Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software

[Killtown]

you have no idea what the listed software is actually capable of.

Um, what part of "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo" did you not understand?

But I think I have the solution for some of you:

Edited by Cuddles: 

Removed hotlink.

 

[R.Mackey]

1) Ha ha ha!!! Now I know your daytime job; a comedian! Are you and Abby Scott a team?

2) You should be thanking me for correcting the article's mistakes!

This is supposed to be a counter-argument? I'm the comedian?

No, tough guy, I'm not thanking you. You have apparently made it your life's work to accuse an innocent woman. Your reason for doing so is that you believe it to be true, and you are so woefully educated that you can fool yourself into believing her story is impossible.

Why would anyone, humanity, Val, least of all me, ever thank you?

 

[Gravy]

Are those the glasses that make you see the "truth" about the Holocaust, and that make Photoshopped feces on the graves of 9/11 murder victims "Funny" ?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.

 

[Killtown]

2) This is supposed to be a counter-argument? I'm the comedian?

2) Why would anyone...ever thank you?

1) Yeah, because that part about "being comprehensively roasted about your claims that the smoke plume was "impossible," and demonstrating your utter lack of scientific understanding, even an inability to perform basic arithmetic" was frickin hilarious!

2) So correcting mistakes in news articles is not worthy of a thanks?

 

[Killtown]

Are those the glasses that make you see the "truth" about the Holocaust, and that make Photoshopped feces on the graves of 9/11 murder victims "Funny" ?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.

Hey, it's the liar and

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Gravy!

Hey, I heard you think there was no scheduled hijacking drill on 9/11, is that true?

 

[CFLarsen]

Killtown,

From your blog:

Also, I do not know at this time if the editing software that came with her camera could be used to photoshop a smoke plume on her photo and I do not know if Val, or her husband have photoshopping skills.

Don't you think you should do a little legwork on this, before you start getting all excited?

 

[qarnos]

Um, what part of "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo" did you not understand?

But I think I have the solution for some of you:

[qimg]http://www.cosanostra.net/~astarte/glasses.jpg[/qimg]

Then explain why it is relevant whether or not she had the required software? What is your point apart from hassling this poor woman with some kind of personal vendetta?

Additionally, when you respond to a post, can you address all the points raised, and not cherry-pick the ones you want to respond to. I will repeat from my previous post:

Will you now apologise to Val?

See, folks; This is why you should always supervise your children when they are on the 'net.

 

[R.Mackey]

1) Yeah, because that part about "being comprehensively roasted about your claims that the smoke plume was "impossible," and demonstrating your utter lack of scientific understanding, even an inability to perform basic arithmetic" was frickin hilarious!

Yes, it was "frickin hilarious." Except the joke was on you.

Here's the thread. For any "fans" of Killtown who may be reading, it's a long one.

In this thread, it is revealed that Killtown thinks (a) that wind wouldn't affect the smoke plume until it had risen, and then the wind would transpose it without changing it; (b) a B-52 airshow crash (photoshopped by Killtown) and a thermobaric bomb video are somehow highly relevant examples; (c) that the smoke plume couldn't have gotten bigger than "three times" its original flash size, at which point it freezes I guess; and, most spectacularly, (d) this all time classic, where he demonstrats that he can't even add two numbers correctly, and then can't understand why.

Yes, it was hilarious. It's even more hilarious that you still don't understand -- or at least it would be, if it wasn't so sad.

2) So correcting mistakes in news articles is not worthy of a thanks?

No. You have to redeem yourself before you are worthy of any thanks. I believe even you can understand that crusading to smear a woman's name because she took a picture is somewhat more relevant than finding typos or vagaries in a small-town newspaper story.

Get to apologizin', Stalltown. You said that you would.

 

[Killtown]

Don't you think you should do a little legwork on this, before you start getting all excited?

Hey, I'm just pointing out all the mistakes in that article.

Would you rather me no point out these mistakes?

 

[Zygar]

Um, does somebody want to tell Lash, or should I?

I can't believe I just read all this crap. Killtown, if you honestly believe in your theory, then stand behind it enough to defend it rather than evading every question you are asked.

If you aren't willing to defend your own opinions with facts and answers then your threads are of no value whatsoever.

 

[Killtown]

1) Then explain why it is relevant whether or not she had the required software?

2) some kind of personal vendetta?

3) Will you now apologise to Val?

1) Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.

2) I don't have any.

3) for what?

 

[Blackadder_no]

Hey, I'm just pointing out all the mistakes in that article.

Would you rather me no point out these mistakes?

Go away, despicable being.

/ignore Killtown

 

[qarnos]

1) Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.

So you are now stating she did have the required software to fake the plume image????

2) I don't have any.

Sure seems like it

3) for what?

For starters you can apologise for releasing her address and phone number on various forums.

So, KT. How long are you gonna hang around for this time before you go running off like a little girl again? (with apologies to all the little girls of the world).

 

[CFLarsen]

Hey, I'm just pointing out all the mistakes in that article.

Would you rather me no point out these mistakes?

Of course not. But you are doing a hell of a lot more than "just pointing out all the mistakes in that article". You are clearly insinuating that the photo has been doctored by Val McClatchey.

Before you do that, you should at least have something to hang your hat on. As it is, you don't even have a hat.

 

[Killtown]

In this thread, it is revealed that Killtown thinks (a) that wind wouldn't affect the smoke plume until it had risen, and then the wind would transpose it without changing it;
(b) a B-52 airshow crash (photoshopped by Killtown) and a thermobaric bomb video are somehow highly relevant examples;
(c) at which point it freezes I guess;

1) No. You have to redeem yourself before you are worthy of any thanks. I believe even you can understand that crusading to smear a woman's name because she took a picture is somewhat more relevant than

2) finding typos or vagaries in a small-town newspaper story.

a) I said that???
b) yeah, "crazy" me!
c) that's your guy's theory, it froze and drifted 250 yards!

1)
2) Post-Gazette is a small town newspaper?

 

[Killtown]

1) So you are now stating she did have the required software to fake the plume image????

2) For starters you can apologise for releasing her address and phone number on various forums.

1) Go back and read.

2) What do you mean by "releasing"?

 

[Killtown]

Of course not. But you are doing a hell of a lot more than "just pointing out all the mistakes in that article". You are clearly insinuating that the photo has been doctored by Val McClatchey.

If one is going to claim two conclusions, one being it may be a fake, shouldn't they provide evidence to both possible conclusions?

 

[R.Mackey]

a) I said that???

Uh huh. You said it here, among other places.

b) yeah, "crazy" me!

You mean you still don't understand the difference between Flight 93 and the MOAB? Really? wow.

c) that's your guy's theory, it froze and drifted 250 yards!

No, that's your theory. I double-dog dare you to prove that's our theory.

Oh, and I like how you conveniently ignored responding to my point about you not being able to do simple arithmetic. So,

Killtown, do you deny that you added 580 MPH to 125 feet to get 705 feet in this post? Yes or no?

2) Post-Gazette is a small town newspaper?

Ducking the point will get you nowhere. And yes, it is.

 

[CFLarsen]

If one is going to claim two conclusions, one being it may be a fake, shouldn't they provide evidence to both possible conclusions?

But you admit that you have no evidence that she faked her photo.

 

[qarnos]

1) Go back and read.

I did. It went like this:

Um, what part of "it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo" did you not understand?

Then explain why it is relevant whether or not she had the required software? What is your point apart from hassling this poor woman with some kind of personal vendetta?

Well the news article said she didn't. That is incorrect.

Bolding mine.

2) What do you mean by "releasing"?

Publishing with malicious intent.