Author Topic: UK's Daily Mirror Faked Iraqi Pics (Read 1570 times)

vorticon · « **Reply #15 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:05:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
All I know is whatever credibility the Mirror had, it's got to be gone now.

well...at least its not reporting vampire terrorist taking over a small town in texas

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #16 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:05:52 PM »

I think its in very poor taste how you guys always make fun of me being an immigrant to america and a naturalized citizen as if somehow that makes me not a real american. It seems as if you guys dont quite fiully grasp the concept of america.

mosgood · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:16:10 PM »

Grun... a bit of advice from one American to another...

Americans don't care what europeans think of them.

Whether for good or bad, that's just the way it is.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:16:12 PM »

Grun,..clean those posts up. No call for it,..none.

Thud,..you are walking a very fine line. Stop the pot stirring now.

urbMAW · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:20:19 PM »

see skuzzy the hanoi list isnt a bad thing..

Furious · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:43:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
...You little terrorist loving potato... Dont you have some 8,000 innocent bosnian civilans to slaughter you dutch piece of garbage?

Oh yea really funny to see a dutchman criticize the USa for abuises when your counbtry was directly respobsible for the genocidal deaths of 8,000 civilan refugees in 1995...

LOL skuzzy, to funny. Which one is walking the fine line?

Replicant · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2004, 02:00:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mickey1992
Are they truly fake, or was it just proven they weren't from Iraq?

The photos were originally questioned and labelled fakes because they had many discrepencies. Eventually they brought in a special crimes unit to inspect the photos and confirmed they were faked.

The rifle in the photo, an SA80 L85 rifle was the A1 version and not the A2 version issued to all service personnel. It didn't carry the obligatory fixed sling.

Trousers were tucked into the boots, which allows sand to enter the boot; not the done thing. Other little things like soldiers not wearing watches highlighted questions.

Urine marks on the prisoner seem to have been doctored digitally to give the impression of being pi$$ed on.

The prisoner was supposed to have been beaten for many hours but his clothes were clean, and no obvious bruises. Friends who have served there inform me that people get dirty within 5 minutes, guess they realised this too. Images of the prisoner being beaten showed prisoner is state of relaxation rather than tensing up his muscles etc.

A troop wagon in some photos did belong to the Regiment accused but was never taken overseas and definitely not in Iraq. It had remained in the UK the whole time.

Finally other equipment, fittings, level of sun etc. highlighted other inconsistancies.

muckmaw · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2004, 02:02:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Replicant
The photos were originally questioned and labelled fakes because they had many discrepencies. Eventually they brought in a special crimes unit to inspect the photos and confirmed they were faked.

The rifle in the photo, an SA80 L85 rifle was the A1 version and not the A2 version issued to all service personnel. It didn't carry the obligatory fixed sling.

Trousers were tucked into the boots, which allows sand to enter the boot; not the done thing. Other little things like soldiers not wearing watches highlighted questions.

Urine marks on the prisoner seem to have been doctored digitally to give the impression of being pi$$ed on.

The prisoner was supposed to have been beaten for many hours but his clothes were clean, and no obvious bruises. Friends who have served there inform me that people get dirty within 5 minutes, guess they realised this too. Images of the prisoner being beaten showed prisoner is state of relaxation rather than tensing up his muscles etc.

A troop wagon in some photos did belong to the Regiment accused but was never taken overseas and definitely not in Iraq. It had remained in the UK the whole time.

Finally other equipment, fittings, level of sun etc. highlighted other inconsistancies.

I just find this kind of forensic investigations fascinating.

Momus-- · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2004, 02:04:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
MuckMAW - The Mirror is a crappy little tabloid which supports Labour.

While the Mirror is certainly left-of-centre, it hasn't supported Labour's Iraq policy at all. It's rather silly that they've resorted to making stuff up in order to criticize Blair, given that there are umpteen aspects of his Iraq policy that can be shot down without fabricating a single thing.

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2004, 02:09:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Replicant
The photos were originally questioned and labelled fakes because they had many discrepencies. Eventually they brought in a special crimes unit to inspect the photos and confirmed they were faked.

The rifle in the photo, an SA80 L85 rifle was the A1 version and not the A2 version issued to all service personnel. It didn't carry the obligatory fixed sling.

Trousers were tucked into the boots, which allows sand to enter the boot; not the done thing. Other little things like soldiers not wearing watches highlighted questions.

Urine marks on the prisoner seem to have been doctored digitally to give the impression of being pi$$ed on.

The prisoner was supposed to have been beaten for many hours but his clothes were clean, and no obvious bruises. Friends who have served there inform me that people get dirty within 5 minutes, guess they realised this too. Images of the prisoner being beaten showed prisoner is state of relaxation rather than tensing up his muscles etc.

A troop wagon in some photos did belong to the Regiment accused but was never taken overseas and definitely not in Iraq. It had remained in the UK the whole time.

Finally other equipment, fittings, level of sun etc. highlighted other inconsistancies.

Doesnt make sense bout the troop wagon. How could some folks planning to docter some photos have access to this regiments military vehicle?? And if it stayed in country, the pictures were taking in England?? Just a question.. Have only read whats here..

dude

Gunslinger · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2004, 03:16:55 PM »

All I was saying in my post was that I saw on the news this morning that the boston globe printed posted or reffered to pictures that were actually sent to them not from Iraq but from a porn site. I havnt seen a link or anything that's just what I heard.

And before Mr. Gunther Sholtz says ANYTHING.....I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

thrila · « **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2004, 03:30:28 PM »

Thedude, it's easy to gain access to a military vehicle. I'm sure bribing a soldier to stage pics in his barracks isn't that hard.

Replicant · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2004, 05:10:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Doesnt make sense bout the troop wagon. How could some folks planning to docter some photos have access to this regiments military vehicle?? And if it stayed in country, the pictures were taking in England?? Just a question.. Have only read whats here..

dude

The type of vehicle is easily available in the UK and all you'd need is false number plates. One rumour is that a Territorial Army (like National Guard) guy had access to the vehicle. As mentioned before, they're still investigating...

Replicant · « **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2004, 05:11:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
I just find this kind of forensic investigations fascinating.

What I written was what highlighted the fake possibilities. It wasn't until after analysis of the photos by forensics that they truly discovered that they were fake - what exactly they found hasn't been disclosed yet.

Pei · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:24:36 PM »

I'll personally wait for the evidence to be released before I decide, but one thing struck me as odd straight away: compare the quality and resolution of the pictures with those taken by the US army: whovever took them had access to a pretty good camera and had some skill with it.