I know she has responded a bit . . . but really she has taken a lot more abuse than she has handed out!
Tell that to the families of the 9/11 victims.
Let's just say in your wildest imagination that Clare is proven to be correct . . . is she then still a bane to the 9/11 victims and family?
But she isn't correct. She doesn't even understand what she is looking at. Several posters here have infinitely more experience with images than Clare, but she doesn't sit back and learn from them. Instead she baits them and tries to pass herself off as more knowledgeable. She didn't even know what GIMP is. ROFLMAO. Her sources are youtube videos (hint: most of what gets posted on youtube is sensationalist crap, serious videomakers avoid youtube like the clap, there are other ways to get your video out on the net). She also relies on the likes of Lear, Hoaxland, and many others that have zero credibility.
I am really tired of scrolling past her ignorant and arrogant diatribes. She is a troll.
BTW . . . Are you MakingItReal? I know she can be a pain but many on the Threads are . . . I will admit she is unique in her energy and tenacity . . .
Quoting: George BWell, I see a bit of a discussion. Note that KeepingIt Real didn't answer George's question.
As to "having infinitely more xperience with images" this is not the point because the images are clearly faked of Wainio: no-one's disputed this point except one who said you could "have the same photo shoot" (that was Astronut).
6 freeze-faces and NOT the same photo shoot? No.
And there are way too many. Sorry, KeepingItReal, get real.
Now do answer the question: is a D.A. or private reearcher being "awful" to "innocents" if there is even a slight suspicion of them? Should we not question the operation?
Do, however, understand the hypothesis first, please:
real families could be used to spring for keeping the mass of others untouchable by framing real families with fake photos to confuse researchers.
Not only that,
Astronut has not done the key test on the parallax ... and it would have to be done on every video just to make sure we'd tested the whole body of evidence -- like testing the whole of any crime scene, just in case something turns up. On the other hand, o
ne fake at all, in the case of "live TV" shows fakery was being used.
(And Astronut didn't -- seem to? -- realize
one can derive viewpoint(s) from moving images, and that each layer will relate to another, and all should match -- but if you test each one separately for its movement in relation to the next and all viewpoints do not match in sequence, you know it's a fake).
As to George, thanks for the kudos, George. Sorry you find me occasionally annoying. What other way would a REAL person, i.e., one who has real responses to things, be?
:)
