Media show 2 different 7/7 CCTV images of same location

[TimmyG]

eerr... someone please correct me if i'm wrong

but this seems like a pretty massive error ....

ok so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVDi5Qe1 ... re=related
originally released cctv image we're all familiar with... showing the 4 alleged bombers and featuring a strange graphical defect

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyM0_b6UUo&feature=fvsr
from cnn last week... showing 3 completely different Asian men
??!!

what's going on?
it seems like they see fit just to pick any pictures of asian guys entering luton station and site it as evidence

[Muncher]

The ITN clip uses CCTV from the 28th June 2005 not 7th July.

[Micpsi]

eerr... someone please correct me if i'm wrong

but this seems like a pretty massive error ....

ok so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVDi5Qe1 ... re=related
originally released cctv image we're all familiar with... showing the 4 alleged bombers and featuring a strange graphical defect

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyM0_b6UUo&feature=fvsr
from cnn last week... showing 3 completely different Asian men
??!!

what's going on?
it seems like they see fit just to pick any pictures of asian guys entering luton station and site it as evidence

"A strange graphical defect". What is that? If you are referring to the rail bar behind the bomber in the background that appears to pass in front of him, you (like many others) are the victim of a visual illusion in which your eyes interpreted the dark, vertical edge of the wall behind this guy as being part of his torso. It is not. Blow up the graphic in some photo-editing program and you will discover that the man's left arm is raised across his chest and that the image of the bar of the rail stops at the edge of his backpack and passes correctly behind it.

[conspiracy analyst]

None of them are real, so why bother.
One fake image on top of the other and who cares?
No journalist will question anything as they will be out of a job, pronto.

The good thing about it is that we now have proof the images are made up as they just show people walking to a station, which proves absolutely nothing as millions do it every day.

If they had elephants walking to the station the media would still call them
'terrorists' and no politician or journalist would bat an eyelid. Its not the image but the message they are interested in selling...

[Muncher]

None of them are real, so why bother.
One fake image on top of the other and who cares?
No journalist will question anything as they will be out of a job, pronto.

The good thing about it is that we now have proof the images are made up as they just show people walking to a station, which proves absolutely nothing as millions do it every day.

If they had elephants walking to the station the media would still call them
'terrorists' and no politician or journalist would bat an eyelid. Its not the image but the message they are interested in selling...

Perpetuation of the CCTV fakery myth is absurd and irresponsible.
Unless you can provide well attested evidence of fakery your assertion is baseless.

[conspiracy analyst]

Perpetuation of the CCTV fakery myth is absurd and irresponsible.
Unless you can provide well attested evidence of fakery your assertion is baseless.

The proof or evidence as you call it is on those who sell the story not myself.
They have now shown two totally different CCTV images of different people and they are alleging they are all the bombers, so instead of the original four we have the magic seven?

Or is it millions who walk to stations everyday?

[Muncher]

The proof or evidence as you call it is on those who sell the story not myself.

Your assertion that the CCTV is fake requires you to provide evidence of the fakery. Until you do so your assertion is worthless.

They have now shown two totally different CCTV images of different people and they are alleging they are all the bombers, so instead of the original four we have the magic seven?

The CCTV is from two different days. Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay appear in both.

[Andrew.]

The proof or evidence as you call it is on those who sell the story not myself.

Your assertion that the CCTV is fake requires you to provide evidence of the fakery. Until you do so your assertion is worthless.

They have now shown two totally different CCTV images of different people and they are alleging they are all the bombers, so instead of the original four we have the magic seven?

The CCTV is from two different days. Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay appear in both.

Do you mean they are guilty until proven innocent? Well it is clear to me that you do mean this and the Law is clear on this; by your own? answer to this "The proof or evidence as you call it is on those who sell the story not myself." If you by intent falsely accusing someone, you are guilty of the same crime ( a very serious crime, this murder of people) to which the deterrent Law is also clearly written.

[conspiracy analyst]

The proof or evidence as you call it is on those who sell the story not myself.

Your assertion that the CCTV is fake requires you to provide evidence of the fakery. Until you do so your assertion is worthless.

They have now shown two totally different CCTV images of different people and they are alleging they are all the bombers, so instead of the original four we have the magic seven?

The CCTV is from two different days. Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay appear in both.

So its the 'same' people, but on different days, which are when?
The day the event happened, the day before and we are supposed to assert from that that a picture in Luton implies they were also in London later on the day with no CCTV?

Travelling on a train that didn't get to London?

What happened then? With the most cameras in London no CCTV of any of them are to be found, on the bus, on the various tube stations etc.

So why would one then be expected to believe a section of the story ie the CCTV at Luton is at Luton, not a photoshop job?

I forgot we have the non-existent plane that hit the Pentagon as a start...