Pages: (6) « First ... 4 5 [6]  ( Go to first unread post )

 Val Mcclatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud?
Killtown
Posted: Oct 9 2006, 07:03 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



So I always wondered how Val actually got reimbursed for selling her photo. She says she keeps $2 out of the $20 for each copy, but the website that advertises her photo says make the checks out to the Todd Beamer foundation:

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html

I've wondered if the Foundation reimburses her, or if she has access to the account because she has admitted keeping some of the proceeds. It wouldn't make sense for the foundation to give her access to the accounts for obvious safety reasons and doesn't make sense that they'd give her extra money for her lawsuit.

However I just found something to might explain how she gets access to the proceeds. Check out who this article tells to make the checks out too:

user posted image
http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2002/01/...ctims-penn.html

So that's proof that some of the checks/money orders were made out to Val and not the Foundation. So she has complete control over that money. Now go back to the website that advertises her photo and think about all the people who mistakenly wrote out the checks/money order to Val instead of the foundation like it says to!

She also says you can go to her work and by a copy:

QUOTE
Prints are available only at the office or by calling Val at Mtn. Lakes Realty,LLC.

http://www.mtnlakesrealty.com/bin/web/real...1151759594.html


Now think about all the people who went to her office to buy a photo and paid cash.

I'm still interested as to how she gets the $2 from each sale that makes out the checks to the Beamer foundation, but at least we know now that she gets some checks made to her and probably cash for some sales to.

And remember, she charged $20 bucks a pop for each photo that probably costs her less than $1 for computer paper, ink, envelope, and stamp.

Top
christinadwn
Posted: Oct 10 2006, 06:13 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 4,781
Joined: 8-September 06



the HP 315 came out in 2000 (as shown here at dpreview)
DP Review Timeline 2000
and the specs for this camera:
DP Review Specifications on the HP315
as of May 9, 2006: "CompactFlash cards have an operating shock rating of 2,000 Gs, which is equivalent to a 10-foot drop. With typical usage, a CompactFlash card can be used for more than 100 years with no loss or deterioration of data." Now if it is true that in 2006 the operating shock rating is only ten foot, then it makes me wonder if the ten foot drop wouldn't be something like a four foot drop...back in 2001. I also have another complaint about the facts that she is claiming. If she did in fact drop the camera right after taking one single picture, chances are in a 2.1mp point and shoot, the image would still be writing to the flash card, as stated in an article found on the lexar updates (this particular line is from the introduction of a newer, faster flash card coming out on november 1, 2001...which will be 4x faster write speeds than those already on the market--so the card that would have been in the hp 315 used to take the photo of the smoke plume could only be the slower 1x card..it was almost a month later when the faster card came out)"A 1x Compact Flash card is capable of transfer speeds of 150 KB/sec" Now, with this information, it is identified that the hp 315 image file sizes are approx. 450kb (as stated by a user on dpreview)...now there is also at least a five second wait between taking pictures, as stated by a user on the dpreview website (as it writes the image to the flash card)..so if the camera were dropped (and I've read reviews of this camera by people who bought this camera --cheap plastic seems to make up quite a bit of this camera) while still writing the image files, then I have to say that it would damage the compact flash card..damage it so, that while the image is being written to this card, added to the possible operating shock rating of-if you are lucky; half (technology has changed significantly since 2001-especially with digital cameras)of the 10 foot drop that it is now (explained near the top of this post), it would have to be next to impossible for this image file to be saved without corruption, especially with the power supply cut off when the batteries supposedly cut off. My guess is (and I have a couple digital SLR's and film SLR's) that this image could not have been properly saved on the compact flash card with the lack of technology toward digital cameras/compact flash cards. I think this image is a photomanipulation-not right from the camera real to put it short and sweet.
I also put this on your blog as a comment... nonono.gif she really needs to pay attention to what she is saying happened if she wants people to believe her.

This post has been edited by christinadwn on Oct 10 2006, 06:21 PM
Top
christinadwn
Posted: Oct 10 2006, 06:19 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 4,781
Joined: 8-September 06



And to those who may think that I am just speculating...I dropped my point and shoot (thank god it wasn't one of my two slr's that would have pissed me right off) while it was still writing the file (I took a picture of a waterfall aperture f:8, shutter 4sec., using a ND 8 filter to keep it properly exposed- so it took a few seconds longer than normal because of processing time with that long of a shutter speed), I went to unscrew it from the tripod, and it fell from the top of the tripod to the ground. Now, it screwed up the files that I had already saved on the flash card, which I had to go and buy a new one because the shock from the fall obviously destroyed it.
Now this was at the end of 2003, the camera was heavier duty than the cheap little hp315 (cost damn near a thousand bucks)...so I know for a fact that the compact flash cards aren't all they are cracked up to be!
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 10 2006, 08:04 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



QUOTE (christinadwn @ Oct 10 2006, 06:19 PM)
And to those who may think that I am just speculating...I dropped my point and shoot (thank god it wasn't one of my two slr's that would have pissed me right off) while it was still writing the file (I took a picture of a waterfall aperture f:8, shutter 4sec., using a ND 8 filter to keep it properly exposed- so it took a few seconds longer than normal because of processing time with that long of a shutter speed), I went to unscrew it from the tripod, and it fell from the top of the tripod to the ground. Now, it screwed up the files that I had already saved on the flash card, which I had to go and buy a new one because the shock from the fall obviously destroyed it.
Now this was at the end of 2003, the camera was heavier duty than the cheap little hp315 (cost damn near a thousand bucks)...so I know for a fact that the compact flash cards aren't all they are cracked up to be!

Interesting insight!

Keep one thing in mind though, we don't know exactly when she "dropped her camera", so we shouldn't speculate that it was right after she snapped it. They could comeback and say it was when she brought her camera down by her waist, or something like that.
Top
christinadwn
Posted: Oct 10 2006, 09:09 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 4,781
Joined: 8-September 06



Yeah, I realize that people can change their story like they change their underwear, which is why at the end of the first post I said that I think she did a photomanipulation rather than straight from the camera photo..but if she drop it, then I highly doubt the flash card would have kept the file in tact.
In the video interview where she says her puppy chewed the cord, so she had to get a new one and the computer wouldn't recognize it is also a bit strange to me, especially if she had gotten an HP printer.. as this camera had a successful infrared sensor as shown here or read below:
Your simple-to-use HP Photosmart 315 Digital Camera takes high-quality photos you can share with family and friends on the Internet or via email. It comes with HP software for manipulating, storing, and printing your photos. Your camera includes the following features:

*

2.1 MP resolution

*

Point and shoot interface

*

Automatic exposure

*

Automatic focus

*

Integrated flash with red-eye reduction

*

USB computer connection

*

2.5x digital zoom

*

Jetsend via infrared to any Jetsend receiver, such as a printer


*

Color LCD for previewing and reviewing photos

*

Economical “digital film” (reusable CompactFlash memory card)

*

Self-timer


What is Jetsend?
The camera's infrared JetSend wireless transfer lets you transmit photos to any JetSend-compatible HP device, such as another HP camera or HP's P1000-series color printers.

So I guess what I am saying is there are tons of possibilities with this images origins, when sorting through the facts to get to the bottom of whether this image is real or not. But I do not think it is a real unaltered image. But I could be wrong, hey I have had people tell me that a few of my images look like photomanipulations...however, if I do alter an image, I always admit it. I never try to fool people, to me it's just wrong to do so. If you want to make an image into a painting, and you successfully do so, and tell everyone that it is in fact a real painting, you are basically disrespecting all of the "real" painters out there that work hard to create their masterpieces, not by clicking ok on a few plugins in photoshop. I guess that is my overall point, in the simplest terms I can think of--you just don't do that.
Top
kh1234567890
Posted: Oct 12 2006, 09:59 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 4,650
Joined: 4-September 06



QUOTE (christinadwn @ Oct 10 2006, 06:13 PM)
CompactFlash cards have an operating shock rating of 2,000 Gs, which is equivalent to a 10-foot drop.

The JEDEC drop test standards equate 2000G to only a 130 cm drop height.

kh
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 04:58 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



Veeeeeeeery intersting:

QUOTE
Pennsylvania Masons' Contributions to 9-11 Disaster Fund Return to Aid Fire Co. and Families of Victims with PA Ties

During the several months after the terrorists' attacks on September 11, 2001, Pennsylvania Masons contributed nearly $318,000 via the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania's Masonic Charities Disaster Relief Fund to aid victims and their families. Marvin A. Cunningham, Sr., R.W. Grand Master, reported that as of mid-July of this year, an amount equal to nearly two-thirds of those contributions has gone to assist the first fire company on the scene of the Flight 93 crash near Somerset and to help families of victims with ties to Pennsylvania Masons.

Quickly after 9-11, when grand lodges, including Pennsylvania, stepped forward to procure assistance for those in need because of the disaster, a system was established in which the Masonic Service Association served as a collection point for moneys from grand lodges, recorded the contributions, and forwarded them to the Grand Lodge of the State of New York to administer and disburse assistance through the WTC Relief Fund that it had established.

In forwarding the contributions from Pennsylvania Masons, Donald L. Albert, R.W. Grand Secretary, suggested known cases where financial assistance was needed and asked that they receive help if they met established criteria. They did meet the criteria and the Grand Lodge of the State of New York forwarded the assistance:

$100,000 was given to the Stoystown Fire Co, the first fire company to arrive at the scene of United Flight 93 near Somerset, PA. The firemen forsook their personal lives to assist in the long process of searching for the remains of those who were on that ill-fated flight. They closed their businesses, took leaves of absence without care or concern for themselves and their families. Those hardworking volunteers rely on outside contributions to continue to provide vital services needed in their communities and wherever needed in times of tragedy.

Another $100,000 was divided among three worthy cases:

To a widow and one daughter of a victim who worked on the 82nd floor of the World Trade Center Tower No. 2. The victim was the nephew of a past master of a lodge in western Pennsylvania.

To the widower of a flight attendant on one of the airplanes that crashed. The victim was the daughter of a now-deceased Mason of an eastern Pennsylvania lodge. The Mason's wife had died while a resident at the Masonic Homes at Elizabethtown of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1998.

To a 24-year-old survivor who worked in the World Trade Center Tower No. 2. As he was trying to leave the building, he witnessed the horrors of masses of victims trying to escape. He wanted to help in the evacuation, but couldn't because of the crush of people who were trying to get out. His father, a Mason of a Harrisburg area lodge, explained that his son cannot discuss that day and that fear keeps him from going to the city to work. It is projected that his counseling and therapy will continue for at least two years.

Also, immediately after the Sept. 11 disaster and before establishing the special Masonic Charities Disaster Relief Fund, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania sent $10,000 to assist the brethren of the Grand Lodges of New York and Virginia in their recovery programs.

http://www.pagrandlodge.org/freemason/1102/wtc.html
Top
Barcoded
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 03:04 PM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 457
Member No.: 1,119
Joined: 8-April 06



Here is a carbom copy of my PM to Killtown yesterday.

QUOTE
Hey.

Y'know how you made a thread a while ago asking people to submit their photo editing skill sin the form of a fake Flight93 photo? Well the program I used to edit mine was Arcsoft PhotoImpression, I also saw in a recent thread os yours that you stated that that was one of the image editing software programs that came with Vals camera.

So basically, she wouldnt need to get anywhere photoshop because it is simple to do on that program. So theres no way she can deny that she had access to any decent photo editing software now because the fact that I of all people used the software easily means anyone could have.

-Rich a.k.a Barcoded


So you see, Val DID have access to adequete photo editing software. SHE CANT DENY IT!

Here is what I produced with the program in 20 mins

user posted image

If you spent enough time on it you could make it look perfect.
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 05:59 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



From Bicnarok:

QUOTE
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006

The photo is fake, the sky above the ground has a different compression setting as can be seen from the close up ive added.

the ground to the tree line was pasted inover the sky picture, you can see the light aura arround the trees.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopi...p?p=30706#30706


user posted image
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 06:10 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



Pics of an F4 crash that leave an "ordnance" looking plume:

http://www.freqofnature.com/photos/f4crash/

The smoke looks darker at first, then lightens up, but look how quickly it dissappates. Also, I doubt this F4 had a lot of fuel in it and especially not 5,500 gal.
Top
Lee Franklin
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:04 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 90
Member No.: 4,214
Joined: 17-August 06



QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 13 2006, 01:59 PM)
From Bicnarok:

QUOTE
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006

The photo is fake, the sky above the ground has a different compression setting as can be seen from the close up ive added.

the ground to the tree line was pasted inover the sky picture, you can see the light aura arround the trees.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopi...p?p=30706#30706


user posted image

I totally agree and have been saying this since I first took a close look at "End of Serenity" images. This is what first struck me about the picture and led me to the conclusion it is a composite image.

Every time you save a jpg as a jpg after alteration, you lose some image quality which = a loss of color depth and the closeup appearance of color blending. The foreground in this picture, up to the sky, has markedly less color depth in it than the sky does. You can see the sharp contrast in colors between adjacent pixels in the trees. The tree pixels are black, white, and a couple shades of green and gray.

The adjacent pixels of different color values in the smoke plume are far better blended, which means there was more color information in that part of the image. The plume must have dozens of different shades of blue, gray, purple, and the gradation is much smoother.

I'd be willing to bet, when the two parts of this composite were put together, that the foreground was at a lower resolution than the sky and plume. That could be because Val's camera was a piece of crap ($299 in 2001 bought nothing good) and the plume had been shot with a camera that was capable of more dots per inch.

The thing that has me puzzled overall is, if the picture is a composite, did Val do it herself or did she have help from the "FBI?" Did they take her camera and return it with this amazing pic on it? And somehow talk her into being the one to put it in the public eye? Did she do it by herself and risk getting caught by the FBI? Did they catch her and realize it served their ends, thus letting her distribute it? Did they just walk up one day and say, "Hey lady, wanna serve your country and get out of debt at the same time?"

I'm having a hard time coming up with a most-likely-scenario.
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:17 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



QUOTE (Lee Franklin @ Oct 13 2006, 07:04 PM)
The thing that has me puzzled overall is, if the picture is a composite, did Val do it herself or did she have help from the "FBI?" Did they take her camera and return it with this amazing pic on it? And somehow talk her into being the one to put it in the public eye? Did she do it by herself and risk getting caught by the FBI? Did they catch her and realize it served their ends, thus letting her distribute it? Did they just walk up one day and say, "Hey lady, wanna serve your country and get out of debt at the same time?"

I'm having a hard time coming up with a most-likely-scenario.

I figure if we can prove her photo is fake, the questions will be asked by the non-crooked police!


So if everybody feels comfortable that it's a fake, how do we proceed from here? Call the media? Do we call the police and egg them on to investigate her?
Top
Lee Franklin
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:50 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 90
Member No.: 4,214
Joined: 17-August 06



QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 13 2006, 03:17 PM)
I figure if we can prove her photo is fake, the questions will be asked by the non-crooked police!


So if everybody feels comfortable that it's a fake, how do we proceed from here? Call the media? Do we call the police and egg them on to investigate her?

I hope there are some honest police who would be willing to touch this.

I have a feeling, based on the kinds of things Val says in interviews, that she was not technologically savvy enough herself to manipulate this image.

“I’m sure with modern technology they could do, you know, a little more scientific evidence I believe.”

Gah. She may not have even been aware she had image manipulation software that came with the digital camera.

A good starting place would be to talk to the three "FBI" agents, David J. Hacker, Todd J. Brown, and Phil Lewzander (sp?). That plume in the image came from somewhere. Maybe they'd like to come forward and explain why they confiscated her camera's flash card, how long they had it, and what they did with it while they had it?
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:55 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



Our best chance is to get someone in the MSM to interview and ask her hardball questions.
Top
Red7
Posted: Oct 13 2006, 08:59 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 190
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: 14-September 06



well we need the so called file and not a photo to be 100% sure for a conviction!

Someone really needs for her to send you the file, say you are producing a
movie and the scan wont do so on and so on when trying to obtain a file copy.
Top
christinadwn
Posted: Oct 15 2006, 09:33 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 4,781
Joined: 8-September 06



QUOTE (kh1234567890 @ Oct 12 2006, 05:59 PM)
QUOTE (christinadwn @ Oct 10 2006, 06:13 PM)
CompactFlash cards have an operating shock rating of 2,000 Gs, which is equivalent to a 10-foot drop.

The JEDEC drop test standards equate 2000G to only a 130 cm drop height.

kh

I took that directly from the compact flashcard website...I knew it wasn't ten feet, as I dropped my point and shoot from about 52 inches and it screwed it up...thanks for the correction, that just makes me believe even more that the photo is a fake..
Top
christinadwn
Posted: Oct 15 2006, 09:35 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 4,781
Joined: 8-September 06



QUOTE (Red7 @ Oct 13 2006, 04:59 PM)
well we need the so called file and not a photo to be 100% sure for a conviction!

Someone really needs for her to send you the file, say you are producing a
movie and the scan wont do so on and so on when trying to obtain a file copy.

I was thinking of emailing her and asking, but wasn't sure how to go about it...any ideas? I'd sure love to get my hands on that EXIF data..LOL
Just out of curiousity, if she printed out the picture and took it to police, the FBI I would think should have been smart enough to figure that if she printed the image, it was in her computer...so why didn't they take her hard drive? Just wondering...
Top
Killtown
Posted: Oct 16 2006, 04:13 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,102
Member No.: 8
Joined: 10-February 06



I really doubt anybody will be able to get the original file and if by some miracle you do, I'm sure it's been tampered with.
Top
« Next Oldest | Flight 93 - Shanksville Crash Site | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (6) « First ... 4 5 [6] 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1434 seconds | Archive