Abhisit Vows To Back Probe Into 91 Deaths

[Insight]

^ even more curious is that Thaksin is the one who wants to forget about it all and Abhist supports a full investigation

And why are some people so keen to derail this thread with the usual troll-like baseless accusations....?

[longway]

^watch them come up with excuses on behalf of thaksin on why he is so keen to move away from the events of 2010. They are so brain washed it's embarrassing to listen to them.

[Siam Simon]

SS were you here in Thailand when the reds invaded the hospital and witnessed it on local tv? I was and I did. It was pure pandemonium.

p11 were you at Chula hospital when the Rad Shirt intrusion occurred? I've seen the video grab of local tv coverage provided by Buchholz. It's nothing like you describe it.

[GentlemanJim]

^ even more curious is that Thaksin is the one who wants to forget about it all and Abhist supports a full investigation

And why are some people so keen to derail this thread with the usual troll-like baseless accusations....?

I assume you are talking of phiphidon? Please tell me my assumption is true ! I wish phiphidon really was Thaksin but sadly his english is not quite bad enough!

[Siam Simon]

Is this forum unique in it's etiquette?

"Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth."

<deleted>? So if the majority state something (which is so often the case on this forum once all the cheerleaders have woken up) anybody who has an opposing view has to prove their viewpoint but there is no onus on the originator of the discussion to do so?

Are we to conclude from this that if the majority say one thing it must be true? I've seen this on numerous occasions where posters casually drop lies and half truths around like confetti without a shred of evidence and carry on as if they are epitome of veracity.

The thing is, Don, all the available evidence contradicts the forum's anti-Red Shirt frothers. The frothers keep popping up claiming to have seen tv news coverage showing a particular scenario but can't produce any reliable evidence to support their claims. But we have a video grab of news coverage which shows scenes from the intrusion which are completely at odds with the frothers' descriptions. One of the frothers ludicrously keeps claiming that the video evidence provided shows "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" though he has now gracefully conceded that the "variety of weapons" may have been concealed .

I remember the original threads on this debacle. They were full of exaggeration, hyperbole and outright lies by pretty much all of the anti-Red Shirt frothers. It's my opinion that the news coverage they all saw is the news coverage shown in the video grab provided by Buchholz, and their recollections are of their exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies in the original threads discussing said debacle.

[GentlemanJim]

Is this forum unique in it's etiquette?

"Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth."

<deleted>? So if the majority state something (which is so often the case on this forum once all the cheerleaders have woken up) anybody who has an opposing view has to prove their viewpoint but there is no onus on the originator of the discussion to do so?

Are we to conclude from this that if the majority say one thing it must be true? I've seen this on numerous occasions where posters casually drop lies and half truths around like confetti without a shred of evidence and carry on as if they are epitome of veracity.

The thing is, Don, all the available evidence contradicts the forum's anti-Red Shirt frothers. The frothers keep popping up claiming to have seen tv news coverage showing a particular scenario but can't produce any reliable evidence to support their claims. But we have a video grab of news coverage which shows scenes from the intrusion which are completely at odds with the frothers' descriptions. One of the frothers ludicrously keeps claiming that the video evidence provided shows "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" though he has now gracefully conceded that the "variety of weapons" may have been concealed .

I remember the original threads on this debacle. They were full of exaggeration, hyperbole and outright lies by pretty much all of the anti-Red Shirt frothers. It's my opinion that the news coverage they all saw is the news coverage shown in the video grab provided by Buchholz, and their recollections are of their exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies in the original threads discussing said debacle.

Can you please link to all the evidence that contradicts the "forums anti-red shirt frothers"?

[Siam Simon]

Is this forum unique in it's etiquette?

"Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth."

<deleted>? So if the majority state something (which is so often the case on this forum once all the cheerleaders have woken up) anybody who has an opposing view has to prove their viewpoint but there is no onus on the originator of the discussion to do so?

Are we to conclude from this that if the majority say one thing it must be true? I've seen this on numerous occasions where posters casually drop lies and half truths around like confetti without a shred of evidence and carry on as if they are epitome of veracity.

The thing is, Don, all the available evidence contradicts the forum's anti-Red Shirt frothers. The frothers keep popping up claiming to have seen tv news coverage showing a particular scenario but can't produce any reliable evidence to support their claims. But we have a video grab of news coverage which shows scenes from the intrusion which are completely at odds with the frothers' descriptions. One of the frothers ludicrously keeps claiming that the video evidence provided shows "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" though he has now gracefully conceded that the "variety of weapons" may have been concealed .

I remember the original threads on this debacle. They were full of exaggeration, hyperbole and outright lies by pretty much all of the anti-Red Shirt frothers. It's my opinion that the news coverage they all saw is the news coverage shown in the video grab provided by Buchholz, and their recollections are of their exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies in the original threads discussing said debacle.

Can you please link to all the evidence that contradicts the "forums anti-red shirt frothers"?

Just watch the video embedded by Buchholz earlier in this thread, Jim.

[Siam Simon]

cut/// Just out of interest I found this - haven't checked out other sources yet.

BANGKOK, 5 May 2010 (NNT) – M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan................

http://thainews.prd....id=255305050012

Curiouser and curiouser..............

That one is a bit like the initial DSI report on Hiro's death: A bit of 'advice' from the army soon changed things.

[Siam Simon]

The mating call of the modern historical revisionist sounds like "If you haven't got a video it didn't happen."

There is always a dispensation of the need for logic. We are told violent protesters entering a hospital to capture snipers always do so unarmed, are polite and respectful to all concerned, speak in whispers, and walk on tiptoe. The 24 hour EVERY day noise, smell and pollution they created was actually beneficial to the patients, taking their mind from their suffering; clearly audible incitations to kill, maim and burn were really quite entertaining and stress relieving.

Meanwhile respected medical professionals who have made a decision criticized by some in the past, will ALWAYS act in an immoral and reprehensible manner, abandoning all concern for patients to achieve a petty political point. That decision (as I recall) was that police should be treated at the nearby police hospital rather than at the same place as PAD protesters. Immoral or pragmatic?

"That decision (as I recall) was that police should be treated at the nearby police hospital rather than at the same place as PAD protesters. Immoral or pragmatic?"

A modern political revisionist at work. And condemned by the words of the very people he tries to defend with his revisionism: "Today, medical team of Chulalongkorn Hospital will not give assistance to police officers injured from the clashes with PAD supporters. This is a social measure to show that doctors and nurses condemn the violent actions,"

[heiwa]

Immoral or pragmatic - If the police and army chose not to wage wore that day with "civilians" there would have been no deaths. A buddhist would see this as instant karma for waging a war against "the electorate". Same can be seen all over the world now by the elite and their goons (police and army) - USA, Syria, Malaysia etc. The fact is they should have not been there protecting the elite with gun fire on innocents. People should be able to protest where-ever and when-ever they want.

Edited April 29, 2012 by heiwa

[whybother]

Immoral or pragmatic - If the police and army chose not to wage wore that day with "civilians" there would have been no deaths. A buddhist would see this as instant karma for waging a war against "the electorate". Same can be seen all over the world now by the elite and their goons (police and army) - USA, Syria, Malaysia etc. The fact is they should have not been there protecting the elite with gun fire on innocents. People should be able to protest where-ever and when-ever they want.

"People should be able to protest where-ever and when-ever they want." ... with guns and grenades?

[rixalex]

One of the frothers ludicrously keeps claiming that the video evidence provided shows "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" though he has now gracefully conceded that the "variety of weapons" may have been concealed .

Ludicrous to describe it as "pandemonium"... ok, yes well, from the man who likens it all to nothing more than official visitors or patients taking a stroll through hospital grounds and ward. Clearly here speaks the voice of balance and reason.

What else? Nuclear holocaust is just a minor skirmish?

[rixalex]

Immoral or pragmatic - If the police and army chose not to wage wore that day with "civilians" there would have been no deaths.

By chose not to wage war that day, what you mean is chose to allow themselves to get attacked and shot at without responding.

[OzMick]

Helmets, they were wearing helmets........

Good god, they must be terrorists.......

Was it a big guy with a big stick or what ??

The hospital was, rather cynically, being used by the army as a sniper position.

Neither unreasonable nor unexpected for those being shot at to "check it out".

Is it ?

It was CLAIMED that the army was using it as a sniper position, but no such snipers were found. (Beam me up, Somchai?)

Now it is CLAIMED that those hunting the snipers were unarmed. THAT is both unreasonable and illogical. isn't it?

They were looking for evidence that the army were in occupation of the upper floors of the hospital. Why shouldn't they go looking for them unarmed. The hospital is run by the Thai Red Cross, not the Thai Medical institution - this means that it is even more a No No that army personnel should be there. In this situation even the army, snipers or whoever, are not going to be stupid enough to start a shooting match on the grounds of a red cross hospital - though it seems that on April 29th they did. What can you say?

Strangely enough the hospital was emptied the next day the lights were off and eye witnesses saw a large group of army soldiers in the grounds of the hospital, how convenient.

Last night as we climbed the hospital stair

we met a sniper who wasn't there.

He wasn't there again today,

and patients wish we'd go away.

For some reason you find it curious that security personnel are on the grounds of a vacated hospital. Try looking across the road at a few thousand arsonists and looters. Was Chula on Arisman's list of places to be torched?

[AleG]

Is this forum unique in it's etiquette?

"Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth."

<deleted>? So if the majority state something (which is so often the case on this forum once all the cheerleaders have woken up) anybody who has an opposing view has to prove their viewpoint but there is no onus on the originator of the discussion to do so?

Are we to conclude from this that if the majority say one thing it must be true? I've seen this on numerous occasions where posters casually drop lies and half truths around like confetti without a shred of evidence and carry on as if they are epitome of veracity.

The thing is, Don, all the available evidence contradicts the forum's anti-Red Shirt frothers. The frothers keep popping up claiming to have seen tv news coverage showing a particular scenario but can't produce any reliable evidence to support their claims. But we have a video grab of news coverage which shows scenes from the intrusion which are completely at odds with the frothers' descriptions. One of the frothers ludicrously keeps claiming that the video evidence provided shows "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" though he has now gracefully conceded that the "variety of weapons" may have been concealed .

I remember the original threads on this debacle. They were full of exaggeration, hyperbole and outright lies by pretty much all of the anti-Red Shirt frothers. It's my opinion that the news coverage they all saw is the news coverage shown in the video grab provided by Buchholz, and their recollections are of their exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies in the original threads discussing said debacle.

Have you no sense of decency? I ask honestly, have you no sense of decency at all? Defending an invasion of a hospital by a paranoid mob?

I suppose official visits to hospitals include forcefully removing people and beating them on the way out? (around 2:00)

But no... Red Shirts would never cause a commotion in a hospital. Why would think something like that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdASCkNa_4

[phiphidon]

^ even more curious is that Thaksin is the one who wants to forget about it all and Abhist supports a full investigation

And why are some people so keen to derail this thread with the usual troll-like baseless accusations....?

If Abhisit had truly wanted the truth he would have given the committee that he set up sub poena powers and ensured that those witnesses both military and civilian be compelled to give evidence. He didn't and managed to keep it that way until he was finally got rid of.

By then, the damage was done. Even now, the supposed obviousness of "the reds did it" wrt the arson at the mall has not been proved. He has been devious from the beginning with the CRES at first denying anybody had been killed by the army, they didn't have live bullets, the people in the Wat were killed from bullets at ground level (Abhisit himself came out with that gem) etc. etc. etc.

One final thing, it is an extremely lame debating "technique" to claim "some people so keen to derail this thread with the usual troll-like baseless accusations....?" if you don't agree with what they say.

[phiphidon]

Last night as we climbed the hospital stair

we met a sniper who wasn't there.

He wasn't there again today,

and patients wish we'd go away.

For some reason you find it curious that security personnel are on the grounds of a vacated hospital. Try looking across the road at a few thousand arsonists and looters. Was Chula on Arisman's list of places to be torched?

"Try looking across the road at a few thousand arsonists and looters"

The hyperbole is upped and upped.

"For some reason you find it curious that security personnel are on the grounds of a vacated hospital"

Chulalongkorn is run by the the Thai Red Cross and as such is subject to the Geneva Convention

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Annex I. Draft Agreement Relating to Hospital Zones and Localities

Art. 2. No persons residing, in whatever capacity, in a hospital zone shall perform any work, either within or without the zone, directly connected with military operations or the production of war material.

Art. 5. Hospital zones shall be subject to the following obligations:

The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in transit.

They shall in no case be defended by military means.

[KireB]

Just out of interest I found this - haven't checked out other sources yet.

BANGKOK, 5 May 2010 (NNT) – M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan................

http://thainews.prd....id=255305050012

Curiouser and curiouser..............

It seems!

"A parallel investigation, also led by Pornthip, into the M-79 grenade attack on BTS Sala Daeng station on April 22 found that five rounds were fired from more than one location, possibly from one team that kept moving or from a number of teams of attackers.

The shots at three locations, aimed at crowds of Silom residents jeering at the red shirts across the street, could have been fired from high-vantage points or from behind the statute of King Rama VI to the south of Lumpini Park. This attack killed one and injured scores of others."

Source (May 5)

[Insight]

One final thing, it is an extremely lame debating "technique" to claim "some people so keen to derail this thread with the usual troll-like baseless accusations....?" if you don't agree with what they say.

Was it a "debating technique"? I'm just making a statement based on my observations of this thread.

I'm also well aware of how the Chula hospital raid by the red shirts unfolded. I was monitoring the events on TV and Twitter from Ramathibodi hospital with my wife, sister-in-law and her husband, along with their newborn child. They were actually supposed to give birth to the baby in Chula hospital, but couldn't navigate their way through the red shirt barricades and ultimately ended up giving birth to the baby in the car on the way to Ramathibodi.

Spin what you want from your armchair in London or wherever. We have personal experiences, along with ludicrous amounts of video footage of events from a wide range of sources to validate our claims.

You have Amsterdam and his "White Paper" (until the HRW report came along and tore it to ribbons).

[Siam Simon]

One final thing, it is an extremely lame debating "technique" to claim "some people so keen to derail this thread with the usual troll-like baseless accusations....?" if you don't agree with what they say.

Was it a "debating technique"? I'm just making a statement based on my observations of this thread.

I'm also well aware of how the Chula hospital raid by the red shirts unfolded. I was monitoring the events on TV and Twitter from Ramathibodi hospital with my wife, sister-in-law and her husband, along with their newborn child. They were actually supposed to give birth to the baby in Chula hospital, but couldn't navigate their way through the red shirt barricades and ultimately ended up giving birth to the baby in the car on the way to Ramathibodi.

Spin what you want from your armchair in London or wherever. We have personal experiences, along with ludicrous amounts of video footage of events from a wide range of sources to validate our claims.

You have Amsterdam and his "White Paper" (until the HRW report came along and tore it to ribbons).

"along with ludicrous amounts of video footage of events from a wide range of sources to validate our claims."

If it's video of the Chula intrusion , please post it.

[Babcock]

The “germs”: the reds’ infection of the Thai political body

May 3rd, 2010 by Thongchai Winichakul, Guest Contributor

The media reports, especially on TV, are full of horrible eyewitness accounts. Doctors, nurses, patients, and their relatives are panicked. They frantically moved patients, many of whom are in a serious condition and should not be moved, to another building. What is shown on TV is not an orderly operation as precaution but a chaotic, disorganized action by medical personnel who were in fright! The Reds are coming! They heard the Reds are coming! People said the Reds are coming!

There is no need for a single picture or photo if the Reds were armed, or a report of a single shot, but the public assume that the Reds stormed into the hospital fully armed, threatening doctors and patients with weapons, causing horrific chaos as people tried to escape the armed invasion. A nurse was reported saying that she has to work with fear of bullets from the Reds everyday, as if there were a shot at the hospital even once. (Finally there was, in the parking area of the hospital when the UDD group actually encountered a few army officers. The soldiers shot at them. The UDD people escaped uninjured.)..................

Read on here http://asiapacific.a...-the-red-germs/

The professor wishes to ridicule the assumption that the red shirts entered the hospital armed. As their claim was that the entered in order to evict soldiers who had been firing on them, the assumption that therefore they were unarmed is completely farcical.

One fact should be repeated. If the red protesters had not used arms to resist their lawful removal, there would be no necessity for the RTA to use weapons against them.

This is my understanding of what happened at the hospital at the time.

The hospital cleared the building overlooking the redshirts perhaps understandably. Distressing for sick patients.

The building was left unlit and soldiers were apparently observed moving around within the building by redshirt guards./

A group of redshirts went to the hospiatl where they were shot at by soldiers as referred to above and searched within the empty building finding no soldiers BUT the celebrated forensic scientist Porntip or Porntiva analysed the room on the 5th floor where she found fragmentary evidence that suggested that the grenade attacks on the PAD demonstrators at Sala Dang may have originated from inside the hospital.

Had the redshirts been armed it would have been all over the western press understandably.

However I doubt the "frothers" bother to check out the international press for their stories.

[Babcock]

So, Rix, what specifically so you think brought on the decision to evacuate?

The safety of staff and patients.

Easy for you, someone who wasn't there, who now sits safely behind his computer completely removed from any of this (like us all of course) to make the judgement that lives weren't in danger and that this was simply political showboating, but you don't know this for a fact, it is just something you choose to believe. I choose to believe that 99% of doctors and nurses ultimately, and when it comes to the crunch, will act in the best interests of their patients - it is how they are programmed - and i believe that is what was happening here - as well as of course acting in the interests of their own safety.

And you can insult me with your "hospital invasion apologist" jibe as much as you like, I'm thick-skinned . I continue to moderate my criticism of Chula hospital's behaviour and the hyperbole of fellow TVF posters with my genuine condemnation of the intrusion by Red Shirts.

Sorry but I find the "genuine condemnation" rings fairly hollow all the time you are making silly comparisons like "much akin to official visitors passing through".

In the TV Red Shirt supporters/admirers mind it´s totally OK to use kids as shields and storm hospitals, in the Geneva Convention it´s not. That´s about says it all.

Oh dear oh dear.

Some redshirt nut holds up his child taunting the soldiers and the story transmutes into "redshirts use kids as human shields."

If I beleived you meant that seriously and not just as the usual windup I'd say

Nurse!

[Siam Simon]

Is this forum unique in it's etiquette?

"Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth."

<deleted>? So if the majority state something (which is so often the case on this forum once all the cheerleaders have woken up) anybody who has an opposing view has to prove their viewpoint but there is no onus on the originator of the discussion to do so?

Are we to conclude from this that if the majority say one thing it must be true? I've seen this on numerous occasions where posters casually drop lies and half truths around like confetti without a shred of evidence and carry on as if they are epitome of veracity.

The thing is, Don, all the available evidence contradicts the forum's anti-Red Shirt frothers. The frothers keep popping up claiming to have seen tv news coverage showing a particular scenario but can't produce any reliable evidence to support their claims. But we have a video grab of news coverage which shows scenes from the intrusion which are completely at odds with the frothers' descriptions. One of the frothers ludicrously keeps claiming that the video evidence provided shows "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" though he has now gracefully conceded that the "variety of weapons" may have been concealed .

I remember the original threads on this debacle. They were full of exaggeration, hyperbole and outright lies by pretty much all of the anti-Red Shirt frothers. It's my opinion that the news coverage they all saw is the news coverage shown in the video grab provided by Buchholz, and their recollections are of their exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies in the original threads discussing said debacle.

Have you no sense of decency? I ask honestly, have you no sense of decency at all? Defending an invasion of a hospital by a paranoid mob?

I suppose official visits to hospitals include forcefully removing people and beating them on the way out? (around 2:00)

But no... Red Shirts would never cause a commotion in a hospital. Why would think something like that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdASCkNa_4

Are you as thick as two short planks or just plain dishonest? I've never defended the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula, but I've always defended truth and fact about the intrusion against the hyperbole, lies and false memory syndrome displayed by posters such as yourself. And you're at it again, posting two videos that are not from the incident we're discussing.

[sparebox2]

Nobody had been killed by the army. They (the army) didn't have live bullets, the people in the Wat were killed from bullets at ground level.

[AleG]

Are you as thick as two short planks or just plain dishonest? I've never defended the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula, but I've always defended truth and fact about the intrusion against the hyperbole, lies and false memory syndrome displayed by posters such as yourself. And you're at it again, posting two videos that are not from the incident we're discussing.

The first video is from the night the Red Shirts stormed into the hospital, the guy being dragged and punched is one of the two they abducted from the hospital premises.

The second video is from a previous incident where the Red Shirts broke into a hospital to remove the bodies of protesters killed at Democracy Monument, I didn't claim it to be from Chulalongkorn hospital and it's quite obvious by looking at it that is not the same place.

So you may start by apologizing for calling me a liar....

[Babcock]

...

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

..

I do remember seeing the news back when the event happened, a mob of Red Shirts, some with sticks and helmets, bursting in through the lobby (lobby I think) of the hospital.

But don't let that stand on the way of the SS Revisionism steaming full ahead.

Remember this one you posted. 2 foot high "blackshirt"

Something cooked up in Adobe After Effects by some "hi-so."

What provokes you to post such BS.

[AleG]

Remember this one you posted. 2 foot high "blackshirt"

Something cooked up in Adobe After Effects by some "hi-so."

What provokes you to post such BS.

You are embarasing yourself.

[Babcock]

Remember this one you posted. 2 foot high "blackshirt"

Something cooked up in Adobe After Effects by some "hi-so."

What provokes you to post such BS.

You are embarasing yourself.

Clearly your eyes decieve you. We've had a good laugh at this one

Here a black silhouette no higher than the crash barrier behind (video shot at eye level of standing cameraman, no surprise.)

Check the perspective. The person who put this together may know how to use the software but doesn't understand perspective. I do.

You don't deny it then

[Siam Simon]

Are you as thick as two short planks or just plain dishonest? I've never defended the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula, but I've always defended truth and fact about the intrusion against the hyperbole, lies and false memory syndrome displayed by posters such as yourself. And you're at it again, posting two videos that are not from the incident we're discussing.

The first video is from the night the Red Shirts stormed into the hospital, the guy being dragged and punched is one of the two they abducted from the hospital premises.

The second video is from a previous incident where the Red Shirts broke into a hospital to remove the bodies of protesters killed at Democracy Monument, I didn't claim it to be from Chulalongkorn hospital and it's quite obvious by looking at it that is not the same place.

So you may start by apologizing for calling me a liar....

In a discussion about specifics of the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula, you posted a video of an incident outside the hospital after the intrusion and a video of a separate incident. You may start by apologising for your attempted deception.

[AleG]

Clearly your eyes decieve you. We've had a good laugh at this one

Here a black silhouette no higher than the crash barrier behind (video shot at eye level of standing cameraman, no surprise.)

Check the perspective. The person who put this together may know how to use the software but doesn't understand perspective. I do.

You don't deny it then

It's kind of amusing how you insists on making a fool of yourself.

Here's a quick tip, from someone who actually makes a living doing visual effects for film and TV, if you place a camera above your head, the perspective makes things look at a lower level than the background.

Now some moderator please have mercy on Babcock and delete all this nonsense.