Thai army chief: Political gatherings banned during UN chief's visit

[nicknostitz]

Nick did I here Mr Plywood insinuate your skin wasn't thick enough? I reckon a foreign journalist trying to report the truth in Thailand needs Rhino Skin.

Keep up the great work! Only the truth will ever heal Thailand!!

and take care may be even invest in some bullet proof Skin.

One has to acquire thick skin here indeed - i wasn't born with it..

What helps me is that most of these accusations are completely baseless. Of course we journalists need to be transparent as well as much as we can, while still keeping the rules of protecting our sources. It is good when people question us, it makes us even more careful to do the job as good as we possibly can. Nevertheless - i was always of the opinion that we also have a right to defend us against the wild accusations. Therefore i would have liked Dan Rivers to file a libel case, when Dr. Jirmsak Phinthong accused him in his TV show on Channel 11 to have a sexual relationship with Jakrapob Penkair not long after the dispersal. This is so unbelievably out of order.

In this situation we have to be extra careful to stick to the rules, such as corroborating information, talking with all sides (if the are willing to talk with us). We have to be very careful not to be used by either side as tools of propaganda, which is a lot more difficult for spot news people as they just do not have the time to investigate because of the deadlines. I can sit on information, and wait it out until confirmation comes my way.

I very much defend BBC and CNN here - under the circumstances they have done a very good and important job. Don't forget that they have had much less airtime for their reports than Al-Jazzeera - it is very difficult, almost impossible to explain the complexities of this conflict in the little time they were given. The situation was so confusing on the ground that it was unbelievably difficult to give a good picture at the time. I started to get a proper picture only several months after the mess, when i was able to fill the gaping holes bit after bit. You will also not hear anyone from Al-Jazeera hear criticizing BBC or CNN over their reporting. We all know each other, and are in very friendly relations with each other. We always talk about our reporting, and question ourselves. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes at times.

The criticism leveled at them comes mostly from people that have seen nothing, have not seen what happened on the ground at the front lines, have not been behind the stage, talked with leaders and ordinary protesters, have not talked with soldiers involved in the fighting. It often is a question of luck - Al Jazeera captured on video the protester with a gun during the fighting at Vibhavadi at the end of April, and their reporting was called unbiased. It was pure luck that they managed this. Militants under the Red Shirts did not exactly parade their guns in front of us, naturally.

Accusers speculate that there is no proof on film that soldiers actually shot unarmed protesters. How can we do that? Stand in the middle of a hail of bullets behind protesters that are shot so we can capture the soldier that shot him, and get killed as well in the process? But sorry, when there is nobody between the positions of the soldiers and the protesters, and the direction of the bullets come from soldiers' positions (we have visited at times just before), then it was the soldiers, and nobody else. Often, some of us were at the protester's lines, and others at the same time at the soldier's positions. We have seen the protesters falling, while at the same time our colleagues have seen the soldiers firing.

The incident at Rajaparop Rd described in my article, i even had a direct encounter with the soldiers after they followed us into the compound we escaped into. But they ordered me in clear terms not to take their photo, and after they have spend 16 minutes shooting at protesters, killing and injuring some, shooting and injuring my colleague from The Nation just across the street from me (he wore the journalist's armband, his leg is now 3 cm shorter than the other, and he will always walk with a limp), and shooting at me while i was running away (i also wore my armband) - i hardly argue with a soldier with a Tavor in his hand, who just freaks out and screams at a mortally injured protester lying on the ground that he should better die. I just say yes, sir, and hope that i survive this shit.

Have our accusers here any idea how unbelievably terrifying it is being shot at, and seeing people just next to you being injured and killed? Going out day after day, knowing what expects us, hoping that we make no mistake that gets us killed? Seeing the fear in our family's eyes when we go to work?

And we are told by some people that have seen absolutely nothing that we were "biased" and whatever else nasty comes into their mind because our reporting doesn't confirm the preconceived notions of how they believe the lines of the conflict are? Ridiculous.

Edited October 31, 2010 by nicknostitz

[Insight]

Aw, diddums? Not much fun when a bully gets bullied, is it?

Bully!?!

So while you continue to hide behind the forum please advise one single post you have made which isn't attacking forum members or climbing up the arse of others?

[jayboy]

This forum is full of people who were here at the time. Many others have read his accounts and felt them biased, the same of which could be said for reports from a number of the other reporters present.

Any mainstream international reporters you care to name that weren't biased?

I think Anasuya Sanyal's reports for Channel News Asia were and continue to be less biased and more accurate than most.

I know her work and agree with you.However some of Anasuya's material would have had the usual suspects screaming about bias if Channel News Asia had a higher profile.She fully understood and spoke about the validity of the Red cause and the selfishness and corruption of the forces ranged against them.(actually so did Al Jazeera).I think much of the controversy about bias is at the micro level, i.e exactly what went on on the streets of Bangkok rather than the deep underlying issues.That is understandable.

My own view is that on the whole the BBC and CNN did a reasonable job notwithstanding the views of that silly cow who wrote the much circulated letter lambasting CNN and Dan Rivers which was so revealingly taken up by the myopic Bangkok middle class on Facebook.

[Insight]

Anyway, here's a Twitter comment from around the same time from a (pro-red) farang who I believe is a resident of the area Nick is describing.

Until this point I haven't heard of the army using lasers to spot people. I understand they shot somebody who aimed a laser at them around the Sala Daeng area, but this was after the events of April 10th when lasers were caught on video being used by the militant force to spot military targets.

[bulmercke]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

Not sure I get your point. The young man in the second photo I can't find in the first ? Also first time I see you write 'I' took these photo's.

Apart from that, I seldomly like to accuse someone of stating something which is probably not true.

More details and proof please

PS I remember our discussion on 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters', so please this time real proof

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

[bulmercke]

Nick did I here Mr Plywood insinuate your skin wasn't thick enough? I reckon a foreign journalist trying to report the truth in Thailand needs Rhino Skin.

Keep up the great work! Only the truth will ever heal Thailand!!

and take care may be even invest in some bullet proof Skin.

One has to acquire thick skin here indeed - i wasn't born with it..

What helps me is that most of these accusations are completely baseless. Of course we journalists need to be transparent as well as much as we can, while still keeping the rules of protecting our sources. It is good when people question us, it makes us even more careful to do the job as good as we possibly can. Nevertheless - i was always of the opinion that we also have a right to defend us against the wild accusations. Therefore i would have liked Dan Rivers to file a libel case, when Dr. Jirmsak Phinthong accused him in his TV show on Channel 11 to have a sexual relationship with Jakrapob Penkair not long after the dispersal. This is so unbelievably out of order.

In this situation we have to be extra careful to stick to the rules, such as corroborating information, talking with all sides (if the are willing to talk with us). We have to be very careful not to be used by either side as tools of propaganda, which is a lot more difficult for spot news people as they just do not have the time to investigate because of the deadlines. I can sit on information, and wait it out until confirmation comes my way.

I very much defend BBC and CNN here - under the circumstances they have done a very good and important job. Don't forget that they have had much less airtime for their reports than Al-Jazzeera - it is very difficult, almost impossible to explain the complexities of this conflict in the little time they were given. The situation was so confusing on the ground that it was unbelievably difficult to give a good picture at the time. I started to get a proper picture only several months after the mess, when i was able to fill the gaping holes bit after bit. You will also not hear anyone from Al-Jazeera hear criticizing BBC or CNN over their reporting. We all know each other, and are in very friendly relations with each other. We always talk about our reporting, and question ourselves. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes at times.

The criticism leveled at them comes mostly from people that have seen nothing, have not seen what happened on the ground at the front lines, have not been behind the stage, talked with leaders and ordinary protesters, have not talked with soldiers involved in the fighting. It often is a question of luck - Al Jazeera captured on video the protester with a gun during the fighting at Vibhavadi at the end of April, and their reporting was called unbiased. It was pure luck that they managed this. Militants under the Red Shirts did not exactly parade their guns in front of us, naturally.

Accusers speculate that there is no proof on film that soldiers actually shot unarmed protesters. How can we do that? Stand in the middle of a hail of bullets behind protesters that are shot so we can capture the soldier that shot him, and get killed as well in the process? But sorry, when there is nobody between the positions of the soldiers and the protesters, and the direction of the bullets come from soldiers' positions (we have visited at times just before), then it was the soldiers, and nobody else. Often, some of us were at the protester's lines, and others at the same time at the soldier's positions. We have seen the protesters falling, while at the same time our colleagues have seen the soldiers firing.

The incident at Rajaparop Rd described in my article, i even had a direct encounter with the soldiers after they followed us into the compound we escaped into. But they ordered me in clear terms not to take their photo, and after they have spend 16 minutes shooting at protesters, killing and injuring some, shooting and injuring my colleague from The Nation just across the street from me (he wore the journalist's armband, his leg is now 3 cm shorter than the other, and he will always walk with a limp), and shooting at me while i was running away (i also wore my armband) - i hardly argue with a soldier with a Tavor in his hand, who just freaks out and screams at a mortally injured protester lying on the ground that he should better die. I just say yes, sir, and hope that i survive this shit.

Have our accusers here any idea how unbelievably terrifying it is being shot at, and seeing people just next to you being injured and killed? Going out day after day, knowing what expects us, hoping that we make no mistake that gets us killed? Seeing the fear in our family's eyes when we go to work?

And we are told by some people that have seen absolutely nothing that we were "biased" and whatever else nasty comes into their mind because our reporting doesn't confirm the preconceived notions of how they believe the lines of the conflict are? Ridiculous.

My sentiments exactly. Well said.

[AleG]

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

Since you where there and then you may be able to explain something that's been puzzling me for some time.

What on Earth were those people doing milling around a "Live fire zone"?

There was anarchy downtown, police was useless, grenade attacks every day and everywhere, so the army had to be called in to put a stop to all that silliness. One of the things they did was declare some "No man's land" at some points to keep people and material to get into the protest area and contain the situation. Quite an extreme decision I won't deny it, but within the power vested to them under the emergency decree. That is to say, they were within the law say, "if you walk into a live fire area you will get shot".

I remember walking around in Singapore, up to Canning Hill (I think that's the name), there is some military installation there with a fence around, every now and then there's a sing that says "Trespassers will be shot", now if reading that I would have decided to climb up the fence, and by golly, I get shot dead it would had been my own darn fault, I think we'd agree.

So... again, army says, "here this area, get in there and you get shot, OK?", then some people go and get in there... and get shot. Unless they had suicidal tendencies what reason would people have to sneak into those live fire areas?

I don't get it, what were those people in the photograph doing there? why did they walk into the live fire areas, what were they trying to accomplish? I'm asking honestly because I have no idea.

[bulmercke]

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

Since you where there and then you may be able to explain something that's been puzzling me for some time.

What on Earth were those people doing milling around a "Live fire zone"?

There was anarchy downtown, police was useless, grenade attacks every day and everywhere, so the army had to be called in to put a stop to all that silliness. One of the things they did was declare some "No man's land" at some points to keep people and material to get into the protest area and contain the situation. Quite an extreme decision I won't deny it, but within the power vested to them under the emergency decree. That is to say, they were within the law say, "if you walk into a live fire area you will get shot".

I remember walking around in Singapore, up to Canning Hill (I think that's the name), there is some military installation there with a fence around, every now and then there's a sing that says "Trespassers will be shot", now if reading that I would have decided to climb up the fence, and by golly, I get shot dead it would had been my own darn fault, I think we'd agree.

So... again, army says, "here this area, get in there and you get shot, OK?", then some people go and get in there... and get shot. Unless they had suicidal tendencies what reason would people have to sneak into those live fire areas?

I don't get it, what were those people in the photograph doing there? why did they walk into the live fire areas, what were they trying to accomplish? I'm asking honestly because I have no idea.

Good question AleG. Firstly the Din Daeng area is predominately a Red-Shirt neighbourhood. The people shown in the first picture are press - local and international and also curious local -and non-local residents. Ratchaprarop Road which was the live fire zone cut through their nighbourhood which accounted for people lining both sides of the road particularly at the mouths of the adjoining sois. It was madness to venture any where into the road or even a foot or so away from the relative safety of the mouths of the sois.

Also because - in effect - everyone was pinned down - for safety reasons - by the snipers further up the road it was difficult to see what was going on there. Before I took the second picture I saw two others carried away from Ratchaprarop Road and put into waiting ambulances stationed there.

But despite this the press continued to move up the road towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and the gas station and Soi Rangnam. This was very dangerous. And this is where - I think - Nick Nostitz got caught up in the events that occurred later in the afternoon.

The only people absolutely exposing themselves to snipers were Red-Shirts in the vicinity of the gas station and behind the odd hastily erected barricade on the road which offered very little protection to sniper fire.

By my reckoning - at least a dozen Red-Shirts were hit by sniper fire in this area that day.

[rixalex]

Good question AleG. Firstly the Din Daeng area is predominately a Red-Shirt neighbourhood. The people shown in the first picture are press - local and international and also curious local -and non-local residents. Ratchaprarop Road which was the live fire zone cut through their nighbourhood which accounted for people lining both sides of the road particularly at the mouths of the adjoining sois. It was madness to venture any where into the road or even a foot or so away from the relative safety of the mouths of the sois.

Also because - in effect - everyone was pinned down - for safety reasons - by the snipers further up the road it was difficult to see what was going on there. Before I took the second picture I saw two others carried away from Ratchaprarop Road and put into waiting ambulances stationed there.

But despite this the press continued to move up the road towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and the gas station and Soi Rangnam. This was very dangerous. And this is where - I think - Nick Nostitz got caught up in the events that occurred later in the afternoon.

The only people absolutely exposing themselves to snipers were Red-Shirts in the vicinity of the gas station and behind the odd hastily erected barricade on the road which offered very little protection to sniper fire.

By my reckoning - at least a dozen Red-Shirts were hit by sniper fire in this area that day.

Yes, it was a good question. Your answer failed for me to address it. I, like AlexG, still don't know what people were doing in an area that everyone knew to be highly dangerous.

The only part of your reply that came close to an answer was the part about people living in that area. But then if it is your life at stake, wouldn't you consider finding somewhere else to live for that period, even if it means sleeping rough? I mean, a home isn't of much use to a dead man, is it.

[bulmercke]

Well - the press had to be there if they wanted to report accurately and get the pictures and video. As for the rest - I guess - curiosity and a disregard for their own personal safety got the better of them. Can't say any more than that.

[rixalex]

Well - the press had to be there if they wanted to report accurately and get the pictures and video. As for the rest - I guess - curiosity and a disregard for their own personal safety got the better of them. Can't say any more than that.

What more you could say is that people who willingly enter an area after the authorities have pleaded over a number of weeks for people, and after they have been told that it is a danger for them to stay, shouldn't be too shocked or surprised when they get hurt.

[jdinasia]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

Not sure I get your point. The young man in the second photo I can't find in the first ? Also first time I see you write 'I' took these photo's.

Apart from that, I seldomly like to accuse someone of stating something which is probably not true.

More details and proof please

PS I remember our discussion on 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters', so please this time real proof

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

The blood around the guy that was shot does not seem to be indicative of having been carried from one place and set down in another (specifically the blood above and to the left.) The coloration and thickness of the main section of blood seems to belie the claim of "a few moments".

"satisfied?" no

[rubl]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

Not sure I get your point. The young man in the second photo I can't find in the first ? Also first time I see you write 'I' took these photo's.

Apart from that, I seldomly like to accuse someone of stating something which is probably not true.

More details and proof please

PS I remember our discussion on 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters', so please this time real proof

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

I accept your explanation of the photo's.

Live Fire Zone setup when army trying to complete the encirclement of the main protest area was attacked by red-shirts and supporters who had left that area. Caught in the middle, having stones, molotov cocktails and maybe fireworks thrown at them, maybe the odd shot, the army could do two things: withdraw once more or continue with harsher measures. Withdrawal was no real option, the protest had lasted too long already and getting more and more violent. So 'live fire zone', clearly announced, broadcasted, 'stay away'. Any protesters moving burning tires, being close to a petrol station, hiding behind barricades erected I would call perfectly valid targets. The army should shoot to disable, rather than to kill, but in 'warlike' situations killing even by accident is unavoidable.

Anyway having accepted these photo's I still wonder what your point is?

Edited October 31, 2010 by rubl

[Buchholz]

Political gatherings banned during UN chief's visit

and now that the UN chief has long left Thailand... and gatherings are allowed...

and more than enough of the requisite flames have been thrown...

[FreedomDude]

Anyway, here's a Twitter comment from around the same time from a (pro-red) farang who I believe is a resident of the area Nick is describing.

Until this point I haven't heard of the army using lasers to spot people. I understand they shot somebody who aimed a laser at them around the Sala Daeng area, but this was after the events of April 10th when lasers were caught on video being used by the militant force to spot military targets.

Hi! That was me who posted the twitter update mentioned above. I don't know why you felt compelled to throw in "pro-red"? I'm certainly no fan of the military action that took place in May. Are you trying to throw doubts on the credibility? Anybody who would like to visit my neighborhood and would like to talk to the numerous residents whom the army threatened with their lasers is welcome to PM me and I can arrange a visit. You can learn all about the multiple unarmed persons who were shot dead here. I live on Soi Rangnam. Many residents have talked to the special investigator around here, including my wife. Even those who have been talking to the investigators are refusing to give their names, though, for fear of repercussions. Peace.

[Insight]

Anyway, here's a Twitter comment from around the same time from a (pro-red) farang who I believe is a resident of the area Nick is describing.

Until this point I haven't heard of the army using lasers to spot people. I understand they shot somebody who aimed a laser at them around the Sala Daeng area, but this was after the events of April 10th when lasers were caught on video being used by the militant force to spot military targets.

Hi! That was me who posted the twitter update mentioned above. I don't know why you felt compelled to throw in "pro-red"? I'm certainly no fan of the military action that took place in May. Are you trying to throw doubts on the credibility? Anybody who would like to visit my neighborhood and would like to talk to the numerous residents whom the army threatened with their lasers is welcome to PM me and I can arrange a visit. You can learn all about the multiple unarmed persons who were shot dead here. I live on Soi Rangnam. Many residents have talked to the special investigator around here, including my wife. Even those who have been talking to the investigators are refusing to give their names, though, for fear of repercussions. Peace.

I tried to contact you at the time asking about the lasers but you didn't respond.

For the record, I got the pro-red impression by some other Twitter comments you have made, specifically the ones speaking to your child about what happened to the red shirts, along with some others on your timeline.

/edit to add - I picked this comment specifically because it's the first I heard of the army using lasers to spot people. The only other occurrence of lasers being used is *against* the army on April 10th by a third party. Is it not unreasonable to assume this same third party could of been behind some of the shooting in your area?

Edited October 31, 2010 by Insight

[Buchholz]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

Looks like the crouching man on the right side of your photo is doing more than "sheltering from the line of fire".

Looks like he's been doing a bit of his own "line of fire."

I hope you publish more of your photos as it's good, for their supporters here, to see the red shirts with guns.

[whybother]

Looks like the crouching man on the right side of your photo is doing more than "sheltering from the line of fire".

Looks like he's been doing a bit of his own "line of fire."

I hope you publish more of your photos as it's good, for their supporters here, to see the red shirts with guns.

Great spot!

It looks like he's reloading ... which suggests he's just been shooting ... but Bulmercke must have "missed that".

[phiphidon]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

A question Bulmerke, if I may. Am I right in assuming the man in the very forefront of your first photograph the same man as the victim in the second photograph. I ask because the first picture shows the man looking very intensely skywards. I am not familiar with the buildings in that area but in the direction the man is looking are there tall buildings?

[nicknostitz]

Looks like the crouching man on the right side of your photo is doing more than "sheltering from the line of fire".

Looks like he's been doing a bit of his own "line of fire."

I hope you publish more of your photos as it's good, for their supporters here, to see the red shirts with guns.

Great spot!

It looks like he's reloading ... which suggests he's just been shooting ... but Bulmercke must have "missed that".

At the first glance it indeed looks like a gun. But i have certain doubts. It would be highly unusual with such a high media presence that the man would just calmly reload (and/or possibly shoot a gun), especially not one of the photographers noticing this. A man with a gun - and all photographers there would be all over the scene pushing each other over for the image (i would have done so - and every photographer i know would have done the same). An image like this would have been published all over the place, like the image Masaro Goto, i believe, has shot at Bon Gai, of a protester aiming a hand gun at the military lines.

If you look closely, the hand holding what appears as a gun does hold it rather strangely, if it were a gun. It is difficult to see through the pixelation, but what fizzles out where the muzzle would be seems to me more a shadow of the plant in the flowerpot just in front of the one the man is taking cover.

The only way to be sure would be if Bulmercke would put the image in photoshop in high resolution (300 DPI), crop it down to the man holding whatever he is holding, and then resize it in lowres (72 DPI), and post it again.

I would be very interested as well. But with such a pixelated image nothing conclusive can be said.

Edited October 31, 2010 by nicknostitz

[TAWP]

The only way to be sure would be if Bulmercke would put the image in photoshop in high resolution (300 DPI), crop it down to the man holding whatever he is holding, and then resize it in lowres (72 DPI), and post it again.

I would be very interested as well. But with such a pixelated image nothing conclusive can be said.

I agree that he should post a cropped version of a high-res original (direct jpeg from RAW or scanned if paper-print (or even better directly from the negative)).

Not sure what you mean with resizing it to lowres ('72dpi') from highres ('300dpi'), as it is better if he posts it in high resolution as possible - size-limitations isn't really a concearn with a properly cropped slice of the image. But also note that 72dpi and 300dpi doesn't say anything about the image size online, merely during printout (and scan). I can post an image here twice, one in 300dpi and once in 72dpi, and it would look exactly the same on your screen in a web-browser. Just a side-note.

[nicknostitz]

I agree that he should post a cropped version of a high-res original (direct jpeg from RAW or scanned if paper-print (or even better directly from the negative)).

Not sure what you mean with resizing it to lowres ('72dpi') from highres ('300dpi'), as it is better if he posts it in high resolution as possible - size-limitations isn't really a concearn with a properly cropped slice of the image. But also note that 72dpi and 300dpi doesn't say anything about the image size online, merely during printout (and scan). I can post an image here twice, one in 300dpi and once in 72dpi, and it would look exactly the same on your screen in a web-browser. Just a side-note.

In screen resolution it takes much less time to upload. I always try to keep images i put on the net as small as possible.

[TAWP]

I agree that he should post a cropped version of a high-res original (direct jpeg from RAW or scanned if paper-print (or even better directly from the negative)).

Not sure what you mean with resizing it to lowres ('72dpi') from highres ('300dpi'), as it is better if he posts it in high resolution as possible - size-limitations isn't really a concearn with a properly cropped slice of the image. But also note that 72dpi and 300dpi doesn't say anything about the image size online, merely during printout (and scan). I can post an image here twice, one in 300dpi and once in 72dpi, and it would look exactly the same on your screen in a web-browser. Just a side-note.

In screen resolution it takes much less time to upload. I always try to keep images i put on the net as small as possible.

One image, 800x600 pixels, saved two times, once as 72dpi and once as 300dpi, will be exactly the same file-size.

The image is always 800x600 pixels.

You are confusing setting dpi and resizing a picture using the dpi as a reference-value, i.e. maintaining the print-size when altering the dpi.

This is a very common mistake amongst photographers since you think in terms of print-size and not in pixels.

In anyway, scanning that image in 300dpi (or higher if a scan from a negative), cropping it to only focus on the gentleman, would hopefully settle this matter.

[elcent]

looks like he holds a digital camera and the bag for it with one hand while looking for something else with his other hand (maybe batteries)

Edited October 31, 2010 by elcent

[hanuman1]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

Looks like the crouching man on the right side of your photo is doing more than "sheltering from the line of fire".

Looks like he's been doing a bit of his own "line of fire."

I hope you publish more of your photos as it's good, for their supporters here, to see the red shirts with guns.

Nice work, Ironside. You mistook the shadow of a plant for a lethal weapon. No wonder you don't seem to get out of the house much these days.

The pattern of the 'gun' looks rather like the pattern to the right of the guy's bag don't you think? And it becomes completely clear when you go back to the original photo and see it's the continuation of a shadow that begins at the base of the plant container behind the one he's hiding behind, and continues in exactly the same direction as all the other shadows in the picture.

I don't expect you to retract your claim - we know you're not that kind of person - but thanks anyway for serving up a great illustration of how by continually fudging the minute detail of issues connected with the ongoing red/yellow debate, you have lost all the perspective of the broader picture.

[Siam Simon]

Anyway, here's a Twitter comment from around the same time from a (pro-red) farang who I believe is a resident of the area Nick is describing.

Until this point I haven't heard of the army using lasers to spot people. I understand they shot somebody who aimed a laser at them around the Sala Daeng area, but this was after the events of April 10th when lasers were caught on video being used by the militant force to spot military targets.

Hi! That was me who posted the twitter update mentioned above. I don't know why you felt compelled to throw in "pro-red"? I'm certainly no fan of the military action that took place in May. Are you trying to throw doubts on the credibility? Anybody who would like to visit my neighborhood and would like to talk to the numerous residents whom the army threatened with their lasers is welcome to PM me and I can arrange a visit. You can learn all about the multiple unarmed persons who were shot dead here. I live on Soi Rangnam. Many residents have talked to the special investigator around here, including my wife. Even those who have been talking to the investigators are refusing to give their names, though, for fear of repercussions. Peace.

I tried to contact you at the time asking about the lasers but you didn't respond.

For the record, I got the pro-red impression by some other Twitter comments you have made, specifically the ones speaking to your child about what happened to the red shirts, along with some others on your timeline.

/edit to add - I picked this comment specifically because it's the first I heard of the army using lasers to spot people. The only other occurrence of lasers being used is *against* the army on April 10th by a third party. Is it not unreasonable to assume this same third party could of been behind some of the shooting in your area?

You live in Bangkok, don't you? So, have you accepted FreedomDude's kind offer to help you find out from those on the ground at the time what actually happened? Or will you be sticking with your "not unreasonable" assumptions?

[Buchholz]

I took these two pictures on 15 May 2010 at Din Daeng at around 12.00 noon. A live fire zone. The poor unfortunate young man died right in front of me.

They were taken near the entrance of soi Ratchaprarop 18 or 20 a few hundred metres south of the Century Park Hotel. The frst shot is the view looking down Ratchaprarop towards the direction of the Indra Regent hotel and Petchaburi Road.

The young man was shot on Ratchaprarop Road and carried out of the line of fire and into the soi where they put him down for a few moments. Ratchaprarop Road at this time was a live fire zone which accounts for why the press and local residents are sheltering from the line of fire in the soi. Army snipers were in action in this area that day as Nick Nostitz has previously reported. This picture was taken about ten minutes after the first.

Also - I can assure you that I captured these photos at the time and on the date specified above. You won't have seen them published anywhere else before now. They are two of several I took that day. And I have deliberately not included a copyright notice in the footer of these photos as I don't want to reveal my real name on this forum. Satisfied?

Looks like the crouching man on the right side of your photo is doing more than "sheltering from the line of fire".

Looks like he's been doing a bit of his own "line of fire."

I hope you publish more of your photos as it's good, for their supporters here, to see the red shirts with guns.

Nice work, Ironside. You mistook the shadow of a plant for a lethal weapon. No wonder you don't seem to get out of the house much these days.

The pattern of the 'gun' looks rather like the pattern to the right of the guy's bag don't you think? And it becomes completely clear when you go back to the original photo and see it's the continuation of a shadow that begins at the base of the plant container behind the one he's hiding behind, and continues in exactly the same direction as all the other shadows in the picture.

I don't expect you to retract your claim - we know you're not that kind of person - but thanks anyway for serving up a great illustration of how by continually fudging the minute detail of issues connected with the ongoing red/yellow debate, you have lost all the perspective of the broader picture.

Nice job, Columbo. You make your own assertions and conclusions with much more certainty than I did, when in fact, it's unknown what he has in his hand, although with the finality of your assessment, you don't leave any room to acknowledge that.

When we get a blow up of the picture, we'll know and either I'll be right or wrong and if I'm wrong, I'll accept that.

oh... btw, your insulting and personally derogatory tone, which is completely unnecessary, is duly noted with a *yawn*

Edited October 31, 2010 by Buchholz

[Insight]

You live in Bangkok, don't you? So, have you accepted FreedomDude's kind offer to help you find out from those on the ground at the time what actually happened? Or will you be sticking with your "not unreasonable" assumptions?

Well I'm not a journalist, a government investigator and neither am I questioning his account, so in the grand scheme of things there's probably little to be gained through hooking up. But the offer has been made so PM has been sent.

Incidentally the quickest way to PM a member is to click the envelope icon which appears below the user's avatar per post - just in case you are struggling to find it.

[hanuman1]

I hope you publish more of your photos as it's good, for their supporters here, to see the red shirts with guns.

in fact, it's unknown what he has in his hand

Are you trying to get a job with The Nation?

[mca]

^Impossible. Not enough typos.