The 7/7 Report

[Prole]

Um... Prole why you continue to post...? Everyone is being very insulting to you and doesn't give two shits to what you are saying. And anything you do say makes you look madder (and more stupid) with every post.

So why do you come here...? This is the only thread you post on...? Do you get a thrill out of people insulting you, everyone thinking you have the intelligence of a dead stoat...?

I find it interesting to note how people respond to the issues. What arguments they make. Also there are some who take these issues seriously and I respect their comments. I just ignore the insults, but I keep stressing this is a thread for discussing the 7/7 report isn't it? What are your views? Are you satisified with it? (I'm not sure if you can speak for everyone btw.)

 

[zArk]

And anyway, isn't the more pertinent question 'Why the hell would anyone bother with manipulating a curbstone on a photo?' Why not answer that one.

I suppose that would follow after we can conclude that there is no natural explanation for the crumpled curb.

I am glad you have seen the curb i am talking of.

I am not just saying that someone has altered the curb but that the altered curb shows that the cctv photo has been manipulated.

I did ask previously if anyone knows of a copy of the original, uncompressed cctv image

 

[editor]

the black tarmac takes a dog-leg to the right and meets the curb. At the point of contact with the curb there is a curb stone that in the 28th pic curves with the road but in the 7th picture appears crumpled.

Don't you think that if "they" were going to forge a photograph as part of a huge murderous conspiracy that was going to attract the attention of the entire world, they would have:

(a) made up a picture with far clearer faces
(b) done the job properly - it's not particularly hard for a reasonably skilled operator to flawlessly fake a photo like this when it's at such low resolution
(c) not made 'mistakes' on parts of the photo that wouldn't need to be manipulated
(d) used something a little more profesional that Microsoft Paint (as you claimed) which comes with no photo editing tools.

Have you visited the site? Have you written to the police? Have you asked for copies of the original? Have you written to any photo imaging experts with your 'concerns'?

Or is blindly posting up ill-informed guff here as good as it's going to get?

 

[zArk]

Don't you think that if "they" were going to forge a photograph as part of a huge murderous conspiracy that was going to attract the attention of the entire world, they would have:

(a) made up a picture with far clearer faces
(b) done the job properly - it's not particularly hard for a reasonably skilled operator to flawlessly fake a photo like this when it's at such low resolution
(c) not made 'mistakes' on parts of the photo that wouldn't need to be manipulated
(d) used something a little more profesional that Microsoft Paint (as you claimed) which comes with no photo editing tools.

Have you written to the police? Have you asked for copies of the original? Have you written to any photo imaging experts with your 'concerns'?

Thanks, I will.
As should be clear, until this afternoon when i was looking at the picture, i was of the assumption that the picture was genuine and that claims of it being 'fake' and manipulated were misguided.

Or is blindly posting up ill-informed guff here as good as it's going to get?

Ill-informed???? Ermmm whos informing me of what?

It hasnt been discussed at all on here has it?
Has it been discussed or mentioned anywhere else?
To my knowledge, it hasnt and i havent read anything other than my own critical writing that has mentioned it.

Thanks -- its great not being a dead-head, shit for brains, automoton who laps up everything i read in the Guardian.

Have you visited the site?

what site?

 

[Prole]

Don't you think that if "they" were going to forge a photograph as part of a huge murderous conspiracy that was going to attract the attention of the entire world, they would have:

(a) made up a picture with far clearer faces
(b) done the job properly - it's not particularly hard for a reasonably skilled operator to flawlessly fake a photo like this when it's at such low resolution
(c) not made 'mistakes' on parts of the photo that wouldn't need to be manipulated
(d) used something a little more profesional that Microsoft Paint (as you claimed) which comes with no photo editing tools.

Have you visited the site? Have you written to the police? Have you asked for copies of the original? Have you written to any photo imaging experts with your 'concerns'?

Or is blindly posting up ill-informed guff here as good as it's going to get?

I've asked the police to release more images from Luton but as this is an 'ongoing investigation' they say they won't.

Also in the Guardian article they claim:

Police have also kept back details of what the bombers were wearing in order to be sure that witness statements taken from people who may have seen them on the Thameslink train can be corroborated.

Why release the Luton image which shows what they were wearing?

and

North says she has been told there are people in the background of the King's Cross CCTV sequence whom police are still trying to trace.

A year later they haven't come forward? Perhaps the image may help witnesses to come forward. A point that has concerned me since last year, how do witnesses come forward if they don't even know what train they travelled on, or are all dark men with rucksacks suspect?

Neither explanation for not releasing the cctv footage really make sense when you consider the two images of Hasib Hussain that have been released, one cropped the other showing other people in Boots.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

(I'm not sure if you can speak for everyone btw.)

Wanna bet?

 

[editor]

Ill-informed????

Tell me more about why you're "guessing" that the image had been manipulated by Microsoft Paint.

 

[tarannau]

I am not just saying that someone has altered the curb but that the altered curb shows that the cctv photo has been manipulated.

NO IT DOESN'T. THIS DOES NOT PROVE MANIPULATION OF THE IMAGE IN ANY SENSE.

(just in case I wasn't making my self clear, you understand. Way to go and blatantly misrepresent my posts though Zark.)

I did ask previously if anyone knows of a copy of the original, uncompressed cctv image

You are coming across like a real uninformed idiot don't you know - fuck knows why you think you're qualified to declare that manipulation has taken place. CCTV footage is invariably compressed to save space, often sharing multiple feeds on one tape. It isn't a format you tend to get a high quality original from, nor one which rewards studying curbstone detail and alleging that it proves something or other.

Someone can clean the footage up and use some pretty advanced facial mapping software to identify folks, but the crazy-paving and curb programs are more limited. And besides, if they did clean up the inevitable artefacts then you'd only be shouting louder about manipulation.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I find it interesting to note how people respond to the issues. What arguments they make. Also there are some who take these issues seriously and I respect their comments. I just ignore the insults, but I keep stressing this is a thread for discussing the 7/7 report isn't it? What are your views? Are you satisified with it? (I'm not sure if you can speak for everyone btw.)

Ok, from page one of the report:

"The account is not yet the full picture. Some material has been withheld to avoid prejudicing current or possible future prosecutions, the ongoing police investigation, to protect intelligence relationships, sources and techniques and to avoid providing information that could help future terrorists. The police investigation remains very much a live one, and further information may emerge."​

So the report makes explicit the fact that not all available information is being referenced in the report, and that it is exepcted that further information will emerge. Nothing sinister there IMO.

And in light of that, is it surprising that there may appear to be percieved holes in the findings of the report?

I'm satisfied that four young British men, who stated that they followed the Islamic faith, came into London on 7/7 and killed 52 people whilst wounding many more.

I'm interested in what drove them to such extreme action. I'm interested in why such otherwise non-descript people became willing to kill themselves and many others. I'm interested in what effect British foriegn policy had on their decision making. I'm interested in what effect other militant organisations may have had on them. I would like to know the role of the mosques in this. I'm interested in where they got their technical know-how from. I'm interested in whether there is a real threat of more actions of these kind.

I'm not fucking interested in wrong-headed people with nothing better to do than look for loony fucking details in order to prove that there is some massive conspiracy theory, involving most of the emergancy services, LU staff, government ministers, coroners, MPs, etc etc etc. And do you know why? Because, as noted at point 41, p.19:

"Conspiracy theories also abounded, at least some of the bombers seem to have expressed the view that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by the US."​

You aren't helping anyone by pursuing these lunatic theories, IMO you're actually skirting dangerously close to providing sustenance to people who are prepared to carry out such acts.

 

[jæd]

I find it interesting to note how people respond to the issues. What arguments they make. Also there are some who take these issues seriously and I respect their comments. I just ignore the insults, but I keep stressing this is a thread for discussing the 7/7 report isn't it? What are your views? Are you satisified with it? (I'm not sure if you can speak for everyone btw.)

After over 50 pages of regurgitating the same facts do you think you've made any progress...? If you don't know my views now then you are stunningly unable to read, although that has been pointed by me and others many. many times.

And what do you say to:

"The account is not yet the full picture. Some material has been withheld to avoid prejudicing current or possible future prosecutions, the ongoing police investigation, to protect intelligence relationships, sources and techniques and to avoid providing information that could help future terrorists. The police investigation remains very much a live one, and further information may emerge."

 

[zArk]

Tell me more about why you're "guessing" that the image had been manipulated by Microsoft Paint.

Photoshop -- give me a break thats too expensive for this kind of alteration. I am guessing Paint and Imaging were used.

^^ Paint and Imaging are packaged with Windows and therefore 'cheap'. Used as an example of 'cheapness'

I agree that the manipulation is cheaply done and the curb sticks out a mile -- when you actually look at it rather than a fleeting glance to see the 4 lads.

 

[editor]

Photoshop -- give me a break thats too expensive for this kind of alteration. I am guessing Paint and Imaging were used.

^^ Paint and Imaging are packaged with Windows and therefore 'cheap'. Used as an example of 'cheapness'

I'd love to hear you explain how the CCTV footage was somehow edited in a program that not only is not packaged with Windows (you have to pay for it) but it is totally incapable of any kind of image manipualtion whatsoever - it's a program for scanning in office documents and OCR, you clueless moron.

Any more clueless whitterings or are you done for the day?

 

[tarannau]

For fuck's sake, as if Zark ignoring any posts that he can't counter wasn't bad enough, alleging photo manipulation regardless of any evidence or logic. Now he's seemingly suggesting that the security services changed around the images using Microsoft Paint and other 'cheap'/free applications that come with Windows. It's a miracle MI5 didn't pop down to KallKwik and ask for a couple of terrorists to be superimposed on the footage, perhaps in the format of a couple of plates and a t-shirt...

 

[editor]

Now he's seemingly suggesting that the security services changed around the images using Microsoft Paint and other 'cheap'/free applications that come with Windows.

He's doing better than that.

He's claiming that the CCTV footage was edited with office document scanning software!

 

[zArk]

Someone can clean the footage up and use some pretty advanced facial mapping software to identify folks, but the crazy-paving and curb programs are more limited.

CCTV for 28th and 7th is the same camera and same position.

Both shots are of the same scene, yet in the 7th still there are distinct smudging and other weird effects that arent present in the 28th photo.

And besides, if they did clean up the inevitable artefacts then you'd only be shouting louder about manipulation.

In the 28th they pixelated the mans face, so yeah some manipulation occurs. Thats clear, as with the other pictures of the 28th i linked to.

So nothing you have said denies that the curb is different and nothing you have said explains why it is different in the two pictures from the same CCTV camera.

 

[tarannau]

So nothing you have said denies that the curb is different and nothing you have said explains why it is different in the two pictures from the same CCTV camera.

Can we just bin this thread. This delusional muppet seems incapable of grasping even the most basic of points or exhibiting any logic whatsoever.

For the last time, go back and read my posts. There is no proof of manipulation of the curbstone and plenty of reasons why the picture may be distorted from a compressed CCTV source. I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, whilst you continually misrepresent others and show your lack of logic and any insight up. Microsoft Paint my arse.

 

[zArk]

I'd love to hear you explain how the CCTV footage was somehow edited in a program that not only is not packaged with Windows

Your persistance with my statement is embarrassing.
I was using it as an example of how the curb crumpling shows the 'job' was done so quickly and poorly. It is obvious that the image has been doctored.

Why?

To frame those 4 lads for the attacks of 7th July.

Literally someone took the cctv footage, quickly pasted in as fast as possible the four lads, then let the cctv footage continue on its way.

 

[zArk]

Can we just bin this thread. This delusional muppet seems incapable of grasping even the most basic of points or exhibiting any logic whatsoever.

It seems you lack the common sense to realise that your rebuttal of my statements are contradicted by the images of the 28th.

Think about it.

 

[Prole]

Can we just bin this thread. This delusional muppet seems incapable of grasping even the most basic of points or exhibiting any logic whatsoever.

For the last time, go back and read my posts. There is no proof of manipulation of the curbstone and plenty of reasons why the picture may be distorted from a compressed CCTV source. I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, whilst you continually misrepresent others and show your lack of logic and any insight up. Microsoft Paint my arse.

Why only one image released? Why not release the sequence of images as they did from the 28/6? Any theories on that?

 

[zArk]

For fuck's sake, as if Zark ignoring any posts that he can't counter wasn't bad enough, alleging photo manipulation regardless of any evidence or logic.

What are you talking about?

Same camera, same shot, 28th = no distortion, 7th heavy distortion

get a brain

 

[zArk]

He's doing better than that.

He's claiming that the CCTV footage was edited with office document scanning software!

yeah yeah yeah. Editor, since you cannot discuss futher this issue of the curb because you cannot continue on about the pixelation issue and here while they could be bothered here or claim that the curb was 'cropped' ( you did say that didnt you? )

it is now 'take zark out of context' and we can laugh it all off.

 

[tarannau]

What are you talking about?

Same camera, same shot, 28th = no distortion, 7th heavy distortion

get a brain

Have you ever used a video recorder Zark? Do you remember that tapes sometimes became distorted at times. Now try and imagine a slowed down video tape, signals split to maximise the information carried on a tape that may have been used continuously for years.

Can you not see the potential for noise and distortion, or are you really claiming that you'd expect the quality of the footage to be identical a month apart? Where do you get your logic from.

get a brain indeed...

 

[editor]

Same camera, same shot, 28th = no distortion, 7th heavy distortion

This is painful.

There's a host of reasons why one image may be more distorted than the other (tape quality, tape noise, knackered tape, compression, 2/3rd generation image/ ISO rating/failing camera/artefacts etc etc ) , but I can't be arsed to explain it fully to an idiot who thinks it's possible to fake a CCTV image on document scanning software.

But let's put it another way: you have categorically stated that the image has been manipulated.

Seeing as you clearly know absolutely fuck all about photo manipulation software, why do you think you know more than the host of imaging experts who would have seen the first generation images?

A nice simple explanation will do, perhaps continuing on from here: "I, zArk, know that all the imaging experts are all wrong (and presumably "in on it too") and I am right because....."

 

[Prole]

Have you ever used a video recorder Zark? Do you remember that tapes sometimes became distorted at times. Now try and imagine a slowed down video tape, signals split to maximise the information carried on a tape that may have been used continuously for years.

Can you not see the potential for noise and distortion, or are you really claiming that you'd expect the quality of the footage to be identical a month apart? Where do you get your logic from.

get a brain indeed...

9 days apart methinks

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Gah, why bother

 

[zArk]

Do you remember that tapes sometimes became distorted at times. Now try and imagine a slowed down video tape, signals split to maximise the information carried on a tape that may have been used continuously for years.

Can you not see the potential for noise and distortion, or are you really claiming that you'd expect the quality of the footage to be identical a month apart? Where do you get your logic from.
rolleyes:

sorry it was 28th June to the 7th July. A month in name but not in days.

Tape distortion -- of course it is a possibility-- to confirm, it was a tape cctv not a digital? You are sure, you are positive?

Tape distortion -- fucking incredible discrimination by that tape. To focus in on that curbstone. Amazing.

 

[zArk]

This is painful.

There's a host of reasons why one image may be more distorted than the other (tape quality, tape noise, knackered tape, compression, 2/3rd generation image/ ISO rating/failing camera/artefacts etc etc )

one image??? --- its the one curbstone i am talking about.

are you purposefully ignoring that fact?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Tape distortion -- fucking incredible discrimination by that tape. To focus in on that curbstone. Amazing.

If the artifact had been anywhere else you'd have gone off on one about it too.

one image??? --- its the one curbstone i am talking about.

are you purposefully ignoring that fact?

*gives up*

You are the weakest link, please go away.

 

[zArk]

If the artifact had been anywhere else you'd have gone off on one about it too.

oh dear

another artifact that is crumpled is white t-shirt mans feet but they are moving so you can argue 'distortion' but the initial arguements of image burning over time by stationary camera cannot be upheld when looking at the curb.

come on, think about this.

You can see the railings through the lads head, you can see the crumpled feet and you can see the curb.

Some are moving objects but the curb is stationary

 

[Bob_the_lost]

oh dear

another artifact that is crumpled is white t-shirt mans feet but they are moving so you can argue 'distortion' but the initial arguements of image burning over time by stationary camera cannot be upheld when looking at the curb.

come on, think about this.

You can see the railings through the lads head, you can see the crumpled feet and you can see the curb.

Some are moving objects but the curb is stationary

You are completely ignorant on this issue aren't you?

http://www.idvd.ca/dvd-definitions-glossary.htm <- Artifact
http://www.idvd.ca/dvd-definitions-glossary.htm <- ISO speeds.

Different bloody things.