In Response to Bill Schmalfeldt’s none responsive responses.

So earlier today, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt asked your host the following question…

And since when does it matter what I say? I’ve been rebutting these fools for over a year and they just ignore my rebuttals and continue to make the defamatory statements. What should make me believe that anything will be different on your blog?

Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog

The simple answer is, I’m not one of those fools.  I’ve given Bill every benefit of the doubt.  I’ve explained my interest in the questions I’ve asked and he has yet to answer specifically and on the posts that I’ve asked the questions. I’m an extreme newcomer to this game, and Bill has yet to successfully rebut anything I’ve asked, posted or said.  His whining about other people will carry zero weight here.

And just to show I’m a stand up guy, I’ll now comment on a part of Bill’s lengthy answer to my Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt that has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.  But I will redact it, which upsets Bill for some reason, because the redactions make absolutely no difference to the result.

Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.

Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was engaging in underage pornography and then do nothing. You are worse than the kiddie porn artist if that is the case.

(redacted) admits selling his (redacted) for sex. He published several websites to that effect. What does that make him? What does that make her?

And he told three different stories about the tragic death of his (redacted). I tried to find out which of the stories was the right one. He ignored me. Knowing him to be a fraud and a grifter, to be honest, I didn’t think there WAS a dead baby. And yes, I think (redacted) — who slut shamed a rape victim in order to get new teeth — is low enough to lie about a dead baby to raise funds. He lied about my alleged “rape threat” to raise funds. He’s a walking, talking, fundraising machine, and nobody EVER gets what they pay for.’

Bill Schmalfeldt in an unapproved comment to this blog

I’m going to put this into context by saying that the redacted individual is the photographer that spurned the question about Bill’s pornography that he has, as of this writing, not answered about.  This is, as best as I can tell, his reason for involving law enforcement over a photographers pictures.  Left alone, it is pretty convincing.  Perhaps I can make it less so.

Let’s start with the first statement, “Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.” I’ll start my rebuttal by saying if anyone really had strong suspicions about abusing children and looked the other way, that would be disgusting.  But Bill didn’t have “strong suspicions.”  He didn’t even have mild suspicions.  He didn’t have weak suspicions.  He only had fabricated suspicions.

I can’t even explain how weak and absurd his suspicions were without bringing in the next quote.  Which is, “Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was engaging in underage pornography and then do nothing. You are worse than the kiddie porn artist if that is the case.”  Again, had he had strong suspicions, I’d agree.  But he didn’t.  His suspicions were weak to none existent, despite his claim.

Let me build the case for you, again without citing sources because I’ll give them plenty of chances to reveal themselves in comments.  Bill had absolutely no reason to suspect that the photographer was using underage models.  Better yet, the pictures that so upset him were taken prior to 2009, and in that legal space, were not pornography.  Even after 2009, when the laws changed, the pictures still most likely would not be considered pornography.  Either way, since there was no pornography in question, there could be no “kiddie porn” in question.  Had Bill understood the law and the issue better, he would have known this.

As to the issue of underage models, he had no realistic reason to suspect such.  The photographs in question were displayed both on the photographer’s website and in galleries.  That alone presupposes that the models in question were of age.  The photographer in question even said, on his website, that the models were of age.  Not explicitly, but it was heavily implied.  In other words, Bill took it upon himself to judge if the models were underage and determine that his wild speculation was “strong suspicion” that the photographer was involved in kiddie porn.  I think the motivation is best explained by another commenter to this blog.

Creepiest thing he did with the issue of (redacted)’s pictures was take one that he insisted was an underage model (apparently anyone A-cup is underage) and ostensibly to preseve decency he photoshopped a Hello Kitty bikini top onto the picture then renewed his wailing at increased volume about how this was obviously a child. Way to try and propagandize the issue there Chuckles. As compensation I’d like for him to appear at all hearing of the copyright suit with a thousand pirated video copies glued all over him.

Kyle Kiernan in an approved post on this blog

I don’t know that gluing videos is a proper response, but the rest of the comment it spot on.  Bill did his best to portray that the photographer was engaged in “kiddie porn” when he had no real reason to assume the photographer was engaged in kiddie porn.  He had no contact with the models, except for the one he ignored who contacted him to prove she wan’t the photographer’s wife and who was clearly not a kid.  He had zero reason except for his own fantasizes to assume anyone was underage in any of the pictures.

But having legal models didn’t fit into his narrative.  He needed the models to be underage for the first bit, and that is abusing children.  Again, Bill had never met the kids in question.  He had no idea what kind of relationship the photographer had with these kids.  None.  Zero.  What he had was his incomplete and misunderstood doxing of the photographer.  He thought he had his home address, but instead he had the photographer’s studio.  Based on his unconfirmed information, Bill leapt to the conclusion that the photographer was shooting erotic (but not pornographic) photography in his home.  This was worse than a lie.  This was a complete misuse of facts.

Bill did not fact check his information.  He did not even make sure that the address he had was residential.  (It wasn’t)  He had no information or reason to believe that the photographers children were ever present at any erotic (but not pornographic) photo shoot.  There was absolutely zero “strong suspicions”  and was only, at my most generous, innuendo.

But innuendo is enough for Bill.  He contacted the authorities.  He published the photographers personally identifying information on the web.  On the basis of nothing less than innuendo.  Not “strong” suspicion.  Innuendo.

So now that the first two comments are destroyed, let’s move one.  This is his next claim… “(redacted) admits selling his (redacted) for sex. He published several websites to that effect. What does that make him? What does that make her?”  The photographer in question never offered the person who has never been involved with anything concerning Bill for sex.  Ever.  I challenge Bill, here and now, to provide evidence to the contrary.  What he did do is offer to provide interested models with other models for the purpose of erotic (but not pornographic) photography. He also offered models a personal delivery and discussion of the final prints for a fee.  Bill decided to use innuendo and not facts to imply that the personal delivery meant sex.

That is not remotely true.  I am a photographer.  I’ve been hired to do shoots on a number of things, but not erotic photography.  I will tell you now, I charge extra for me to spend my time to sit down with a client, go over the photographs, and discuss possible changes in cropping, retouching, or anything else related to the photographs.  You hire me for my skills.  You can either accept my product, or pay me to discuss changes to the products.  My willingness to let you pay me for that discussion is not an offer of sexual favors of any kind.

As to the last bit, as stated I have little issue with it.  Had it happened the way Bill implies.  But it didn’t.  Bill didn’t write about how the photographer in question may or may not have tried to use the death to raise funds.  Bill insulted the cause of death.  Bill insulted the reality of the death.  Bill demanded answers he had no right to receive, and when he didn’t get them, he insulted and demanded more.  Had Bill simply written a story about his suspicions and/or drew the other inferences in a journalistic way, I’d be silent on this.  Bill didn’t.  Others have shown the truth about what I’m saying.  I’ll just say that Bill acted badly.

I will touch on one other thing.  I think I know who the rape victim who was allegedly slut shamed is.  I’m unaware of the photographer doing so.  But if he did, I find it appalling.  The woman in question here was at best mislead and at worst raped.  I may go into that story in more detail later.  But since her attacker was a darling of certain circles, instead of calling out the attacker, certain people attacked the woman.  That is dangerous territory and if the photographer did engage in those tactics, then shame on him.  I’ve been working on a post about the incident, and will get around to posting it soon.  But in at least that small part, I think I’m actually in agreement with Bill.


6 thoughts on “In Response to Bill Schmalfeldt’s none responsive responses.

  1. Another question posed to Bill that he feels the need to deflect is why, if he is so adamant about calling..sorry contacting the authorities when he suspects kids may be in danger, did he not do so when he found out his very good friend was letting a convicted pedophile live with his two young daughters in the basement of his mother’s home that lacked, by his families own testimony, any sort of dividing walls or privacy. That would have certainly raised far more suspicions then some models on a website and hanging on a gallery wall. Yet Bill can’t explain why he chose to go after a published photographer and not an admitted and convicted pedophile. Strange no?

    • A well made point. As it is unrelated directly to the question at hand, I shall add it as a new question. I shall call it On The issue of Child Safety and will add it this weekend to my update of Questions for Bill Schmalfeldt. Unless Bill would like to answer it here.

Comments are closed.