• 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

My GF just looked at these two photos. She's wondering how you can't see that her hair is tucked behind her ear in both? It's all about layers done to give more body to the front on woman with high foreheads.

Her hair is a similar style to my GF.

Is your GF being paid by the NSA too; I knew it, all you rat Shills are being paid... where is my money...

lol

I glanced at his photos on the other forum, and saw she was the same without more than a glance; looking close makes it a closed deal; or Cheney has the best photoshopping and ability to keep people from talking in the world.

Falseflag, knows we are NSA agents, the gig is over...

I wonder what overall claim Falseflag is trying to support? lol - is it a bigger mystery than what claim the realcddeal was trying to make?
 
...
No one has submitted any evidence that disproves my claim. You claim they don't have to. OK. Fine. They don't have to. But you know that if you could disprove my claim you would do so in a heartbeat.
Burden of proof is on the claimant who departs from null hypothesis.
The evidence that you advance is your estimate that natural hair can not change in the way you think you see it change.
Our evidence to counter your claim is our estimate that natural hair can change as much as we think we see.
It's a classic clash of opinions, he-said-she-said.

What would be needed then is a more rigorous analysis that takes into account rules of image projection 3D-2D, given the properties of the specific lens and camera in question, some sufficiently precise definitions, measurements, numbers. That's not trivial, it's work, probably difficult work.

Burden of proof is still on the claimant. You. I am not interested in dismissing with evidence a claim that has been made without evidence.


I am aware of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that there are two Marys, because there are, in fact, two Marys.
No. Occams razor demands that though shalt not unnecessarily the number of entities (unproven assumptions). We do not know that a Mary -Matalin stand-in exists. We do know however that unstable hairdos exist. Occam's razor favours only one Matalin with bad hair.

There are at least 26 people represented in all of the photos.
I see at least 50.

Their pictures were taken from various angles, with potentially multiple cameras and lenses, over the course of a very long and stressful day. I have easily spent over 100 hours looking through these photos. Not one person, except Mary Matalin, looks different to me. She only looks different in two pictures. One of those pictures is in Cheney's office, and another picture is in the PEOC.
So are you claiming that only very few of the images are "faked" in some way?
Are you actually claiming there is actually a distinct person dressed like Matalin in those two photos who is not Mary Matalin?

The "fake Mary" looks the same in Cheney's office as she does in the one picture in the PEOC. So yes, when not one other person looks differently, besides her, the simplest explanation is that there are two Marys.
I might actually do a compilation of all "Matalins" shot from the right side. I have a hunch about what is the real distinction of the two...
Here is a list of all Matalin photos:
Photo|Timestamp|est. film time|"Young Mary"|from right and behind
V1541-13a ||unknown
V1541-14a ||unknown
V1546-03 |09:29|09:28-09:36|young M.|right behind
V1543-31 |10:28|10:00-10:30
V1543-32 |10:28|10:00-10:30
V1543-35 ||10:00-10:30
V1544-10 ||10:40-12:16
V1544-16 ||10:40-12:16|young M.|right behind
V1544-17 ||10:40-12:16||right behind
V1544-20 ||10:40-12:16
V1544-30 ||10:40-12:16
V1544-35 |12:15|10:40-12:16
V1544-36 |12:16|10:40-12:16
V1545-06 |12:27|12:20-13:20
V1545-07 |12:27|12:20-13:20
V1545-08 |12:29|12:20-13:20
V1545-16 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-29 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-31 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-32 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-33 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-34 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-35 ||12:20-13:20
V1545-36 ||12:20-13:20
V1547-01 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-02 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-03 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-04 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-05 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-07 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-09 |13:45|13:20-14:10
V1547-25 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-26 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-34 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-35 ||13:20-14:10
V1547-36 ||13:20-14:10
V1542-01 ||14:10- ?||right behind
V1542-07 ||14:10- ?
V1542-08 ||14:10- ?
V1542-09 ||14:10- ?
V1558-07 ||17:50-18:20||right behind
V1558-16 ||17:50-18:20

I have also scoured the internet looking for other photos of Mary Matalin throughout the years. I have seen her from multiple angles, and there is not one picture out there, that I have seen, in which I can not immediately recognize her.
I am really not sure I wouldn't, or should, recognize her on the two renegade photos...
 
Last edited:
I have also scoured the internet looking for other photos of Mary Matalin throughout the years. I have seen her from multiple angles, and there is not one picture out there, that I have seen, in which I can not immediately recognize her.

Would you agree she likes to part her hair on different sides maybe depending on occasion? In other words, she does not strictly part it left or right?

Ask a woman how this effects layering. ;)
 
My GF just looked at these two photos. She's wondering how you can't see that her hair is tucked behind her ear in both? It's all about layers done to give more body to the front on woman with high foreheads. The layers are left to right (her left/right). The longer left layers can keep the shorter right in check and add body, until you start to have a bad hair day (I think this requires hairspray). This is what she said, FWIW.

Her hair is a similar style to my GF.
My GF (ozrco43) also has hair. Her's never gets in her eyes - requires deliberate periodical intervention to ensure colour - in stripes.

Interesting ploy by the troller who is succeeding in getting everyone discussing hair.

[TrutherOrTrollMode]
The woman in question has a pimple on her left bum cheek! Prove me wrong! [/TrutherOrTrollMode]
(Bare assertion, unsupported by evidence followed by "reversal of burden of proof". :rolleyes:)


:runaway
 
Last edited:
Alright, here are all pictures of Mary Matalin, shot from her right. I cut out squares and resized them to 400x400 pixels, so she appears about the same size every time. Images are in chronological order:

 
Alright, here are all pictures of Mary Matalin, shot from her right. I cut out squares and resized them to 400x400 pixels, so she appears about the same size every time. Images are in chronological order:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1546-03_CROP_Matalin_zpsgdozbsh5.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1543-35_CROP_Matalin_zpsyity9a5g.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1544-16_CROP_Matalin_zpsradcc2dd.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1544-17_CROP_Matalin_zpscqmmnrep.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1544-20_CROP_Matalin_zpssasl99wk.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1545-16_CROP_Matalin_zpsgkmqcuy0.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1547-07_CROP_Matalin_zpsequd41ud.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1547-36_CROP_Matalin_zpsyhbu3jtt.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1542-01_CROP_Matalin_zpsfu7vdbrk.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1542-09_CROP_Matalin_zpssdstul3r.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/usnationalarchive/Analysis/V1558-07_CROP_Matalin_zpso9kipmoh.jpg[/qimg]
Same woman. I question the effort. Her hair does not change length in any of FalseFlags posts.

He has never seen a woman up close as far as I can figure.
 
So I'm clear:

Someone slips a staged photo into a collection of 300 pictures shot on 9-11-2001, a collection that was kept from public view for 13 years, to falsify where the Vice President was at a specific time. They do this by using a look-alike of a White House adviser, a well-known media personality.

First problem: As a photographer myself, if I need to fix a problem that big I'm going to use Photoshop. The images are perfect because they're all large and high-resolution.

Second problem: If I'm dumb enough to think using a double would work I would take a page from my Hollywood friends and shoot the double in such a way that nobody gets a good look.

Third problem: Why would you need a photo, staged or otherwise, at all? It's been 13 years, who cares? The first rule of crime is "No Pictures". Staging a photo adds at least two more people who are in on the conspiracy. Why not insist that no photos be taken on that morning instead? The more physical evidence criminals leave behind the harder it is to get away with the crime.

Fourth problem: Nobody has disputed where the Vice President was and when he was there on 9-11. Matalin's office was on the next floor above Cheney's, and since she was his aid she would have been with him. Nobody disputes this eiter.

You can hear her talk about that morning here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?300727-1/mary-matalin-september-11-2001

The beauty of watching this video is that she's wearing bracelets, and they slip up and down her forearm when she talks with her hands.
 
It is not possible for anyone on this board to "prove" anything to you that contradicts the official story, regardless of the evidence presented.

No one has submitted any evidence that disproves my claim. You claim they don't have to. OK. Fine. They don't have to. But you know that if you could disprove my claim you would do so in a heartbeat.

I am aware of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that there are two Marys, because there are, in fact, two Marys.

There are at least 26 people represented in all of the photos. Their pictures were taken from various angles, with potentially multiple cameras and lenses, over the course of a very long and stressful day. I have easily spent over 100 hours looking through these photos. Not one person, except Mary Matalin, looks different to me. She only looks different in two pictures. One of those pictures is in Cheney's office, and another picture is in the PEOC. The "fake Mary" looks the same in Cheney's office as she does in the one picture in the PEOC. So yes, when not one other person looks differently, besides her, the simplest explanation is that there are two Marys.

I have also scoured the internet looking for other photos of Mary Matalin throughout the years. I have seen her from multiple angles, and there is not one picture out there, that I have seen, in which I can not immediately recognize her.

Your claim, you prove it. Right now you're failing badly.
 
I commend all of you on your coordinated attacks. The problem is that attacking me personally, and then taking my argument to absurd levels to try to discredit it, only proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are truly amateurs when it comes to debating.

Try harder. The NSA is wasting their money on you.

Yes we all work for the NSA, how did you figure that out? Boy is the truth movement lucky to have you! First you find the fake photographs, next you'll have proof of thermite. We better go into exile right away!

Minutiae, as you call it, is often used to solve crimes. Ask any forensic scientist. The more complicated a crime becomes, the harder it is to conceal.

Great explain to us what you think happened on 9/11, do you think it was really complicated? I mean the more complicated it is, the harder it is to keep a secret right?

How come in all these years not a single law enforcement agency has laid a criminal charge on anyone except for Al Qaida?

Are they all in on it too?
 
My GF just looked at these two photos. She's wondering how you can't see that her hair is tucked behind her ear in both? It's all about layers done to give more body to the front on woman with high foreheads. The layers are left to right (her left/right). The longer left layers can keep the shorter right in check and add body, until you start to have a bad hair day (I think this requires hairspray). This is what she said, FWIW.

Her hair is a similar style to my GF.

Thanks for the constructive post. I appreciate it.

Your girlfriend says that Mary's hair is tucked behind her ear in both pictures? Which pictures? You mean the one in Cheney's office and then another in the PEOC? If so, please use Paint, or a similar program, to open the picture of Mary in Cheney's office and draw a line showing what your girlfriend sees. Please show me how her hair is behind her ear. Please make sure to show how the hair in the top, outermost layer goes from the front of her forehead to behind her ears. Thanks.
 
...
The beauty of watching this video is that she's wearing bracelets, and they slip up and down her forearm when she talks with her hands.

OMG, its the fake Mary. What did "they" do with the real Mary... real Mary's bracelets don't slip.
 
So many of you keep trying to change the subject. Keep trying all you want. You will be ignored.

I will respond to anyone who wishes to have a constructive discussion about Mary's appearance. Everyone else can post all they want. You will not get a response.
 
Yes we all work for the NSA, how did you figure that out? Boy is the truth movement lucky to have you! First you find the fake photographs, next you'll have proof of thermite. We better go into exile right away! ...
Based on the evidence Falseflag has, is positive proof we work for the NSA. I was wondering who was sending the checks to my bank. Now we know, the NSA is our buddy.

My brother an I talk so much BS on phones, I bet we are the favorite BS channel on NSA trapped calls - a good laugh.

After the NSA remark, there is no real purpose to point out endlessly that he is wrong... But I am paid to

darn - I have to remember to take more photos to find the perfect light and perspective to flatter my subject...
 
So many of you keep trying to change the subject. Keep trying all you want. You will be ignored.

I will respond to anyone who wishes to have a constructive discussion about Mary's appearance. Everyone else can post all they want. You will not get a response.

Dodge noted.

Good luck ignoring everyone asking you to prove your claims. I'm sure that will help you immensely as you search for the "truth".
 
Second problem: If I'm dumb enough to think using a double would work I would take a page from my Hollywood friends and shoot the double in such a way that nobody gets a good look.

That's exactly what they did. Both pictures of the fake Mary are low-quality profile pictures. I have tried several facial recognition programs and none of them work because there is not enough information.

I know what I see. Everyone here claims they don't need to prove me wrong, and that I need to prove I'm right. This is a reasonable position to have. The problem is that I have no chance of proving I'm right, because no one here would ever accept anything I present as conclusive evidence. That's not because I couldn't ever present conclusive evidence, it's because all of you would refuse to accept it no matter what.

People keep saying I'm failing badly at making my claim. OK, but again, no one is ever going to agree with me, no matter what.

Here is one fact that no one can refute. It has been almost 24 hours since I posted my claim that there are two Marys, or, at the very least, Mary's hair changes so much that the pictures in Cheney's office had to be taken on a different day. Although there have been countless personal attacks, and countless attempts to change the subject, not one of you has provided any conclusive evidence to prove I'm wrong. No, you don't have to, but if you could you would.
 
Last edited:
Shemp did 9/11.


So many of you keep trying to discredit my argument by taking it to absurd levels. This is one of the most basic logical fallacies that exist. The fact that so many of you spend so much time doing this only gives more credibility to my claims.

If you really thought my claims were ridiculous you would just ignore them. That's not what is happening.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom