Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby nonhocapito on November 7th, 2011, 10:43 am

HonestlyNow wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:The above page dates back to 19 september 2001. Considering that to register and set up a domain requires a couple of days (I think it required even longer back in 2001, I am not sure), we have to assume that the Fetchet family, just like the Puopolo family and others, thought of setting up a website for their lost family member barely days after 9/11.

I wonder how that could be? Checking the domain records --

Domain Name: bradfetchet.com
Created on: 2003-12-09
http://whois.domaintools.com/bradfetchet.com

Or is there another domain name you're using?


Another domain? It is the wayback machine of bradfetchet.com, as you can check by yourself: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20010815 ... tchet.com/

Apparently, the domain bradfetchet.com went through a stage at the end of 2003. Here it is how it looked, apparently, in october 2003:

Image

So I don't think this particular whois clue is necessarily significant. Probably the domain was dropped and re-registered in 2003. In any case you can see by yourself (following the link above) that on the 19th of september 2001, when the wayback machine first recorded it, the website was still about brad being "missing". I doubt you would have that in 2003...

To underline the paradox of this situation, I will also notice that 19th september 2001 is barely the date when the wayback machine first recorded the website. Nothing prevents us to think, in fact, that the website had been there for a while already. It is sheer luck as it is that the wayback bot picked up that website just moments after it was set up.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby enantiodromie on November 7th, 2011, 12:26 pm

nonhocapito wrote:So, what the existence of this picture implies, if one was to believe blindly the digital reality of the wayback machine, is that the researchers photoshopped and altered a "prefectly good" picture.


I have another version: the hi-res photos disappeared from the website in 2006.

By 2004, conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks began to gain ground in the United States. [...] Between 2004 and the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in 2006, mainstream coverage of the conspiracy theories increased. (wikipedia)

Why? Because it's easy to find the elements that proove an image is fake... If the image has a good resolution. Decreasing resolution = decreasing the possibility to proove is an image is a fake.
The hi-res picture "dance with granma" is clearly a fake yet. If someone put the hi-res picture in the archive of old brad fetchet homepages... Why haven't put it also in the actual homepage?

Hi-res pictures were removed because they could proove the falsity of the Brad Fetchet existence, according to me.
enantiodromie
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: November 4th, 2010, 12:40 pm

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby nonhocapito on November 7th, 2011, 12:47 pm

enantiodromie wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:So, what the existence of this picture implies, if one was to believe blindly the digital reality of the wayback machine, is that the researchers photoshopped and altered a "prefectly good" picture.


I have another version: the hi-res photos disappeared from the website in 2006.

By 2004, conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks began to gain ground in the United States. [...] Between 2004 and the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in 2006, mainstream coverage of the conspiracy theories increased. (wikipedia)

Why? Because it's easy to find the elements that proove an image is fake... If the image has a good resolution. Decreasing resolution = decreasing the possibility to proove is an image is a fake.
The hi-res picture "dance with granma" is clearly a fake yet. If someone put the hi-res picture in the archive of old brad fetchet homepages... Why haven't put it also in the actual homepage?

Hi-res pictures were removed because they could proove the falsity of the Brad Fetchet existence, according to me.


No.

1) These two images are not one the higher resolution version of the other:

Image

As I said: the ugly picture has scratches and speckles that the nice doesn't have, and yet it doesn't have the "burn".
This is not a matter of better resolution. These are two variations based of the same template, both made to look older and analogical, with different "tricks".

2) you say that the "nice" version disappeared in 2006? Based on what? And if so, show me the "ugly" version anywhere on the wayback machine. It's not there. If you don't necessarily believe the wayback machine, then it is more likely that the picture was replaced in 2011 rather than 2006. And if you want to believe the wayback machine, then the ugly image was never on their website to begin with, which leaves you to wonder where the researchers took the image from. Should we imagine that Simon and Hoi manipulated the picture themselves? I rather think there has been a replacement.

3) While both look fake, the "nice" picture looks less fake than the ugly. Understandably so, since it is its "remastered" version. It even checks "perfect" in the ELA. It is a pretty accurate forgery. So, it makes little sense to imagine that it was deliberately "lowered in resolution", because the "ugly" version look less believable and less convincing.

Unfortunately, exactly the contrary happened: they had a very unconvincing, botched job, and they just went there and replaced it. I don't see a good reason to support their little sleight of hand --by imagining that this picture was there all the time, and for some reason the researchers missed it, ignored it or worse yet, manipulated it.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby enantiodromie on November 7th, 2011, 1:16 pm

nonhocapito wrote: 2) you say that the nice image "disappeared" in 2006? Based on what? If you don't believe the wayback machine, then it is more likely that it was replaced in 2011 rather than 2006. And if you want to believe the wayback machine, then the ugly image was never on their website to begin with. In which case, as I said, we should postulate that the researchers manipulated the picture themselves. I rather think there has been a replacement.



Based on the fact website changed completely template, and the photos became smaller than first. That's according to wayback machine. I don't know if someone modified the files in the wayback machine servers.
The problem is: the version of the picture used often in september clues website... what's its origin?


nonhocapito wrote: Unfortunately, exactly the contrary happened: they had a very unconvincing, botched job, and they just went there and replaced it. I don't see a good reason to support their little manipulation --by imagining that this picture was there all the time, and for some reason we missed it, or worse, deliberately ignored it.


The image was ignored for a simple reason: google images or similars couldn't find images from wayback machine servers. Don't know why. And maybe no one have thought to browse the memorial using the wayback machine.

Btw, I recommend to check the names who Fetchet family thanked: "Thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Fetchet, Adam Glasofer, Dave Hodgman, Jen Miller, Amy Douglas, Barbara Luchsinger, Katie O'neill, Jen Myers, Jason Junge, Greg Kline, Jen Schaeffer, Sarah Moosbrugger, and Bill Stengel for the pictures". Take for example the picture named "Bill_Stengel.jpg": it was made with a digital Canon PowerShot S10 and my EXIF reader don't exclude it could be not manipulated. And that Bill Stengel is in facebook (i think he's the guy on the left).

For me there is a lot of stuff for researching.
enantiodromie
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: November 4th, 2010, 12:40 pm

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby nonhocapito on November 7th, 2011, 1:27 pm

enantiodromie wrote:The problem is: the version of the picture used often in september clues website... what's its origin?


That's the whole point. As far as I know, the origin is bradfetchet.com itself. Certainly the picture cannot be found on any of the other memorials I know of.

So, I ask: can the "ugly" version be found anywhere on the wayback machine of bradfetchet.com? It can't. Hence, there has been a replacement. Simple as that.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the web is teeming with false clues and retroactive, planted evidence. Why? because it can be easily done.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby enantiodromie on November 7th, 2011, 1:39 pm

That's an intricate problem.
For now I limit myself to say it's something similar to the 2 identical portraits of Elizabeth Wainio

Image
enantiodromie
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: November 4th, 2010, 12:40 pm

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby nonhocapito on November 7th, 2011, 1:47 pm

enantiodromie wrote:That's an intricate problem.
For now I limit myself to say it's something similar to the 2 identical portraits of Elizabeth Wainio

Image


yes, except that, in an even more bizarre twist of sloppiness and arrogance, these two Wainio pictures co-existed in time (and still co-exist, I think), on different memorials. One was not the replacement, the "betterment" of the other. The two "grandma Fetchet" pictures, instead, appear to be mutually exclusive.
But I too am waiting for Simon's or Hoi's insight on this -- maybe there is some aspect to this story that I am missing.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby simonshack on November 7th, 2011, 4:18 pm

Nonho...

They've been fiddling with the bradfetchet.com website - this much is clear.

I remember very clearly that I found (in 2009) the LARGE, 'ugly' version of Brad-Dancing-with-Granma, when visiting this page:
http://www.bradfetchet.com/2005BirthdayEvent/

I'm now kicking myself for not keeping a backup with the original URL of this picture - which I renamed after adding my arrows...my bad. So I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it: they have now removed this LARGE version from http://www.bradfetchet.com :
Image


As you see, when you click on the thumbnails of this photo album page, most open into LARGER versions of same picture (as you would expect them to do!). This was the case back in 2009 with this thumbnail :

Image

http://www.bradfetchet.com/2005BirthdayEvent/thumbnails/dance_small_jpg.jpg
(NOTE: this thumbnail is from a folder called "thumbnails")


Today, if you click on that thumbnail, it now only opens another, identical thumbnail (100X67) - NOT A LARGER VERSION OF THE PICTURE:

Image

http://www.bradfetchet.com/2005BirthdayEvent/images/dance_small_jpg.jpg
(NOTE: this other thumbnail is from a folder called "images")

THE LARGE VERSION IS SIMPLY NOT THERE ANYMORE: IT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A THUMBNAIL.


So, as far as I'm concerned, THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE PERPS ARE REACTING TO OUR RESEARCH AND LAMELY ATTEMPTING TO FUEL DOUBTS AND CONTROVERSY AS TO WHO EXACTLY ARE PHOTOSHOPPING THESE IMAGES. "Hey, maybe Simon Shack does it - to seek attention, fame and fortune?..." :rolleyes:

In any case, as Nonho rightly points out, the recently found "nice version" is NOT just a higher def version of the "ugly version". The two are clearly just differently manipulated images (note that the "nice version" still features Brad's absurd WHITE skin seen through Granma's glasses...). So all the perps have achieved here is to provide further confirmation of the already obvious fraudulence of the 'Brad Fetchet' photographic records:
Image

To those suspecting that I myself could have crafted the "ugly version" (for some idiotic reason), please ask yourselves: why on Earth would I have totally removed that strange 'flash' on Brad's cheek - and replaced it with some black dots? That 'flash' is strange enough and inexplicable in itself!

Anywhow, the Granma picture is by no means the only atrocious forgery to be found in the "Brad Fetchet photo albums". The more you look around it, the more horrors emerge. Here's another couple of images featuring creepy, hugging forearms and 'spooky' hands:

ALIEN WOMAN HUGS BRAD FETCHET WITH MUG SURROUNDED BY CELESTIAL HALO:
Image

BRAD FETCHET (probably now contaminated by Alien Woman :lol: ) EXHIBITS ALIEN HAND:
Image
(Compare also Shadow Widths -SW1 and SW2- of the two guys, supposedly pictured with same lighting source - a camera flash)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby nonhocapito on November 7th, 2011, 4:26 pm

Simon, I know it is five or six years ago, but do you remember if the source for that Fetched image "dancing with grandma" was in fact the foundation website? I am almost sure that's the only website that ever had that picture, but I was wondering if you (or Hoi if he's reading this) had any precise recollection of this.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby simonshack on November 7th, 2011, 4:53 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Simon, I know it is five or six years ago, but do you remember if the source for that Fetched image "dancing with grandma" was in fact the foundation website? I am almost sure that's the only website that ever had that picture, but I was wondering if you (or Hoi if he's reading this) had any precise recollection of this.


Nonho,
Did you read my previous post?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby nonhocapito on November 7th, 2011, 5:07 pm

Oops -- sorry Simon! I had read it but for some reason missed the initial part! -- but now that I've read it, I can add a detail that I had mentioned en passant before: the thumbnail does not even seem to come from the "ugly" version, but from the "nice" one. This is noticeable, I think, if you look at the lady's dress, that in the nice version is clearly pink, while in the ugly version is more cream-colored, or more contrasted by light. But in the thumbnail it is clearly pink:

Image

So they also replaced the thumbnail! But then, they removed the larger image, leaving it only on the wayback machine. This may seem odd, but I think the reason for it is clear: to create more confusion and cast more doubts on the story of that picture.

In fact, the purpose is not really to spread around the news that now an enhanced version exists -- better not publicize too officially that such replacements happen. Rather the reason is to tamper with the past and taint the story of this image, retroactively trying do damage the research.

I also think it is very important the detail you mentioned of having first discovered the picture in 2009. It seems clear that the need to replace that picture was decided a short while after that date, as a reaction to your research: and I have the feeling it was probably accomplished only recently. Maybe this year --or even this month.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby discomatty on November 21st, 2011, 3:37 am

http://youtu.be/zavfH4IoFss

:48, we see vicsim Todd Reuben and his Twin Eleven year old boys :lol:
discomatty
Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: August 5th, 2011, 12:30 am

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby discomatty on November 21st, 2011, 10:39 pm

A lot of these clues take no effort to find. It's as if they come at you and punch you in the face!
discomatty
Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: August 5th, 2011, 12:30 am

Homesick Lizzy, has moved back to Baltimore.

Postby antipodean on December 15th, 2011, 4:27 am

Maybe there's a logical explanation for this. (I've been a bit slack the last couple of months)

According to People finder, Lizzy Wainio is back living in Baltimore even her age matches up.

http://www.peoplefinders.com/d/Honor+Wainio/1-147250664

Honor Elizabeth Wainio
Age 38
Baltimore, MD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relatives: Thomas F Wainio, Esther Elizabeth Heymann, Benhardt R Wainio, Lizz Wainio, Elizabeth Wainio, Sarah Wainio

Previous Residences: Catonsville, MD | Ellicott City, MD | Watchung, NJ

antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

Postby Maat on December 16th, 2011, 1:39 pm

Yes mate, those 'peoplefinder' type sites only show the last recorded data and simply auto-update age from the birth date, regardless of whether the person is real, fake, living or dead.

The same thing happens if you enter a real person's name that you know is deceased.
e.g. This was a friend I know committed suicide on December 18, 2008, aged 31:
http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/pre ... tate=&age=

His obituary:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/seattl ... =122629405
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to VICSIMS: the simulated victims of 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests