New legislation in light of Woolwich attacks

[hypochondriac]

Personally I dont think that there should be any more benefits to families over 2 children, we are a country with free contraception, advice andeducation, should you want more than 2 it should be a personal choice made with financial reasoning.

 

As for the snoopers charter, what really is the issue with this unless you have something to worry about ? Or unless you are a conspiracist nutjob who sits on the internet all day ?

 

That is always the argument used when things like this come out and it misses the point completely.

[aintforever]

As you say, you do keep saying it. But what do you mean? Which bit of the Middle East is the British government presently ‘in’? I'm aware of no formal British military presence anywhere in the Middle East. (You presumably know that Afghanistan, from which the UK military presence is currently being withdrawn, is in South Asia.) British foreign policy on Syria is roughly in step with the EU, as it is with Israel, in the sense that the UK government supports a two-state solution. Got any better ideas?

 

I do like your idea that we should tailor the UK's foreign policy to suit the Woolwich murderers (at least insofar as it would somehow prevent another Woolwich). Perhaps we should also ask the Soham murderer Ian Huntley how Home Office policies on child protection might be improved to suit him?

 

You're linking two unconnected ideas. There are plenty of people in the UK - Muslim and non-Muslim - who have had serious and well-argued complaints about specific British foreign policies, notably regarding Blair's adventure in Iraq. This does NOT explain the kind of death-cult violence you saw in Luxor (1997), which targeted mostly Swiss and Japanese tourists - ie people from two countries with a definable ABSENCE of foreign policy. Yet Luxor was the prototype for what happened in Woolwich - it was an operation devised by Zawahiri, and became the defining ‘spectacular’ that led to the creation of Al Qeada just a year later, with Zawahiri's alliance with bin Laden.

 

The extremists' objections to the West are based on an amorphous hatred of all things Western including its ‘values’; they are not what you might call ‘strong’ on which specific Western policies they supposedly object to. Read Sayyid Qutb, the founding philosopher of Al Qeada’s particular brand of extremism, if you doubt this. After his (sponsored) trip to the US in 1948-50, he wrote an article called ‘The America That I Have Seen’, in which he lambasts individual freedoms, democracy, boxing, bad haircuts and an ‘animal-like mixing of the sexes’. This piece is an article of faith among succeeding extremists, especially his compatriot Zawahiri and bin Laden – and probably Choudary too, since he can be found saying much the same things about the UK in his rants about imposing Shariah laws on every UK citizen.

 

More rational Muslims (and others) make their feelings known about particular aspects of foreign policy that trouble them.

 

With their declaration of hostility to all things Western, you could never satisfy Salafists with specific policy changes. And why the hell would any government or people want to?

 

Completely disagree, what we have done over the past has shaped the Muslim world's view of us regardless of where are troops are at this moment in time. We were directly responsible for killing 600'000 people in Iraq, we are still killing muslims in Afganistan. With have a long history of interfering in that region which will take time to be forgotten.

 

What you say about the extremists' objections to the West is 100% true, but these people used to be laughed at by the average muslim. Nowadays most muslims agree with their views on Western imperialism even if they don't agree with their methods. Our foreign policy has created an environment where the extremists go unchallenged within their own community.

[pap]

Personally I dont think that there should be any more benefits to families over 2 children, we are a country with free contraception, advice andeducation, should you want more than 2 it should be a personal choice made with financial reasoning.

 

As for the snoopers charter, what really is the issue with this unless you have something to worry about ? Or unless you are a conspiracist nutjob who sits on the internet all day ?

 

I was having a similar conversation with the missus in the car. She reached for the typical example of a single mum milking the system to work her way up the registered social landlord property ladder. If that's everybody, then fine, you have a point. Life tends to be a bit more complicated than that. I'll ask you the same question I asked her. How well would the system treat a mother of four who went into marriage in good faith, discovered that she was in an abusive relationship, then had the courage to walk out?

 

The answers aren't so easy then, but if previous policy is anything to go by, all of these cuts will be crude implements that bash far more than the intended targets.

 

Your second point is a bit of a laugh, once you strip away the obvious dig. You may think we have nothing to worry about, but I suspect you're not really paying attention. The two pieces of legislation discussed here are disproportionate enough on their own merits. Labour did one better during their time in office, nestling a ready-made Enabling Act into the body of our legislation. If these things aren't matters of concern, then you've obviously never read up on the nascent stages of any dictatorship. Enemies of the state are identified, those inconvenient laws are streamlined or circumvented entirely with other laws that slip into being after major atrocities.

 

You're free to call me whatever you like, Smirkers. We still live in a free country, and any charge of us currently being a police state is well wide of the mark, even if we have a lot of the apparatus in place.

 

What you can't deny is that every time a terrorist atrocity has taken place, it has been our own governments, and not the terrorists, that have clamped down on our freedoms.

[Smirking_Saint]

I was having a similar conversation with the missus in the car. She reached for the typical example of a single mum milking the system to work her way up the registered social landlord property ladder. If that's everybody, then fine, you have a point. Life tends to be a bit more complicated than that. I'll ask you the same question I asked her. How well would the system treat a mother of four who went into marriage in good faith, discovered that she was in an abusive relationship, then had the courage to walk out?

 

The answers aren't so easy then, but if previous policy is anything to go by, all of these cuts will be crude implements that bash far more than the intended targets.

 

Your second point is a bit of a laugh, once you strip away the obvious dig. You may think we have nothing to worry about, but I suspect you're not really paying attention. The two pieces of legislation discussed here are disproportionate enough on their own merits. Labour did one better during their time in office, nestling a ready-made Enabling Act into the body of our legislation. If these things aren't matters of concern, then you've obviously never read up on the nascent stages of any dictatorship. Enemies of the state are identified, those inconvenient laws are streamlined or circumvented entirely with other laws that slip into being after major atrocities.

 

You're free to call me whatever you like, Smirkers. We still live in a free country, and any charge of us currently being a police state is well wide of the mark, even if we have a lot of the apparatus in place.

 

What you can't deny is that every time a terrorist atrocity has taken place, it has been our own governments, and not the terrorists, that have clamped down on our freedoms.

 

I just think we are two pieces of the same puzzle, albeit a long way apart. This country is being destroyed by either extreme liberalism or things that are further to the right.

 

Ill be honest, Ive not really looked into it too far, politics really isnt one of my usual combat grounds. I couldnt really give a toss that the Camerons went on holiday or that clegg is clinging onto the coattails whilst trying to drag some of his liberal ideas into the light. Is a society that is happy with free speech to a level that extremism be it from militants of Islam or those thinky veiled facist or is it christians ? Really free ? One that bans the wearing of poppies etc as it could offend or being told I cant order black coffee anymore as its offensive (it really did happen to me).

 

I understand it is washing away our freedoms, and I realise my original arguement was a bit of a cop out. But it is still true. That said, after thinking about it I agree with the snoopers charter bit.

 

Realistically though the government is just dodging the real issues, too many immigrants, an economic mess and the fact they have been caught again failing to act on reasonable information.

 

As for the benefits thing Ill stick to what I said, we allow too many as it is, I appreciate that we need to look after those in the most need, but in doing so at times we are creating an over bloated society of spongers. Should the situation you spoke to the wife about arise then I am sure that help would be forthcoming, I just dont see why we award those that exist only to ride the gravy train. I know plenty that cheat the system and gain more then their fair share (none of which I particularly like FWIW).

 

Anyway, Im just ranting now, a lot of what you write makes sense papster, some doesnt, unfortunately most of it just comes across as the sprallings of some ranting conspiracist and completely derails any credibility.

[ecuk268]

Courtesy of NewsThump:

 

The future of the Mail Online has been thrown into doubt following calls to ban websites that promote hate and intolerance.

 

The online version of the Daily Mail could be closed down following an incident in the Cotswolds in which a Guardian reader of ‘questionable gender’ was snared in a beartrap.

 

Although no one group has admitted responsibility for the attack, anti-happiness organisation Christians Against Moral-Free Godless Sodomites have called for people to ‘take to the streets’ in the fight against things that don’t really affect them.

 

Speaking of areas with a high density of Guardian readers, anti-hate campaign spokesperson Nigel Wells warned that the streets could soon be running with hummus and a drizzle of balsamic vinegar unless something is done.

 

“There is a war coming,” he insisted.

 

“This war won’t be fought in some far-flung country thousands of miles away. It will be fought on the streets of Britain.

 

“On one side you’ll have people who are adamant that the cause of the current economic crisis is the fault of Thatcher and Reagan, Page 3 models, processed food and people with a slap-dash attitude to recycling.

 

“On the other you’ll have people who insist that it’s down to immigration, homosexuals, homosexual immigrants, women in trousers, aggressive homosexuals, aggressive homosexual immigrants and aggressive transgender immigrants in EU trousers.”

 

“Why can’t people just hate each other in peace?”

 

I think, therefore I am (not a Daily Mail reader)

[pap]

Anyway, Im just ranting now, a lot of what you write makes sense papster, some doesnt, unfortunately most of it just comes across as the sprallings of some ranting conspiracist and completely derails any credibility.

 

I think sir will find, if he checks the post history, I do very little ranting in those situations, unless I'm returning some sh!t flung my way. Most of it is directed at me, and I'm sure that some posters think it's just the accolade of attention that I'm seeking. Don't care if you believe me or not, but that's really not the case. The biggest difference between myself and most other people is perhaps the starting position we take.

 

I don't assume the government wants the best for us, and with ample justification. Take your pick; Maggie's slash and burn attitude to industry and the North, Major's entry into what would become the EU, Blair's war crimes, Labour's ridiculous idea that it could out-left the Conservatives by importing Eastern Europeans to the UK seven years ahead of time.

 

On your very last point, about my sometimes sensible postings being utterly whacked out by my conspiracist rantings, I'll just say this. I don't come on here giving it the "we're all ruled by lizards" beans. I'm happy to be corrected, but most of the stuff I've posted refers to basic problems between physical evidence and the things that are claimed to have transpired. I think the main problem with my input is that people aren't too keen on hearing it at the time, and on reflection, I probably should have waited for cooler heads to prevail before questioning the Woolwich incident. Lesson learned? Possibly, but I stand firmer behind the evidence than I did then.

 

I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I couldn't conjure a coherent ideology if I tried ( and believe me, I have ). That said, if one person runs a news story through a bullsh!t filter because of something I've said, I'll be a happy man.

[Smirking_Saint]

With respect, you honestly still dont believe that the woolwich incident was anything more then two f*cking nutcases that had been indoctrinised by a bloke that should have been kicked out long ago do you ?

[pap]

With respect, you honestly still dont believe that the woolwich incident was anything more then two f*cking nutcases that had been indoctrinised by a bloke that should have been kicked out long ago do you ?

 

I've still got some serious concerns about Woolwich which haven't been assuaged in the days since, and in some cases, further justified. I put two things in conflict; an eyewitness account describing a bloody attack, and a perpetrator that appears to have no blood on his clothing. Since then, I've uncovered the same video with the same bloke, this time, with no blood on his hands either.

 

I can't give you the theory of everything, but I can prove that the pictures you saw on the front pages were altered to show bloody hands which just weren't there.

[Verbal]

I've still got some serious concerns about Woolwich which haven't been assuaged in the days since, and in some cases, further justified. I put two things in conflict; an eyewitness account describing a bloody attack, and a perpetrator that appears to have no blood on his clothing. Since then, I've uncovered the same video with the same bloke, this time, with no blood on his hands either.

 

I can't give you the theory of everything, but I can prove that the pictures you saw on the front pages were altered to show bloody hands which just weren't there.

 

Good grief, not this again. I'm going to refrain from saying what I think of the psychology behind this kind of thought process and just note that, once again, you're completely in-step with the right-wing, anti-Semitic fanatics at Infowars.

 

You should consider a little more carefully the language you use to fool yourself (I doubt anyone else is taken in). You talk about the 'physical evidence'. But be honest: you haven't seen any - unless you have had special dispensation from the police investigation to go to the crime scene and also talk to the lab technicians about their forensic examinations of the ACTUAL physical evidence like clothes, weapons, injuries on Lee Rigby's body. You've just seen the camera phone stuff collected by onlookers. Nor can you 'prove' the pictures were altered in post to create the effect you claim. That (to call it what it is) is either just an outright lie or a statement of plain self-delusion.

 

Let me tell you a couple of fairly straightforward technical things, as someone with more years in television than I care to number, including a lot of time creating visual effects. A general point is you're not seeing the original camera phone images when you look at the clip of Adebolajo ranting. I don't know - and I doubt you do - how the image was recorded, but most phone cameras, if not all of them, use some form of compression - that is, information, much of it colour, is junked in order to be able to record real time with a quite low-spec (compared to broadcast) camera. When you saw that image on the TV news, it was compressed again, like all TV pictures are when they squeezed through the transmission structure. And when you saw the cameraphone footage on YouTube, it was compressed yet again, only more so.

 

Hold that thought...

 

When a film crew sets out to record a visual effects sequence that is going to be pretty gory, one of the most important things they consider is costume. The reason is that dark clothes conceal the reds of blood and gore. This is simple physics, or to be more precise the physics of optics and colour; it is to do with light absorption and reflection. The killer's jacket would naturally conceal the amount of blood visible to the naked eye, and yet more detail would be lost when this effect is recorded and subject to multiple layers of compression.

 

To a trained eye, however, a lot of the evidence of the blood spatters is still there - it just reads as different and, at first glance, hard-to-detect discolouration. I'm sorry to say that as a result of your preposterous claims, I've looked closely at the images and the telltale signs of blood are all over the cuffs of his dark jacket and down the front of it. (You can test this yourself by going into a decent colour-correction suite like Da Vinci and boosting the red spectrum). There are also patches on his jeans. In the end, though, a forensic analysis is the ONLY way to confirm this (not your idiotic noodling at your laptop) - and you can bet that it will confirm that there is a considerable amount of blood on the killer's clothing and skin.

 

I'm not going to say any more on this subject because it is, quite frankly, disgusting to be talking with such pathetically disrespectful prurience about a life lost. I just hope against forlorn hope it'll shut you up on this ghoulish, nonsensical train of thought.

 

Now back to the thread - yours, I think - which you have again derailed into a potential lock.

[Viking Warrior]

Pap you are quite ignorant re this comment "Does one exceptional event justify this sort of legislation?" Yes it does if it safes the life's of many more . Yes it does what ever the atrocity . It plain to see you do not value the loss of a soldier . But then this country has freedom of speech . Which allows you to spout your ****e . If the uk gphad lost either of the world wars have you ever given a thought what today's society would be like ? You would not be allowed to spout some of the crap you are allowed to spout . Freedom of speech is one thing but of late you have been one wind up merchant . And before you asked I cannot be arsed to read the rest if your tripe .

[Viking Warrior]

Pap you are a sick ****er.

A soldier died . What does it take to convince you that this was a hideous murder by a couple of extremists . Your comments below are totally out of order . Did you not listen to the comments of the parents of of one of the killers?

I've still got some serious concerns about Woolwich which haven't been assuaged in the days since, and in some cases, further justified. I put two things in conflict; an eyewitness account describing a bloody attack, and a perpetrator that appears to have no blood on his clothing. Since then, I've uncovered the same video with the same bloke, this time, with no blood on his hands either.

 

I can't give you the theory of everything, but I can prove that the pictures you saw on the front pages were altered to show bloody hands which just weren't there.

[pap]

Good grief, not this again. I'm going to refrain from saying what I think of the psychology behind this kind of thought process and just note that, once again, you're completely in-step with the right-wing, anti-Semitic fanatics at Infowars.

 

..snip...

 

Now back to the thread - yours, I think - which you have again derailed into a potential lock.

 

I'm not going to bother to respond to all of this, simply because so many of the observations you've made are based on your own assumptions and experiences from your own increasingly well catalogued life.

 

Mine 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). I'm not sure that image/video compression is applicable here.

[Smirking_Saint]

I'm not going to bother to respond to all of this, simply because so many of the observations you've made are based on your own assumptions and experiences from your own increasingly well catalogued life.

 

Mine 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). I'm not sure that image/video compression is applicable here.

 

So, you're discrediting Verbal as you say that his opinions andbeliefs are skewed towards an opinion that supports the fact that the murders were exactly as they were reported, and have attempted to justify the complete tosh you speak by posting a video that you have 'sought out' that happens to be on another conspiracist weirdos blog ?

 

I suggest you go out and get some fresh air pap

[pap]

So, you're discrediting Verbal as you say that his opinions andbeliefs are skewed towards an opinion that supports the fact that the murders were exactly as they were reported, and have attempted to justify the complete tosh you speak by posting a video that you have 'sought out' that happens to be on another conspiracist weirdos blog ?

 

I suggest you go out and get some fresh air pap

 

I'm not discrediting Verbal at all. I'm saying that his assertions are based on a false assumption, which is fair enough, I reckon. Everything Verbal posted pertained to analysis of compression routines. I said up front that the evidence was video-based and reiterated that I didn't think compression caused no blood effects, so I'm really not sure why he embarked on that area of investigation. It wasn't germane to the point, is all.

 

On a more general note, I'm really not that interesting in "playing the man", Smirking. I leave that to the experts.

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap, can I just say that with your disbelieving sceptical manner you are starting from a low moral base on this, even for yourself this is something of a special case, there is nothing wrong to question but there are times to be quiet, what makes you think your superior knowledge makes you a noble sage in defending the underdog?

 

This man obviously knows more on this subject than you, accept and move on.

Edited 29 May, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[pap]

Pap, can I just say that with your disbelieving sceptical manner you are starting from a low moral base on this, even for yourself this is something of a special case, there is nothing wrong to question but there are times to be quiet, what makes you think your superior knowledge makes you a noble sage in defending the underdog?

 

This man obviously knows more on this subject than you, accept and move on.

 

I posted the vid after he made his comments, so I have to wonder what subject he was dealing with. Ah yes, he was analysing the results of his own imagination ( and a very good job he did too! ).

 

I look forward to being schooled on the particular compression algorithm that was used to produce those results.

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap you don't seem to ever believe anything, Christ you still don't believe I live in Liverpoool so you will go to town on this, it's just your nature, I hope you believe your partner a tad more though as questioning life is healthy, continuously disbelieving what others say is not, it makes you look a bit of a tit.

[Ludwig]

Pap you don't seem to ever believe anything, Christ you still don't believe I live in Liverpoool so you will go to town on this, it's just your nature, I hope you believe your partner a tad more though as questioning life is healthy, continuously disbelieving what others say is not, it makes you look a bit of a tit.

 

calm down Dune

[Barry Sanchez]

Oh another belter.

[Gemmel]

, but I can prove that the pictures you saw on the front pages were altered to show bloody hands which just weren't there.

 

No you can't. You really can't.

[pap]

No you can't. You really can't.

 

That's the sort of debating tactic I would expect, and have heard, from a young kid. The difference is that they don't know any better.

[Barry Sanchez]

Prove the pictures are fake then?

[pap]

Prove the pictures are fake then?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vc62gkSN8W0

 

Where's the blood, Bazza?

[CB Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22699156

 

Looks like the French Government are getting in on the act as well

 

or maybe, just maybe it's another nutter

[Gemmel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vc62gkSN8W0

 

Where's the blood, Bazza?

 

LOL .... Please tell me you are not serious.

 

A propaganda video, that is different from the ones we've all seen...... "The higher ups" :) :)

 

p.s I think they might have missed out the blood on the knife when they got their photoshop out.

[buctootim]

Where's the blood, Bazza?

 

Washed away by the uploader who tampered with the RGB settings of course. Orangey pink double red route lines on the road and the bright orange buses that London is famous for. What could possibly be wrong? Heaven forfend someone has turned down the red and upped the green and blue.

 

Pap thinks he has rare insight to the real goings on that the rest of us just uncritically lap up. Reality is he lacks the ability to process normal social information and empathise, think Gary McKinnon.

[pap]

LOL .... Please tell me you are not serious.

 

A propaganda video, that is different from the ones we've all seen...... "The higher ups" :) :)

 

p.s I think they might have missed out the blood on the knife when they got their photoshop out.

 

Yeah, I found the tacked-on message at the end to be a bit noddy too.

 

However, I could not escape the fact that his hands are nothing like the bloody messes of compressed colour they are in the photos plastered over the national media.

 

 

It's not rocket science, mush.

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap you are not on this Earth are you?

[Gemmel]

It's not rocket science, mush.

 

No it's not, it's really not.

 

 

Actually starting to feel sorry for you now.

[pap]

No it's not, it's really not.

 

Actually starting to feel sorry for you now.

 

Nothing you've written relates to the matter at hand and you are arguing as a child does. I appreciate your attempt to bung some genuine concern in there, but do I really want the pity of someone I'm respecting less and less with each encounter?

 

Confronted with that video, you have no explanation. That's fair enough; neither do I.

[Smirking_Saint]

Nothing you've written relates to the matter at hand and you are arguing as a child does. I appreciate your attempt to bung some genuine concern in there, but do I really want the pity of someone I'm respecting less and less with each encounter?

 

Confronted with that video, you have no explanation. That's fair enough; neither do I.

 

No explanation ? His hands have suddenly turned orange FFS did I miss the bit he ate a mega pack of wotsits.

 

Pap seriously, drop the crap and this houlier than thou attitude, your coming across as one of those sad morons that think everything that happens is because of some crazy government scheme to brainwash all of us. As I said before, you need to stop trawling the net all day and get outside for a stroll in the sun.

[CB Fry]

Nothing you've written relates to the matter at hand and you are arguing as a child does. I appreciate your attempt to bung some genuine concern in there, but do I really want the pity of someone I'm respecting less and less with each encounter?

 

Confronted with that video, you have no explanation. That's fair enough; neither do I.

 

What is the matter at hand?

[pap]

What is the matter at hand?

 

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.

[Gemmel]

Confronted with that video, you have no explanation. That's fair enough; neither do I.

 

The video has been tampered with - quite obviously.

 

IF ( And I doubt this to be the case) you can't see that, please increase the levels of pity I bestow on you.

[CB Fry]

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.

 

Or "your" pictures were "sexed down".

[pap]

The video has been tampered with - quite obviously.

 

IF ( And I doubt this to be the case) you can't see that, please increase the levels of pity I bestow on you.

 

Ah, so it's the video that has been tampered with, eh? Sorry mucker, but you've given me enough crap on this topic - I'm not going to let you get away with the "quite obviously" attempt to shut this point down.

 

What are the obvious signs of tampering?

[buctootim]

[buctootim]

[buctootim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vc62gkSN8W0#t=10s

[buctootim]

Edited 29 May, 2013 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Its magic.

[Gemmel]

Oh dear pap

[pap]

Or "your" pictures were "sexed down".

 

That's a possibility, but 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

[pap]

Its magic.

 

Nah, it's not. It's a p!ss poor attempt to explain away some major discrepancies.

[buctootim]

Now you're blatantly lying to cover up an untenable position. As you well know, you earn your money in IT right?, popular free to use and download media players like VLC media player http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html provide easy to use image adjustment and colour editing. You can do it while the video is running and it takes seconds to do the whole clip.

 

http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/15-features-of-vlc-player-that-you-probably-dont-know-about/

Edited 29 May, 2013 by buctootim

[Gemmel]

, but I can prove that the pictures you saw on the front pages were altered to show bloody hands which just weren't there.

 

We are still waiting pap :) :)

[pap]

Now you're blatantly lying to cover up an untenable position. As you well know popular free to use and download media players like VLC media player http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html

provide easy to use image adjustment and colour editing. You can do it while the video is running and it takes seconds to do the whole clip.

 

I said I honestly didn't know. I don't think that's quite the same thing as blatantly lying. Besides, your colour balance explanation doesn't really explain the artefacting that is all over vid 2 that doesn't appear in vid 1.

[buctootim]

I said I honestly didn't know. I don't think that's quite the same thing as blatantly lying. Besides, your colour balance explanation doesn't really explain the artefacting that is all over vid 2 that doesn't appear in vid 1.

 

So you don't know about colour adjustment in the worlds most popular media player after Microsoft's media player, but you do know about artefacting? Righto.

[pap]

So you don't know about colour adjustment in the worlds most popular media player after Microsoft's media player, but you do know about artefacting? Righto.

 

No, I haven't delved into those settings before today, but thanks for the tip. I can indeed get the bloody result by changing the colour balance. Two problems. The levels of red increase universally across the video. So yep, I can get bloody hands etc, but I also get a rosy face. I'm not seeing that reflected universally between vid 1 and vid 2.

 

Can you easily mask parts of the footage you don't want to touch? Genuine question.

 

The other thing is no artefacting. The blurs around the hands just aren't there.

 

Cheers for the tip on VLC though. I enjoyed playing with that.

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap, the lord of darkness, lies and deceit, he thinks he is an internet knight in shining moral righteousness armour when its more like gollums cod piece.