Meeting the VICSIM FAMILIES

[Maat]

Another fun thing to notice. These photos deliberately have edges on them to indicate that they were scanned by a photo scanner. Of course, anyone that is halfway sensible about this trims and trues the image to remove these edges. I guess the non-trimming approach is common with both the Wainio and the Fetchet families. Just a coincidence. Right

Yes and it is two times absurd, because the timestamp implies a digital camera, while the scanner implies analog pictures.

Instead here we have a very rare case of analog picture with timestamp, put under a scanner. And what's worse, we have two completely unrelated pictures (Wainio-Fetchet) presenting the same (very unsual) characteristics. What a mess.

Actually, the date stamp was on good cameras in the '80s, Nonho (before PCs & scanners were in every household). As I said in my comment earlier: 'that date stamp is a feature on my old Ricoh camera, purchased in the late '80s (which still works very well).' I've even scanned some pics that were taken with it myself

[whatsgoingon]

,

[enantiodromie]

Where this picture comes from, though? The copy at the Fetchet foundation is of a smaller size, and this one has been uploaded to an image sharing website.

enantiodromie: care to share the source for this? And how did you figured the timestamp thing?

Also: you still have to introduce yourself as required. Please do so.

Sorry, I am mainly a non-active follower of the forum: i read regularly new post of the forum, but I don't post very often. I follow the research, but I'm not active on that. I'm Marco from Italy, I'm 23 and I'm a student... And my english is very poor. Feel free to ask me all you need to know. (By the way: I contacted you, nonhocapito, from my youtube account... Nice to meet you again).
Yes, the resolution of the Fetchet photo is far better than the one you can find in the memorial website.

How is it possible? Simple!

I explained the method to Simon, and I think it could be REALLY useful for the analysis of the pictures of the vicsims. I found pictures actually not available in the memorial websites of a lot of vicsims, using this method. As I said it's simple:
1) browse: http://www.archive.org/
2) paste the address in the wayback machine
3) now you can see the website as it was from the day when it was created till now: you can see the homepage and the contents as there were in the past... All images now in bad resolution in a better resolution.

For example, this was the picture page number 1 in 2002: http://web.archive.org/web/200112011907 ... tures2.htm

This method is very precious, I'm sure you all will find a lot of stuff useful for your research.

How did i figured the timestamp thing? Because I saw the same orange timestamp in some other vicsims photos... I'm sure I saw it in other pictures by other vicsims.

Really strange: same orange timestamp in a photography from 1987 and in an other photography from 2001, isn't it?

[nonhocapito]

Actually, the date stamp was on good cameras in the '80s, Nonho (before PCs & scanners were in every household). As I said in my comment earlier: 'that date stamp is a feature on my old Ricoh camera, purchased in the late '80s (which still works very well).' I've even scanned some pics that were taken with it myself

oops, sorry I didn't know about that... But do all the timestamps in those old cameras look like this? orange and with that type of electronic characters?

So that you forgive my ignorance about camera timestamps, here's a couple of Brad-templates from the Fetchet foundation, just for kicks:



Appreciate the classic vicsim "no chin" effect right there. And also:


From http://www.bradfetchet.com/2005Birthday ... an_jpg.htm

Weirdly small facial features... inexplicably redundant caption... and, a funny white window, that car. Almost as if someone wanted to mask a reflection that didn't belong there...

[whatsgoingon]

,

[nonhocapito]

Sorry, I am mainly a non-active follower of the forum: i read regularly new post of the forum, but I don't post very often. I follow the research, but I'm not active on that. I'm Marco from Italy, I'm 23 and I'm a student... And my english is very poor. Feel free to ask me all you need to know. (By the way: I contacted you, nonhocapito, from my youtube account... Nice to meet you again).
Yes, the resolution of the Fetchet photo is far better than the one you can find in the memorial website.

How is it possible? Simple!

I explained the method to Simon, and I think it could be REALLY useful for the analysis of the pictures of the vicsims. I found pictures actually not available in the memorial websites of a lot of vicsims, using this method. As I said it's simple:
1) browse: http://www.archive.org/
2) paste the address in the wayback machine
3) now you can see the website as it was from the day when it was created till now: you can see the homepage and the contents as there were in the past... All images now in bad resolution in a better resolution.

For example, this was the picture page number 1 in 2002: http://web.archive.org/web/200112011907 ... tures2.htm

This method is very precious, I'm sure you all will find a lot of stuff useful for your research.

How did i figured the timestamp thing? Because I saw the same orange timestamp in some other vicsims photos... I'm sure I saw it in other pictures by other vicsims.

Really strange: same orange timestamp in a photography from 1987 and in an other photography from 2001, isn't it?

Hey Marco, thanks for the explanation about the photo. I think the majority of us here know about the wayback machine -- but admittedly I didn't think of using it to browse the Brad Fetchet foundation. So thanks for the tip! However that link that you provided doesn't seem to work at the moment.

p.s. your english is good enough for me...

[nonhocapito]

Browsing the Fetchet foundation on the wayback machine.


From http://wayback.archive.org/web/20010815 ... tchet.com/

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.
And on top of it, they were OK to be called over the phone by total strangers "with news and info". How commendable.

Question: why would they use a picture from his college or high school years (the original here: http://www.bradfetchet.com/2005Birthday ... 01_jpg.jpg), under the pretense of looking for information about a missing person? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a more recent picture of the guy, considering that the tone isn't yet one of a "memorial"?



By January 2002, just four months after 9/11, the Fetchet memorial foundation was already a reality. Amazing, isn't it? Bureaucratically (and more importantly, socially), how long do you reckon it takes for a foundation to be created?

[nonhocapito]

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."

[Maat]

Actually, the date stamp was on good cameras in the '80s, Nonho (before PCs & scanners were in every household). As I said in my comment earlier: 'that date stamp is a feature on my old Ricoh camera, purchased in the late '80s (which still works very well).' I've even scanned some pics that were taken with it myself

oops, sorry I didn't know about that... But do all the timestamps in those old cameras look like this? orange and with that type of electronic characters?

Yes, Nonho, the digital date stamp is the same style and color on my Ricoh too. This is the only example I had in my files to upload at the moment (taken on a California beach in '97):


You can see the date lower left, the camera was turned vertically for the shot.
(This is the original scanned photo, btw, not altered or color adjusted at all as you can probably tell )

[simonshack]

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."

Yes Nonho,

The bottom line is not so much the DATE as the very EXISTENCE of these countless, photoshopped 9/11 "victims" pictures ( such as of Brad Fetchet's). Whether in 2001 or 2010 - these images have been supposedly released by his family. Does it really matter to know exactly WHEN they appeared on the web?


Here we have Brad and his friends portrayed in two totally different occasions - most of which with quite identical poises and expressions...


Here we can compare Brad's official 9/11 Memorial picture (at left) with one in which he's supposedly dancing with his grandma...


I don't think it's very hard for anyone to see how fake these pictures are.

[lux]

Date stamps were popular in the 1980s-90s, mostly on 35mm point&shoot cameras. Some entry-level type SLRs had them too as an option (I'm a dealer in vintage cameras).

To my eye what is odd about this photo is the shadow situation.



The "red-eye" effect is very apparent indicating that an on-camera flash was used and the shot was taken indoors so there was likely little ambient light. What is odd is that shots taken like this usually have very pronounced flash shadows, usually to the right and down a bit. 'Plaid Shirt Boy' looks to have such a shadow by his ear. So, why don't the others have similar shadows?

[nonhocapito]

The bottom line is not so much the DATE as the very EXISTENCE of these countless, photoshopped 9/11 "victims" pictures ( such as of Brad Fetchet's). Whether in 2001 or 2010 - these images have been supposedly released by his family. Does it really matter to know exactly WHEN they appeared on the web?

Well, yes Simon of course you're right, but it also seems relevant to me to note how, evidently, some material is being replaced on the wayback machine to make new stuff look authentic and original.

Pretty outrageous if you think about it, albeit consistent with what we have seen happening with the NIST amateur material. And it is an important trend. We are witnessing "history" (which wasn't history in the first place) being rewritten, barely a decade after the events...



If the ugly-ass version of this pic presents "corrections" to the "burn" on Brad's cheek of the original, how can it also contain scratches and speckles that the original does not contain?

Which one is the earliest, "original" image?

[HonestlyNow]

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?

[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."

Suspicious?
C'mon: you could be doubtful, I understand the reasons. That's because I'm not active into the forum, but I have shared some material that you wouldn't be expected.
I think the high resolution version of "dance with grandma" is obviously a manipulated image. The problem is: wrinkles in the neck of Brad are less prominent. Yes, that's true: they are less prominent.
BUT: is this a really good reason for thinking someone is trying to obstruct your research?

Moreover: do you really think someone could be able to influence yourself and your ideas about 9/11 using an high resolution of the "dance with grandma" photography?


I think photos in the Brad Fetchet memorial were zoomed out in order to hide the fact they are fake. I also think a good research must use the right sources. The photography i posted comes from Brad Fetchet website. Does someone has the source of "dance with grandma" version in the september clues website?

Btw, let's try to see the creation date in the pictures from the "waybacked" Fetchet memorial.

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?

That's interesting. If someone is expert in web hosting please tell us something about. However gmail was created in 2004 and the Frank Fetchet gmail address proove there is a way to modify the informations about a domain.
If the page were created really in 2003 the hypothesis by nonhocapito would be well-grounded: someone modified the contents of the past of the Fetchet website.

[nonhocapito]

C'mon: you could be doubtful, I understand the reasons. That's because I'm not active into the forum, but I have shared some material that you wouldn't be expected.
I think the high resolution version of "dance with grandma" is obviously a manipulated image. The problem is: wrinkles in the neck of Brad are less prominent. Yes, that's true: they are less prominent.
BUT: is this a really good reason for thinking someone is trying to obstruct your research?

Moreover: do you really think someone could be able to influence yourself and your ideas about 9/11 using an high resolution of the "dance with grandma" photography?

hmm, I guess for some reason I am not making myself very clear. This has nothing to do with "influencing me and my ideas". Let me try to explain again why I find this discovery of a "remastered" "dance with grandma" very significant.

For starters, the picture was very prominent in the vicsim research, as a convincing clue demonstrating that a lot of photoshopping was to be found in the 9/11 victims memorial websites. So relevant, in fact, that it still can be found on the home page of this very forum.

Secondly, it is crucial to note that this picture comes from an archive dated back to 2002. The vicsim research of Simon and Hoi certainly did not start until 2007, as far as I know. Maybe members from older times will prove me wrong, but I doubt anybody took notice of this picture, and its pitiful photoshop conditions, until 2007.

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.

Naturally, this hypothesis is pretty far fetchet, pardon my pun, considering that back in 2007 or 2008 anyone was able to check the original on the foundation website. I refuse to believe that simon shack discussed this picture on his website, if the picture wasn't all the time available as a source elsewhere.

You draw your own conclusions, enantiodrome.

As to my being suspicious. I think it is the right word, because I know my feelings and I know the word to describe them: suspicious. It doesn't mean I am right, but this is how it is...