Police respond to 'serious incident' in Woolwich

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

If the entire area around an army barracks isn't adequately cctv'd, people should be kicking up a #-storm asking why not. I've read somewhere that police have cctv footage of the armed officers being charged at, but there was no mention of any footage tracking the movements of the vehicle they were in before the attack on Lee Rigby.

Hi Ivan, I have asked this question too, there is always CCTV footage about in the UK.

They use CCTV footage to catch criminals all the time, tracking them from one area to another, there will be some CCTV footage of the vehicle in transit, and if they say there is none then that is a lie.

No blood splatters on either of the attackers coats, no blood trail on the floor in the 2nd picture I posted, and I could list many more issues with this alleged attack.

The fact people are trying in this thread are trying to invent blood that isn't even there in the 2nd picture is another oddity.

This isn't a false flag. I'd say MI5 probably knew about the guy and he was a a high suspect & that they may have let him do this, but this isn't a false flag on the basis of it been set up by MI5 or some other obscure organization.

Whats happening is the media are twisting this to generate race tensions and people are feeding right into it. The person who did this was a lunatic, clearly had mental problems and found a convenient conduit for his insanity, which in his case was the Quran. And before people get on the bandwagon of 'well its mostly Muslims who are extremist' or what ever, think about the hundreds of people who have read other books like 'Rage' or 'A Catcher In The Rye' which people claimed drove them to kill - The tens of thousands of people who also read that book aren't guilty of the same insanity the others found, its down to the individual only.

Blaming the whole of Islam for the actions of this British born Catholic who converted to Islam - Is like blaming Hitlers mustache for the Holocaust. This #s just stupid & it goes to show how misdirected the hate is within this country. People/Sheeple are even starting to attack innocent Muslims & Mosques. EDL, BNP, Extreme Islam & all them other race hating people ultimately have a shared agenda which is to cause division, distrust, anger and violence. Both have the same intention, they're all as bad as each other.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

You are chatting rubbish, there is no blood in the 2nd picture, I've had this picture blown up on a HD system, there might be colour differences in the slabs due to light, but the light difference cannot erase blood!

If you bothered to look properly yourself you would not have missed what I was getting at!

If you think you can see 'blood' in the 2nd picture, then blow it up and prove there is blood, you cant, because there isn't any in the 2nd image!

HD its a 460px × 478px pixel picture I am looking at it on a monitor set at 1680x1050 way higher than the resolution of the picture or I could go and look at it on any of the 4 FULL HD tv's in my house or into my home cinema at look at it at 1920x1080 on my 92 " screen through my HD projector.

So show us an example of you looking at it at HD do a screen capture if you actually know how to do that.

I have been looking at and taking pictures for 30+ years and not with a phone

There is something on that slab and due to the angle and white balance you can't see it's the blood but that is what it is.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

I can see the blood in the second picture, it's difficult to see but it's there.

I see it too. It's the angle from which photo 2 was taken.

Nope! Another person trying to make out there is 'blood' when there is not!

There should be clearly visible blood all along by that sign, and you are trying to say a small patch is blood?
The patch you refer to does not look like blood at all, have you even bothered to zoom in?!

If you somehow strangely think that no blood is blood, then where is the rest of the 'blood' there should be a whole line of it, but there isn't. Seems like you are trying to see something that isn't there!

I've just shown it to a couple of media experts, and neither of those can see the mysterious line of blood either!

Nice try, you'll have to do better than that!

Please name these so-called 'media experts'. Why should an expert on the media be any good at analysing a photo?
And you seem to be very keen on seeing that something isn't there.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

If the entire area around an army barracks isn't adequately cctv'd, people should be kicking up a #-storm asking why not. I've read somewhere that police have cctv footage of the armed officers being charged at, but there was no mention of any footage tracking the movements of the vehicle they were in before the attack on Lee Rigby.

Hi Ivan, I have asked this question too, there is always CCTV footage about in the UK.

They use CCTV footage to catch criminals all the time, tracking them from one area to another, there will be some CCTV footage of the vehicle in transit, and if they say there is none then that is a lie.

No blood splatters on either of the attackers coats, no blood trail on the floor in the 2nd picture I posted, and I could list many more issues with this alleged attack.

The fact people are trying in this thread are trying to invent blood that isn't even there in the 2nd picture is another oddity.

'Alleged attack'??? Aha, now we have it. It's a conspiracy therefore!
And the fact that the attackers had blood all over the hands has somehow escaped you?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


My radar is detecting an incoming "paid government shill" accusation....HEADS UP!!!

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

My radar is detecting an incoming "paid government shill" accusation....HEADS UP!!!

So because we're seeing what he can't - we're part of the conspiracy!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

You are chatting rubbish, there is no blood in the 2nd picture, I've had this picture blown up on a HD system, there might be colour differences in the slabs due to light, but the light difference cannot erase blood!

If you bothered to look properly yourself you would not have missed what I was getting at!

If you think you can see 'blood' in the 2nd picture, then blow it up and prove there is blood, you cant, because there isn't any in the 2nd image!

HD

its a 460px × 478px pixel picture I am looking at it on a monitor set at 1680x1050 way higher than the resolution of the picture or I could go and look at it on any of the 4 FULL HD tv's in my house or into my home cinema at look at it at 1920x1080 on my 92 " screen through my HD projector.

So show us an example of you looking at it at HD do a screen capture if you actually know how to do that.

I have been looking at and taking pictures for 30+ years and not with a phone

There is something on that slab and due to the angle and white balance you can't see it's the blood but that is what it is.

edit on 28-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Go find the original media photo and then come back to me!

Anyone with decent eye sight and a zoom facility can see even in this reduced sized phot that there is NO BLOOD!

Nothing to do with angle or not! I have had our 2 best media guys in the office look at it in detail, and those experts cannot see the 'blood' either!

If your imagination wants to invent blood that isnt there that is your choice.

Don't forget, 'deny ignorance' is the motto here at ATS!

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

My radar is detecting an incoming "paid government shill" accusation....HEADS UP!!!

So because we're seeing what he can't - we're part of the conspiracy!!!!

Nobody has called anyone anything, it's your imagination running wild.

If you can see 'blood' in the 2nd picture then good for you, but it isn't there, and the fact you can 'see' it is very concerning!

reply to post by DeeKlassified


So, (against my better judgment) the reflective substance, which I have circled in my previous post, the shiny stuff on the pavement in exactly the same spot where the blood ought to be, that's not blood is it? What is it then?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg


Please name these so-called 'media experts'. Why should an expert on the media be any good at analysing a photo?

And you seem to be very keen on seeing that something isn't there.

I'm not going to give out the names of the chaps in my office, I'm sure they would not like their names printed on this forum.

The media experts in my office are time served, I value their expert opinion on photography over some random dudes on a forum.

As you say the blood isn't there in the 2nd picture, anyone who isn't a media expert can see that, but it's nice to have it clarified by people that are trained in this field.

Nice try to pretend there is blood in the 2nd photo, but you cannot escape that there is no blood, and the angle BS is just that, BS.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

So, (against my better judgment) the reflective substance, which I have circled in my previous post, the shiny stuff on the pavement in exactly the same spot where the blood ought to be, that's not blood is it? What is it then?

Nope, it looks nothing like blood, and where is the rest of the 'blood'??
Dont forget, its all along the length of the sign post in the ariel shot.

Can you point out the rest of it? Nope because it's not there! You can invent it all you want, but the photo reveals there is no blood.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


What is this stuff then? Tell me what it is, if it's not blood, and it just happens to be in the same spot as the blood should be, what is it? Your "media experts" got any inventive ideas?




I didn't ask you if it looks like blood, I asked you to explain what it is if it's not blood. And just to remind you, the reflective substance circled is there, I, nor anybody else "invented" it.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

What is this stuff then? Tell me what it is, if it's not blood, and it just happens to be in the same spot as the blood should be, what is it? Your "media experts" got any inventive ideas?

I didn't ask you if it looks like blood, I asked you to explain what it is if it's not blood, go on, get your boys on the case.

edit on 28-5-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

It's not blood and you know it's not.

If you compare the with blood, and no blood photos I provided you will clearly see that the 2nd one has no blood, and no that black mark is not red blood. If it were blood it's be clearly visible, and not just in the spot, but all the way along the length of the sign.

You might fool a few people, but most people with a decent set of eyes can see what I'm getting at.

My work is done here, your response is to be expect on ATS.

As I predicted, people would claim the blood is there, even if it's not.

Seen familiar behaviour in the 9/11 forum!

reply to post by DeeKlassified


I'm not trying to draw your diminished attention to any "black mark", it's the lighter reflective substance in the circle which I am referring to. But for some unknown reason you can't see it? Surely your media-men can explain to you what a reflection is, and how at an angle like in this photo, a substance like blood will actually be reflecting light. If they can't understand that then they aren't very good.

The only person being fooled here is you....by yourself.

"My work is done here" ....hilarious

reply to post by DeeKlassified

It's a shame the person who took that photo didn't pan left and take another pic where the majority of blood was, to satisfy your disbelief.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


If you have the link to the photo YOU post it !!!

reply to post by DeeKlassified


When it comes to comparing pictures YOU missed quite a bit with you first picture from above of the crashed Vauxhall Tigra the radiator has burst look at the colour of the slabs due to the water, check how that looks in the second picture so you can see the difference that 2 different cameras with 2 different white balance settings looking at the same scene at different angles make things look.

Bring on your media experts from the office, MANY members on here are Pro, semi pro and long time hobby photographers I have been into photography for 30+ years and will discuss it with anybody!!!

OK then, please also explain this...

Same 2 images, if you look at the aerial photo (with blood) , you will see that all the ground is covered in garden paving slabs.



Yet in this 2nd photo where the attacker is speaking to the woman, the floor is not nice & neat garden paving slabs like the aerial blood photo, but instead, some mess of a patchwork floor with lots of odd shapes! The middle section of this 2nd photo is a complete mess! There's some weird shaped slabs in the middle, and they even look like they're sticking out of the ground in that middle section.



This is a completely different floor to the first photo, and if you zoom in you can see it's different, same goes for the blood, if you zoom in you can count back squares, and plot the angles of the blood and there is no match, and the fact the floor is different means the blood point is irrelevant.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


Sorry but you're interpreting what you see incorrectly. You're trying to directly compare an overhead image with one taken from a shallow angle. That's not going to work well for you. Also, did you miss the identical Vauxhall Tigra with identical damage in both pictures?

Can I ask that you explain what a "media guy" (or "media chick", if you will) is exactly? I've worked in the creative industry for 20 years or so and haven't ever come across media guys. Do all offices have a media guy? How's the pay?