Police respond to 'serious incident' in Woolwich

reply to post by DeeKlassified


Seriously OPEN your eyes you can see the car, the trim of the car and the wheel trim all in the correct position you can see the edges of the slabs and you can check them on both pictures.

The colours are different because would you believe 2 different cameras will see slightly different colours as the aerial shot is most likely from a helicopter it's not a picture from a member of the public with a camera phone.

The angle that the light hits the subject will look different from different positions and can change contrast and colours.

Can you not understand that when seen from above the paving looks neat because of the point of view edges raised or lowered would not stand out because the of direction of the sunlight and the height up you can't see the differences but low down CLOSER and a shallow angle you can.

Next time you are in a high building look at paving slabs below take a picture they one from ground level like the second picture.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


Ok, look at these pictures:



I've highlighted the gaps, or joints, in the paving slabs with yellow lines(roughly), and indicated where the blood is.

Again, the picture(that you claim there is "no blood" in) has been taken at a very shallow angle. The blood is difficult to see, but the slight reflection it gives off can be seen.

As for your conjecture that the "floor" is not the same in both pictures, go and stand on a pavement like the one in seen here, squat down and look at the relief of the ground, in a city, and unless the paving has been laid recently, concrete slabs like these 'settle' over time and become uneven, anybody who walks around in a town with concrete paving will know this. When viewed from above the pavement looks flat.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
In the first picture we see 'blood'

'BLOOD'

In the 2nd picture the blood is missing from the same spot, and the 2nd image is after the attack, and a picture of the exact same spot. Why is there no 'blood' in the 2nd picture?

NO 'BLOOD'

Look at the colour of the stream of liquid coming from beneath the car on the first photo. Now compare it to the second photo.

In the latter it is almost white from the reflection of light, while in the former it's a dark colour. This hasn't happened because the liquid is different, but because the different properties of the light and camera make it appear different. Likewise the blood is difficult to see - but definitely there - in the second photo, but it is reflecting the light and appears to blend in with the pavement. It is also a lower angle, obviously, and a flatter colour space.

But perhaps you're right and this is the smoking gun that will blow the whole thing wide open. You can take the dozens of eyewitnesses, the near impossibility of closing a bit of Woolwich next to an army barracks for half a day, the hundreds of media people, military personnel and others who would have to be in on it, and put that up against your inability to assess camera evidence correctly. I think I know who is going to come out on top.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


In the first picture, looking from above, the majority of the blood is to the left of the signpost furthest from the road. This area is not visible in the second photo. The much smaller patch of blood that is shown in the first photo is visible in the second as a shiny (not red) area near the killers feet.

I have been trying to catch up with this thread as I have been offline for a few days due to laptop problems and other 'real life' business.

Unfortunately I got to page 80something and decided to give up.

How did this become a discussion about EDL?

Seems to me that a lot of people are trying to gloss over the brutal slaying of Lee Rigby and are using classic deflection tactics.

Start a thread on EDL, perhaps someone has done so, and I'll gladly contribute, but it seems my participation in this thread is finished.

Originally posted by conz1992

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

 

So what we have now is: Immigrant=Murderous Psychopath?

In that case, we're all murderous psychopaths, right, seeing as several centuries of immigration from Europe and other parts has led to the Briton (Anglic tribes etc etc)?

No, clearly that isn't what was said. These people who did it are immigrants, that's a fact which you have to take into consideration. Many eyewitnesses have said they shouted Allah Akbar, asked onlookers to take pictures with the body and filming the 'exucution', and the victim was reported to be carrying an army backpack, wearing a HFH t-shirt and in an area where there is a military base...

Who cares how it's being portrayed you have to look at the FACTS, let the BBC or people on here make their own decision just look at the facts.

They didn't sneak into the country, apply for asylum or win a lottery - Michael Adebolajo "snatched" by the SAS while trying to get into Somalia and then flown back into the UK

Whoever thought that idea up should be in court as well

www.dailymail.co.uk...

"Adebolajo was flown back to the UK but then allowed to roam the streets unchecked for the next two and a half years.

The extraordinary revelation that the 28-year-old was deemed so important that Special Forces were ordered to detain him will, in the wake of the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich last week, raise disturbing new questions as to why he was free to roam the streets of London.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

If there was ever a textbook example on "blowback", then this is it. You have to wonder ... how many more have been flown back to the UK.

THe latest...I guess maybe he was Muslim....go figure.


link

Originally posted by esdad71
THe latest...I guess maybe he was Muslim....go figure.

link

Is there any doubt that he is? I'm not aware of any.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Early on in the thread there was quite a but if discussion about how he was just a regular guy. I always like to give a little closure to those arguments.

reply to post by esdad71


...and a regular guy is what exactly? A non-muslim? Be careful, that kind of assumption can get you flamed hereabouts.

Originally posted by esdad71

Early on in the thread there was quite a but if discussion about how he was just a regular guy. I always like to give a little closure to those arguments.

Odd that you find it necessary to remind people of facts that were well established within an hour of the incident though. Also odd that you think someone who tries to chop off a man's head in the street can be a 'regular guy' as long as they aren't - horrors!- a muslim.

Let the flaming begin...by regular guy I meant he was not defined. Now he is...and yes Junior, I will remain a voice as long as there is oppression of anything kind. I do not take sides I simply like to point out the obvious for others to make their own choice.