Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
You are banned for abusive behavior and making non-valuable statements we've encountered and addressed countless times before.
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Gobbeldy gook. If your point is for us to check research, your first prerogative is to check your cohesiveness, your spelling and your sanity.Photographer Sim wrote:Nodiea what Im talkingabout et youve posted in a thread on the very topic of Raoul Moat lol Must try harder.
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 8&start=45
"It is real policewoman idiot" no qualify for reasoning fool.It is real policewoman idiot. As I said you have no proof it isnt.Just your warped opinion,don't you see? I say"moon is made of cheese" Ive got no proof but I insist it is so therefore it must be.But Beshenivsky yes! That photograph I posted was shown on TV, printed in every newspaper and it's all over the web and it's a total fake. Why? There are another one or two photos of her on the web also that are photoshop creations. Why don't they have a real photograph of the real policewoman?
It is a digital image, compressed with software, and downloaded to our individual computers via a worldwide network of interconnected devices collectively referred to as "The Internet" (or The Internets, perhaps if that doesn't ring a bell?)If it's not a person what is "it"?
"It" is not a person.
The television is a mixture of complete fabrications and slight half-truths warped by a technological delivery system. It is an art form, not reality. Is art meant to be "believed" or is art meant to be observed and critiqued? We generally say the latter on this forum.So you do not believe ANYTHING that is shown on TV then?
And many wouldn't be as generous to qualify it as "art" at all, but instead would (quite justifiably) identify television as a weapon designed to affect its victims' minds. You are clearly a victim of said weapon, and your brain no longer functions.
Are you referring to the error catching software? This is not an ordinary "photoshop filter" which changes the data in the picture to some purely aesthetic alteration. It is a digital forensics tool.Why dont you? Im not the one saying she's not real. Even if such a thing happened you would put a photoshop filter on them cry fake.
Encountering someone involved in the media hoaxes has been achieved before; and it seems we are not the first people in known recorded history to ever actually challenge the facts on this level. It is not expected of any of us, but it would be amazing if it could be done with the kind of investigation it would require. You don't seem capable of doing much more than screaming in text.
Our actual encounters with the actors and propagandists have shown us that they are afraid of investigations actually happening. So if you really care about this investigation, and you want to do something about it (you could even prove to yourself that the picture is of a real live person! Doesn't that sound like fun?) - do something about it. Why are you here?
Correction: you've been logging in sporadically, attacking our skepticism with a zealous adhesion to your religious belief in fictions presented on television, and insulting those who don't believe you with simpleton logic.Hell Ive been here a few days and shot your conspiracies to pieces with simple logic.
Stop posting ... pretty much anywhere, on any forum or anywhere on the Internet.Stop wrigggling like a worm
This ... this just doesn't even make sense. You've lost it. (If you've ever even had it?) Good bye, and I am greatly pleased to add, 'good riddance.'if it's just your insane theory say so and stop trying to pass it off as fact.
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
For the record Sim, I was replying to an unrelated comment in the thread! http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2366127 - that's why it didn't ring a bell. It's quite possible I didnt know what thread it was in, most likely got there from "recent posts icon" on the front page. But I see why you lost it - I posted about your favourite sim cop.
If you examine the photo on the front page of the Scum you can clearly see the pencil lines which I was talking about!
And we dont need drunken louts here!
If you examine the photo on the front page of the Scum you can clearly see the pencil lines which I was talking about!
And we dont need drunken louts here!
Ultimate motive for Dale Cregan British government PSYOP?
I think I may have worked out the underlying intention beyond this particular hoax.
The local Labour MP for Hyde (Manchester), Jonathan Reynolds, states on Twitter that he finds cluesforum research to be crazy, describing it as potentially 'subjudice.' See below:
Could it be that the government will use 'subjudice' as a ruse to stop researchers exposing their lies?
Thank God for web proxies. Anyway, Reynolds' comment reminded me of earlier news reports, like this article from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/guardian- ... ale-cregan
An order was made in Manchester crown court this morning preventing reporting of any proceedings in the Dale Cregan case until after the conclusion of the trial; it excludes the trial from its scope which means that, unless further restrictions are imposed, once the jury is sworn in it will be business as usual as far as court reporting of the case is concerned. Nevertheless, the decision is worth more than a second glance.
When a criminal case begins legal limitations on public discussion kick in automatically: reports of preparatory hearings are limited to basic facts such as the name of the accused and the offences; pre-trial hearings cannot be reported until the conclusion of the trial; and anything likely to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings is prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 from the point of arrest.
His Honour Judge Gilbart QC imposed additional reporting restrictions in Cregan's case on the ground of "very real risk of prejudice". He was not concerned, he said, about the "very proper expressions of loss" from the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, but about other information including "press conference answers" and "accounts", which have been "widely disseminated on the internet, in broadcasts, and in newspapers." Talking about the "extensive material" published, which may be relevant to cases against other defendants, the judge said: "the time has come for that flow of material and comment to cease."
The local Labour MP for Hyde (Manchester), Jonathan Reynolds, states on Twitter that he finds cluesforum research to be crazy, describing it as potentially 'subjudice.' See below:
Could it be that the government will use 'subjudice' as a ruse to stop researchers exposing their lies?
Thank God for web proxies. Anyway, Reynolds' comment reminded me of earlier news reports, like this article from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/guardian- ... ale-cregan
An order was made in Manchester crown court this morning preventing reporting of any proceedings in the Dale Cregan case until after the conclusion of the trial; it excludes the trial from its scope which means that, unless further restrictions are imposed, once the jury is sworn in it will be business as usual as far as court reporting of the case is concerned. Nevertheless, the decision is worth more than a second glance.
When a criminal case begins legal limitations on public discussion kick in automatically: reports of preparatory hearings are limited to basic facts such as the name of the accused and the offences; pre-trial hearings cannot be reported until the conclusion of the trial; and anything likely to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings is prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 from the point of arrest.
His Honour Judge Gilbart QC imposed additional reporting restrictions in Cregan's case on the ground of "very real risk of prejudice". He was not concerned, he said, about the "very proper expressions of loss" from the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, but about other information including "press conference answers" and "accounts", which have been "widely disseminated on the internet, in broadcasts, and in newspapers." Talking about the "extensive material" published, which may be relevant to cases against other defendants, the judge said: "the time has come for that flow of material and comment to cease."
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
If the video were real, it would not have been disseminated for public viewing before the accused's court hearing!
Any potential jury would have been poisoned.
Is the same "video evidence" acceptable in a court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_evidence
Any potential jury would have been poisoned.
Is the same "video evidence" acceptable in a court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_evidence
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
I'll get me coat!brianv wrote:And we dont need drunken louts here!
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Hi Euphoria, are you MarcoBuchel77 ?
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Remember, Alfie, that perps are most likely sifting through this site as we speak.Alfie wrote:Hi Euphoria, are you MarcoBuchel77 ?
MarcoBuchel77 is a close friend who I've been co-operating with on this case!
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Not the skier guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_B%C3%BCchel ?Euphoria wrote:Remember, Alfie, that perps are most likely sifting through this site as we speak.Alfie wrote:Hi Euphoria, are you MarcoBuchel77 ?
MarcoBuchel77 is a close friend who I've been co-operating with on this case!
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
so what is the link to ukcolumn?Euphoria wrote:Remember, Alfie, that perps are most likely sifting through this site as we speak.Alfie wrote:Hi Euphoria, are you MarcoBuchel77 ?
MarcoBuchel77 is a close friend who I've been co-operating with on this case!
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
No, it's somebody right here in the south of England who's been helping me out. No relation to the skier. You need decent proxy know-how when confronting these nutters, especially in the UK when opting for Twitter as your medium of choice - otherwise you could one day end up being dragged off in the early hours never to be seen again.brianv wrote:Not the skier guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_B%C3%BCchel ?Euphoria wrote:Remember, Alfie, that perps are most likely sifting through this site as we speak.Alfie wrote:Hi Euphoria, are you MarcoBuchel77 ?
MarcoBuchel77 is a close friend who I've been co-operating with on this case!
I wouldn't recommend anybody else to do it, unless you have serious protections in place. The Twitter exchanges I've shown are really to give people a taste of how the 'perps' react when confronted on their lies - aggressive and accusatory.
UKColumn is being kept in the loop as to our discussions on media fakery here. I'm not saying they are perfect or on the right track with everything - but spreading the word has to be a good thing. More people need to know we're here, and what we are doing.Alfie wrote:so what is the link to ukcolumn?
Last edited by Euphoria on Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Oh, that is one of the most perfect dismissals I've ever read. I laughed so hard I cried! Hoi, you remain the only person here who makes me laugh with approval at your wording. You made my day better.hoi.polloi wrote:Stop posting ... pretty much anywhere, on any forum or anywhere on the Internet.Stop wrigggling like a worm
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Private message inbox for Alfie;
MarcoBuchel77
Sent: September 29th, 2012, 7:38 pm
From: Euphoria
To: Alfie
Am I Marco? I don't want to say it on the forum unless I'm being monitored.
Somebody has to confront these idiots. I'm not encouraging other people to follow that approach. But I think steps should always be taken to hide one's tracks, as it makes their job easier in identifying people.
So if I am Marco, I can't expressly say it on the forum (I think you know where I am coming from).
I am displaying the Twitter exchanges to give an example of how these people react when cornered. Aggressive and accusatory, to say the least.
Sorry Euphoria but I'm too old to hide things, everything needs to be open, thanks for the private message but ...
MarcoBuchel77
Sent: September 29th, 2012, 7:38 pm
From: Euphoria
To: Alfie
Am I Marco? I don't want to say it on the forum unless I'm being monitored.
Somebody has to confront these idiots. I'm not encouraging other people to follow that approach. But I think steps should always be taken to hide one's tracks, as it makes their job easier in identifying people.
So if I am Marco, I can't expressly say it on the forum (I think you know where I am coming from).
I am displaying the Twitter exchanges to give an example of how these people react when cornered. Aggressive and accusatory, to say the least.
Sorry Euphoria but I'm too old to hide things, everything needs to be open, thanks for the private message but ...
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
Why that wasn't very gentlemanly of you now was it, Alfie?Alfie wrote:Private message inbox for Alfie;
Re: Dale Cregan 09/18/2011
So if I am Marco, I can't expressly say it on the forum (I think you know where I am coming from).
Euphoria - You are my favourite troll of all time!
Yes it was, it would be ungentlemanly to have not brought to attention the manner of ill that was repent upon secrecy !Libero wrote:Why that wasn't very gentlemanly of you now was it, Alfie?Alfie wrote:Private message inbox for Alfie;