Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

[Maat]

So please tell us how that proves anything except that the background for the composition may have existed on a real photograph (just like other faked composites have been made). And, since Exif data is only of interest on photos known to be real (which can be altered or removed anyway), how exactly could this make the fictional "Brad Fetchet" a "real person"? Is "Fred Luchsinger" supposed to be an alias?


http://regex.info/exif.cgi?b=3&referer= ... tengel.JPG

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... e6f.549632

[enantiodromie]

I've not the knowledge for judging the if that's a real photography or not. JPEGsnoop, a software for EXIF analysis, says:

ASSESSMENT: Class 4 - Uncertain if processed or original

So it's not so sure this is a fake. If you take a group of person, paste this group into a background, and try to use JPEGsnoop, the message is:

ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

Alias? There are a lot of pictures in his profile.

[enantiodromie]

Well, among the many pornographic pictures of Brad Fetchet, one, of course, was important to find. And here it is, in fact.

A better, remastered version of the infamous "dance with grandma":


Direct link doesn't work. Go to this page: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020601 ... tchet.com/ - click on 23 july 2002 -- click on "pictures page 1"

So... According to the wayback machine, we are asked to believe that this picture was already on their website, in this quality, since 2002. Oh yeah, I believe it.

I was under the impression that all we had for many years was the well known much uglier version, with noticeable photoshop alterations and leftovers.


Now available only on SeptemberClues.info and a couple of forums, this version of the picture (minus Simon's arrows) was originally from the Brad Fetchet foundation website. As I write, the only version of this picture available on their website is, perversely, this one:


Judging from the lady's dress, this tiny thumbnail also come from the remastered version. In the ugly-ass version, in fact, the lady's dress appears to be much more contrasted.

Sorry, but I am starting to find suspicious the "accidental" discovery of this Fetchet wayback mother-load...

Think about it: you have remastered the ugly photoshop jobs of Brad Fetchet. But you cannot simply post them on their website, without people wondering where they were until now.

So what do you do? You pretend they were there all the time, using the wayback alleged reliability to plant retroactive false evidence. Then, you leave people to assume that the horrendous photoshop jobs were the result of the efforts to "patch" what appear to be "burns" in the original analog picture.

"Cool story, bro."

Sorry, but reading old posts, I found it simply mad.

So... According to the wayback machine, we are asked to believe that this picture was already on their website, in this quality, since 2002. Oh yeah, I believe it.

What? So a non-profit have modified files in his databases just for giving a reply to the analysis of the picture made here?
Sorry, but this seems to be a surreal interpretation.

Using wayback machine you discover many and many pictures removed from websites dedicated to the victims. And this proove there is something wrong in 9/11 facts. So proove these researches in forums like this have a reason.

I have the impression we want to avoid to turn back in research in order to save conclusions made for the other picture analyzed



That's not the right way of researching. And, of course, the source of the old grandma picture is absolutely needed

[lux]

Huh?



Our boy is standing behind V-Neck Lady ... all except for his big toe? Ouch!

But, in the ELA our boy doesn't have any feet at all.

Perhaps they borrowed the feet from the guy next to him who just happens to be wearing the same sandals:



Also, notice the 3 people indicated below are looking at the camera but all the others are looking to the right. Why is that? Because they didn't all come from the same photo is my guess.


I also count 9 heads in the photo but I can only see 16 legs. But, I'm probably nitpicking.

[brianv]

Am I missing something here?

[nonhocapito]

Sorry, but reading old posts, I found it simply mad.

So... According to the wayback machine, we are asked to believe that this picture was already on their website, in this quality, since 2002. Oh yeah, I believe it.

What? So a non-profit have modified files in his databases just for giving a reply to the analysis of the picture made here?
Sorry, but this seems to be a surreal interpretation.

Using wayback machine you discover many and many pictures removed from websites dedicated to the victims. And this proove there is something wrong in 9/11 facts. So proove these researches in forums like this have a reason.

I have the impression we want to avoid to turn back in research in order to save conclusions made for the other picture analyzed



That's not the right way of researching. And, of course, the source of the old grandma picture is absolutely needed

You are basically saying that, because the wayback machine shows the high quality picture of brad & grandma, then we should go back and disregard the conclusions taken concerning the low quality picture?

This makes no sense to me, sorry.

This would mean that actually replacing images and "rewriting" history on the web pays off, because OUR memories and OUR discoveries are supposed to mean LESS that what a website states at anytime.

It is all a matter of who you wanna believe. Your "non profit" organization (which is really a government-run operation), or the researchers who discovered and exposed that weird picture years ago on the Fetchet website.

Sure it is possible that the researchers lied and forged Brad's picture themselves, if you wanna believe it. But it seems to me easier to acknowledge that there are entities actively rewriting the history of internet out there, for the simple reason that it is incredibly easy to do so.

[enantiodromie]

You are basically saying that, because the wayback machine shows the high quality picture of brad & grandma, then we should go back and disregard the conclusions taken concerning the low quality picture?

but we have no idea about the SOURCE of the old grandma picture... We have a grandma picture from actual Fetchet website, and this image is a different resolution: it's not the same used often here.

Sure it is possible that the researchers lied and forged Brad's picture themselves, if you wanna believe it. But it seems to me easier to acknowledge that there are entities actively rewriting the history of internet out there, for the simple reason that it is incredibly easy to do so.

This is too much ipothetical: no prooves about this theory.
Many users who believe in the work of Simon Shack couldn't believe this is the truth.

It's something like: we have get some conclusions about a version of a picture, now we have an high-resolution copy of the same picture, then someone uploaded it in the past site in order to refute our conclusions.

Septemberclues project is based on EVIDENCES (in videos, databases, pictures' details), not in PURE SUPPOSITIONS, and this is a supposition. So please don't jump to an easy conclusion so fastly

[fbenario]

Many users who believe in the work of Simon Shack couldn't believe this is the truth.

So the hell what? Who cares?

[simonshack]

Septemberclues project is based on EVIDENCES (in videos, databases, pictures' details), not in PURE SUPPOSITIONS, and this is a supposition. So please don't jump to an easy conclusion so fastly

Dear enantiodromie,

The very essence of the relentless work we do on this forum, day after day, is precisely finalized at fleshing out with utmost care, dedication and accuracy the relevant evidence which may lead, eventually, to rock solid proof and conclusions. I honestly can't see that our efforts here "jump to easy conclusions fastly" - or how this accusation could legitimately be thrown our way.

If anything, I'd say that some forum members tend to 'obsess' over specific matters for longer periods of time - something which can get a little tiresome in the long run. Here is, for instance, a post of yours going back to December 2010 - which already mentioned issues related to Brad Fetchet and the Wayback Machine:
viewtopic.php?p=2349155#p2349155

This is wishing that you are willing to move on a bit a now - and help us make progress sharpening the bigger picture of our collective vicsim research.

[fbenario]

Some Cold War spy lingo.

Legend = False identity
Cover = Real-world job taken to give alibi for presence in country
Notional = Imaginary person

[simonshack]

*


THE "PAYTON WALL" / OBAMA HUGGING SEQUENCE


Remember Obama meeting and hugging (at Ground Zero last year) that 14-year-old girl by the name of "Payton Wall", the alleged daughter of 9/11 vicsim and supposed Cantor Fitzgerald vice-president "Glen Wall"? Well, here are the available images from that episode:



Source of image A: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bam_ ... 9vOIM1R5rN
Source of image B: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05 ... ertson-dad

And, lo and behold - image B is credited to none other than our "ol' pal" Richard Drew of 'Falling Man fame' !!

And here's a frame (extracted from yet another abysmally low-res video) from the same purported event - as posted on the WALL STREET JOURNAL. So, yes: we are expected to believe that these three cameramen (Chad Rachman, Richard Drew and the videographer) all captured this brief moment in time while standing - all three of them - practically in the same line of sight, without obscuring each others' views. The three different backdrops would be "explained" by the three of them using different lenses... Good luck with that 'explanation' !


Source: http://live.wsj.com/public/page/video-p ... ngVideoId={B71B0BD8-246E-42BD-85C2-81DA079FC84F}

That Wall Street Journal VIDEO also features this frame, showing Payton's rather monstrous hand which, I dare say, is not quite what you would expect to see attached on the arm of a 14-year-old girl. And what is that reddish, rectangular 'shadow' surrounding her right hand - and that reddish 'shadow' surrounding her left forefinger? "Video artifacts", you say?...


Now, it's not like Payton's monstrous right hand could possibly be genetically inherited from her mother. See, as Obama moves left (after having shaked hands with Payton Wall's mother), Mrs Wall does not appear to have particularly large hands...or, in fact, to have any hands at all !


In that WALL STREET JOURNAL video, we hear the two female reporters talking (appreciatively!) about the press being banned from accessing the restricted Ground Zero area where this Obama/victim families meeting allegedly took place. Well, that doesn't make any sense at all: why would then the three above-mentioned cameramen have been allowed into that area, to capture and publish the above images?

[brianv]

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/me ... /2799.html

Not even a link to legacy.con