Jatuporn Claims Validity Of VDO Clip To Be Revealed In Censure Debate

[Buchholz]

Wondering if any of Abhisit's neighboring residences and businesses were "troubled" by his Red Shirts tossing HIV+ blood around their neighborhood :

I'm neutral, i dont care politics and colors but I think post like this are over the decent limit and must removed. Than is also derogatory for the people sick of HIV...what next make post derogatory for black, mentally ill people, handicapped?

Thank you

Why do you feel it's derogatory for the people with HIV?

The blood used for dousing of Abhisit's neighborhood was untested.

In the interest of public safety, medical protocol and standards policy dictate that ALL untested blood is presumed to be HIV+ until shown otherwise (eg. through testing).

In the absence of testing, it is therefore presumed that the blood the Red Shirts were haphazardly sloshing around Bangkok is HIV+.

It is in no way derogatory to those unfortunate victims of HIV to say so. Hopefully, the Red Shirts antics didn't exacerbate the plight of those infected by infecting more.

Thank you.

Did I miss the part about proof that it is human blood they were throwing around? Go to any one of a multitude of talads and you will find animal blood sold by the litres, for cooking. Unless someone can show evidence otherwise, I give the benefit of the doubt to the Reds. They wouldn't jepordize infecting their own, with untested human blood. Think about it. Its a lot easier buying animal blood than it is drawing blood from how many hundred volunteers? I think I would be more worried about Anthrax, Hoof and Mouth, Mad Cow Disease..........

BBC - March 16, 2010

Thailand's red-shirt demonstrators have splashed blood under the gates of Government House in a protest against a leadership they say is illegitimate. Earlier the protesters lined up to donate their blood, as the anti-government rallies entered a third day.

In Bangkok, red-shirt leader Veera Musikapong was the first to donate blood for the protest. "This blood is a sacrificial offering. To show our love for the nation, to show our sincerity," he said.

"We have three tents for blood donations. All people who conduct the blood drawing will be doctors, nurses or other qualified people who came here voluntarily," said senior red shirt leader, Dr Weng Tojilakarn, who normally runs his own medical practice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8569483.stm

=================================================================

Xinhua - March 16, 2010

The anti-government red-shirted protestors Tuesday morning began to donate blood, which will be scattered around the Government House later the day in a bid to pressure the government to bent to the movement's demand. The TV channel reported that the blood donation process kicked off as the red-shirted people were registering to volunteer to give 10 cc blood each.

Nattawut Saikua, one of the red-shirts leaders, announced Monday afternoon that the blood will be taken from 100,000 protesters, including the red-shirts leaders, and will be scattered around the Government House as a measure to step up pressure on the government during their mass rally.

http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-03/16/content_19617182.htm

[Buchholz]

Did I miss the part about proof that it is human blood they were throwing around? Go to any one of a multitude of talads and you will find animal blood sold by the litres, for cooking. Unless someone can show evidence otherwise, I give the benefit of the doubt to the Reds. They wouldn't jepordize infecting their own, with untested human blood. Think about it. Its a lot easier buying animal blood than it is drawing blood from how many hundred volunteers? I think I would be more worried about Anthrax, Hoof and Mouth, Mad Cow Disease..........

They certainly made a big show about collecting blood, even off children.

and alleged monks:

[animatic]

So in short Jatuporn will produce another video clip that will be lapped up by the red members/PTPers and Thaksinistas and regarded with suspicion by neutrals and disbelieved by government supporters.

The red leaders are all going to show they are still part of the alliance and Thaksin is still the main event at red events.

Nothing new. Same as every censure. Same as every red event. Very boring. Thai politics is still stuck with the discredited lunatics at the helm

Good post.

It's more like a hold filled with lunatics on a ship shrouded in fog,

all trying to crawl over each other to seize the helm from someone who actually can navigate.

[Emptyset]

Apologies about quoting myself Emptyset, but how did you get on with your friend?

There's now two sources of photographic and video evidence which seem to depict people wearing army fatigues (who do not appear to be army personal) occupying Ratchathei and Siam skytrain stations on May 19th. Both stations surround the temple where the shootings occurred. I recall Pryuth stating their troops did not get as far as Siam via the BTS track as they encountered resistance at Ratchathei station. Given such evidence I do find the alleged "conclusion" that the army were solely to blame for the deaths at the temple very amazing indeed.

Why don't you post the photos here so we can all judge? Do you mean the CNN video at Ratchatewi? IIRC that was filmed in the early morning on the 19th, before all this started happening. I couldn't be sure though. I saw the picture at Siam BTS, I can't see how you could possibly know if he was military or not, could well be special forces? Or he could be one of the other armed groups that were around that day - of which there were three, possibly four, including the military - said to have been operating in that area on the 19th. I don't know why they would've had to approach via Siam anyway - surely they could've approached from Chitlom? I say that for the sake of argument, as they actually came from Siam, as one member of the team admitted to Wassana. They'd apparently been ordered to stay at Siam, but claimed someone was shooting at them from the back of the temple (see "Let the truth be known: what happened at the temple" in BP). So if they came from that direction, it's highly plausible that the masked man at Siam BTS was a member of the special forces unit in question? Of course we don't know precisely what time that picture was taken.

As for my friend and the documents, he says if you read it all it's simply impossible that it's in any way edited or forged, for a "number of reasons". He notes that p.15 - 17 have a slightly different shade to them, but says only the typed portions could be easily doctored, yet the typed conclusions are repeated in handwriting by three DSI bosses, with their signatures. Not to mention the entire report before that supports the conclusions, in fact, he says, "the conclusion flies in the face of obvious evidence!" He says he was shocked how much evidence was so easily dismissed in the conclusion. Apparently there's plenty of evidence in the rest of the report that more-or-less proves that all 6 were killed by soldiers, yet he says the report comes to the "strange" conclusion that there's only sufficient evidence to bring cases against 3 of them. The report goes into great detail about which military teams did what and which officers headed which teams and where exactly they were on the BTS track. The report claims there were special forces all over the BTS tracks, some were interviewed, a few admitted to firing "warning shots" into the temple, whilst others claimed, counter to duty records (per the report), that they were ill and off-duty that night. He says report has many witness accounts and forensic evidence that points to soldiers and soldiers only, hence why he draws the conclusion that they were responsible for all six.

So that's presumably why no one in the Thai media has really questioned it. The only suspicious thing is the slightly different shaded pages that you noted, but if you read it, (according to my friend) you certainly wouldn't doubt the authenticity of it.

[rubl]

They certainly made a big show about collecting blood, even off children. Did they just throw that blood away (I mean besides on the steps of government house and Abhisit's gate)? There was animal blood mixed with it, although that was denied by the red shirts at the time.

I do remember reports that the blood was actually tested and shown to be HIV+. I'll have to do some searching to find that report.

thanks, maybe I did miss something. If you find it, I would like to see it.

Somewhere on these pages, search for HIV

http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/04/02/saturday’s-rally-liable-to-be-violent-and-halt-new-negotiations/

http://www.isnhotnews.com/2010/04/page/210/

[rubl]

begin removed ...

So that's presumably why no one in the Thai media has really questioned it. The only suspicious thing is the slightly different shaded pages that you noted, but if you read it, (according to my friend) you certainly wouldn't doubt the authenticity of it.

After all our discussions and with help of your friend I'm really prepared and willing to believe anything you post here. Call me naive if you want

[Emptyset]

begin removed ...

So that's presumably why no one in the Thai media has really questioned it. The only suspicious thing is the slightly different shaded pages that you noted, but if you read it, (according to my friend) you certainly wouldn't doubt the authenticity of it.

After all our discussions and with help of your friend I'm really prepared and willing to believe anything you post here. Call me naive if you want

I've now read a full translation of the document and can confirm that if you read the translation there's no way you'd suspect it had been edited or faked. The witness testimonies start from the second page and quickly start to implicate soldiers. The only people who claim to have seen the men in black were soldiers & a farmer, although only two of them saw them, one said he saw one hiding behind a pillar. The rice farmer, witness 41, gave a very bizarre testimony indeed. He said he'd been hired to make bamboo rockets, hid in the wat for four days, then saw five people shot by the men in black and burned in a bunker in the middle of the road outside the temple. He was terrified so he then he ran and fell asleep in a wood; when he woke up, he found a motorcycle and drove it to the police station (presumably he stole the motorcycle somehow as the report says "he walked to a parked motorcycle and drove it"). I don't think the investigators gave much credence to that testimony, although it doesn't necessarily mean what he saw is completely false.

Page 15 of my translation (I don't know, but would imagine it roughly corresponds to the Thai version) is part of a summary of the evidence, but nothing is concluded on that page. In fact there's a summary of the testimony of the soldiers on that page, where they state they'd seen men in black and fired "warning shots" and they testified their conduct was completely in line with military protocol. The actual "conclusion" that there's enough evidence to assume that three of the six deaths were caused by "state officers in the line of duty" and the cases should be sent to police investigators for further processing is on page 16 and 17. But many reading might be puzzled as to why only three of the six were presumed caused by state officers, as the evidence also suggests the other three were too. I would say judging by what's written, three of the six were definitely killed by the military and the other three were most probably killed by the military although the evidence certainly isn't as definite as the first three.

Three were shot from the BTS track and three from ground level (witnesses say shots were coming from Paragon and also Chalerm Phao Intersection, where a witness had earlier seen and spoken to a group of soldiers). The conclusive evidence seems to be the bullet fragments, four of the six were shot by the same type of bullet. Three bullets matching the type that soldiers on the BTS track said they were using, 5.56mm with green tips and one with the same type of bullet but no green tips, but different units of military don't necessarily use the green tipped bullets. In two of the six the bullet type couldn't be confirmed. The latter victim I refer to was Ms. Kamonket, the volunteer nurse, and she was shot five times, so either there was just heavy fire, or she was deliberately targeted.

So I assume the witness testimony isn't enough to go on, they also require the matching bullet fragments to have enough to prosecute, although it's the three shot from the BTS tracks that the DSI have decided were definitely shot by soldiers, and that's obviously clear cut enough as no one else could've been on the BTS tracks at that point.

Incidentally they found a beer can on the BTS tracks where the soldiers were, so were some of them drinking on the job? No wonder some troops behaved irresponsibly if this went on throughout the protests (though one beer can obviously isn't enough to conclude that).

[Emptyset]

Apologies about quoting myself Emptyset, but how did you get on with your friend?

There's now two sources of photographic and video evidence which seem to depict people wearing army fatigues (who do not appear to be army personal) occupying Ratchathei and Siam skytrain stations on May 19th. Both stations surround the temple where the shootings occurred. I recall Pryuth stating their troops did not get as far as Siam via the BTS track as they encountered resistance at Ratchathei station. Given such evidence I do find the alleged "conclusion" that the army were solely to blame for the deaths at the temple very amazing indeed.

Now I think about it, the MiB filmed in Ratchatewi, is that the CNN video or another video? Because are you sure the CNN vid was filmed at Ratchatewi and not Ratchadamri? Not that it makes much difference anyway, just helps to piece things together if we know for sure which one it was. Anyway, having read the leaked document, if the second picture you mention was taken late afternoon (which it appears to be) the person in army fatigues at Siam BTS is almost certainly military special forces, as the document indicates they controlled the track from National Stadium up until at least Wat Pathum by late afternoon.

[Insight]

Am enjoying a weekend break out the city, Emptyset. Will reply again on Monday.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

The rice farmer, witness 41, gave a very bizarre testimony indeed. He said he'd been hired to make bamboo rockets, hid in the wat for four days, then saw five people shot by the men in black and burned in a bunker in the middle of the road outside the temple.

... end removed

And I thought the bodies had been moved by truck and some hospitals cooperated in 'getting rid' of them. Like in 2009 when hundreds disappeared. Let me check the RobertA report, my authoritative source on government atrocities and peaceful behaviour by protesters

[Insight]

Apologies about quoting myself Emptyset, but how did you get on with your friend?

There's now two sources of photographic and video evidence which seem to depict people wearing army fatigues (who do not appear to be army personal) occupying Ratchathei and Siam skytrain stations on May 19th. Both stations surround the temple where the shootings occurred. I recall Pryuth stating their troops did not get as far as Siam via the BTS track as they encountered resistance at Ratchathei station. Given such evidence I do find the alleged "conclusion" that the army were solely to blame for the deaths at the temple very amazing indeed.

Now I think about it, the MiB filmed in Ratchatewi, is that the CNN video or another video? Because are you sure the CNN vid was filmed at Ratchatewi and not Ratchadamri? Not that it makes much difference anyway, just helps to piece things together if we know for sure which one it was. Anyway, having read the leaked document, if the second picture you mention was taken late afternoon (which it appears to be) the person in army fatigues at Siam BTS is almost certainly military special forces, as the document indicates they controlled the track from National Stadium up until at least Wat Pathum by late afternoon.

Okay, let's give this alleged DSI report the benefit of the doubt; it's all entirely genuine and perhaps the first piece of evidence used by the red shirts strongly supporting the red shirt cause (army - bad, red shirts absolute angels) without requiring to be doctored from the ground up, altered or blatantly misrepresented. Congratulations.

(Has anybody outside the DSI actually seen the original hardcopy fresh of the typewriter it was authored on? Or are these low resolution images scanned using multiple devices stored in various electronic formats presenting a document which - judging by the change in typing style - IMO has had at least two different typists working on it - are all we have to go on?)

So the soldier shown in the photo of Siam BTS concealing his identity is supposedly "military special forces"? From the admittedly small photo IMO he appears to be wearing similar fatigues and hood to the militia shown in the Dan Rivers report (the main character in that report has been linked using photod to Chavalit, but I'm damned if I can find it again). So let's go with this - the guy at Siam BTS is military special forces. Stating "special forces" insinuates highly trained personnel drafted in on a specific assignment, and not a gang of trigger-happy rookies. All jokes about Thai incompetence aside, surely you would not expect such a force to even risk firing at unarmed civilians and nurses in a temple, especially given all previous attempts by the red shirts before that date to paint the Thai army as evil and unforgiving (watermelons aside, obviously).

So are we to believe this guy was "military special forces". And if so, what exactly was their mission given we can now presume they are now being blamed for these deaths?

Excuse my extreme cynicism, but like all red-shirt alleged plots, this one doesn't quite add up.

[Emptyset]

So the soldier shown in the photo of Siam BTS concealing his identity is supposedly "military special forces"? From the admittedly small photo IMO he appears to be wearing similar fatigues and hood to the militia shown in the Dan Rivers report (the main character in that report has been linked using photod to Chavalit, but I'm damned if I can find it again). So let's go with this - the guy at Siam BTS is military special forces. Stating "special forces" insinuates highly trained personnel drafted in on a specific assignment, and not a gang of trigger-happy rookies. All jokes about Thai incompetence aside, surely you would not expect such a force to even risk firing at unarmed civilians and nurses in a temple, especially given all previous attempts by the red shirts before that date to paint the Thai army as evil and unforgiving (watermelons aside, obviously).

So are we to believe this guy was "military special forces". And if so, what exactly was their mission given we can now presume they are now being blamed for these deaths?

Excuse my extreme cynicism, but like all red-shirt alleged plots, this one doesn't quite add up.

First, it's not a "red shirt plot", it's just a guess by me as to who he is based on the leaked DSI report. Yes, the soldiers involved in the Wat Pathum Wanaram incident were (per the testimony of the actual soldiers involved in the DSI document) from the 1st Special Forces Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Regiment, Lopburi. He also states this unit posted two men to guard Siam BTS and that soldiers were at Siam BTS by about 5:30, at the latest. One witness, a Pol. Sgt, who was in National Police Headquarters, which looks down onto the tracks, said he saw the soldiers arrive outside the Wat at about 5:30. His testimony was backed up by another Sgt, who handed over pictures and video of it to the DSI*. But probably before that, because he says that his unit were ordered to withdraw back to Siam BTS after the Wat Pathum incident, at 18:10 but the unit didn't return back to Siam BTS until 19:45. There were four units, also including Army Ranger Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Regiment, on the tracks in total, with the 2nd Infantry Battalion also in the area, responsible for the ground level.

So given that, if the picture was taken anywhere after about 5pm, we can assume he's from the military, if from before that, it could be anyone. I don't see how you can judge anything from his camouflage, even if he wasn't military, he's probably ex-military and would likely be wearing camouflage issued by the RTA anyway. What's unusual is that he's wearing a mask, and you wouldn't think he'd be wearing one if he were part of the government force, but who knows? There were even government soldiers in plain clothes. Given that the picture of him seems to have been taken after the CTW fire started, it'd seem to be late afternoon, but we don't know exactly what time.

Relevant pictures are here, for anyone who hasn't seen them: http://asiancorrespondent.com/43506/photos-from-may-19-an-update/ - we're discussing photo 41. The piece asks: "Even though the photos appear to show that there were shooters firing from the direction of Siam Paragon, we lack clear evidence as to who the shooters are and why they are shooting. Did Siam Paragon have armed guards?" - I'm lead to believe Paragon did indeed have armed guards, as they hired a General to take care of it, which Central World didn't do, for some reason... I don't know if they were engaged in any gun battles with the MiB or the army, but it's quite possible.

I don't understand your point that the Thai military would be incapable of killing several people, apparently by accident, just because they're special forces. Even the highest trained special forces are capable of making far graver mistakes. I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the British Parachute Regiment has far higher training than the RTA special forces, and they were responsible for the Bloody Sunday massacre. Also, judging by the beer can found on the tracks, the consumption of alcohol might've had something to do with it. Anyway, just to be clear, 3 were shot inside the Wat, another 3 outside at ground level that were later taken inside the Wat.

*Incidentally, he also states a group of journalists were also there with him and saw it all. I wonder if they actually reported this in the news media they work for? Pretty shameful if they didn't...

[rubl]

First, it's not a "red shirt plot", it's just a guess by me as to who he is based on the leaked DSI report. Yes, the soldiers involved in the Wat Pathum Wanaram incident were (per the testimony of the actual soldiers involved in the DSI document) from the 1st Special Forces Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Regiment, Lopburi. He also states this unit posted two men to guard Siam BTS and that soldiers were at Siam BTS by about 5:30, at the latest. One witness, a Pol. Sgt, who was in National Police Headquarters, which looks down onto the tracks, said he saw the soldiers arrive outside the Wat at about 5:30. His testimony was backed up by another Sgt, who handed over pictures and video of it to the DSI*. But probably before that, because he says that his unit were ordered to withdraw back to Siam BTS after the Wat Pathum incident, at 18:10 but the unit didn't return back to Siam BTS until 19:45. There were four units, also including Army Ranger Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Regiment, on the tracks in total, with the 2nd Infantry Battalion also in the area, responsible for the ground level.

So given that, if the picture was taken anywhere after about 5pm, we can assume he's from the military, if from before that, it could be anyone. I don't see how you can judge anything from his camouflage, even if he wasn't military, he's probably ex-military and would likely be wearing camouflage issued by the RTA anyway. What's unusual is that he's wearing a mask, and you wouldn't think he'd be wearing one if he were part of the government force, but who knows? There were even government soldiers in plain clothes. Given that the picture of him seems to have been taken after the CTW fire started, it'd seem to be late afternoon, but we don't know exactly what time.

Relevant pictures are here, for anyone who hasn't seen them: http://asiancorrespondent.com/43506/photos-from-may-19-an-update/ - we're discussing photo 41. The piece asks: "Even though the photos appear to show that there were shooters firing from the direction of Siam Paragon, we lack clear evidence as to who the shooters are and why they are shooting. Did Siam Paragon have armed guards?" - I'm lead to believe Paragon did indeed have armed guards, as they hired a General to take care of it, which Central World didn't do, for some reason... I don't know if they were engaged in any gun battles with the MiB or the army, but it's quite possible.

I don't understand your point that the Thai military would be incapable of killing several people, apparently by accident, just because they're special forces. Even the highest trained special forces are capable of making far graver mistakes. I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the British Parachute Regiment has far higher training than the RTA special forces, and they were responsible for the Bloody Sunday massacre. Also, judging by the beer can found on the tracks, the consumption of alcohol might've had something to do with it. Anyway, just to be clear, 3 were shot inside the Wat, another 3 outside at ground level that were later taken inside the Wat.

*Incidentally, he also states a group of journalists were also there with him and saw it all. I wonder if they actually reported this in the news media they work for? Pretty shameful if they didn't...

"it's just a guess by me" - Fine, as all you are entitled to your opinion in which case you also do not really need to prove anything, it's your opinion.

"There were four units, also including Army Ranger Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Regiment, on the tracks in total" - How many men does that make? Seems a bit crowded like the BTS service at rush hour. Strange some track shots only show one, two figures ?

"judging by the beer can found on the tracks" - Special Units tend to be far more disciplined than normal forces, draftees. The beer cans are a bit out of character, even for Thailand.

"Anyway, just to be clear" - Yes, please be, especially after having made this very subtle suggestion with the beer cans.

"he also states a group of journalists were (assume a Pol. Sgt, who was in National Police Headquarters is meant)" - The article cited says "Will any journalists step up and track down these witnesses?". Till now no answer.

Of course as I mentioned first, with an opinion proof is not really essential, although it would substantiate the opinion.

[Insight]

Thanks Rubl. Drafted this yesterday but also never got round to posting it:

From that photo collection linked to by Emptyset, here's a pic of what we can assume to be regular soldiers, possbily taken around the 19th May, in their usual riot-control attire. I highly doubt these troops are intoxicated in any way.

Here's a pic of the alleged "military special forces" soldier. Head down as if falling asleep on the job. Perhaps from all the beer consumed. It's fairly safe to assume that some warning would of been given of the military's decision to advance on May 19th, yet now we have accusations rolling around that the "special forces" division were a bit sloshed on the job on a day you would expect such personnel to have all their wits about them.

Sorry but am absolutely not buying it at all.

Also consider this: to doctor an audio recording of a persons voice takes a significant amount of time and expertese. Collating what must be hours of previous recording, selecting the parts to use to construct coherent and nautral sounding sentences in order to be convincing enough to the general public. To do this undoubtly takes much time effort (and therefore expense).

The names of people involved in the incident at Wat Pathum Wanaram are in the public domain, along with rough details surrounding the incident itself. Compared to producing a doctored audio clip I would assume producing a bogus report based roughly around known events which ultimately helps the red-shirt cause with it's "evil army" agenda, to be a fraction of the effort.

[animatic]

...

Sorry but am absolutely not buying it at all.

Also consider this: to doctor an audio recording of a persons voice takes a significant amount of time and expertese. Collating what must be hours of previous recording, selecting the parts to use to construct coherent and nautral sounding sentences in order to be convincing enough to the general public. To do this undoubtly takes much time effort (and therefore expense)....

Well collecting may or may not take time, recording the PM's Sunday speech is a wealth of voice tracks to manipulate at decent quality. Editing digitally is an extremely fast desktop process these days. You can take a 15 minute tape and make 6-7 different versions in an hour or less. It is also hard to tell it is edited once it is down-sampled to low res, adding artifacts and jumble noise, but not impossible for a trained pro.

Video manipulation is much harder and longer to do, but manipulating the sound on low res video is also relatively easy, since people now expect lips to not sync well on the web. But there are also programs that can take a mouth and change it to match words and most people can't tell the difference. Think of those animals that suddenly start talking in videos. That looks bizarre, but the same technology can look nearly invisible on a human face, since we expect the face to talk.

[Insight]

...

Sorry but am absolutely not buying it at all.

Also consider this: to doctor an audio recording of a persons voice takes a significant amount of time and expertese. Collating what must be hours of previous recording, selecting the parts to use to construct coherent and nautral sounding sentences in order to be convincing enough to the general public. To do this undoubtly takes much time effort (and therefore expense)....

Well collecting may or may not take time, recording the PM's Sunday speech is a wealth of voice tracks to manipulate at decent quality. Editing digitally is an extremely fast desktop process these days. You can take a 15 minute tape and make 6-7 different versions in an hour or less. It is also hard to tell it is edited once it is down-sampled to low res, adding artifacts and jumble noise, but not impossible for a trained pro.

Video manipulation is much harder and longer to do, but manipulating the sound on low res video is also relatively easy, since people now expect lips to not sync well on the web. But there are also programs that can take a mouth and change it to match words and most people can't tell the difference. Think of those animals that suddenly start talking in videos. That looks bizarre, but the same technology can look nearly invisible on a human face, since we expect the face to talk.

Splicing various words together from waveforms of other complete sentences isn't too difficult, but making it sound natural and human is another challenge completely. Yes, the quality of the audio can be lowered to hide changes in background noise and other imperfections, but significant effort is required in ensuring the voice is at a consistent tone throughout.

(I wouldn't mind having a closer look the doctored audio clip of Abhisit's "massacre" order in Sound Forge, but my curiosity can wait until I've relocated out the country )

Suppose the lowered quality argument could also be applied to forged documents

[SomTumTiger]

If Jatuporn says its true, then you know its a complete lie. Next story please.

[Emptyset]

Also consider this: to doctor an audio recording of a persons voice takes a significant amount of time and expertese. Collating what must be hours of previous recording, selecting the parts to use to construct coherent and nautral sounding sentences in order to be convincing enough to the general public. To do this undoubtly takes much time effort (and therefore expense).

The names of people involved in the incident at Wat Pathum Wanaram are in the public domain, along with rough details surrounding the incident itself. Compared to producing a doctored audio clip I would assume producing a bogus report based roughly around known events which ultimately helps the red-shirt cause with it's "evil army" agenda, to be a fraction of the effort.

How are the names of the soldiers involved in the public domain? You're as bad as the red shirts that only believe evidence that supports their own narrative. Sad. And you don't even know it. I'm not stupid or credulous. There's absolutely no chance the document is anyway faked, and of the people that's actually read it, no one else has questioned it either, for good reason. You're questioning it based on a different shade of paper, despite not having read it. It's even more incredible that you don't believe it, as evidence that is in the public domain 100% supports what's in the document, including admissions already published in the Bangkok Post, along with pictures and video that shows troops in place outside the Wat. This just goes to show how intelligent people on both sides can refuse to believe things which are staring them in the face.

However, you haven't read the document yet, so I suppose it's still somewhat forgivable. I was told not to share the translation, but hopefully it'll be released soon, probably on one of the blogs. If you're still in doubt after you've read it, then I just don't know what to say.

I haven't concluded that the guy in the picture is special forces, and the document obviously doesn't say he is either. But it does say there were troops all along the sky train track from at least National Stadium, up to the Wat, from about 5pm onwards. The picture looks like it's taken late afternoon, so it's not unreasonable to think he's a soldier.

I must also say there's nothing in the document that suggests the army are "evil", just that they're responsible for the deaths. Most think they're responsible for all 6, but the document only has strong evidence for 3 of them. In the other 3 deaths, the evidence suggests it's the military, but it's not definite. In a red shirt document, surely it'd prove without a doubt that the army killed all 6? J

Also, I didn't say they were "sloshed on the job" but the DSI took a beer can as evidence along with a couple of other things that presumably only the troops could have left on the BTS track outside the Wat. So I'm just wondering why they'd have a beer can at all, if not to drink it? Your argument is basically that you hate Jatuporn/red shirts and Thaksin and you think the Thai military and government are wonderful people who wouldn't ever think of hurting another Thai and would never, ever, tell a lie. Is that correct? Because unless you've convinced yourself of that fantasy, then I just find it hard to believe what you're saying here.

[Emptyset]

"it's just a guess by me" - Fine, as all you are entitled to your opinion in which case you also do not really need to prove anything, it's your opinion.

"There were four units, also including Army Ranger Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Regiment, on the tracks in total" - How many men does that make? Seems a bit crowded like the BTS service at rush hour. Strange some track shots only show one, two figures ?

That's what the report says. Anyway, don't forget they were divided along the tracks from National Stadium onwards, on both the top and bottom tracks. Anyway, I don't know how many in a unit or whether there were whole units, or just teams. The report doesn't give exact numbers, but it doesn't suggest there were large amounts of people on there, in fact it says only 2 were sent to guard Siam BTS.

"judging by the beer can found on the tracks" - Special Units tend to be far more disciplined than normal forces, draftees. The beer cans are a bit out of character, even for Thailand.

"Anyway, just to be clear" - Yes, please be, especially after having made this very subtle suggestion with the beer cans.

"he also states a group of journalists were (assume a Pol. Sgt, who was in National Police Headquarters is meant)" - The article cited says "Will any journalists step up and track down these witnesses?". Till now no answer.

Of course as I mentioned first, with an opinion proof is not really essential, although it would substantiate the opinion.

So the DSI took a beer can from track where soldiers were along with another soft drink and two bullets which match the bullets soldiers claimed they were using. What am I supposed to think - I'm sorry for suggesting the idea they might be drinking on the job, because it's not like the beer can would suggest that in any way. Maybe they were taking it home for later, to celebrate a job well done. Or maybe a driver threw it there?

It's not my opinion, the proof is the document, I can't share it now but hopefully it'll be released into the public domain soon.

[Emptyset]

Of course, it's normally easy to to distinguish soldiers from the "men in black", look at these guys, it's obvious they're soldiers, isn't it?

[Insight]

I've already highlighted the reasons I'm questioning the authenticity of this alleged "leaked" report, Emptyset, and they go well beyond what you state:

You're questioning it based on a different shade of paper, despite not having read it.

But rather than debate it ad infinitum, do you believe there were any rogue militia forces on the skytrain tracks on the 19th? If so, surely it's at least equally possible they were consumers of the beer cans found on the tracks by the DSI?

They guy captured in the CNN Dan Rivers footage looks like he could be partial to the odd bottle of Leo.

[Emptyset]

And this one:

http://tinyurl.com/4umonmf - Prachatai

Edited March 15, 2011 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

But rather than debate it ad infinitum, do you believe there were any rogue militia forces on the skytrain tracks on the 19th? If so, surely it's at least equally possible they were consumers of the beer cans found on the tracks by the DSI?

They guy captured in the CNN Dan Rivers footage looks like he could be partial to the odd bottle of Leo.

I think it's possible that there were MiB/non-CRES militia on the tracks at some point. In fact one soldier in the document mentions there was a brief, ten minute firefight but it's not clear whether he meant the fight was on the BTS track itself or not. I'll have to ask the translator. The beer can was found on the tracks outside the Wat though, where soldiers in the document admitted they'd been. It's possible, but unlikely that MiB were at the same spot earlier, or after and left it there I suppose. They also found a soft drink, so not all of them were smashed on Leo.

Anyway, the beer can isn't the issue, I mention it in passing because elsewhere it'd be worthy of comment, i.e. if British troops were going into operations with cans of lager, I suspect it'd be somewhat scandalous. But I wouldn't find it so surprising if one or two of the soldiers had a can or two to calm the nerves. I've heard stranger things. We've seen the way American/British troops have behaved in Iraq etc, so I just don't see why you think Thai soldiers would have much higher standards, especially given it was a very tense, stressful situation.

[Buchholz]

Thai opposition kicks off censure debate against nine ministers

House Speaker Chai Chidchob opened proceedings with a prohibition against using documents or video clips that had not been passed by a screening committee.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1626092.php/Thai-opposition-kicks-off-censure-debate-against-nine-ministers

DPA - March 15, 2011

[TAWP]

Of course, it's normally easy to to distinguish soldiers from the "men in black", look at these guys, it's obvious they're soldiers, isn't it?

I suppose you missed the fact that Sae Daeng and all his minions where current or former soldiers, gone rogue...

Don't confuse militia or other security personnel with 'men in black'.

Edited March 15, 2011 by TAWP

[rubl]

Anyway, the beer can isn't the issue, I mention it in passing because elsewhere it'd be worthy of comment, i.e. if British troops were going into operations with cans of lager, I suspect it'd be somewhat scandalous. But I wouldn't find it so surprising if one or two of the soldiers had a can or two to calm the nerves. I've heard stranger things. We've seen the way American/British troops have behaved in Iraq etc, so I just don't see why you think Thai soldiers would have much higher standards, especially given it was a very tense, stressful situation.

Just mentioning in passing that there has not been a proven link between the single beer can and the Army or Special Forces. Unless the can was duly signed and stamped 'property of the RTA' that is. I've heard strange things, but only as suggestion, not proof. Anyone living, or just walking around in BKK must have noticed lots of rubbish laying around, especially behind fences.

Not sure how we got here, unless the beer can figures prominently in k. Jatuporn's VDO

[rubl]

Maybe k. Jatuporn will also show this picture, Army hoarding and drinking while clearly on duty

[Emptyset]

Just mentioning in passing that there has not been a proven link between the single beer can and the Army or Special Forces. Unless the can was duly signed and stamped 'property of the RTA' that is. I've heard strange things, but only as suggestion, not proof. Anyone living, or just walking around in BKK must have noticed lots of rubbish laying around, especially behind fences.

Not sure how we got here, unless the beer can figures prominently in k. Jatuporn's VDO

Yep, it can't be definitely concluded without finger prints and such, could be just rubbish, true. I'll quote a more lengthy extract from the piece, as you can see they don't say whether the beer can was empty or not, or whether it was found in an upright position, which would give a clue to whether it had been drank by a soldier, or tossed by someone else:

[7] DSI investigators, who along with crime scene investigators from the Forensics

Institute, went to examine the BTS track where the witnesses inside Wat Pathum

Wanaram and the witnesses injured both confirm they were shot at from soldiers

on the BTS track, and upon inspection of the scene investigators discovered two

bullet casings, one unfired bullet, one plastic water bottle, one bottle of Lipovitan

[energy drink], and one beer can; examination showed that the bullet casings and

the unfired bullet were both .223 caliber (5.56 mm). The bullet had a green tip, the

same as the soldiers testified that they used on 19 May 2010.

Then it appears again towards the end of the report:

Physical Evidence

1. Two spent shell casings.

2. One unfired bullet.

3. One bottle of Q Water brand drinking water.

4. One bottle of Lipo energy drink.

5. One Leo beer can.

I'm not sure whether the beer can will be used as evidence in court or not... after all, being drunk is surely no excuse!

[Emptyset]

Of course, it's normally easy to to distinguish soldiers from the "men in black", look at these guys, it's obvious they're soldiers, isn't it?

I suppose you missed the fact that Sae Daeng and all his minions where current or former soldiers, gone rogue...

Don't confuse militia or other security personnel with 'men in black'.

I know, I was just making the point that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to tell who was military/CRES and who was MiB etc, especially when some soldiers appeared to be wearing plain clothes.

[rubl]

Just mentioning in passing that there has not been a proven link between the single beer can and the Army or Special Forces. Unless the can was duly signed and stamped 'property of the RTA' that is. I've heard strange things, but only as suggestion, not proof. Anyone living, or just walking around in BKK must have noticed lots of rubbish laying around, especially behind fences.

Not sure how we got here, unless the beer can figures prominently in k. Jatuporn's VDO

Yep, it can't be definitely concluded without finger prints and such, could be just rubbish, true. I'll quote a more lengthy extract from the piece, as you can see they don't say whether the beer can was empty or not, or whether it was found in an upright position, which would give a clue to whether it had been drank by a soldier, or tossed by someone else:

[7] DSI investigators, who along with crime scene investigators from the Forensics

Institute, went to examine the BTS track where the witnesses inside Wat Pathum

Wanaram and the witnesses injured both confirm they were shot at from soldiers

on the BTS track, and upon inspection of the scene investigators discovered two

bullet casings, one unfired bullet, one plastic water bottle, one bottle of Lipovitan

[energy drink], and one beer can; examination showed that the bullet casings and

the unfired bullet were both .223 caliber (5.56 mm). The bullet had a green tip, the

same as the soldiers testified that they used on 19 May 2010.

Then it appears again towards the end of the report:

Physical Evidence

1. Two spent shell casings.

2. One unfired bullet.

3. One bottle of Q Water brand drinking water.

4. One bottle of Lipo energy drink.

5. One Leo beer can.

I'm not sure whether the beer can will be used as evidence in court or not... after all, being drunk is surely no excuse!

We're moving off topic a bit here, but nowhere did I see an accusation of soldiers or special forces being drunk, or anyone else for what it matters. The position of a single beer can is hardly relevant and I assume you quote from the DSI report provided by k. Jatuporn ?

As I mentioned before, let's wait for MP Jatuporn's hour of fame in the censure debate. The speculation here has reached a point where it becomes a bit Kafkaesque