Evidence Luton CCTV Image is Fake
To properly see the evidence, open our zoom-in enlargement.
- The Haversack. A crude job, and it shows.
- The Half Leg. How does this person walk at all?
- The Iron Face. The bar should be behind. Is there a face?
- The Bar Split. The two ends of the crossbar don't line up.
- The Split Two. Same problem as above. Must be a twist in space.
- The Face Blur. Face has been darkened and blurred -like the others.
- The Ghost Bar. Some of this crossbar should be behind the person.
- The Something. Another anomalous square area. It must be something.
- The Clown Foot. What a large foot -with a halo effect all around.
- The Floater. Someone was a bit too heavy with the white reflection.
- The Peg Leg. Must be a serious fracture. Also yet more halo effect.
- The Shadow. Why wall shadow if the light comes from behind him.
- The Square Nose. Must have walked into a door. Interesting eye too.
Read Feature Article: How Black Ops Staged the London Bombings
Enlarge
posted by FintanDunne
at 6:24 pm
22 Comments:
classic quote:
"Police have based their theory that the attacks were suicide bombings largely around the fact that all four suspects died in the attacks.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15961272%255E663,00.html
here is a hi res blow up if you find the one above too digitalised
it was nicked from Phil jayhans site
http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/pics/4patsies5cz.jpg
I thought I was the only one who had noticed that the CCTV shot of the four guys at Luton station had no sign of anyone else in the background? These guys were the only ones at the station?
Even if this isn't a doctored photo, are these men supposed to be pretending not to know each other in this picture? Because the distance between them makes it look that way. So they all arrived together but just acted like they were strangers. I'm a bit confused? Also, the perspective from the street and the distance to the entrance looks really far away? Or is man no.1 really really tall and the 4th man really short?
bullshit analysis! rofl
Here are the first few bytes from the image posted by MET police:
ÿØÿà #JFIF ## d d ÿì #Ducky # # # ÿî #Adobe dÀ #ÿÛ „ #
And here are the first few from a Panasonic NM-100 camera:
ÿØÿà #JFIF ### H H ÿá NM-100 ÿÝ #
Also note the odd size: 800x606 pixels
Conclusion: this is not an original camera image, it has been processed (cropped and/or resized) in Photoshop before posting. This invalidates any possible proof of tampering. The artifacts may be caused by deliberately "Photoshopping" the original or simply due to some webmaster's incompetence.
Note: Ctrl- characters replaced by "#"
This analysis is crap: that isnt a retouched photo, photomontages are my work..
Now I understand why you attack Alex Jones: agent provocateur?
We keep an eye on u.
Rivero doesn't deal with the bar, which is sufficient evidence in itself to prove that the photo is fake.
hello Fintan, nice blogs with original reviews and interesting comments; but I don't agree with this post. It looks like a normal picture to me, but the point is not that: these could be four ordinary guys with backpack.
Strange - whenever I try to post a link to this page on a UK media forum (e.g. here: http://ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/forum.jsp?forum=113 ) it is disallowed by the moderators. For some reason the British media are refusing to allow any mention of the cover-up regarding the Luton picture. If the picture is really kosher then what have they to fear? Another link they detest is: http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/250705doctored.html
meh.
1) i'm not saying there's no 7/7 cover-up (all signs point to yes), and i'm not saying the picture wasn't doctored AT ALL, but very few of the photo details you mention actually make sense.
digital video and snaps are compressed and processed several times before a human ever gets to see them, usually with JPEG compression or something similar -- normally this is first done by the camera's chipset itself. at higher compression levels, JPEG compression tends to introduce various artifacts into the image: false contrast, overly heavy edges, etc.
the reason images are compressed thusly is because of their quantity. can you imagine how much storage a video system like the london tube's requires, with thousands of cameras collecting image frames 24/7/365 ??
having said this, the only detail that REALLY makes no sense in this picture is the odd horizontal bar which seems to be simultaneously in front and behind faceless dude #3 from the left. everything else is pretty ordinary.
2) the 'original' picture posted by the Met Police was *obviously* processed in some way to make it fit for web distribution. nearly all images on the web go through some kind of optimisation process (e.g. Photoshop's "Save for Web" functions) to ensure that a tolerable file size is attained. hence, while seemingly 'clever', the detection of an "Adobe" signature within the image file data is nothing to poop one's pants about.
IN ANY CASE, whether or not this image is doctored is UTTERLY BESIDE THE POINT -- the image is of such poor quality that even the leftmost 'suspect' could be practically anyone. the three others aren't even worth looking at. it is utterly ridiculous for a self-respecting police force to go around asking people to identify 'suspects' based on such poor quality 'evidence'. hence, the image itself is a DISTRACTION.
This is the reply I got from the "This is London" forum when I tried to start a new discussion on the authenticity of the Luton CCTV picture:
"cc moderation@thisislondon.co.uk
subject Community Guidelines Moderation
memo Your message titled 'WHY HAS THE POLICE PICTURE BEEN DOCTORED?' has been rejected. Without a reliable source of evidence your post cannot be allowed.
The original text has been copied below:
"It's now fairly clear that the Luton picture of the muslim "terrorists" is a fake:
http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/250705doctored.html
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/evidence-luton-cctv-image-is-fake.html
[ ... ] Community Team
Please explain the reflection behind these individuals in this so called original image at this URL
http://www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks/groupcctv.jpg
This would in fact be much harder to fake than anything else in the image.
Thank you Irishdrifter for the link. I have seen some interesting theories being expressed there on that forum but I would much rather posit my questions and observations here as it appears that there are some that have difficulty on many of these forums with anyone questioning anything that they have already determined to be the last word on the matter ESPECIALLY if they are new to the forum... which I would certainly be. My interest in this particular issue has to do with being a graphics artist fully aware of how easy it is to manipulate digital imagery.
I am able to explain away most of the issues being brought up pertaining to this image as normal effects of taking a moving video image.... compressing it... and changing it into a still computer readable image. You would need to see the actual video imagery to be able to do a legitimate analysis of it in any case. However... if that is supposed to be a reflection of the three individuals on the other side of it... it simply can not be legitimate as reflections are a mirror image and this is not the case in this image. The reflection in other words would be the most difficult part of the image to manipulate without it being noticeable. Changes made due to compression or file transfer have no effect on someone's leg being seen in a reflection as it is seen in the image and not in mirror form.
Some times the eyes can play tricks on you ESPECIALLY with imagery and especially when the power of suggestion has been made repeatedly. The mind sees what it expects to see quite often. If this is not a reflection but rather people on the other side of a see through partition then there is no anomaly. That was what I was trying to establish without being considered a troll or government lackey for merely asking... lol Believe me... it has happened more than I care to admit unfortunately so I look for forums that appear to truly be trying to discover the truth even though that truth might not support their personal beliefs. If the image has been manipulated... why go to all that trouble yet do it so terribly unless you were wanting to use it as a diversion knowing full well that people would be picking it apart while not paying attention in the least to the important issues? The story itself doesn't wash well as it is... why then offer an obviously manipulated image to the public to support a less than credible story line and think it is going to appease them? It just doesn't make any sense to me unless it was intentional. If so... what the hell???? I personally don't buy the suicide bomber thing in the least.... and.. I also see a dangerous precedent being established in the... "it could be your neighbor ... the least expected that might be the next terrorist" crap. That is just my opinion however and now I am looking to either substantiate that opinion or discredit it.
You know, a lot of the things that are pointed out on this site aren't very convincing to me:
1) What's wrong with the Haversack? They say it is a "crude job" but fail to point out why, exactly.
2) The half leg? That is rediculous, it's obvious his foot is back and you are looking down the leg of his trouser. You can see the reflection of his foot underneath.
3) Okay, this one does look strange, to me.
4&5) The bar split? The whols thing is at an angle, look at the top bar, it is a bit lower on the right than on the left, as well. Since the camera is looking down from above, the lower bars are further away, so the effect would be more pronounced.
6) Yes, it's blurry. The whole picture is blurry! That could just as easily be the effect of bad lighting as the effect of doctoring.
7) The Ghost Bar...what? It's not going in front of the person at all, as far as I can see. It's going in front of the wall behind him, and by the time it should be going in front of hum, he is concealed behind the backpack of the person in front of him.
8) The Something...that could be anything...a piece of his bag, a paper on the floor...anything. Again, the photo is of too poor quality to say one way or the other.
9) Again, that could be something on the floor behind him. The "halo effect" that they keep mentioning looks like the standard kind of distortion you get from JPEG compression all the time.
10) The Floater...Zuh? What do they mean, someone was a bit too heavy on the white reflection? That reflection seems to match the other reflections in the scene. The ground is wet in this picture, and pretty durn reflective.
11) Peg Leg? Does that look like anything other than a fold in his trouser leg to you?
12) Shadow? There are many explanations for this, here are three: a) There could be another light source b) That could be a reflective surface, and that might be his reflection c) It could easily be a radiosity effect.
13) The Square Nose? Look, the picture is much too low-quality all around to tell WHAT shape his nose is.
Deary deary me.
Let me take a few educated guesses....
1/3" colour camera on 24VAC externally housed in a heated enclosure with a glass front screen last cleaned when Victoria was on the throne.
3.5 to 8 mm vari-focal auto iris lens
VHS time lapse VCR on 24hr mode using an E180 VHS tape that is labelled 'Thurs', is used every Thursday and has been since it was supplied with the last new VCR (how many years ago?). Probably patched through the ancient mux with hand made patch leads with signal leaking out just about everywhere.
I've seen, installed, repaired & upgraded many many such systems over the years and I see absolutely nothing in the released frame that shows anything odd at all. CCTv like this is blurry; it does give halos to bright things; the colour is often wrong; people's faces are dark (especially if they wear hats); and quiet ofetn there are hum bars buzzing through the whole system making the picture wavy.
Even in the unlikely event that it was recorded on to a digital recorder then it would be a small disk unit set to maximum and so generating something less than 16kB per frame (VHSish quality).
Sure CCTV can be perfect but not systems like this designed just to have the check-box 'cctv_installed' ticked on some inspector's commisioning sheet.
And from that you build a theory? Go sell it to the conspiracy theorist sheep as I know your analysis of that frame is pure bull.
I haven't yet seen a scrap of decent criticism about this photograph.
For a start, the pole which is supposedly in front of pedestrian #3's arm is in fact not doing so - if you pay close attention to the image, you can see that there is a long vertical line which intersects with the pole. This shows us that the dark section which you are assuming is the mans arm is in fact a part of the background.
I'm not saying that this photograph is untouched, only that your evidence is shaky at best. I would give you more credit had you acquired another photograph of the same location, with the same camera, at a slightly different time so that the two photographs could be compared. Alas, everyone seems to keen to jump on the 'it's a conspiracy!' band-wagon.
My thoughts only,
J
What a load of crap. Your writers are complete losers. Read the National Enquirer it is more credible for the real deal. Complete waste of time. How about doing something useful for your country instead of sitting in an office creating the revised Harry Potter version on the tube
Your so called analysts couldn't analyze a stool sample if it was thrown on their face. Complete shit. But it sells to simple minded minions doesn't it?
Fucking hell. Your writers must be hearing voices. They need serious psych. help. Thank god they only write for themselves. As long as we have morons like you guys the bad guys are sure to win. You bunch are more scary than Barney. Prozac may help you to stop seeing what isn't there. Try analyzing your assholes cause they may be getting clogged by each other fucking yourselves.
Who the fuck is Alex Jones and why should the world care? Is he important or just another media scum blogger who hasn't worked a day in his life. No wait, don't bother to answer this cause we don't give a shit. If you do respond you have proven to the readers you are truly a loser to be lulled into responding to this. See...I told you, your a loser. Couldn't resist could you loser? Your like the dumb fly circling the lightbulb only to end up fried at the base of the lamp. Why? Couldn't help himself..natually body function like shitting.
I'm not familiar with Luton train station. Can anyone tell me where the location of this entrance is in relation to the car park where their vehicles were found? Thanks.
It's okay. I found the answer to my question (above) on Google Earth - the car park's in front on the building.
Post a Comment
<< Home