About the one cctv image being doctored. its an extremely low quality jpeg image so there is going to be some bleeding. Try saving a picture with fine lines in jpeg quality 1 or 2 and your see same effects

This also negates all the other evidence such as plenty of other images and the terrorists videos saying they were going to do it the day before (ie. a confession)

Re: the disputation about the cctv image of the alleged 7/7 bombers, Paulo's alternative explanation can be easily taken apart by the other far better video short provided by the same person who produced the video short on U-Tube pasted above, at:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVDi5Qe11Gc&feature=channel

If it was 'so easy' then i think they it would of have easily disputed it. But they havn't, so it isn't. A disputed image is one image. It doesn't explain why some of the terrorists recorded videos of themselves the day before (6/7) saying they were going to do it. Or explain all ther other CCTV images.

And you can't tell anything from a YouTube video because of two reasons. I've used photoshop for over 15 years so its pretty obvious what the guy is doing wrong.
1) Main reason: he's scaled up with the default bicubic setting on so everything is being smoothed out.
2) Compounding the issue for you: YouTube compression is rubbish so thats smoothing it out even more.

This is a blowup taken from the 800x600 on the metpolice site. By the way 67Kb is massive compression for an image of that size, so weird things will happen.

You can see a lot clearer what is actually happened with the coat/trousers. I've scaled up with no blending at all - just nearest neighbour which Mr. YouTube hasn't done, so hes actually manipulating the image without even realising it. You scale something up in default settings then photoshop will blend things to try smooth it out resulting in a change to the image.

Turn the blending off (ie. scale nearest neighbour instead)... you can see the jpeg level is so low that everything is being rendered as quads, making things look square angled. Any curves of high constract are lost so of course things look weird close up. Its just in YouTube videos that it is all smoothed again + he's scaled up using the default Bicubic setting so the jpeg compression quads can't be seen. The same effect can be seen around the bag that he points out. Poor rendering due to low quality.

basically, try it yourself without resorting to the lazy route of looking at a youtube video. The guy is talking sh*te

Paulo, the fact that you chose to write your disputation at 2.45 in the morning (2 hrs after my last comment) speaks volumes of your impatience to counteract the above info.

Yes there has been SOME other cctv footage of the 4 alleged bombers released into the public domain (however no images have been circulated of them in central London, probably because of the ongoing trial against three men accused of acting as a reconnaissance team for the 7/7 London bombers, apart from only two images of Hasib Hussain in Central London, one outside a Boots Chemists in Kings Cross which had no time and date code on it; CCTV data code is also missing from the Luton CCTV image).

You dispute that it can’t be proved that the cctv image was fabricated (because you say this analysis was done through scaling up default bicubic settings so everything appears unfocused, and that the 67Kb compression of the 800x600 image from the metpolice site is massive compression – which is correct). However, you go on to only refer to the analysis of the disputed appearance of Jermain Lindsey’s left leg. Your disputation cannot refute the even more dodgy appearance of Hasib Hussain's reflection in the same freeze frame as he allegedly walks towards the station entrance. As Flashmp indicates in the 2nd Utube link above, the reflection clearly defies the law of physics, as the reflection appears as if the image of Hasib Hussain has been copy and pasted onto the glass behind him! A true reflection, as Flashmp explains, should be a direct mirror image of the man from behind with the right leg appearing in front of the left leg; unfortunately, the opposite is true in his supposed reflection!!!!

Then of course there is the anomoly in the CCTV image which shows the pole in the barrier bleeding into face of Mohammad Sidique Khan which cannot be explained by what you, Paulo, put down to anomolies in viewing an image which has been scaled up from a compressed image.

Shehzad Tanweer is seen wearing WHITE sports trousers, a white Puma T-shirt, and a black jacket, whilst filling the car with fuel, allegedly at 04:50AM on 7/7/2005, according to the BBC, at a motorway services on the M1 motorway.

In the notorious single still frame official picture outside Luton Station shown in the Utube video stills, Shehzad Tanweer is wearing BLACK sports trousers, a white Puma T-shirt, and a black jacket, but in the car-park, less than one minute and fifty-three seconds earlier, still wearing WHITE sports trousers and a black jacket, and putting on a backpack. So; giving the BBC the benefit of the doubt again; in the absolute maximum time of 1 minute and 53 seconds, Shehzad Tanweer has, whilst walking from the car-park to the Luton Station entrance, carrying a large heavy back-pack, miraculously managed to change his trousers, in a public place, whilst walking at the same time, without falling over and hurting himself, whilst allegedly carrying very unstable explosives.

Re: the Video message by Mohammad Sidique Khan, there is much disputation as to the authenticity of this video. In it, Khan's lips appear to be out of sync at times. The video glitches at the start but the audio doesn't. As we are told the footage has obviously been edited. Do keep in mind how easy it is to completely fake video and audio, such as through virtual reality digital voice morphing developed by a team led by George Papcun (Google him) at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. Video Research at MIT Puts Words into Mouths, with Startling Results. The MIT team has combined artificial intelligence and videography to make words and song - even in foreign languages - emerge from the lips of people who could never possibly have uttered them. Once the computer has learned how the person shapes their mouth around individual sound segments - called "phonemes" - it can digitally morph the shape of the subject's mouth around any audio sequence the creator wants to put words in a subject's mouth within minutes. It's the "teaching" of the computer that makes this method different from most existing facial animation technology. The recorded results? A woman made to sing in Japanese, and Marilyn Monroe lip-synching a song that didn't become famous until decades after her death. Ezzat has also been working on a video of Ted Koppel, ABC's "Nightline" anchor, speaking in Spanish. There are serious concerns that videotape could be doctored for unethical purposes : to fabricate evidence and literally put words in someone's mouth.
See:  http://cbcl.mit.edu/cbcl/news/files/assoc-press-article.pdf

See Also: Friends claim Khan's statement was faked, by Sandra Laville
The Guardian, Saturday 3 September 2005
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/03/july7.uksecurity


More Info on 7/7:  http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=9&topicdays=0&start=0

&
 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-london-77-how-to-be-good-faq.html

....George Papcun, has never been a fan of conspiracy theorists hijacking his innovation in voice morphing technology and making claims about it which he himself does not endorse.

 http://911guide.googlepages.com/voicemorphing

I am afraid whole whole faked CCTV images argument still seems ludicrous to me, and no one has ever provided any credible evidence to support the assertion that the 'confession' videos have been 'faked'

"Another skeptic', how do you explain the anomoly of Hasib's Hussein's reflection in the glass behind him then? How do you expalin how Shehzad Tanweer was wearing different clothing less than 2 minutes before he was caught on this cctv image still?

How easily we are all duped, but then if you treat people like cattle, guess what? - they act like cattle! ...including you it seems!

saying Another skeptic "hasn't bothered to read" is a bit of a low blow. He's probably read it but hasn't gone to the length of disputing EVERY SINGLE THING in this post. So its a bit easy for you to pick out something he hasn't mentioned

People can't write about everything single thing in their posts. They can just make comments on a few specific things. So stop picking out an argument because someone hasn't mentioned it and saying "well it must be true because they havnt mentioned it"

Thats like creationists picking holes in evolution and saying: "Therefore God did it"

Anyway, this reflection.... I can't honestly see what they are talking about. I've looked at the picture and really can't see it. The rest of it all looks like poor compression in the image to me. Definitely so with the bus stop waving edge and the railing in the face. The youtube video says one of the picture was taken from a different angle when it clearly isn't. The parallax is exactly the same in both photos in every single area of the photo. Its just been cropped. To make such a statement, the narrator is clearly showing he doesn't know what he is talking about so I really can't take anything he has said seriously.

The white trousers. I don't know anything about that. I'll look it up. But that doesn't mean everything about the photo is true. It just means he was wearing a different pair of trousers. Stranger things have happened.

Paulo you neeed to take time to watch the utube video analysing the Luton CCTV still again (the 2nd Utube link above). What you describe as minor aberrations due to technical issues are infact MAJOR anomolies of visual information in this still.


The 2 main anomolies I drew most attention to were:
1). "As Flashmp indicates in the 2nd Utube link above, the reflection clearly defies the law of physics, as the reflection appears as if the image of Hasib Hussain has been copy and pasted onto the glass behind him! A true reflection, as Flashmp explains, should be a direct mirror image of the man from behind with the right leg appearing in front of the left leg; unfortunately, the opposite is true in his supposed reflection!!!!" That would definately indicate some use of image manipulation; it simply cannot be explained by 'techinal aberration of visual imaging alone'.

2). The anomoly in the CCTV image which shows the pole in the barrier bleeding into face of Mohammad Sidique Khan which cannot be explained by what you, Paulo, put down to anomolies in viewing an image which has been scaled up from a compressed image. Again, this definately indicate some use of image manipulation; it simply cannot be explained by 'techinal aberration of visual imaging alone'.

The further anomoly that can be observed from the whole array of information was in comparing CCTV footage of Shehzad Tanweer at a petrol service station on the M1 at 4.50am on the morning of 7/7 and outside Luton station, showing how Shehzad Tanweer is wearing BLACK sports trousers in the CCTV still outside Luton Station when he was infact wearing WHITE trousers at the petrol garage earlier in the morning. Having looked at the cctv footage again, it cannot be verified, on reflection, that Shehzad was wearing the white trousers only 1minute and 53 seconds before he arrived outside the station entrance on foot with his 3 colleagues, AFTER he'dd already left the car with his rucksack on his back walking from the car park to the station entrance.

CCTV of alleged London bombers here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7378368.stm

The Met Police's archived footage appears to have been tampered with, included within it cctv footage on them on their alleged dummy run on 28th June 2005 (where it shows them walking through the ticket barrier in Luton station):
 http://files.100777.com/77/

Perhaps the most impossible feature of the July 7th Luton image is that Germaine Lindsay can be seen holding the same Tesco’s white plastic bag with the same hand in cctv footage at the same station (Luton) when they alleged instigated left off for their dummy ron on 28th June 2005. See here:  http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2913
The baseball hats and t-shirts are also recognisably similar. It has also been noted that enlarging the date ‘07/07/05’ in the Luton image shows that it looks somewhat fudged and hand-written, in contrast with the clearly printed-out date ‘28/06/05’: www.medienanalyse-international.de/bilderschwund.html

If you can prove it conclusively then you should write it up.
It would standup on its own merit if it was undisputable.

we will, but the main basis of this write up is above

...Paulo. I did not realise when I clicked 'make a quick comment' I had to include a full rebuttal with footnotes and bibliography.

Yes, cattle, 'sheeple' - why is it people who claim to be in some way progressive always seem to view people who simply do not agree with them with such disdain.

Frankly, people are welcome to read whatever they like into a handful of low resolution CCTV images, the fact is these cannot be seen in isolation, but must be considered in the wider context of other converging evidence, such as the confession videos. I am sure you could perceive 'anomalies' in just about any CCTV image of anything, if you looked hard enough. You may think the evidence is conclusive, I disagree, as is my right.

The point I was trying to make originally was that the actual creator of the voice morphing technology cited above, disagrees with many of the far fetched claims made about his technology and the uses to which it can be put. He should know, he invented it!! I would certainly think his expertise on his own technology certainly exceeds that of any of the conspiracy theorists who have subsequently (mis) interpreted it.

The confession videos still stand as rather uncomfortable evidence to counter claims that the four July 7th bombers were not actually involved, and no credible evidence has been presented to say that they were faked. The Guardian article cited, which states that some people who knew Shehzad Tanweer have claimed the video was not him, also contains quotes from people who knew him who admit it clearly was him.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. You are welcome to your opinions. I simply disagree with you on the basis of the evidence currently put forward.

....I should have said Siddique Khan rather than Shehzad Tanweer. I am at work and cannot look at many of the links cited as they are blocked on my work PC, so have to go from memory, but the Guardian article as a I recall was about Siddique Khan

.....have you considered the rather banal explanation re: the 'reflection' which is cited to be one of the 'major anomalies', namely is that it is not a reflection at all, but merely an image of other people (ie. not the bombers) behind the glass!!! No big conspiracy, no pointlessly elaborate hoax to doctor some image yet do it badly enough so numerous internet obsessives pore over every pixel for years on end

There you go, not a reflection at all, therefore no need for it to be a mirror image of one of the bombers- with such a low quality image, who can really tell.

ICTS, you didn't do your job very well in Luton, did you? Not like the PR arm of the whole operation

Ref: see following video at: 39:38
 http://www.livevideo.com/video/CTCC/A4C62936F0294BE4BD69B7E235E65B67/7-7-ripple-effect.aspx