• 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

Banned
K
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
1,393
(For those who don't know who Val McClatchey is, she took the infamous "End of Serenity" photo (which she copyrighted in Jan. '02) that's of a smoke plume supposedly from Flight 93 crashing in Shanksville, Pa. If you are wondering what the big deal is about her and her photo, see my blogpost (Val McClatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud?) which will show you that the plume in her photo doesn't line up where the crater is, it would have been about 7 football field lengths wide if it was near the crater, or that this photo is a fake and what Val's motives could have been for being in on it.)



Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software


Val is shown here in a recent photo in an article by the Tribune-Democrat (Photo under fire; Local woman forced to defend shot's integrity) about my photo fraud blogpost showing her clutching a digital camera that it is assumed was the one she used to take her smoke plume photo:

val-mcclatchey-td.1.jpg


This camera she is clutching has been identified as a HP PhotoSmart 315:

hp315-front-back.0.jpg


Few interesting things about this camera:


1. It had a MSRP of $299.

(Remember that Val also had just purchased a new computer right before 9/11 at a time when Val said her and her husband were in severe financial trouble in which they filed Chp 11 on their saw mill business 9 days after 9/11 and then had to close it down on Dec. 31th. She also mentioned they might lose their house and talked about major health problems in the family and major expenses the family had coming up soon.)

2. It's only 2.1 mega pixels.

3. It does NOT have optical zoom, only digital zoom (up to 2.5x).

4. It uses 4 AA batteries, not one.

hp315-batteries.jpg


(A Post-Gazette article (Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo is fake) said the reason she only took one photo of the plume is that she dropped her camera after her one and only shot and that it "jolted the battery loose" implying that the camera only had one battery.)

5. It came with PHOTO-ALTERING software!

(Funny, that same Post-Gazette article said "The camera and computer were new, and she didn't have access to Photoshop or any other photo-altering software.")


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.

Btw, if her photo ever comes out that it was faked, don't forget about the three FBI guys that came over her house and took her camera's memory card and possibly her computer's hard drive back with them because they claimed to have seen "debris flying out from the cloud" when looking at her photo being displayed on her computer's screen. See here for all that.


PS - Read and watch Val calling me out on a Pittsburgh TV station here!
 
Oh crap, not this
Edited by tim: 
Courtesy, if you please.
again.

Killtown said:
Val is shown here in a recent photo in an article by the Tribune-Democrat (Photo under fire; Local woman forced to defend shot's integrity) about my photo fraud blogpost showing her clutching a digital camera that it is assumed was the one she used to take her smoke plume photo:
Click to expand...

Assumed by whom? YOU?!?!?

The
Edited by tim: 
tsk, tsk.
who also assumes the "reasonable" size of explosions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was under the impression that most digital cameras come with image processing software.
 
Bandersnatch said:
Who knows. Are you assuming it is?
Click to expand...
Well let's see, that digital camera came out before 9/11, she's displaying it for an article written about her photo and how she took it and with what, hmmm, now why would I assume that camera she's clutching was the one she used to take that photo?
 
Killtown said:
(
5. It came with PHOTO-ALTERING software!


<snip>
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, <snip>

Bolding mine.

So... you yourself admit you have no proof that the photo was edited, but you're trying to pass off the fact that she claimed she didn't have such software as sinister. My own theory is that she never even looked at the software on the thing, just figured out how to take pictures, pointed and clicked, and everything else happened just as she said. The end. We can close the thread now.
Click to expand...
 
It came with Adobe PhotoDeluxe, which only does stuff like removing red-eye and cropping.

FFS, stop making accusations against people when you have zero evidence of wrongdoing.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Killtown said:
(
5. It came with PHOTO-ALTERING software!


<snip>
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, <snip>

Bolding mine.

So... you yourself admit you have no proof that the photo was edited, but you're trying to pass off the fact that she claimed she didn't have such software as sinister. My own theory is that she never even looked at the software on the thing, just figured out how to take pictures, pointed and clicked, and everything else happened just as she said. The end. We can close the thread now.
Click to expand...


What part of "just wanted to point out that she did have access to photo-altering software unlike the Post-Gazette said" did you not understand?
Click to expand...
 
Reading for comprehension just isn't your thing, Killtown. I told you that my theory is that she never even looked at the software on it. And Lash very clearly pointed out that the software would NOT have been capable of adding the plume. This allegation is a non-starter for you. Go back to Camp Freedom and see if you can come up with something better.
 
Killtown said:
Well let's see, that digital camera came out before 9/11, she's displaying it for an article written about her photo and how she took it and with what, hmmm, now why would I assume that camera she's clutching was the one she used to take that photo?
Click to expand...

What makes you think it is?

You don't think it's possible (if not probable) that it was a "prop" provided by the reporter for the sake of the photograph?

You have no basis for making the claim that it is "the" camera.

FFS, just leave the woman alone. You're obsessed.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Reading for comprehension just isn't your thing, Killtown. I told you that my theory is that she never even looked at the software on it. And Lash very clearly pointed out that the software would NOT have been capable of adding the plume.
Click to expand...
You are not either because that software program Lash mentioned wasn't the only one it came with.
 
Last edited:
Have you bought many digital cameras?

EDIT:
Interesting note. I decided to check if my computer had any imaging software, and surprisingly, I have ArcSoft Photoimpression suite, the program provided by HP.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom