New legislation in light of Woolwich attacks

I'm still waiting for this proof that pap promised a few pages back.

I'd complain to the mods pap. Seems like someone's stolen your login and making posts of theories where the media "Sexed up" the video clip, by adding fake blood.

 

Glad to hear you wouldn't subscribe to such a nonsense theory.

You call that a theory, I call it a couple of points, and ones that have not been diminished by the rebuttals on offer.

I find it a bit odd that you can call that a theory. See Verbal's post. While I don't necessarily agree with it, it's at least indicative of what a theory is.

Intrinsic to the utter horseplop you have posted on this thread is the theory that the events in Woolwich were not "real".

 

So don't pretend you haven't put forward a theory. You have.

 

"Where's the blood Bazzer?" is a theory my old son. It's in the question that normal people never ever needed to ask.

 

You deciding you have "no explanation" for a why a man being murdered in the street is not real to you is a theory.

 

So good try but this thread is stuffed to the gills with your implied theories.

 

Couldn't be arsed to dig up loads mote of quotes from you on here but there's plenty.

Hehe. Your understanding of theory is on a par with your appreciation of (mass) genocide.

Hehe. Your understanding on theory is on a par with your appreciation of mass genocide.

Why ask the question "where's the blood, Bazzer?"

I think I have a better grasp of what a theory is than you do. It aint, obviously, just you saying "hey everyone, here's my theory".

Life is not a black and white as you try and make it.

Why did you ask "Where's the blood, Bazzer?"

Why ask the question "where's the blood, Bazzer?"

 

I think I have a better grasp of what a theory is than you do. It aint, obviously, just you saying "hey everyone, here's my theory".

 

Life is not a black and white as you try and make it.

 

Why did you ask "Where's the blood, Bazzer?"

Bazza wanted proof that the pictures were faked. It's right there in his post.

CB, as I said before, you are an excellent p!ss taker, but I think you've over stretched yourself in the last two days. You're either using words you don't know the meaning to, or purposefully using words you do know incorrectly. For what reason, who can say? Maybe it's the product of your wilful contrarianism, perhaps you are involved in a noble effort to add further nuance to our beautiful language, or you might just be thick. Who can say, but at least they are theories nipper.

Just open your minds for a second and think about what sort of world we are living in if the conspiracy theorists are right.

You call that a theory, I call it a couple of points, and ones that have not been diminished by the rebuttals on offer.

 

I find it a bit odd that you can call that a theory. See Verbal's post. While I don't necessarily agree with it, it's at least indicative of what a theory is.

Well, it was first billed as "Fact". Given you have been unable to validate that ludicrous claim, then I think "theory" is apt.

Its a ****ing stupid, brain dead theory, but a theory none the less.

Bloody hell pap how can possibly state this

Originally Posted by pap

I haven't put forward a single theory on Woolwich..

But you have and you still not answered the questions I and others asked you about this murder . Get real lee rigby was butchered in woolwich by those two cretins . Have your own viewsby all means but do not insult memory of lee rigby and show respect for his grieving family .

This is link is especially for you pap. Watch it all the way through it might extinguish your thoughts about a conspiracy and crisis actors etc

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xlFGYzEL16g&feature=related

Bazza wanted proof that the pictures were faked. It's right there in his post.

 

CB, as I said before, you are an excellent p!ss taker, but I think you've over stretched yourself in the last two days. You're either using words you don't know the meaning to, or purposefully using words you do know incorrectly. For what reason, who can say? Maybe it's the product of your wilful contrarianism, perhaps you are involved in a noble effort to add further nuance to our beautiful language, or you might just be thick. Who can say, but at least they are theories nipper.

You posed the question "where's the blood, Bazzer" underneath a picture of a man with blood all over his hands.

a) you can't pose that question without a theory - because it is a picture of a man with blood all over his hands. No theory, no question.

b) Asking "where's the blood" underneath a picture of a man with blood all over his hands I think qualifies you as being a "wilful contrarian" who is"over stretching" himself. It definitely qualifies you as being a bit thick.

Keep stretching, Pap. Keep stretching.

PS. The answer to the question is "on his hands". The blood is on his hands. That's where the blood is. On his hands.

Let’s be clear about the deceptions you’re engaged in pap.

You linked to the orange-hands video that had been posted on a blog called Frig Society. You could have just linked to the Youtube clip itself, but chose to link to a blogger who sounds surprisingly like you in the way he snidely suggests that the red-blooded version of the clip broadcast by the news media is a second-hand fake.

M(y obervations) are made based on a video I found last week. Oddly enough, the vid itself is more concerned with defeating any divide and rule agenda. Seek; go find (link).

Of course, what you DON’T say is that that blogger at “Frig Society” (the title of which you scrubbed in your post and replaced with the word “link”, is actually you.

You continue to talk about “the person who posted” as if you had not a clue who he or she could be.

I don't believe the person who posted the video is making any claims whatsoever about the blood, or lack thereof, on the hands. Seems to me that the only agenda on this video is reminding people of the dangers of divide and rule, even if the term "higher ups" is embarrassing. I have to ask, when the person who posted the video isn't making those claims, why are you doing so?

Of course, that’s a lie, isn’t it? You DO make a claim about “the blood, or lack thereof, on the hands.” Here it is:

Difference between amount of blood on hands in vid I posted (scroll up) and the pictures we saw in the national media. My contention is that due to the stark difference between the two sets of footage, and the fact they relate to the same bloke, the pictures in the paper were sexed up to make the killer look more convincing.

So you “contend” that the image has been “sexed up”.

And to underline the point, you talk about the near-impossibility of repainting the hands so that they appear (orange-y) “bloodless. Here is that claim:

Remember that this is a video we're talking about here. Someone would have had to gone through every frame of that and painstakingly remove the blood from each frame, giving the impression of natural skin underneath. I honestly don't know whether there are video editing suites that can remove gore from hands quickly.

 

The pertinent bit of the vid lasts about 21 seconds. At 24 frames per second, that's roughly 500 separate images to alter, retouch and stick back together. It was posted the same day of the attack.

 

Enough time to make the images look less horrific? Possibly. My personal opinion is that this video, in terms of artefacting and all the other stuff you see when images are changed, is more likely to be closer to the original content than the very different videos we saw on television and still frames on the TV.

 

Here's the vid that was on ITV news. This one actually shows signs of tampering. Check the ghosting around the hands.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54F4lROHpmM

So let’s be really clear about this. The orange-handed clip and the ITV News clip are one and the same, the only difference being the lack of “blood” in the orange-handed clip.

You’re saying, very clearly, that ITV News “sexed up” their clip – and to underline your point, you accuse them, very directly, of “tampering” with the image to produce bloody hands. Someone or a group of people in ITV News therefore deliberately falsified these images.

Now it so happens that ITV News have exclusive ownership of that clip. The only way the orange-handed version of it could have been an “original” is if someone had done it BEFORE selling it to ITV News.

Unfortunately for you, yesterday I posted a less polished version of the orange-handed clip, which had itself been posted by Muslim radicals at LMU. In that less polished version with the orange hands, the “ITV News Exclusive” logo can be clearly seen in the top left of frame. (Actually it floats around, which actually does PROVE that the orange-handed clip is a fake, because it reveals the use of image-stabilisation applied to the clip AFTER broadcast on ITV News).

So – where do you want to go from here? In your attempt, for whatever motive, to pull the wool over our eyes, you’ve libelled staff in ITV News. They do have lawyers, you know.

My suggestion is you simply do the honest, honourable thing: apologise and withdraw the allegations about sexing up and tampering.

Verbal I don't know why you bother to be honest. He's not interested in anything approaching rational, logical or scientific argument.

I agree with Smirking_Saint's post a while back - I actually feel sorry for someone so absorbed in paranoia they not only come up with this crap in the first place, but then blindly cling to it even when it's thoroughly debunked.

You're going to get absolutely nowhere.

Verbal I don't know why you bother to be honest. He's not interested in anything approaching rational, logical or scientific argument.

 

I agree with Smirking_Saint's post a while back - I actually feel sorry for someone so absorbed in paranoia they not only come up with this crap in the first place, but then blindly cling to it even when it's thoroughly debunked.

 

You're going to get absolutely nowhere.

You're right of course. I suppose there are three reasons for persisting:

I'm offended by the casually libellous trashing of a long-established professional news organisation by a z-grade conspiracist theorist.

I'm offended by the unbelievable narcissism of conspiracy theorists in general, who get their happy endings by denying the reality of the death and maiming of others in public tragedies, and who act as useful idiots distracting attention away from the real, actual crimes and misdemeanours of those in authority.

I'm assembling material for a film. Guess what it's about?

Let’s be clear about the deceptions you’re engaged in pap.

 

You linked to the orange-hands video that had been posted on a blog called Frig Society. You could have just linked to the Youtube clip itself, but chose to link to a blogger who sounds surprisingly like you in the way he snidely suggests that the red-blooded version of the clip broadcast by the news media is a second-hand fake.

 

Of course, what you DON’T say is that that blogger at “Frig Society” (the title of which you scrubbed in your post and replaced with the word “link”, is actually you.

Mark the post. Verbal's assumption filter finally gets one right. I suppose even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

As for the whole Frig Society thing, didn't mention it because I thought it was common knowledge. It's not a deep dark secret, Verbs. See this thread from last year in which I link to the blog several times, which you actually replied to. The only reason I posted it there instead of here is because the original thread got locked.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?38418-Car-hire-company-woes&highlight=hire+woes

You continue to talk about “the person who posted” as if you had not a clue who he or she could be.

Oh dear, assumption filter is on the blink again. The original is on YouTube. You can get to the original by clicking "Watch on Youtube" icon in the right corner of your screen. I take it you didn't know this, or didn't do this, which is why your awesome investigative skills have failed you on this occasion. Shame, you could have visited this chap's official Facebook page while you were at it.

Of course, that’s a lie, isn’t it? You DO make a claim about “the blood, or lack thereof, on the hands.” Here it is:

 

So you “contend” that the image has been “sexed up”.

I still think it to be a likely possibility.

And to underline the point, you talk about the near-impossibility of repainting the hands so that they appear (orange-y) “bloodless. Here is that claim:

 

So let’s be really clear about this. The orange-handed clip and the ITV News clip are one and the same, the only difference being the lack of “blood” in the orange-handed clip.

Are they? Just clear this up please (see below)

By the way, I didn't answer your question about source video because I thought you were being either stupid or devious. The short answer is that the tango-handed video is a wholly amateurishly colour-corrected version of one of two clips that were shot at the same time. Do you really think that some government-funded master-conspirator would futz around with half-arsed grading tools? The laughable video you hang your hat so firmly on is so cack-handedly 'corrected' that you should really slink away in total embarrassment for posting it.

You’re saying, very clearly, that ITV News “sexed up” their clip – and to underline your point, you accuse them, very directly, of “tampering” with the image to produce bloody hands. Someone or a group of people in ITV News therefore deliberately falsified these images.

 

Now it so happens that ITV News have exclusive ownership of that clip. The only way the orange-handed version of it could have been an “original” is if someone had done it BEFORE selling it to ITV News.

 

Unfortunately for you, yesterday I posted a less polished version of the orange-handed clip, which had itself been posted by Muslim radicals at LMU. In that less polished version with the orange hands, the “ITV News Exclusive” logo can be clearly seen in the

top left of frame. (Actually it floats around, which actually does PROVE that the orange-handed clip is a fake, because it reveals the use of image-stabilisation applied to the clip AFTER broadcast on ITV News).

You see, I really don't get this line of questioning. The person who posted the vid on YouTube is making no claim about the blood on the hands, and as we've discovered on this thread, that person is not me.

Furthermore, the video was posted on the 22nd May, the same day as the attack. Enough time to do the polished job you accuse the faker of doing? Also, given that it was available on the 22nd May, why did your students elect to post much worse footage?

So – where do you want to go from here? In your attempt, for whatever motive, to pull the wool over our eyes, you’ve libelled staff in ITV News. They do have lawyers, you know.

 

My suggestion is you simply do the honest, honourable thing: apologise and withdraw the allegations about sexing up and tampering.

From what I've seen on here, you know little of honesty and honour, let alone the things you claim you do know about.

You're right of course. I suppose there are three reasons for persisting:

 

I'm offended by the casually libellous trashing of a long-established professional news organisation by a z-grade conspiracist theorist.

 

I'm offended by the unbelievable narcissism of conspiracy theorists in general, who get their happy endings by denying the reality of the death and maiming of others in public tragedies, and who act as useful idiots distracting attention away from the real, actual crimes and misdemeanours of those in authority.

 

I'm assembling material for a film. Guess what it's about?

Is it an incredibly long documentary about arguing with people on the internet?

I'm assembling material for a film. Guess what it's about?

Life after impotence.

Is it an incredibly long documentary about arguing with people on the internet?

Not quite - although to get an audience I will be adding fake blood to conceal the naturally bright orange hands that Nigerians are so famous for.

Insofar as I understand the cognitively dysfunctional litany just above you, I assume our pet z-list conspiracist still maintains, despite overwhelming evidence and simple logic, that staff at ITV News did indeed "sex up" and "tamper with" the butcher's clip. So as stu0ox says, there's really nothing more to say.

Pap's reputation can now be given an ignominious burial.

It's like talking to a brick.

Pap's reputation can now be given an ignominious burial.

 

It's like talking to a brick.

Lordy. You have some front, Verbal - I'll give you that.

I've never seen one person get so many things wrong on one thread and still try the discredit tactic. Gemmel posted a link to the incomparable Captain Edmund Blackadder earlier in the thread. Your continued efforts to plough the same f**ked furrow remind me of Melchett's brilliant plan to beat the Bosche; doing the exact same thing he did seventeen times before. Doing it again would be the last thing the Bosche would expect, which was according to Melchett, "precisely so it's so brilliant".

The Germans weren't fooled by Melchett's one trick; I'm not fooled the few you have to offer. Ignore the difficult, seize on the stuff you can cherry pick and invent the rest. Some may mistake that for something approaching intelligent debate, but I'm less impressed. I've actually been stuck behind some pretty harsh corporate Internet security measures for the past couple of days, which is why one of the reasons I haven't posted more often on this (the other being out of respect for JustMike's wish to bring things back on-topic - sorry in advance, JustMike)

Didn't post at all yesterday, so I was amazed to see Verbal weighing in again, replying to no-one. His entire SaintsWeb experience involves replying to me, inventing things about me, or as we saw yesterday, getting so wound up over the course of the day that even without one iota of "me" stimulus, he's still posting about me. And I'm the one who is obsessed?

lolz, or whatever it is the nippers say these days.

There is actual a few people trying to discredit you pap, I think is conspiracy yo!

I will investigate further + make video

There is actual a few people trying to discredit you pap, I think is conspiracy yo!

 

I will investigate further + make video

Check the nets, bear! And the other conspiracy threads! It's the same people, dude! Same people!

Can you get a positive ID on Verbal? He dissed my appearance earlier and I want to know if he is better looking, etc.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of posters who have read this thread have a new found respect for Verbal. I know I have.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of posters who have read this thread have a new found respect for Verbal. I know I have.

I missed most of it, jumped in at this page and am now very, very confused.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of posters who have read this thread have a new found respect for Verbal. I know I have.

I'm sure he's thrilled to have the support of such a respected poster.

I'm sure he's thrilled to have the support of such a respected poster.

Probably more thrilled by the support of the other 99.999% of posters and the rest of the civilised world apart from the nutjob conspiracy theorists of course.

Probably more thrilled by the support of the other 99.999% of posters and the rest of the civilised world apart from the nutjob conspiracy theorists of course.

I bet this is the most excitement he's had in weeks, bless him.

Pap is right bout that some one is trumping this incident up to do terrorist scaremongerings.

I dunno if he's found who it is yet tho. I spose we'll know when he gets near cos he'll suddenly stop posti-

I bet this is the most excitement he's had in weeks, bless him.

Just think, they'll be a whole new human tragedy along some time in the next few weeks, maybe even tomorrow.

And we can start all over again. First you can pretend it didn't really happen. And then you can pretend you never really said it didn't really happen.

Meanwhile, real people will be mourning dead relatives while you crack one out over them being crisis actors.

Now that is jolly exciting for you, isn't it?

PS: DO NOT GO NEAR CANARY WHARF ON THURSDAY.

Mark the post. I still think it to be a likely possibility.

**** me it was fact - with proof, a few days ago

Can I ask you a question pap - Do you really really really think that the orange hand video, is actually real?

That's a serious question. Obviously as you offered it as proof and stated it as fact, that the bloody hand one had been sexed up and the bloodless one as genuine, you do, but if you could confirm, one more time, I think most posters will lay off you and stop taking the pish.

I don't know who is more stupid: the conspiracy theorists or people willing to argue for days on end with the conspiracy theorists.

I'm not a fan of Russell Brand but this is probably the most intelligent article I've read on the whole sad Woolwich events

http://www.russellbrand.tv/2013/05/woolwich/

I don't know who is more stupid: the conspiracy theorists or people willing to argue for days on end with the conspiracy theorists.

Nutshell.