Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

[Tony 10]

You're welcome dosxuk.

 

Please explain the obvious differences between the two links that you have provided concerning the kerb that changes shape from the 28/6/2005 image to the 7/7/2005 image. Specifically it is the portion of the kerb that makes a smooth continuous turn in the 28/6/2005 just a meter or so in front of ST's left foot, which in the 7/7/2005 image changes shape to become segmented. In the 7/7/2005 image the broken section of kerb--which was continuous in the 28/6/2005 image--is about a meter in front of ST and a little bit to the right. A

 

On a separate, but previously addressed issue in that same area, a portion of the lightpole is "relieved" to insert ST's left leg in the 7/7/2005 image. This "relieved" area is not found on the 28/6/2005 image. B

 

How do you explain away these very obvious differences please in your professional opinion? How would the pole and the kerb have physically changed shape for the 7/7/2005 image?

 

Anyone else wish to venture a guess?

 

A. It's wet. B. It's an artefact / ghost.

 

You're clearly deluded.

[Longcol 610]

A. It's wet. B. It's an artefact / ghost.

 

You're clearly deluded.

 

Good old RobFr eh............

 

He claims J7 truth campaign are a government front.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7049618&postcount=48

 

Despite previously saying the "Ripple Effect" can "completely dismantle the government cover - up"

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7055918&postcount=189

 

Even though the "Ripple Effect" uses evidence from the J7 website.

 

http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/

 

See links under chapter 4 - "J7 the July 7 truth campaign" link and chapter 5 - "Facts about the train times on July 7th" link

[dosxuk 10]

Rule number one of selecting evidence for a conspiracy theory - select by what the evidence says, rather than by source. That way you can discard evidence which doesn't agree with your story, even if it comes from the same source as which your entire story is based on.

[RobFr 10]

While the left hand kerb edge does appear to be broken, the side of the kerbs is identical between the pictures - an impossibility if the kerbs are physically different. I believe the break in the line of the kerbs to be caused by the water which is visible in other areas of the picture - at the corner of the kerb where we would expect to see it continue in a straight line, we instead have a white blob which obliterates the detail. I believe that white blob to be caused by a small puddle, the like of which are often found next to kerbs on pavements, especially badly maintained ones like this. There is also a black smudge, which is what most people take as being the incorrect line of the kerb, but this can't be - 1) the kerb stone is then too thin, and 2) the black smudge is visible in the earlier image.

 

Could it be that the reason that the left hand kerb edge appears to be broken in the 7/7/2005 image is because in fact the image has been broken during manipulation and it is not an "optical illusion" as you have suggested? Have you considered that possibility please?

 

This is caused by the recording of the video, probably onto standard VHS tape. Video signals are formed from a constantly varying voltage, with a range of 1 volt. The top of this range is white, the bottom black. When you record this voltage onto a magnetic tape, the accuracy of the retrieval depends on how good the writing was, the state of the tape (how old, used, dusty), and how good the reading circuitry is. A common flaw in the retrieval is that areas of high contrast - white against black become slightly stretched, You can see this for yourself on many video tapes, mostly ones you will have recorded yourself as the recording circuit quality is lower.

 

Add onto the issues with recording, is the fact that CCTV cameras, especially with bright pictures, like this one caused by reflections from the sun into the wet pavement in this case, don't always output "legal" (i.e. within specification) signals. In broadcast, there are people who's specific role is to ensure that no illegal pictures are transmitted. The result of these illegal pictures is a voltage which is higher than the tape can store, or interpret when read back - some of the effects of this are to splat (technical term!) over other detail and to have sudden inversions of the signal level (the exact response depends on the reading and display circuitry involved).

 

Both of these issues are known and expected of these type of systems. I recommend you do your own research into these phenomena rather than take my word for it, there are plenty of sources of information on Google. (The best way of seeing the issues at play is with a waveform monitor - a specialised video oscilliscope, and a CCTV camera, both of which I own along with some video test gear to calibrate them, but which can be picked up on eBay if you want to play with it yourself). Both isses are indeed true and relevant to the images, and definately capable of causing the disturbance you have seen.

 

The final thing which convinces me that they are not the result of the image being manipulated is that there is no reason to manipulate the image in this way in order to add the other men to the image. The only reason to do so would be to do it intentionally - bad photoshop skills don't cover the scale of these changes.

 

Could it be that the "bite" taken out of the pole, which just happens to be the exact size and shape as the perimeter of ST's left leg in the 7/7/2005 image is the result of a representation of ST, or at the very least a representation of ST's left leg, being inserted into the image and on top of the pole, just as it looks, instead of what you have suggested? Is that something that you have considered please?

 

Having to insert someone who wasn't originally in the image, and not paying attention to how it was done so that part of someone's leg was pasted on top of another object in the image is a very good reason for this to have happened and would definitely be covered by bad photoshop skills.

 

By the way, do I get an apology for your claims that I was intentionally misleading people by using images which I had manipulated to prove you wrong? Or do you at least accept that I didn't modify the images?

 

The composite image that you provided eliminated the kerb defect that is clearly visible in the 7/7/2005 image, which means that portion of the 7/7/2005 image was not transferred to the composite image. You then referred to that same composite image, which you made, as the basis for your initial argument to try to convince people that "the pavement edge remains constant".

 

Given that information, there are only two logical explanations. Either you simply didn't realize that you forgot to transfer the broken kerb from the 7/7/2005 image, or your omission was intentional. Given the fact that you used the composite image you made to explain away the kerb defect that is clearly visible in the 7/7/2005 image, which explanation would you think makes most sense please?

Edited January 29, 2011 by RobFr

[Longcol 610]

Given that information, there are only two logical explanations. Either you simply didn't realize that you forgot to transfer the broken kerb from the 7/7/2005 image, or your omission was intentional.

 

Third logical conclusion is;

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7207997&postcount=937

 

as evidenced by

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7208161&postcount=938

[dosxuk 10]

Could it be that the reason that the left hand kerb edge appears to be broken in the 7/7/2005 image is because in fact the image has been broken during manipulation and it is not an "optical illusion" as you have suggested? Have you considered that possibility please?

 

Could it be that the "bite" taken out of the pole, which just happens to be the exact size and shape as the perimeter of ST's left leg in the 7/7/2005 image is the result of a representation of ST, or at the very least a representation of ST's left leg, being inserted into the image and on top of the pole, just as it looks, instead of what you have suggested? Is that something that you have considered please?

 

My answer to both of these is the same - Do I think it's more likely that the images have been deliberatly badly manipulated, or are showing artifacts of the way that the image has been handled? The latter - because both of these issues is explained without having to resort to manipulation of the image, and without having a reason to manipulate those things, I don't believe they have been manipulated. It is a simple fact that both of these issues can be caused by recording a CCTV camera to VHS tape, which it almost certainly was, and therefore makes it seem more likely to me that this is what has caused the issues.

 

Having to insert someone who wasn't originally in the image, and not paying attention to how it was done so that part of someone's leg was pasted on top of another object in the image is a very good reason for this to have happened and would definitely be covered by bad photoshop skills.

 

It's quite simple in Photoshop to cut around a shape, in this case a person, pixel by pixel, and then feather that selection so that when you copy and paste it onto a different image it blends almost perfectly. To do a copy and paste job that badly would be unheard of. I'm sure you could do better than they have managed using MS Paint.

 

The composite image that you provided eliminated the kerb defect that is clearly visible in the 7/7/2005 image, which means that portion of the 7/7/2005 image was not transferred to the composite image.

 

The composite image was formed of the two linked images. To save the two linked images, I simply hid each layer one at a time and re-exported the file. Regardless, I invited you (and others) to download the files and make the composite yourself, and to compare them to other sources for the same images.

 

You then referred to that same composite image, which you made, as the basis for your initial argument to try to convince people that "the pavement edge remains constant".

 

Look at the side of the kerb edge - the dark part of the kerbstones - it remains exactly the same between images. It is only a small part of the top of one kerb stone which is different, which just happens to co-incide with a bright spot which will cause picture disturbance. Even the black smudge visible on other images is plainly visible.

 

Given that information, there are only two logical explanations. Either you simply didn't realize that you forgot to transfer the broken kerb from the 7/7/2005 image,

 

That's not even possible. My methodology for creating the composite - take one image, put it on top of the other, make semi-transparent, scale till the black tarmac square is identically sized on both images. At no point do I alter the contents of either image.

 

or your omission was intentional.

 

If that was the case I would not be asking you and others to make the composite for yourself, using images you source yourself. It's quite simple to you to do so, and would conclusively prove to you I have not manipulated the images if you were to make it yourself.

 

Given the fact that you used the composite image you made to explain away the kerb defect that is clearly visible in the 7/7/2005 image, which explanation would you think makes most sense please?

 

Neither, since neither of those options have happened. I can't convince you of this, I know that for a fact, which is why I have asked several times for you to do this for yourself. I thought this whole exercise to ignore what the Government tells us was about doing your own research and coming up with your own conclusions. If you religiously believe the alternative theories and refuse to examine what either side presents, you are just as bad, as those who religiously believe the official story and refuse to examine any evidence.

 

In any conspiracy theory there is always dis-information (look at pods, invisibility cloaks and holographic aircraft in the alternative theories for 9/11), amongst stuff which could be true (shooting down of the fouth aircraft on 9/11), and this CCTV image could well be some of it for 7/7. In my honest opinion, there is no evidence that this CCTV image has been tampered with, and indeed, there is no reason for it to be tampered with (it would be quite easy to ask the patsies to enter the station together as part of their briefing), plus there are rational and understood explanations for the imperfections in the image, in fact considering the image, they're probably expected too, therefore I have to conclude that the image has not been altered.

 

-------------

 

Could you, another poster, or several of you (preferably from both sides of the argument), if you have the neccessary software, please take a few minutes to make a composite image for yourself and post your findings along with a link to it.

[Tony 10]

Could it be that the reason that the left hand kerb edge appears to be broken in the 7/7/2005 image is because in fact the image has been broken during manipulation and it is not an "optical illusion" as you have suggested? Have you considered that possibility please?

No, it is wet.

 

Could it be that the "bite" taken out of the pole, which just happens to be the exact size and shape as the perimeter of ST's left leg in the 7/7/2005 image is the result of a representation of ST, or at the very least a representation of ST's left leg, being inserted into the image and on top of the pole, just as it looks, instead of what you have suggested? Is that something that you have considered please?

No, it is an artefact / ghost.

[Tony 10]

My answer to both of these is the same - Do I think it's more likely that the images have been deliberatly badly manipulated, or are showing artifacts of the way that the image has been handled?.

This is underlined by the image posted earlier showing Charles and Camilla at a bus stop in Sheffield. The hardest part of producing the image was running the rail through Charles' arm... oh and the message in the grass roof.

 

The point being that nobody would make the mistakes being suggested as 'evidence' by accident because it takes a very deliberate effort to make the image look that way.

[vResistance 10]

Does any of this "new" cctv footage prove anything ?

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3375033/77-Just-another-customer-carrying-11lb-bomb-in-backpack.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

 

Again it all seems to fit 'Muad'Dibs' version of events quite well.

 

Was he really acting like he was going to blow himself up ?

 

Who is he phoning when the others are dead ?

 

Why switch buses ?

 

Why fiddle with the "bomb" under the nose of a security guard ?

[Longcol 610]

Does any of this "new" cctv footage prove anything ?

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3375033/77-Just-another-customer-carrying-11lb-bomb-in-backpack.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

 

Again it all seems to fit 'Muad'Dibs' version of events quite well.

 

Was he really acting like he was going to blow himself up ?

 

Who is he phoning when the others are dead ?

 

Why switch buses ?

 

Why fiddle with the "bomb" under the nose of a security guard ?

 

Are you an expert in how people act before they blow themselves up?

 

How does he know the others are dead? One or more of the others may have had the same technical difficulties or decided against suicide.

 

Could have caught a bus to Euston to see of he could get on the underground there? Finding he can't heads back towards Kings Cross as there is an invitingly large crowd of people outside he could take with him.

 

Shop security guards are there to prevent shoplifters, not bombers. They may also have been trained to look out for unattended packages (the old IRA way of working). These were the first suicide bombers in Britain.

 

Nothing like the Ripple Effect at all.

[Bassman62 10]

Third logical conclusion is;

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7207997&postcount=937

 

as evidenced by

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7208161&postcount=938

So do you believe that none of those named by the authorities were actualy suicide bombers?

[Longcol 610]

So do you believe that none of those named by the authorities were actualy suicide bombers?

 

No - I believe they were all suicide bombers.

 

You got the wrong end of the stick - I was just pointing out that RobFr changed his tune to suit - backing up Tony's point really.