You aren't mistaking her head scarf for legs? I don't recall an aerial shot that showed her clearly.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
You aren't mistaking her head scarf for legs? I don't recall an aerial shot that showed her clearly.
I don't think they care all too much who they target but I imagine the result of targeting uniforms increases the resistance from public services increasing their ability to shout about persecution.
Can't Muslim women wear shorts? I don't remember seeing anything stated about the Windows but the live video it was pretty obliterated.
I think she needs to get her ears looked at if that's the case
.They showed a picture of her in a Hijab (photoshopped) and in an unveiled Burka. Not very modest to wear shorts now is it? They can't even get muslims right. It's like Charlie Hebdo when they showed "the muslim terrorist" raising his left hand to Allah, which is a sin and after he said "I have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" he forgot to say Peace Be upon Him which is what you have to do, you are conditioned to say it. But the terrorists always make their intentions clear and there are people around to film it or "relay" that information. They also go on twitter and ask other people how and where to bomb......
DHS admitted they did a drill several months before hand with backpack bombers. Guess it was coincidence that Craft security were in Boston again with backpacks (there's pictures) They aren't even hiding it lol
Last edited:
Wouldn't base too much on that image - she is in a completely different position to when they first opened the vehicle with a lot of stuff pulled out around her given the potential threat of explosives and how gingerly they approached the vehicle there could be a lot of explanations i.e. even using a robot to remove clothing to make sure there wasn't a bomb vest, etc. hidden underneath as just one example.
you think it may just be possible that they pulled her hijab thing up to see if she had any explosives strapped to her or check for any other weapons on her body.
And where's the blood between the first and 2nd position? What about the 3rd suspect that witnesses and reporters talked about? That's ok, the media went into the house to show the public all the muslim stuff including the shredded paper which should be evidence....
So she wore a Hijab/Burka and assault gear? Their lawyer said she only weighed 90 pounds and he's confused how someone like her could pull it off. Eye-witness on CBS said it was 3 men dressed in all black military attire and another said there was a drill going on.
i have seen pictures of dead bodies in the Bataclan.
. Despite the depiction in movies gunshot wounds don't necessarily entail significant loss of blood externally (depends on where and how they hit and other factors) - same as often bullets will go through panes of glass leaving holes but not shattering the whole pane as people expect.
Eye witnesses in those kind of scenarios are notoriously unreliable. I don't buy the other bit - I used to play airsoft a fair bit where often the weapons and equipment are ball park similar weight to an AR-15 (2-3kg) and there would be kids running around in full gear without any problems.
Last edited:
im just looking at the pic from the link you posted, it looks like a hijab pulled up exposing shorts and back of a bra.
lets not pretend witnesses do not make mistakes..ufo sightings ?
I've seen them too, well one. Link me the ones you've seen. Cos the one I've seen has drag marks in blood but no hand prints, little blood on steps even though that is where they were supposedly dragging them, people in black robes standing in the background on the mezzanine. No blood on the actual bodies but conveniently placed around the smears. No cups or bottles of alcohol? Thought it was a rock concert. Also this pic is a complete photoshop https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ad188165774exclusive-minimu.jpg. They even used a stipple filter to hide the cut lines lol, download it and look at the properties, date taken etc.
So was she wearing assault gear on top or under the Hijab? Okay if you say so about the witnesses, discount the witness cos they might be crazy and they don't fit the script.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,584
- Location
- ST4
Please tell me that nobody is taking this **** seriously.
Metadata is proof of nothing - I usually strip most of it from mine as a matter of course even when not making significant edits and/or random data gets inserted by software inbetween i.e. in this case advertising and copyright licensing data has been inserted into the image.
The stippling effect granted is a bit strange as it doesn't follow the patterns normal of a CCD type sensor struggling with low light conditions but that isn't evidence of anything on its own any editing could just be for instance from putting together a wide angle shot like that using multiple frames.
I'll entertain it but sadly most of these conspiracy theories don't even make it past 2 minutes of simple googling.
Last edited:
im guessing ontop which would make her look more flat chested and maybe thats why she got mistaken for a guy.
there is a black something to the left of her which looks like a vest. maybe they removed it when searching her. Does it even matter ?
you have one witness saying 3 guys were shooting the place up.
one witness saying it was a drill.
and you have an actual picture showing a women with black clothing (probably hijab) pulled up exposing shorts lay dead on the floor yet you discount the picture and go 50/50 with with the first 2.
if anything it should tell you eye witnesses arent reliable.
Do you change the date when you strip out metadata?
So a 90 pound woman with a hijab on can be mistaken for a man? Also what the heck is that giant pool of blood next to the man? How did that get there? Cos the ariel shot doesn't show it. My guess is they were patsys or those are cadavers or dummies. Not the first time lol
Last edited:
You've cracked it. The whole thing is clearly all made up.
My point being without chain of custody - you have no idea if or why that data might have been changed - its not unusual for images to be formatted for use online without any real editing and its not unusual for software to change metadata which potentially could include adjustment of dates i.e. a beta version of one image editing package I've used would always write out exported images with hardcoded default metadata until later revisions of the program.