Why the fascination with Kimmer? #15

[Mayberryfan]

Drakette sends me more evidence that Kimmer steals.

Shocking, I know!

I found Heidi's source for the deviled eggs pic on the header of her "newsletter" Here is the link:
~link removed~

Here is their copyright info. Copyright ©2007 by American Egg Board. All rights reserved. Photographs and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from AEB.

------
In the recipe box she has a recipe for BLT Cucumbers. The pic and recipe were lifted from ~link removed~

-----
Kimmer calls this one Chinese Chicken Soup

~link removed~


Kimmer calls it Artichoke Frittata
~link removed~

oh, one more. This one is from the Pork Board how ironic. Kimmer calls it Ham and Chicken gumbo

~link removed~


Btw, Drakette has made the appropriate screenshots and sent this evidence off to John. More nails for the coffin!

[pooticus]

Here is the November 12th photo added to the line up. Get it? Line up? So since Hidey is so fond of her power color (red) I had to alter the hue of the photo in order to compare it to her latest lady in red photo. I made it puke green. Why puke green? Is there really any need for explanation on color theory with this??

[ccrickett]

[quote=Magicsmom;10108536]




Actually, yes it's been discussed, quite a while ago. I think the consensus was that WW would be very hard to go after. They were deceived by Heidi just as we all were. Now if there were any proof they knew they were printing lies and fraud, it would be a different story.


Hi everyone, I've skimmed all 15 threads and read some of the blogs. WOW The question from Little Miss and Magicsmom's reply sent me back to check out the WW article again. If I'm reading the credits at the bottom of the page correctly, WW gave a photo credit to "Jupiter Images; courtesy of Kim Drake; courtesy of Kimkins.com" Since the only photo in the article from Jupiter Images is the after of Kimmer, doesn't that infer that WW knew in advance that the picture of Kimmer was a stock photo from Jupiter Images? If I'm way off base or this has already been addressed, please ignore this post, I just thought I'd try to help in some small way.

[pooticus]

[quote=ccrickett;10109404]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

Actually, yes it's been discussed, quite a while ago. I think the consensus was that WW would be very hard to go after. They were deceived by Heidi just as we all were. Now if there were any proof they knew they were printing lies and fraud, it would be a different story.


Hi everyone, I've skimmed all 15 threads and read some of the blogs. WOW The question from Little Miss and Magicsmom's reply sent me back to check out the WW article again. If I'm reading the credits at the bottom of the page correctly, WW gave a photo credit to "Jupiter Images; courtesy of Kim Drake; courtesy of Kimkins.com" Since the only photo in the article from Jupiter Images is the after of Kimmer, doesn't that infer that WW knew in advance that the picture of Kimmer was a stock photo from Jupiter Images? If I'm way off base or this has already been addressed, please ignore this post, I just thought I'd try to help in some small way.

For those who might now know, Jupiter Images is a very prominent stock photo house.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by Barbara B

1. Possibly to maintain her sense of controlling Amy
2. To use her all over again as a success story
3. To keep tabs on her

A big part of Heidi's gig is controlling people. I think she gets off on having people "need" her advice and look up to her.

Originally Posted by pooticus

For those who might now know, Jupiter Images is a very prominent stock photo house.

Thanks, Pooti, I was head-scratching for a minute there wondering what Jupiter Images had to do with anything. Do people pay Jupiter Images to store their photos? I ask because I'm wondering if WW would have known from the Jupiter Images part that it was a fake photo. Might they have had reason to believe it was "Kim Drake" and that she paid Jupiter to store her photos?

[pooticus]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

Thanks, Pooti, I was head-scratching for a minute there wondering what Jupiter Images had to do with anything. Do people pay Jupiter Images to store their photos? I ask because I'm wondering if WW would have known from the Jupiter Images part that it was a fake photo. Might they have had reason to believe it was "Kim Drake" and that she paid Jupiter to store her photos?

No, Jupiter Images buys photos from photographers then resells them or rather they buy the rights to resell the rights of use to others. You "buy" images from Jupiter Image in order to use them for private or commercial use. You are bound by a use agreement that limits the amount of "exposures" or uses you get and it also limits how you get to use them.

JI is not a photo storage place.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by pooticus

No, Jupiter Images buys photos from photographers then resells them or rather they buy the rights to resell the rights of use to others. You "buy" images from Jupiter Image in order to use them for private or commercial use. You are bound by a use agreement that limits the amount of "exposures" or uses you get and it also limits how you get to use them.

JI is not a photo storage place.

Heidi testified in her depo that Clexus had provided the photo to WW, but we know that it was taken from a Russian bride site. So where does Jupiter fit in?

[Tooter]

[quote=ccrickett;10109404]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

Actually, yes it's been discussed, quite a while ago. I think the consensus was that WW would be very hard to go after. They were deceived by Heidi just as we all were. Now if there were any proof they knew they were printing lies and fraud, it would be a different story.


Hi everyone, I've skimmed all 15 threads and read some of the blogs. WOW The question from Little Miss and Magicsmom's reply sent me back to check out the WW article again. If I'm reading the credits at the bottom of the page correctly, WW gave a photo credit to "Jupiter Images; courtesy of Kim Drake; courtesy of Kimkins.com" Since the only photo in the article from Jupiter Images is the after of Kimmer, doesn't that infer that WW knew in advance that the picture of Kimmer was a stock photo from Jupiter Images? If I'm way off base or this has already been addressed, please ignore this post, I just thought I'd try to help in some small way.

You jogged my memory...I remember way back in thread 1? Looking at that stuff.

Yes, I believe they did know.

No, I do not believe they were "taken in" by Heidi. That had shoddy reporting. They reported the article like they were sitting right next to Heidi. Even said she "smiled" at one point. The interview was over the Phone and she refused to go to the Photo shoot. She sent in a picture.

To me, that's not someone "taken in" by Her. They knew better and knew something was up, but wanted the story more. These people are "reporters" and it never stirred up there interest to find the truth...and here you have people here (ducks) who aren't reporters and it stirred all of them up and they found the truth.

Actually, WW Lied. They are not innocent at all. They helped Heidi seem real with reporting like they actually met her and checked things out (which they did not). To me, WW and Heidi are of the same cloth. It's not an "oops" thing. They did it on purpose. They used each other at the expense of the "readers".

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

Heidi testified in her depo that Clexus had provided the photo to WW, but we know that it was taken from a Russian bride site. So where does Jupiter fit in?

Wasn't it stock photo's of the Food pictures on the page?

[Tooter]

Ok, I'm remembering here...I thought Heidi's after pic was a stock photo and we were trying to find it.

I believe that the credits that were given to Juniper (or whatever the name was) and the others were photos for the pictures of the Food, the tape measure and other photo's in the WW story. Nothing lead to Heidi's picture. Not until the Russian brides thing.

[2big4mysize]

thanks for the info pooticus.

Does anybody have the smaller kimmer front page already lost 20+ pounds pic from her first set of before and afters that was so photoshoped with the side and front view so Pooticuss could show us how much weight Kimmer has gained since then with her layered lineup. I know it is in here but I'm sure the pixels are better on the orgina; screen shot somebody got.

[Magicsmom]

[quote=Tooter;10109501]

Originally Posted by ccrickett

You jogged my memory...I remember way back in thread 1? Looking at that stuff.

Yes, I believe they did know.

No, I do not believe they were "taken in" by Heidi. That had shoddy reporting. They reported the article like they were sitting right next to Heidi. Even said she "smiled" at one point. The interview was over the Phone and she refused to go to the Photo shoot. She sent in a picture.

To me, that's not someone "taken in" by Her. They knew better and knew something was up, but wanted the story more. These people are "reporters" and it never stirred up there interest to find the truth...and here you have people here (ducks) who aren't reporters and it stirred all of them up and they found the truth.

Actually, WW Lied. They are not innocent at all. They helped Heidi seem real with reporting like they actually met her and checked things out (which they did not). To me, WW and Heidi are of the same cloth. It's not an "oops" thing. They did it on purpose. They used each other at the expense of the "readers".

So then, back to Little Miss' question, why hasn't someone gone after WW? If there is empirical proof that WW knowingly printed lies, there should be a compelling reason to go after them. BTW, I agree that they are of the same cloth as Heidi. Same goes for all the supermarket rags. I think if there is proof that WW aided and abetted Heidi, there may be something down the road, but the more obvious target for a takedown is Heidi herself. A lawsuit against WW would be very dicey. The only ones who could take part are those who joined because they read about her in WW. It certainly would make for a much smaller class.

[rebel]

Originally Posted by Barbara B

LOL! I haven't smoked a butt lately either. I'm on day 37 of a smoking quit!

Good for you! I know how hard it must be to quit. I know people who have and people who tried to.

As for "smoking a butt," that was included in the frivilous banter, recipes, etc. that keeps me entertained and motivated to continue the fight to take Heidi down. You know what they say about "all work and no fun."

[ccrickett]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Wasn't it stock photo's of the Food pictures on the page?

Hi Tooter, I hope you don't mind if I answer here. The rest of the credits are "Michael Tracy/HBB (4). Food Stylist: Ellie Ritt" There were 4 food pics, so the only picture I can see in the article from Jupiter Images is the Kimmer after.

[Tooter]

Well, they did publish that apology (NOT) and I Think the rag sheets (which is what it is) have deep pockets.

I think someone "Could" go after them, but it would take years.

It's something that should be looked into...but I don't think it would have any benefit. The only thing that would happen is an "award" of money. They aren't going to stop their magazine, and they aren't going to change their ways. I just don't see how it would make a big deal. That's just my opinion.

[MissMerize]

Look what I made in school today

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Wasn't it stock photo's of the Food pictures on the page?

Very likely that the stock photos from Jupiter were the food pics, not the Kim Drake pic. The "Kim Drake" pic was from a russian bride site. I don't have the full pic of her, but this was on the home page, and that's how it got found:

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Well, they did publish that apology (NOT) and I Think the rag sheets (which is what it is) have deep pockets.

I think someone "Could" go after them, but it would take years.

It's something that should be looked into...but I don't think it would have any benefit. The only thing that would happen is an "award" of money. They aren't going to stop their magazine, and they aren't going to change their ways. I just don't see how it would make a big deal. That's just my opinion.

ITA! Taking down WW is not what the ducks care about. It's Heidi we want!

[rebel]

Originally Posted by MissMerize

Look what I made in school today

I'm giving you an A++.

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by ccrickett

Hi Tooter, I hope you don't mind if I answer here. The rest of the credits are "Michael Tracy/HBB (4). Food Stylist: Ellie Ritt" There were 4 food pics, so the only picture I can see in the article from Jupiter Images is the Kimmer after.

ccrickett, I no longer have my old copy of the WW magazine. I remember there were a certain number of pictures (images) and after we all went through them (one by one) it came out that they were pictures of food, the tape measure and maybe something else. I don't remember...I just remember they did "add up". I also remember that a bunch of us searched Jupiter Images...and that all seemed to add up.

I believe the credits are in Order. (as to how they appear) and it seemed like the one would be credit for Heidi, but after going through...It wasn't.

Like I said, I don't have the article anymore. But I had been the one to think like you were thinking. That the Jupiter image was for her, and it ended up it was for some other picture or image. Others on here had showed me that.

ETA: I wanted to add, there were images that we didn't consider Pics that were in the credit...One of them was for the "tape Measure" and I think something else. Not pictures of food or people. Every image gets a "credit". I can't go back and look at it, since I threw out the old magazine...but that's how I remember it.

[ccrickett]

Originally Posted by Tooter

ccrickett, I no longer have my old copy of the WW magazine. I remember there were a certain number of pictures (images) and after we all went through them (one by one) it came out that they were pictures of food, the tape measure and maybe something else. I don't remember...I just remember they did "add up". I also remember that a bunch of us searched Jupiter Images...and that all seemed to add up.

I believe the credits are in Order. (as to how they appear) and it seemed like the one would be credit for Heidi, but after going through...It wasn't.

Like I said, I don't have the article anymore. But I had been the one to think like you were thinking. That the Jupiter image was for her, and it ended up it was for some other picture or image. Others on here had showed me that.

Ok thanks tooter, I just remembered that this "bride" was also a Jupiter Images stock photo and it seemed to me that WW had to know it in order to give the credit. Back to lurking!

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by ccrickett

Ok thanks tooter, I just remembered that this "bride" was also a Jupiter Images stock photo and it seemed to me that WW had to know it in order to give the credit. Back to lurking!

No Problem. And my saying that they "knew"? Was because they never met her in person (only over the phone) and lied in the interview.

Interesting about the Brides being Jupiter too. Things come full circle, eh?

[pooticus]

I really would lean toward it being a food photo as the stock image.

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by pooticus

I really would lean toward it being a food photo as the stock image.

I will so see If I can find the old posts. give me a minute.

[Madam De Leon]

Originally Posted by Mayberryfan

Madam DeLeon discovered:


Ahhh. Very interesting. Perhaps Bonnies AMAZING one-month weightloss in the final stages of her diet is due to surgery. Not sure if she's claimed "no surgery" or not, but there is NO WAY someone can lose that much weight and not have a great deal of excess skin. Pictures of Bonnie seem to show her slim and trim with no excess anything. I'm thinking she had to have had some medical assistance at the end to get rid of her last several pounds. And, probably at the beginning as well.

But, that's just MHO.

ETA: I don't mean to imply there's anything WRONG with having WLS. It just seems that Bonnie is claiming her incredible transformation is due solely to her Magic Chicken Diet and I ain't buying it.

I"ve read all the replies to this, so don't anyone think I ignored you - I just clicked on the last one to add a few more thoughts.

I've been mulling over in my head exactly what the sudden 50 lb drop means when her weight loss had been slowing down. Could be weight loss surgery, because there's no way someone losing so much weight in that short of a time span (the first 100 lbs in 5-1/2 months) could NOT have a lot of excess skin drooping here and there.

I also noticed in the photos that she suddenly has jutting collar bones when she reaches the 130-ish weight range - it shows in all the goal photos (even though some of them are labeled as high as 149). Most of the photos are not full body shots, and show her wearing long sleeves. Perhaps that was just the time of year the photos were taken, but perhaps it was done that way to hide sagging skin... or to hide scarring from surgical removal of sagging skin.

Quite frankly, I think she also looks quite ill in most of the goal photos, both on the .com site and the .net site. Her "success story" claims that she had breast cancer back in 1991, but if you look at the photo of her with her sister on the .net site (Feb 7 entry), her upper chest/shoulder/shoulder blade area looks downright emaciated, and her hair looks very different from all her other photos, as if she was wearing a wig or fall to hide chemo induced hair loss. Although it looks a bit thin for a wig (unless Heidi's wigs are made much thicker than standard wigs?), but very different from her usual "style", with the bangs grown out enough to be tucked behind her ear, whereas they were very short as late as her 3 month photo. Her hair seems to change from thick to thin from one photo to another,although the thinnest hair seems to show up when she's at hear lowest weights.

I can't seem to locate the photos on her site of her with the two women who were supposedly doing her diet, where she has her arms draped around their shoulders, but she looks quite ill in that one too. (I saved a copy of it to my computer last time someone posted it somewhere, can't remember where I found it though) I tried enlarging the photo to make out some of the words on the TV, since it shows the Weather Channel, but it just pixelates. Can anyone sharpen the image enough to figure out what the date is on the TV image?

There's only one photo of her at a heavier weight on the .net site, where she is shown with all her sisters, which is supposedly a before photo. If this is a before photo (and I suspect it might actually be one taken about the time of the 1 or 2 months photos instead), she looks considerably healthier than in any of her after photos.

I originally went over there trying to figure out from the clothing styles just when the pictures were taken, but most of her clothes are very basic and just not styled specific to a particular year. The only things I can really place in a year are the embroidered jeans in the 2 month photo, which were popular in this country about a year or so ago. (If however any of these turn out to be photos from a european site, that would date them as much as 2 years earlier, as it takes up to 2 years for fashion to make it's way across the atlantic. For instance, 18 months-2 years ago the baby doll styles in the bright mod "laugh-in" style prints you're seeing in US stores this spring were popular in England) I"m still trying to figure out the black dress in the Feb 6 photo. I can't see enough of the styling itself to figure out what year it might be from. I"m also trying to put a year on the shoes she's wearing in the 7 month photo, but the black print top which she claims is her at 149 lbs and wearing size 8 jeans (the jeans don't even show in the photo) looks like it might be from about 4 years ago, when bohemian styles were more prominent.

The clothes that her sisters are wearing in the group photo on the .net site are a bit more dated to last year, or perhaps the previous year (looking at the floral multiple print skirt, the purple top with the swirled floral print, and the turned up cuff denim capris.)

(However, all my observations about the clothing could be thrown out the window if you consider that some people buy their clothes at conignment shops as they lose weight, or wear clothes more than one year.)

The hairstyles seem to change at an odd rate too. Haircuts are one thing, and hair can be colored of course... but considering that she's supposedly only kept her weight off for a few months, she has had a lot of hair growth in some of the goal photos on the .net site, while having some goal photos showing considerably shorter hair.

Anyhow, just a few more observations in the photos, but I don't know what any of it really means, or if any of it really means anything at all.

[This time]

Originally Posted by Tooter

I will so see If I can find the old posts. give me a minute.

Ok, your minute is up

[jo2621]

Originally Posted by MissMerize

Look what I made in school today

Lawdry MissM

I am going to have to go in halfsies with Heidi on a gross of new keyboards.

I keep spittin coffee on mine and she keeps smashin hers (ala the German kid)

[2big4mysize]

wasn't the WWW after pic credited as submitted by Kim Drake?

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by This time

Ok, your minute is up

I can't find it!! It's some where in that huge, first thread!! lol

[Mayberryfan]

Dang! I can't see images at school!