to be said. You only want a "why" so you can change the focus of my original post and question. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game.

I will admit, with 100 percent agreement, that they did NOT have to stage these pictures. Unfortunately, based on what I see, I believe they did. Why they did this is not relevant to my original question.

 

[FalseFlag]

Your welcome, but her hair is still the same.

That answers my question. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

That answers my question. Thanks.

Failed to answer why your opinions lead to obstruction of justice; do you remember posting the claim?

 

[FalseFlag]

As expected, no explaining why it is obstruction of justice.

Here is the text of United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 73 Section 1519:

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

If the pictures were staged, it would be a violation of this code.

Let me simplify it for everyone. "Whoever knowingly falsifies or makes a false entry into any record with the intent to influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter..." If this picture was staged it is a false entry into the National Archives. The only purpose or intent of this staged picture would have been to influence the proper administration of the investigation of 9-11 by placing Cheney in his office when he was not.

If the pictures are staged, the people in the pictures and the person who took the picture are guilty of obstruction of justice.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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.

You're not seeing what you think you are. Who knew, Photography is like that sometimes.

You're welcome!

 

[ProBonoShill]

Here is the text of United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 73 Section 1519:

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

If the pictures were staged, it would be a violation of this code.

Let me simplify it for everyone. "Whoever knowingly falsifies or makes a false entry into any record with the intent to influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter..." If this picture was staged it is a false entry into the National Archives. The only purpose or intent of this staged picture would have been to influence the proper administration of the investigation of 9-11 by placing Cheney in his office when he was not.

If the pictures are staged, the people in the pictures and the person who took the picture are guilty of obstruction of justice.

When you have proof they were staged let us know.

Thanks in advance.

14 years later this is what's left of the truth movement. How sad.

 

[FalseFlag]

You're not seeing what you think you are. Who knew, Photography is like that sometimes.

LOL. I know nothing about photography. I know nothing about hair. I know nothing about our government. /sarcasm

You say that I'm not seeing what I think I am. Why? What do you see in the pictures that I don't?

 

[FalseFlag]

When you have proof they were staged let us know.

Thanks in advance.

14 years later this is what's left of the truth movement. How sad.

Each post like this does nothing to prove that I'm right or wrong about the pictures. Keep posting this nonsense all you want, but I see right through it.

 

[FalseFlag]

I can finally post pictures and links now.

Explain to me how it is possible for the hair on this person

to be the hair on this person.

In the first picture there is no possible way for her hair to get in her eyes. In the second picture her hair is now long enough to reach her eyes. How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: It's not possible.

The fact that so many of you are trying to change the subject by asking why they would do this tells me I'm right. So, thanks, I appreciate it. You all did exactly what I expected.

 

[beachnut]

Here is the text of United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 73 Section 1519:

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

If the pictures were staged, it would be a violation of this code.

Let me simplify it for everyone. "Whoever knowingly falsifies or makes a false entry into any record with the intent to influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter..." If this picture was staged it is a false entry into the National Archives. The only purpose or intent of this staged picture would have been to influence the proper administration of the investigation of 9-11 by placing Cheney in his office when he was not.

If the pictures are staged, the people in the pictures and the person who took the picture are guilty of obstruction of justice.

Which has what to do with 911? Zero.

Where is the proof? Opinions based on lack of knowledge, and BS about what woman say about earrings and things... all opinions. You don't seem to understand perspective, and other photographic principles.

Where is the evidence? The Obstruction stuff is funny.

How did this dovetail with the failed claims of 911 truth?

 

[FalseFlag]

Which has what to do with 911? Zero.

What do pictures allegedly taken on 9/11 have to do with 9/11?
No, wait. What do pictures allegedly taken in Vice President Dick Cheney's office on 9/11 have to do with 9/11?

Think about that. I know you can.

I had no idea Peter Griffin was based on a real person.

 

[beachnut]

I can finally post pictures and links now.

Explain to me how it is possible for the hair on this person

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/385/19295977883_64a97dd459_b.jpg[/qimg]

to be the hair on this person.

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/365/19730326989_920e6c834e_b.jpg[/qimg]

In the first picture there is no possible way for her hair to get in her eyes. In the second picture her hair is now long enough to reach her eyes. How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: It's not possible.

The fact that so many of you are trying to change the subject by asking why they would do this tells me I'm right. So, thanks, I appreciate it. You all did exactly what I expected.

LOL, soft focus on the hair, wide angle lens, no real detail on the face; you know there are also soft focus lenses? No big deal, but now the hair looks more the same. Good job, you debunked your opinion, there goes the tangential BS obstruction charges down the drain. Do you have perfect vision, the hair is the same. What does this have to do with 911?

In the first picture here hair is out of focus; thus no detail... and you are serious about this trivial problem of you not realizing lenses make a difference, as does the depth of field, and what is in focus in the photo.

Stop the exactly as expected stuff, and pay attention.

The cool part about photography; darn, I have only been taking photos for 50 plus years, and you present a wide angle lens, and a standard or tele lens photo, and notice differences which are due to the lenses.

When out of focus, it softens up the "wrinkles", and is more flattering; we use soft focus lenses for the effect of making photos more flattering... it was the fact she is not in focus why her wrinkles are missing in the first photo... simple photo science learned in photo 101, or the manual with our cameras, or the countless books on photography which you should have studied before presenting the opinion on obstruction based on opinion about photos.

 

[TJM]

How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: Poe.

Move along.

 

[FalseFlag]

LOL, soft focus on the hair, wide angle lens, no real detail on the face; you know there are also soft focus lenses? No big deal, but now the hair looks more the same. Good job, you debunked your opinion, there goes the tangential BS obstruction charges down the drain. Do you have perfect vision, the hair is the same. What does this have to do with 911?

In the first picture here hair is out of focus; thus no detail... and you are serious about this trivial problem of you not realizing lenses make a difference, as does the depth of field, and what is in focus in the photo.

Stop the exactly as expected stuff, and pay attention.

The cool part about photography; darn, I have only been taking photos for 50 plus years, and you present a wide angle lens, and a standard or tele lens photo, and notice differences which are due to the lenses.

When out of focus, it softens up the "wrinkles", and is more flattering; we use soft focus lenses for the effect of making photos more flattering... it was the fact she is not in focus why her wrinkles are missing in the first photo... simple photo science learned in photo 101, or the manual with our cameras, or the countless books on photography which you should have studied before presenting the opinion on obstruction based on opinion about photos.

What evidence do you have that they used a wide-angle soft focus lens?

I have not debunked my opinion. In fact, every time someone else posts it does nothing but reinforce my opinion that I am seeing two different people.

I know all about depth of field and photography. The only distortion I see is in your responses.

 

[FalseFlag]

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: Poe.
Move along.

Poe?

 

[TJM]

Poe?

Gotta be.

Unless you're really that ignorant.

 

[Axxman300]

I can finally post pictures and links now.

Explain to me how it is possible for the hair on this person

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/385/19295977883_64a97dd459_b.jpg[/qimg]

to be the hair on this person.

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/365/19730326989_920e6c834e_b.jpg[/qimg]

In the first picture there is no possible way for her hair to get in her eyes. In the second picture her hair is now long enough to reach her eyes. How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: It's not possible.

The fact that so many of you are trying to change the subject by asking why they would do this tells me I'm right. So, thanks, I appreciate it. You all did exactly what I expected.

Guess what, Hotrod, the hair is identical.

The top photo is taken with a wide-angle lens as evidenced by the angular distortion in the lower corners. It's obvious.

A lock of her hair has fallen across her face in the second picture. If you have dated a woman you'd known this happens.

You can get a fix on the time the first picture is taken by the image of the WTC on the TV. They moved to the underground command bunker and stayed there later. It was a long day, at one point AA77 was headed into D.C. and nobody knew its target. Al lot of people sweating it out.

The idea that these pictures were staged is inconsistent with the FACT that PBS Frontline had to use an FOIA petition to get access to them. Why stage pictures if you're not going to release them. Why take 200 staged pictures if you're not going to released them all?

The theory that there's a look-alike Mary Matalin is easily the dumbest thing since the WTC death-ray.

None of these pictures have anything to do why what was occurring in New York or at the Pentagon. Just reaction shots from the White House photographer. He took as many pictures on 9-10-2001, why not look at those and compare...you know... until your new meds arrive...

 

[beachnut]

You all did exactly what I expected.

And that was what? Call a failed opinion, BS? It is the same person in the photos. One out of focus, wide angle, one in focus at what appears to be a different focal length.

Why not explain in detail how this relates to 911, or the failed conspiracy theories from 911 truth; like the theme of the sub-forum? Tie it all into one SIOP. Explain why it matters, in your own words; do you have more, or was it all about the photos.

It is your opinion, which seems to be driven by the lack of photographic science, that Cheney obstructed justice because you think the photos are fake/staged due to a lack of knowledge of how out of focus people look to the same person in an in focus photo.

Are the photos digital, or scanned from film/transparencies? Do you have the original copies, with the data recorded on the properties?

You all did exactly what I expected.

Yes, claims are expected to be backed up with knowledge, evidence. The photo claim was an opinion, based on a lack of knowledge (all the questions), some BS about obstruction, and then played the, "what I expected" card, a few times.

Is victory next... and then silence

 

[beachnut]

OMG, the m&ms are out of focus, did they use stand in m&ms? This is obstruction of ....