The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In todays Mail on Sunday, there is a list of reasons why those pics showing British troops torturing an Iraqi may be fake, here they are:-
1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that would occur in such a vicious attack.
2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it represents is widespread.
5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He is not.
6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant reaction.
7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition for a rifle in a combat zone.
8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army regulations.
9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm, they were not there in the pictures.
11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from Millets or the Internet.
12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than those of a soldier in a combat zone.
13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera, but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
So, very suspect indeed.
1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that would occur in such a vicious attack.
2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it represents is widespread.
5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He is not.
6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant reaction.
7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition for a rifle in a combat zone.
8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army regulations.
9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm, they were not there in the pictures.
11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from Millets or the Internet.
12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than those of a soldier in a combat zone.
13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera, but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
So, very suspect indeed.
Page:
In todays Mail on Sunday, there is a list of reasons why those pics showing British troops torturing an Iraqi may be fake, here they are:-
1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that would occur in such a vicious attack.
2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it represents is widespread.
5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He is not.
6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant reaction.
7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition for a rifle in a combat zone.
8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army regulations.
9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm, they were not there in the pictures.
11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from Millets or the Internet.
12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than those of a soldier in a combat zone.
13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera, but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
So, very suspect indeed.
1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that would occur in such a vicious attack.
2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it represents is widespread.
5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He is not.
6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant reaction.
7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition for a rifle in a combat zone.
8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army regulations.
9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm, they were not there in the pictures.
11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from Millets or the Internet.
12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than those of a soldier in a combat zone.
13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera, but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
So, very suspect indeed.
To be honest, when I first saw them I thought 'wow, these are of a remarkable quality'. And yes, the photo of the dude being butted in the groin did seem a little static, but then if a good quality camera was used with a high shutter rate then you wouldn't get movement in the picture (and the bag over the guy's head probably explains why he didn't cross his legs).
It's academic really, because whether these photos are fake or not doesn't really matter - I've no doubt that this sort of stuff goes on behind closed doors anyway, whether it's being captured or not.
It's academic really, because whether these photos are fake or not doesn't really matter - I've no doubt that this sort of stuff goes on behind closed doors anyway, whether it's being captured or not.
Of course it's fake - just like everything else the papers ever print. Ever.
Then again, they could be real.
Pathology of power and all that shiz.
Pathology of power and all that shiz.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Then again, they could be real.
Its things like the lack of unit ensignia(sp?) that convince me.
> Then again, they could be real.
Its things like the lack of unit ensignia(sp?) that convince me.
ensignia?
I am sceptical about the validity of these pictures now, but then again, look at any moon landing conspiracy site - lots of apparant 'flaws' in the photos, with more convincing reasoning than those below, yet each is legitimately explainable.
So I'm remaining unconvinced either way.
Skarra wrote:
> 1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that
> would occur in such a vicious attack.
Digital cameras (of any quality) tend to capture images with virtually no motion blur.
Seen 28 Days Later? That was shot with digital cameras. Remember how the zombies looked when moving very quickly, the contrast with traditional filming methods?
It was like the frame by frame capture in, for example, the Hellraiser movies - where the modelled scenes were made up of still images, and so there wasn't the usual slight motion blur around movement.
> 2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
So? They were taken with a decent quality camera.
> 3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why
> is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if
> this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
We don't really know the timeline of events. The teeth could have been knocked out later, or very shortly before (so the blood hadn't had time to accumulate in the mouth).
Or perhaps 'knocked out' was an exaggeration, they could have been chipped, or dentures.
> 4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the
> victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it
> represents is widespread.
Not conclusive of anything.
> 5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent
> attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He
> is not.
Unless under an intense and sustained attack, it could be quite conceivable that he would only be in such a position immediately following individual blows.
> 6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of
> a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant
> reaction.
The picture could have been taken momentarily before, or on the point of, contact.
If he wasn't expecting the blow there would be no pre-emtive reaction.
> 7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition
> for a rifle in a combat zone.
A rifle is kept in good condition. Or even from a fresh stock. No real surprise.
> 8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army
> regulations.
Lol! A breech of army regulations? They're happy to brutally torture prisoners, but don't leave your ammunition webbing open! :^)
> 9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
See above.
> 10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm,
> they were not there in the pictures.
Perhaps not worn knocing pictures would be taken, or parhaps they were just slack with army protocol.
For all relevant points, I think it would be naive to expect close compliance with the details of formal procedure, given the alleged actions.
> 11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from
> Millets or the Internet.
Maybe it was just new? Or clean hand't been worn in conditions that would cause much wear and tear. Or a new one used to avoid showing badges and stuff.
> 12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than
> those of a soldier in a combat zone.
Again, not conclusive of anything. Especially if the soldier hadn't seen much 'action'.
> 13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera,
> but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
'Normally'? So what?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is nothing conclusive.
There are plenty of points raised, some better than others, but if you were to conpare to photos used by moon landing conspiracy theories (which most people accept are genuine), they hold up remarkably well.
I'm sure it's possible to find 'suspicious' stuff in any photo.
I'll stay undecided for now.
So I'm remaining unconvinced either way.
Skarra wrote:
> 1. Each scene is remarkably static, with no sign of movement that
> would occur in such a vicious attack.
Digital cameras (of any quality) tend to capture images with virtually no motion blur.
Seen 28 Days Later? That was shot with digital cameras. Remember how the zombies looked when moving very quickly, the contrast with traditional filming methods?
It was like the frame by frame capture in, for example, the Hellraiser movies - where the modelled scenes were made up of still images, and so there wasn't the usual slight motion blur around movement.
> 2. The pictures seem to be of remarkable quality.
So? They were taken with a decent quality camera.
> 3. If the victim did have a broken jaw and had teeth knocked out, why
> is there little sign of this on the mans shirt? And beleive me, if
> this had happened, there would have been a lot of blood, i know.
We don't really know the timeline of events. The teeth could have been knocked out later, or very shortly before (so the blood hadn't had time to accumulate in the mouth).
Or perhaps 'knocked out' was an exaggeration, they could have been chipped, or dentures.
> 4. His T-Shirt shows the old Iraqi flag. According to reports, the
> victim is from the Shia stronghold of Basra, where hatred for all it
> represents is widespread.
Not conclusive of anything.
> 5. Experts say the victim shows no sighs of being in such a violent
> attack. He should be in the foetal possition, with tense muscles. He
> is not.
Unless under an intense and sustained attack, it could be quite conceivable that he would only be in such a position immediately following individual blows.
> 6. He was supposed to have been hit in the genitals with the butt of
> a rifle, but he made no attempt to close his legs, usually an instant
> reaction.
The picture could have been taken momentarily before, or on the point of, contact.
If he wasn't expecting the blow there would be no pre-emtive reaction.
> 7. The rifle being used is suspect. It is in strangly good condition
> for a rifle in a combat zone.
A rifle is kept in good condition. Or even from a fresh stock. No real surprise.
> 8. The soldiers ammunition webbing was left open, a breech on Army
> regulations.
Lol! A breech of army regulations? They're happy to brutally torture prisoners, but don't leave your ammunition webbing open! :^)
> 9. The soldiers boots were not laced in in the standard Army way.
See above.
> 10. Tactical/ Unit badges should have been on the soldiers right arm,
> they were not there in the pictures.
Perhaps not worn knocing pictures would be taken, or parhaps they were just slack with army protocol.
For all relevant points, I think it would be naive to expect close compliance with the details of formal procedure, given the alleged actions.
> 11. The troopers kit looks brand new, like it could have been from
> Millets or the Internet.
Maybe it was just new? Or clean hand't been worn in conditions that would cause much wear and tear. Or a new one used to avoid showing badges and stuff.
> 12. The soldiers hands look very soft-more like clerical hands than
> those of a soldier in a combat zone.
Again, not conclusive of anything. Especially if the soldier hadn't seen much 'action'.
> 13. The mirror claims the pictures were taken with a digital camera,
> but photo experts say these pictures are normally in colour.
'Normally'? So what?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is nothing conclusive.
There are plenty of points raised, some better than others, but if you were to conpare to photos used by moon landing conspiracy theories (which most people accept are genuine), they hold up remarkably well.
I'm sure it's possible to find 'suspicious' stuff in any photo.
I'll stay undecided for now.
emblem/badge/you get the idea...
I really wouldn't be suprised either way to be honest. The worrying thing is that both of the major forces in Iraq now have allegations of torture made against them. Hardly going to do much good for the old "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi populace is it?
I really wouldn't be suprised either way to be honest. The worrying thing is that both of the major forces in Iraq now have allegations of torture made against them. Hardly going to do much good for the old "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi populace is it?
That's potentially an even bigger problem than the incidents themselves (depending on how widespread they are), and certainly provides a reason why they could be faked.
Are these pics on the internet somewhere, if so... link please?
Page: