Vortex, your statement was,
If none were sent this time to the gulf with the QLR the fact the pictures clearly show the floor of an old Bedford 4-tonner invalidates any claim to have been taken in theatre. Fakes, too much just doesn't add up.
I would like to take the part of ;
'the pictures clearly show the floor of an old Bedford 4-tonner invalidates any claim to have been taken in theatre. Fakes, too much just doesn't add up'
Well, the picture was (could have been) taken in theatre... does that add up for you?
Its a pic from the 14sigs site to show Bedfords were/are in theatre
Besides my point is this;
I reckon they are trophy photographs, set up for a good story in the NAAFI back home, and it's all gone horribly wrong.Not necessarily QLR
I also would like to point out that the reasons the
experts are giving proving them to be fake pictures are not valid reasons as I have mentioned previously. IMHO
Let me do the adding up for you, from your link;
1. Claim: Sources close to the Queen's Lancashire regiment believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq. The rifle would have had a carrying sling attached. Some experts have said they believe it's a replica.
"believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1" And these are experts!
I and others have in the past, been told to remove slings in order for weapons to be carried at the alert without the temptation to relax alertness state of weapon. Perhaps there was another reason the sling wasn't on. The fact this one hasn't doesn't make it a fake photo. A sling is an accessory to the weapon and can be removed for any reason.
2. Claim: The condition of the weapon is "pristine", whereas it would be scuffed and dirty if it had seen action. It also has no cover over the barrel and no identification number on the butt.
"Pristine condition" Look at the photo on page 5 of todays Daily Express of 'a soldier on duty in Basra'. His weapon appears to be in pristine condition.
Barrel covers are again accessories, and heaven forbid this 'soldier' may have lost his!
Butt numbers on SA80s are mostly on the top cover as if on the handle or butt, they get worn off in use, especially in sandy conditions. Refer again to Dailt Express page 5 picture, no butt number visible.
3. Claim: The army doesn't use potato sacks as hoods, but dark room curtains. The hood was too clean and "ironed" for something that would have been crumpled up in someone's pockets.
Its a sandbag that the Army does use. They have been used as hoods, especially if the 'proper' ones aren't available.
Straight from the stores, they do look in an ironed state. Who said they had been in someones pockets?
4. Claim: "Why would the soldier be wearing webbing that is undone? Normally soldiers are very particular about that," said former commander Colonel Bob Stewart. Experts have also said it is unusual for the pouches not to be full.
Because he is a scruffy un-self disciplined individual. (REMF?) Empty before being filled maybe?
5. Claim: The stream of urine does not look authentic. Among the claims are that shadows have been added to the drops of urine, that the wet patch on the hood is fake, and that the droplets are coming from a bottle of water.
Its a still photo. At the correct shutter speed even waterfalls give this effect and will produce shadows. The water bottle thing is possible, even I wouldn't agree to be pi@@ed on for a trophy photo.
6. Claim: The wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq. Some have also said it is too clean.
As previous post. (REMFs?)
7. Claim: Col Stewart threw doubt on the captive's "slightly silky" football shirt, bearing an Iraqi flag. "Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing?" he said. Other analysts have said the shirt would be out of place in the Shia area of Basra.
The type of material tends to stay clean until the wet/muddy stage as mentioned before. Maybe a souvenir shirt fron the NAAFI? Dressing the prisoner to identify him as Iraqi
8. Claim: Soldiers tie laces in a parallel, rather than criss-cross, fashion.
As the article itself says, "soldiers tie laces the way they are most comfortable with". Never known it to be regulation as previously given for reason, apart from when on drill parade.
9. Claim: Soldiers operating in this area wouldn't tuck their trousers into their boots, but would leave them outside with an elasticated bottom to stop sand getting in.
Combat 95 trousers have ties around the bottoms of the legs. MANY soldiers use that method rather that elastics, which by the way, get lost or perish in the conditions.
10. Claim: The shirt would be sweaty, dirty and dishevelled after alleged beatings. There are no bruises or marks on the captured man.
As previous shirt point. Possibly taken at the start of it all, hence the damage hasn't been done yet.
11. Claim: Regiment sources say soldiers wear berets or hard hats, not floppy hats.
Soldiers who have these hats tend to wear them in preference to normal issue hats. I'm sure there's a lot out there! When not actually out on duty/patrol this would be allowed to happen as they offer better protection from sun stroke/sunburn than helmet or beret.
12. Claim: The captive's posture does not suggest he is being tortured. The body would be curled up, legs pulled into the foetal position. "It is not the posture of someone who has suffered pain," said Col Stewart.
Taken at start of 'proceedings' If he's hooded he won't be able to see whats about to happen and therefore won't be able to react. Also hands tied behind back.
13. Claim: Divisional markings should have been visible under the flag on the soldier's left sleeve.
Unit marking right sleeve, union flag on left I believe is the norm. However if you look at any selection of soldiers this differs. The right arm is not shown properly especially where badges should be. I refer you back to todays Daily Express, no badges despite areas where they should be being clearly visible. There's also a badge shortage. In theatres of Ops unit identification is normally a no no. "Only give your No, Rank, Name, DoB", seems to ring a bell. So to wear the badges and then not be able to say which unit you are doesn't make sense.
14. Claim: Experts have questioned the sharp quality of the photos - former Guardian picture editor Eamonn McCabe compares them with the fuzzy, badly composed pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, published last week. The Mirror's pictures are "all too clinical" to be trusted, he said.
A good quality digital camera as opposed to a click and go. Look at, for example, the difference in different peoples photos of the same event/party/mess do/wedding ETc. Point made.
I'm sorry to have to repeat myself in greater depth, but I think this makes it clearer.
So Vortex, does that add up enough for you?
I say again;
The arguments to substantiate that they are fakes don't stand up, IMHO.
I reckon they are trophy photographs, set up for a good story in the NAAFI back home, and it's all gone horribly wrong.
I believe man has set foot on the moon, however I can also prove that those photos are faked! HOWZAT!!