• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software

Status
Not open for further replies.
Killtown, I had a HP PhotoSmart 315 back in 2001, you pathetic troll. Leave the woman alone already.
 
My niece recently asked me about improving some pictures she took. I suggested she crop the pics so that the subject would be larger in the frame. She asked how she could do that and I asked "Didn't the camera come with some software?" She said "I don't know. I don't think so." So we checked the box it came in and there was a disc with some software on it.

If a reporter had asked her (prior to her asking me) if she had access to image editing software, she certainly would have said no. Is that a conspiracy? Or just a mistake.

Steve S.
 
If a reporter had asked her (prior to her asking me) if she had access to image editing software, she certainly would have said no. Is that a conspiracy? Or just a mistake.
As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.
 
It was a holographic smokeplume!

And Killtown isn't on this forum either. The NWO PhotoShopped him in.
 
As I ALREADY SAID, just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

And as I said, is this all part of some grand conspiracy, or is it an honest mistake on the part of someone who probably didn't even know she had access to the software?

Steve S.
 
Well, what were the others, then?

He won't tell you because he knows that the software it came with was not like PhotoShop and that one could not convincingly insert a fake smoke plume into a photo with the software it came with - if at all.

It came with some prebundled software, none of which were sophisticated. I believe it included Adobe PhotoDeluxe, Arcsoft PhotoImpression 2000 and Arcsoft PhotoMontage 2000.
 
Killtown,

1. What software, by name, did she have access to which was capable of doctoring an image to this extent?

2. How is all of this relevant to 9/11 CTs?
 
Killtown,

1. What software, by name, did she have access to which was capable of doctoring an image to this extent?

2. How is all of this relevant to 9/11 CTs?
Jeez, go back and look at the link in #5.
 
Jeez, go back and look at the link in #5.

As usual, you don't provide any straight answers to simple questions; instead, you just try to get people to visit your pathetic conspiracy blogs.

FFS, you already owe Ms. McClatchey a huge apology. Just leave the woman alone already.
 
PS - Read and watch Val calling me out on a Pittsburgh TV station here!

Killtown are you proud to be mentioned on tv as an anynomous creep who posts accusations online too afraid to use your real name? If you believe your "evidence" why don't you present it outside the anynomity of the internet? Or are you a covard like Val says.


P.S. You have got yourself new fans at the main Finnish Truther site. They posted your BS analysis of the photo (oct.6.06). It's right there on the frontpage between Nuclear bombs and fake al-Qaeda videos. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/
 
As usual, you don't provide any straight answers to simple questions; instead, you just try to get people to visit your pathetic conspiracy blogs.
Um, does somebody want to tell Lash, or should I?
 
Good grief, not you again.

So, after 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... you come back.

And this is the best you can muster:

5. [Her camera] came with PHOTO-ALTERING software!
Big deal.

I suspect that, being a resourceful woman, she would have access to "editing software" even if it wasn't bundled with her camera. So, for that matter, do I. And she happens to be a realtor, for whom pictures are an important part of doing business. Gosh, how suspicious is that.

Better yet, even you admit this argument is useless:

Now it is not known if the editing software her camera came with was able to photoshop that plume on her photo and I'm not trying to claim she photoshopped that plume on her photo, but just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said.

Well, since you're not claiming that, then the following post of yours is in effect.

So apologize.

And stop wasting our time. Get a life, you might enjoy it.
 
Jeez, go back and look at the link in #5.

Sorry Killtown, that is not what I asked for. I asked you to tell me which piece of software you believe was capable of doctoring the plume photo.

The fact that you can't do that tells me you have no idea what the listed software is actually capable of.

As R.Mackey has asked, will you now fulfill your promise to apologise to Val?
 
Last edited:
1) So, after 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... you come back.

2) And this is the best you can muster:

Big deal.

I suspect that, being a resourceful woman, she would have access to "editing software" even if it wasn't bundled with her camera. So, for that matter, do I. And she happens to be a realtor, for whom pictures are an important part of doing business. Gosh, how suspicious is that.

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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom