You're being down voted but not many have commented to discuss with you. As another commented has said, the correctness of the pursuit doesn't really matter; i

You're being down voted but not many have commented to discuss with you. As another commented has said, the correctness of the pursuit doesn't really matter; it may be that the debunking actually finds here correct and "innocent", as I say; you can't discuss a subject without referring to it. As for other people misrepresenting the photographs; I don't have a strong opinion about the whole thing; but, her statements, very clearly, in my opinion avoid or skirt around the truth; it very, very clearly omits detail. There also some sugar coating of terminology; I'm not photographer, or artist, but I consider the statement "this is / is not edited" to mean something very different to "this is / is not a composite". As someone who likes to provide detail, and not leave ambiguity when I describe my work, I find it quite jarring to read her descriptions; the wording is chosen carefully to avoid saying what is much easier to say, were it not done in a roundabout way. "I found a pile of cash behind the living room wall" is much more to the point and clear than "I was redecorating my living room last week, and I found what I'd always been looking for". There is never a situation that I think it's reasonable or fair for pile-ons death threats or any other kind of aggression to occur over something like this, it's unacceptable; however, regards misrepresenting her work, I firmly believe that position to be true given the evidence presented. That said, this is just my opinion, and I make no comment on whether "misrepresenting" in itself is or is not an issue, just that I believe it _is_ misrepresented (intentionally).