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

[TAWP]

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.

Uhm...I am not sure what you are ranting about with shadows on the bag etc.

But I think what some posters might refer to as a possible gun is the item held in the left hand. It could be a revolver or semi-automatic held flat in the palm. I am awaiting the high-res original.

[Siam Simon]

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.

Fine. So there's no more need for you to speculate about this matter on TV: It will be quite easy for you to just go and find out the truth for yourself, won't it?

Btw, there's nothing I want to PM you about. I'm quite happy to discuss things here on the open forum. If you have something you want to discuss with me that you feel is confidential, please feel free to send me a PM.

[rubl]

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.

Fine. So there's no more need for you to speculate about this matter on TV: It will be quite easy for you to just go and find out the truth for yourself, won't it?

Btw, there's nothing I want to PM you about. I'm quite happy to discuss things here on the open forum. If you have something you want to discuss with me that you feel is confidential, please feel free to send me a PM.

Whereas I don't want to interfere in the peaceful discussion you two have, let me tell you about the advantage of a PM. It allows people to continue a discussion which is getting more and more off topic

[Siam Simon]

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.

Fine. So there's no more need for you to speculate about this matter on TV: It will be quite easy for you to just go and find out the truth for yourself, won't it?

Btw, there's nothing I want to PM you about. I'm quite happy to discuss things here on the open forum. If you have something you want to discuss with me that you feel is confidential, please feel free to send me a PM.

Whereas I don't want to interfere in the peaceful discussion you two have, let me tell you about the advantage of a PM. It allows people to continue a discussion which is getting more and more off topic

Except that this, along with most other threads in the News Clippings Section went off the original topic quite quickly. But that's just the nature of how this Section has evolved from when it was a Section for posting news clippings.

[SergeiY]

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.

Fine. So there's no more need for you to speculate about this matter on TV: It will be quite easy for you to just go and find out the truth for yourself, won't it?

Btw, there's nothing I want to PM you about. I'm quite happy to discuss things here on the open forum. If you have something you want to discuss with me that you feel is confidential, please feel free to send me a PM.

Whereas I don't want to interfere in the peaceful discussion you two have, let me tell you about the advantage of a PM. It allows people to continue a discussion which is getting more and more off topic

yes, not everyone get the concept of the PM as we can clearly see.

[bulmercke]

Edited November 13, 2010 by bulmercke

[rubl]

Probably not really intended, but to post a photo and have this below

"This post has been edited by bulmercke: 53 minutes ago."

makes one wonder. First reply on this topic in 11 days. The photo must be cropped professionally

(edit: replace doctored by cropped)

Edited November 13, 2010 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Probably not really intended, but to post a photo and have this below

"This post has been edited by bulmercke: 53 minutes ago."

makes one wonder. First reply on this topic in 11 days. The photo must be cropped professionally

(edit: replace doctored by cropped)

Probably not intended as it states this post has been edited, not the photo. Oh, I see, was that what you were trying to infer with the ? If so, are you implying that someone professionally doctored / edit cropped out a gun in the photo and that's why it took 11 days for the reply? Or have I got it completely wrong .

[rubl]

Probably not really intended, but to post a photo and have this below

"This post has been edited by bulmercke: 53 minutes ago."

makes one wonder. First reply on this topic in 11 days. The photo must be cropped professionally

(edit: replace doctored by cropped)

Probably not intended as it states this post has been edited, not the photo. Oh, I see, was that what you were trying to infer with the ? If so, are you implying that someone professionally doctored / edit cropped out a gun in the photo and that's why it took 11 days for the reply? Or have I got it completely wrong .

Completely wrong. I had 'doctored' first and thought it to be incorrect, so changed to cropped (also in name of image when you save it). Mostly I put an (edit: ) remark when I change something other than a typo.

As I wrote just wondering if after 11 days there would still be anyone really interested in a higher resolution photo of someone being where he shouldn't, even with only a bag and the carrying band in his left hand.

Nice try, but no reward this time

[phiphidon]

Probably not really intended, but to post a photo and have this below

"This post has been edited by bulmercke: 53 minutes ago."

makes one wonder. First reply on this topic in 11 days. The photo must be cropped professionally

(edit: replace doctored by cropped)

Probably not intended as it states this post has been edited, not the photo. Oh, I see, was that what you were trying to infer with the ? If so, are you implying that someone professionally doctored / edit cropped out a gun in the photo and that's why it took 11 days for the reply? Or have I got it completely wrong .

Completely wrong. I had 'doctored' first and thought it to be incorrect, so changed to cropped (also in name of image when you save it). Mostly I put an (edit: ) remark when I change something other than a typo.

As I wrote just wondering if after 11 days there would still be anyone really interested in a higher resolution photo of someone being where he shouldn't, even with only a bag and the carrying band in his left hand.

Nice try, but no reward this time

I apologise for doubting you. I do think it is necessary for the high res photo to have been displayed as otherwise some posters to this topic would carry on with their erroneous thinking wrt "the gun". Come to think of it, they probably will anyway but as the usual MO is to demand evidence it's best that the high res.photo is available for all to see. Mind you, I agree with you, with bullets flying around I'd want something a bit more substantial between me and the bullets, preferably about 10 Kms!

[hanuman1]

Thanks so much for posting this bulmercke.

Without even bringing the red/yellow/government issues into this, your photo neatly highlights the damaging effect of prejudice on a balanced mind.

Take Buchholz's post #407, where not even knowing for sure what's in the man's hand (which he admits a few posts later), he goes on to categorically state that it is a 'red' with a 'gun'. Not only does your photo prove he got it wrong about the gun, there isn't any proof or even suggestion (e.g. red attire etc) that he is a 'red'.

His post was therefore as inflammatory as it was inaccurate, and should serve as a lesson to us all not to let our sometimes fevered imaginations get the better of our ability to reason. It just creates resentment and derails the discussion unnecessarily.

Cheers

[Buchholz]

It should be noted that all speculation on the object, whether it was hanuman1's and nicknostitz's "shadows of a plant" or elcent's "digital camera", or my own "gun" were all incorrect. Shame it took so long to get the better photo posted, but thanks anyway to bulmercke for clearing it up finally.

[Thai at Heart]

Thanks so much for posting this bulmercke.

Without even bringing the red/yellow/government issues into this, your photo neatly highlights the damaging effect of prejudice on a balanced mind.

Take Buchholz's post #407, where not even knowing for sure what's in the man's hand (which he admits a few posts later), he goes on to categorically state that it is a 'red' with a 'gun'. Not only does your photo prove he got it wrong about the gun, there isn't any proof or even suggestion (e.g. red attire etc) that he is a 'red'.

His post was therefore as inflammatory as it was inaccurate, and should serve as a lesson to us all not to let our sometimes fevered imaginations get the better of our ability to reason. It just creates resentment and derails the discussion unnecessarily.

Cheers

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun, why would anyone conclude he is a red? It isn't as though the "blues" haven't been completely innocent in this whole long mess.

[Buchholz]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

[Insight]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

He's wearing the standard BKK Motorbike messenger attire.

Maybe he's a journalist?

[hanuman1]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Yes, we may all have been wrong but only one of us, i.e. you, used their mistake to back up an extremely serious allegation which has since been proven wrong, as many on the thread had predicted was the case.

You let your anti-red obsession get the better of you, which begs the question which other of your myriad posts masquerading as rational argument are also effected by this malaise of yours.

[whybother]

Yes, we may all have been wrong but only one of us, i.e. you, used their mistake to back up an extremely serious allegation which has since been proven wrong, as many on the thread had predicted was the case.

You let your anti-red obsession get the better of you, which begs the question which other of your myriad posts masquerading as rational argument are also effected by this malaise of yours.

Buchholz pointed out that it looked like he had a gun.

Some people came up with reasons as to why it probably wasn't a gun, including shadows, and 'other people would have noticed'.

That didn't change the fact that it did look like a gun.

[Buchholz]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Yes, we may all have been wrong but only one of us, i.e. you, used their mistake to back up an extremely serious allegation which has since been proven wrong, as many on the thread had predicted was the case.

You let your anti-red obsession get the better of you, which begs the question which other of your myriad posts masquerading as rational argument are also effected by this malaise of yours.

"extremely serious allegation"???

What, that a Red had a gun? Have you not seen the plethora of other photos showing Reds with guns? Was it that great a stretch that this may be yet another in a situation where Reds were scrambling?

I was wrong on what the blurry shot turned out to be. You, too, were wrong also when you ran to the defense to downplay the possibility it was thus letting your pro-Red obsession get the better of you, which begs the question which of your myriad of posts masquerading as rational argument are also effected by this malaise of yours.

[Thai at Heart]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Absolutely fair comment. I just found it interesting that a guy dressed in blue is branded apparently as clearly being a red. "Likely" isn't much of an analysis of anything.

On the basis that there are 10 to 12 mn people in Bangkok, and this appears to be a public street and he doesn't clearly show any colours (other than blue), he is most likely a member of the public cowering behind something, with a worried look on his face. He could be Thaksin/Abhisit or Newin in a funny mask, but we can't see that from the picture either.

[hanuman1]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Absolutely fair comment. I just found it interesting that a guy dressed in blue is branded apparently as clearly being a red. "Likely" isn't much of an analysis of anything.

On the basis that there are 10 to 12 mn people in Bangkok, and this appears to be a public street and he doesn't clearly show any colours (other than blue), he is most likely a member of the public cowering behind something, with a worried look on his face. He could be Thaksin/Abhisit or Newin in a funny mask, but we can't see that from the picture either.

Anti-red obsessives like to tar large numbers of people with the same brush. Innocent bystander gets accused of being a cold blooded gunman? Never mind - it's just an occupational hazard.

[rubl]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Absolutely fair comment. I just found it interesting that a guy dressed in blue is branded apparently as clearly being a red. "Likely" isn't much of an analysis of anything.

On the basis that there are 10 to 12 mn people in Bangkok, and this appears to be a public street and he doesn't clearly show any colours (other than blue), he is most likely a member of the public cowering behind something, with a worried look on his face. He could be Thaksin/Abhisit or Newin in a funny mask, but we can't see that from the picture either.

When Bulmercke first posted the photo's he wrote '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.'

At that time Din Daeng saw red-shirts and supporters setting up roadblocks, burning tires, obstructing police/army. A 'life fire' zone which normal people would avoid. It may not make the guy in blue a red-shirt, but certainly not a yellow shirt either. To associate a guy in a 'life fire' situation with a politician is slightly hilarious I think. Maybe just my sense of humour

[Buchholz]

Aside from wrongly concluding that he has a gun

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Absolutely fair comment. I just found it interesting that a guy dressed in blue is branded apparently as clearly being a red. "Likely" isn't much of an analysis of anything.

On the basis that there are 10 to 12 mn people in Bangkok, and this appears to be a public street and he doesn't clearly show any colours (other than blue), he is most likely a member of the public cowering behind something, with a worried look on his face. He could be Thaksin/Abhisit or Newin in a funny mask, but we can't see that from the picture either.

Anti-red obsessives like to tar large numbers of people with the same brush. Innocent bystander gets accused of being a cold blooded gunman? Never mind - it's just an occupational hazard.

And the shrill hyperbole of the pro-Red obsessives feel the need to toot on, even in long-concluded topic threads.

[hanuman1]

I, like every other poster on the thread, was incorrect. We all erred in our various speculations.

As to whether he is a Red or not, that, again, is speculation. Perhaps your speculation that he is a Blue may also be correct or not. I would estimate that based on the large number of Reds on the street at that place and time, it's more likely he is a Red than a Blue... as we've not heard much of all on the Blues since Songkran 2009.

Absolutely fair comment. I just found it interesting that a guy dressed in blue is branded apparently as clearly being a red. "Likely" isn't much of an analysis of anything.

On the basis that there are 10 to 12 mn people in Bangkok, and this appears to be a public street and he doesn't clearly show any colours (other than blue), he is most likely a member of the public cowering behind something, with a worried look on his face. He could be Thaksin/Abhisit or Newin in a funny mask, but we can't see that from the picture either.

Anti-red obsessives like to tar large numbers of people with the same brush. Innocent bystander gets accused of being a cold blooded gunman? Never mind - it's just an occupational hazard.

And the shrill hyperbole of the pro-Red obsessives feel the need to toot on, even in long-concluded topic threads.

Feel free to have the last word.....

[rubl]

Feel free to have the last word.....

I'm the real Dutch uncle, leave it to me (please ?)

[Siam Simon]

Feel free to have the last word.....

I'm the real Dutch uncle, leave it to me (please ?)

Ha ha. Good one. But sorry, I'm Spartacus, and I just wanted to register my approval of the photographer's belated attempt at closure on this off-topic discussion.