The 7/7 Report

[editor]

Entrapment, fuck you. I knew it.

I see we can add 'paranoid' as well as 'barking, obsessed fruitloop' to your personal qualities/

you said 'cropping', then you said 'artefacts'

Because - you fucking stupid, stupid, stupid moron - the image can both be cropped and have artefacts.

which artefacts could cause the distortion to that one curb in such a way?

Video artefacts can manifest themselves in all sorts of ways, particularly when you're dealing with CCTV tapes which are usually well worn.

Highly compressed JPGs - particularly second or third generation copies showing high contrast scenes - will introduce 'blocky artefacts.

Like this:

Look! Square blocks in the sky! Aiiee!

 

[editor]

Editor please re-read my answer to your commander question.
Already gone over it.
I aint repeating it again and cant be bothered to link to it.

You've made a bold claim that they were "murdered."

Now back it up please. Here.

I'll be fucked if I'm going to trawl throtugh your endless pages of bullshit looking for hints.

Who murdered them? Where? How?

What evidence have you to support this theory?

 

[tarannau]

which artefacts could cause the distortion to that one curb in such a way?

People have already given you plenty of reasons why that section of the curb may be affected visually in some way. And they're well qualified folks too, well regarded in the industries that work directly with footage and photo manipulation.

You just don't want to listen. Instead - based on your extensive Microsoft Paint knowledge - you've decided that the photo is a fake. There is absolutely no proof of this, nor should any signifance be attributed to a fucking distorted curbstone. It would actually be easier to clone the whole scene and then superimpose the bombers in - there is no logical reason why a distorted paving stone would imply manipulation of the photo. Is that clear enough?

 

[detective-boy]

I am not expecting anything.

But. You. Are.

You see two pictures. You "Spot the Difference". You say something must be wrong because there is a difference. You were expecting them to be the same. QED.

 

[zArk]

Because - you fucking stupid, stupid, stupid moron - the image can both be cropped and have artefacts.

cropped -- yes the picture is cropped as the taxi is not in frame but that cannot affect the one curb stone

artefacts -- macroblocks and such stuff would affect other areas in frame in the same way. If there was 'touching up' of faces for id, then that doesnt explain why all the other curbstones are of the same quality, the brickwork on the building is uniform quality and generally everywhere except for the area in close vicinity to the lads and that curbstone is uniform.

Video artefacts can manifest themselves in all sorts of ways, particularly when you're dealing with CCTV tapes which are usually well worn.

Highly compressed JPGs - particularly second or third generation copies showing high contrast scenes - will introduce 'blocky artefacts.

That photo shows scattered blocky artefacts while the cctv photo is totally dissimilar. Please produce a photo for example that is similar to the cctv one;

uniform pixelation surrounding a suspect central area.
which incorporates moving and stationary objects.

The 28th cctv picture has those qualities yet does not show anything like the same distortions in area surrounding the lads or a curb or anything for that matter. Plus the 28th has a pixelated face, which shows that even with alteration the shot retains its clarity uniform and doesnt produce an anomoly like the curbstone in the 7th.

 

[zArk]

You've made a bold claim that they were "murdered."

I'll be fucked if I'm going to trawl throtugh your endless pages of bullshit looking for hints.

I was being gracious to you by offering my theory of commander and do not wish to develop my theory futher on this thread. It is all there if you can be arsed reading it but because my theory covers more than just a 20 line post, i aint reproducing it all on here. I have given you the links and my general basis, thats enough.

I will say once again;

Why would it be done? [paraphrased]
I suppose that would follow after we can conclude that there is no natural explanation for the crumpled curb.

 

[detective-boy]

Look! Square blocks in the sky! Aiiee!

< Rings Peter Cockcroft ... "Never mind bloody nontilucent clouds mate, wait till you see this one!" ... >

 

[editor]

artefacts -- macroblocks and such stuff would affect other areas in frame in the same way. If there was 'touching up' of faces for id, then that doesnt explain why all the other curbstones are of the same quality, the brickwork on the building is uniform quality and generally everywhere except for the area in close vicinity to the lads and that curbstone is uniform.

FFS: you're looking at a combination of a (probably) well worn low-res video tape transferred on to JPG, possibly seen as a 2/3rd gen copy.

Here's an example of video artefacts.

Back on topic, are you going to tell me where and how "the lads" were" murdered," who did it and how it tallies with their DNA and personal effects being found on the scene?

 

[editor]

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

You can conclude what you fucking like, but you'll remain a clueless, bungling amateur with a worryingly obsessive need to find a fruitloop fantasy, despite a complete absence of facts.

Back on topic, are you going to tell me where and how "the lads" were "murdered," who did it and how it tallies with their DNA and personal effects being found on the scene?

You made the claim in this thread. Back it up, please.

 

[zArk]

But. You. Are.

You see two pictures. You "Spot the Difference". You say something must be wrong because there is a difference. You were expecting them to be the same. QED.

ok ok, the 'expectation' point taken.
the "spot the difference" is a little simplistic.

I was looking at the picture-- saw the curb and decided that by using another picture of that same scene could explain what was wrong with the curb.
Initially i thought it was just 'a monday morning' job but the other picture shows that something has happened to it;
1) between 28th and 7th
or
2) there is an image distortion

and off i went.

 

[JHE]

and off i went.

Yes, didn't you just!

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

and off i went.

I wish you would you fucking muppet. Permanently.

 

[zArk]

FFS: you're looking at a combination of a (probably) well worn low-res video tape transferred on to JPG, possibly seen as a 2/3rd gen copy.

possibly-- i agree there is the possibility, yet i stress again that for that to be the case it is some heavily discriminating artefact.

Back on topic, are you going to tell me where and how "the lads" were" murdered," who did it and how it tallies with their DNA and personal effects being found on the scene?

Am i denying that the lads were killed in the trains within this curb argument? Nope. I am saying that by placing them together at Luton Station it links with the cars found days after the event.
There is no other evidence of them being together at Luton Station except for

The trip followed the same route the suspects are believed to have taken on the day of the suicide bombings that killed 52 innocent people, police said.

believed??? it is the 20th September. Have the police not seen the cctv of Luton Train Station of the 7th by the 20th September? Platform cctv, ticket office cctv. Believed is an indicative word to use.

plus with the police referring to Hussain in the cropped picture climbing the stairs
The picture shows Hussain at Luton train station at approximately 7.20am on the morning of July 7.

ex-squeeze me? 7.20am when the cctv photo outside shows 7.21am
and there is no confusion over which picture the police are referring to
the Hussain picture released 14th July

and then on the 18th "We are this evening releasing a CCTV image showing the four men at Luton train station at approximately 7.20am.

So we have a space/time morphing Hussain who supposedly enters Luton Station at approximately 7.20am with three other lads then gets pictured climbing some stairs inside Luton Train Station at approximately 7.20am apparently on his own.

I submit, that the group photo is a fake. All four of the lads were never together at any point inside or outside Luton Train Station on the 7th July.

 

[editor]

possibly-- i agree there is the possibility, yet i stress again that for that to be the case it is some heavily discriminating artefact.

Oh look at who's changing his tune now!

Why only a few moments ago you were positively emphatic that it was a fake!

The photo is fake ...It is clear the photo was produced to frame 4 lads for the attacks and claim suicide bombers.

Anyway, are you finally going to come up with some kind of remotely plausible explanation about how "the four lads" were" murdered," please?

Except they're not "lads". They're murdering scumbags.

 

[zArk]

Oh look at who's changing his tune now!

Why only a few moments ago you were positively emphatic that it was a fake!

excuse you, i have previous said that there are possibilities of artefacts but none can explain the crumpled curb.

Anyway, are you finally going to come up with some kind of remotely plausible explanation about how the "the four lads" were" murdered," please?

jesus fucking christ, you have lost your mind.
Am i denying the train and bus explosion? NO
Am i denying that the four lads did the deed? Yes
Am i denying that the four lads were killed by explosions that day? NO

They're murdering scumbags.

No proof that they did it. You are accusing 4 lads without any evidence that they did it.

The group photo at Luton Station on the 7th July is part of the basis of this accusation and i am stating it is a fake unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[editor]

jesus fucking christ, you have lost your mind.
Am i denying the train and bus explosion? NO
Am i denying that the four lads did the deed? Yes
Am i denying that the four lads were killed by explosions that day? NO

You said that they were "murdered".

Please explain how, and show your supporting evidence for this incredible accusation.

Can you do that?

jThe group photo at Luton Station on the 7th July is part of the basis of this accusation and i am stating it is a fake unless you can prove otherwise.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that the image is a fake, something you've spectacularly failed to do thus far.

I - and others - who are far, far more qualified than you to analyse digital imaging do not agree with your wild conclusion.

Quite why you think you're an authority on imaging is anyone's guess, mind, especially as you've previously claimed that the editing had been done on an office paper document scanning suite!

 

[zArk]

You said that they were "murdered".

Please explain how, and show your supporting evidence for this incredible accusation.

They were murdered. Just because you believe them to be Suicide Bombers therefore not murdered doesnt mean that they werent murdered. They didnt do the attacks, they were victims and therefore murdered.
ffs. it has to be spelled out to you doesnt it?

Can you do that?I'm still waiting for you to prove that the image is a fake, something you've spectacularly failed to do thus far.

I - and others - who are far, far more qualified than you to analyse digital imaging do not agree with your wild conclusion.

wild conclusion?

1) The image is fake no matter which way you look at it. All other cctv images do not have any such 'artefacts' in them even after 'pixelation' of faces.

2) The time/space discrepancy of at approximately 7.20am shows that Hussain couldnt possibly be in 2 places at the same time. Therefore one of the pictures is fake and the entire central area of the group picture makes it the suspect one.

3) Police only 'believe' that the 4 lads did the same journey as the 28th even though they have access to luton platform and ticket office cctv

4) 2 of the lads in the group picture have anomolies; 1) railings seen through the head and 2) feet messed up which have been brushed off as 'image burning' yet the curbstone hasnt got 'image burning'

5) 2nd and 3rd generation images (your assertion, not mine) can under no circumstances be used as solid evidence. I have clearly stated that i would like to see the original copy of the scene, which as Prole confirms is impossible as the investigation is ongoing -- also confirmed in the ISC 7/7 report.

Quite why you think you're an authority on imaging is anyone's guess, mind, especially as you've previously claimed that the editing had been done on an office paper document scanning suite!

Did i ever say i was an authority on imaging? You said it. You explain why you think i am thinking that.
The photoshop-imaging-paint comment i have explained.
If ad-hominen arguments are your basis for denying that the photo is fake, you should be ashamed.

 

[tarannau]

1) The image is fake no matter which way you look at it. All other cctv images do not have any such 'artefacts' in them even after 'pixelation' of faces.

If ad-hominen arguments are your basis for denying that the photo is fake, you should be ashamed.

No it's not a fake. Nothing points to that fact definitively (or even slightly convincingly), nor would there be any logical reason why that curbstone would be distorted - 'faking' or superimposing the presence of the four individuals would be very unlikely to impact on a non-related area of the photograph. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is really quite amazing, as is your ability to leap to unsupported conclusions.

When someone constantly favours their unique 'interpretation' (well misreading) of a situation, regardless of the evidence, expertise and any logic, then they don't leave much alternative to ad-hominen arguments.

You're a flaming eejut Zark and no mistake. An arrogant, conspiracy obsessed plonker with his fingers in his ears too.

 

[editor]

They were murdered. Just because you believe them to be Suicide Bombers therefore not murdered doesnt mean that they werent murdered. They didnt do the attacks, they were victims and therefore murdered.

What the fuck is this gibberish?

You said that they were 'murdered'.

So, for what feels like the hundredth time of asking, could you explain who murdered them and how they were murdered, please?

A simple paragraph-long explanation will do.

1) The image is fake no matter which way you look at it.

In your totally-uninformed, 'I know fuck all about the imaging' opinion, of course.

Did i ever say i was an authority on imaging?

Several times you have announced the photos to be 'fake,' and ignored the opinions of graphics professionals who are far more knowledgeable than you on the topic.

Why is that? Why do you think you know better than people who do this kind of stuff for a living?

 

[zArk]

What the fuck is this gibberish?
You said that they were 'murdered'.
So, for what feels like the hundredth time of asking, could you explain who murdered them and how they were murdered, please?

Murdered, yes, as stated in my previous post.
Who murdered them? Did you read my theory of co-incidence? Nope, because you cant understand it. I have provided ample links to the who murdered them but you are obsessed with ignoring them.

Several times you have announced the photos to be 'fake,' and ignored the opinions of graphics professionals who are far more knowledgeable than you on the topic.
Why is that? Why do you think you know better than people who do this kind of stuff for a living?

What the fuck are you talking about?
You totally ignore the discrepancy between police reports of Hussain at Luton Train Station.
Announcing the photo, not photos, is fake in no way explains why you think i am saying i am an authority on imaging.
I have never insinuated it or claimed it.

Clearly though, you havent produced a explanation for the crumpled curb and ARE attempting to resort to ad-hominen arguments.

The 2nd picture you used shows multi-colour large square blocks which are in no way consistant with the crumpled curb.

Even with your claimed authority you are failing miserably to explain the curb.

Try again.

 

[Yossarian]

So you think it's a conspiracy 'coz of this paving stone, that you only spotted *yesterday afternoon*? Get a grip, for fuck's sake.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Murdered, yes, as stated in my previous post. Who murdered them? Did you read my theory of co-incidence? Nope, because you cant understand it. I have provided ample links to the who murdered them but you are obsessed with ignoring them.

zArk, hello. I've followed your contribution to this argument and I really can't see anything said by you that justifies your assertion that the young men who I believe carried out the atrocity on 7th July were "murdered". You refer to a "theory of co-incidence", and you say that you have provided "ample links to the who murdered them", but I see nothing that gives a plain and coherent account in support of your assertion that these young men were murdered.

Never mind this stuff about "curbstones" - others have given convincing reasons why this is a side issue. You say the young men were murdered. Most of the others participating say they were the murderers. Would you please, please, just tell us in the plainest possible language what reason you have for your claim that they were victims, rather than the perpetrators.

 

[zArk]

Never mind this stuff about "curbstones" - others have given convincing reasons why this is a side issue. You say the young men were murdered. Most of the others participating say they were the murderers. Would you please, please, just tell us in the plainest possible language what reason you have for your claim that they were victims, rather than the perpetrators.

because you said "please, please";

Unfortunately the simulacra has become internalised to such an extent that beaurocracy [derived through the simulacra] and human action [simulacra subsumed] are interlinking with devasting effects.


If you are expecting me to say 'the illuminati' or summit like that, sorry you are mistaken.

False flag operations are being conducted internally to 'protect the nation'.

 

[squeegee]

zArk.... you say the young men were murdered. Most of the others participating say they were the murderers.

And neither one nor the other has any solid proof. But whereas some of us are only saying we do not trust the government, police and intelligence services' version of what happened, since so many facts are conveniently missing, some of those who spout abuse about conspiraloons on this site seem content to brand these alleged bombers as guilty simply on the say so of the authorities. And then try to pass that off as rational.

Then to add insult to infamy they ask the doubters to provide proof, something which they themselves do not have. This is the level of "debate" on this subject on these boards.

A great shame

 

[zArk]

removed as squeegees post encapsulates something that is very frustrating to get over to you lot.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And neither one nor the other has any solid proof. But whereas some of us are only saying we do not trust the government, police and intelligence services' version of what happened, since so many facts are conveniently missing, some of those who spout abuse about conspiraloons on this site seem content to brand these alleged bombers as guilty simply on the say so of the authorities. And then try to pass that off as rational.

Then to add insult to infamy they ask the doubters to provide proof, something which they themselves do not have. This is the level of "debate" on this subject on these boards.

A great shame

Not true, there are presumably videos of them on the bus and tube trains with hte explosives, even a good chance that the video captured the explosion itself. Just because we don't have the information does not mean it doens't exist. The conspiraloons seem to be running around claiming it has to be a governemnt action because, well, they all are.

Personally the little video saying "we're going to be martrs for islam because of Iraq" was rather telling.

 

[detective-boy]

Then to add insult to infamy they ask the doubters to provide proof, something which they themselves do not have.

No. We have enough evidence that satisfies us that the circumstances are broadly as in the narrative.

Whilst there is room for release of far more of the evidence (and, in time, there undoubtedly will be release of far more of the evidence) there is more than enough to believe the official account at this time. If you choose not to believe it, that is a matter for you. But do not mistake that for there being no evidence.

You want to convince us that we should not believe it then you are going to have to demonstrate that something is wrong to our satisfaction, not just state that it is.

 

[jæd]

False flag operations are being conducted internally to 'protect the nation'.

Evidence pur-leeze, oh loony-numsculled one...!

 

[Fullyplumped]

because you said "please, please"; Unfortunately the simulacra has become internalised to such an extent that beaurocracy [derived through the simulacra] and human action [simulacra subsumed] are interlinking with devasting effects. If you are expecting me to say 'the illuminati' or summit like that, sorry you are mistaken. False flag operations are being conducted internally to 'protect the nation'.

zArk, this is really disappointing. I wasn't expecting you to say the illuminati, but you might as well have done. You might not think of yourself as a conspiraloon, fruitloop, or loonspud, but can you not see why the rest of us might? Unless you're simply perpetrating some infantile joke. This is a politics forum, not one for discussions of the lizards and their ways.

Does Prole think this way too, or is it just you?

 

[Fullyplumped]

some of those ... seem content to brand these alleged bombers as guilty simply on the say so of the authorities.

No, it's based on considered conclusions from the overwhelming available evidence, as well as experience of the obsessive mindset that looks for conspiracy that isn't really there.