Two more victims of "unknown substance" in U.K.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They are just two guys they could be anyone. They could be Ukranian intelligence, Russian gangsters, patsies who knows. That they were spotted on March 2th is irrelevant.

The alleged incident took place on the 4th of March. The Skiprals were clearly fine from 1.30pm to 4 pm. Somewhere between 3.30pm and 4 pm, they felt unwell that's obviously when the preparators made their move.

so just a coincidence that they took a trip to salisbury on march 3 and march 4 and they just happened to walk past the skripals house? I honestly dont know i bother replying to you. a complete waste of time.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They are just two guys they could be anyone. They could be Ukranian intelligence, Russian gangsters, patsies who knows. That they were spotted on March 2th is irrelevant.

The alleged incident took place on the 4th of March. The Skiprals were clearly fine from 1.30pm to 4 pm. Somewhere between 3.30pm and 4 pm, they felt unwell that's obviously when the preparators made their move.

two guys who happen to be Russians and have had an international arrest warrant issued against them.

mcmoustache

So, what you're saying cheerful, is that it could be absolutely anything but it couldn't possibly be the state lead by a President who said this?

“Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other folks betrayed their friends, their brother in arms,” Mr Putin said.

“Whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them.”

Yeah, pull the other one.

Cheerful Spring

Aegir wrote: »

two guys who happen to be Russians and have had an international arrest warrant issued against them.

The British police even said they could be using aliases. Which makes you wonder how they enter the country, like don't they need a VISA if they are from Russia? Therese May claims they are Russian but she ignoring what her out own police force said. They can't link these men to the Kremlin.

2smiggy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you should probably stick to watching tv shows.

Aegir wrote: »

so you mean why can't they press a button and carry out facial recognition of all images taken on all cctv cameras in the uk like they do in the movies?

i don't know the extent of what they can do with facial recognition , but it's a bit naive to think they are not using it. For all i know it might be useless, or could work better than we would know. I just think 6 months is a long time to come up with these two 'suspects'

Cheerful Spring

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so just a coincidence that they took a trip to salisbury on march 3 and march 4 and they just happened to walk past the skripals house? I honestly dont know i bother replying to you. a complete waste of time.

There are discrepancies that you continually ignore and think it doesn't matter. The police have always stated the poisoning occurred at Skipral home. Skipral were travelling around Salisbury for hours and were fine and not unwell.

ohnonotgmail

2smiggy wrote: »

i don't know the extent of what they can do with facial recognition , but it's a bit naive to think they are not using it. For all i know it might be useless, or could work better than we would know. I just think 6 months is a long time to come up with these two 'suspects'

if you cant see the technological difference between unlocking a phone with a HD image of your face looking directly at it vs trying to facial recognition from hundreds (thousands?) of low res CCTV footage over a period of days where the suspects are not looking directly at the camera then i think you are better off sticking to CSI.

2smiggy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you cant see the technological difference between unlocking a phone with a HD image of your face looking directly at it vs trying to facial recognition from hundreds (thousands?) of low res CCTV footage over a period of days where the suspects are not looking directly at the camera then i think you are better off sticking to CSI.

low res ? in airports ? think you are the one that should stick to watching the tele

ohnonotgmail

2smiggy wrote: »

low res ? in airports ? think you are the one that should stick to watching the tele

Even if the camera is HD a persons face takes up only a small part of the image. So not only is the usable part of the image low res they first have to pick out all the parts of the image that actually are faces. And they have to do that 108,000 times for every camera for every hour of footage. do you have some idea now of the enormity of what they were trying to do?

2smiggy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even if the camera is HD a persons face takes up only a small part of the image. So not only is the usable part of the image low res they first have to pick out all the parts of the image that actually are faces. And they have to do that 108,000 times for every camera for every hour of footage. do you have some idea now of the enormity of what they were trying to do?

probably not !! Just my opinion that the technology they have, and what we know about, are miles apart. I just think the 6 months to come up with the suspects is suspicious.

xckjoo

2smiggy wrote: »

probably not !! Just my opinion that the technology they have, and what we know about, are miles apart. I just think the 6 months to come up with the suspects is suspicious.

Nah. You can see what the future of this kind of tech is if you look at the image processing research papers that come out. Anything in them is at least a few years from being practically implementable. It's too profitable (and surprisingly open) an area at the moment for governments to be able to lure experts away from the private sector to develop secret techniques.


Proper police work will take time. This isn't reddit where they're going to blurt out the names of the first people they find with jackets that match the suspects descriptions.

seamus

2smiggy wrote: »

probably not !! Just my opinion that the technology they have, and what we know about, are miles apart. I just think the 6 months to come up with the suspects is suspicious.

Think about this logically.

How would they even know who to be looking for?

These are two guys out of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) who entered and left the UK through various ports over the weeks before and after the assassination.

They also had no idea if the people who carried out the attack even entered the UK - they may have been resident.

So step 1 is identifying anyone who may have been anywhere near the Skripals or their home in the 24-48 hours before they were discovered.

How many people is that? Thousands? How do you find them? CCTV. Manually reviewing thousands of hours of CCTV footage and try and trace peoples' steps.

Then at least you can start to build some kind of shortlist of likely suspects. From the perspective of investigators, these are just two guys walking near the house. Two randomers, you don't know who they are or where they're from. It could Tim and his brother Bob from down the road for all you know. You have to dilute down hundreds of Tims and Bobs and Alices, rule them out, before you can start to have a proper look at the two lads (and probably ten other suspects).

This is where your facial recognition stuff might come in handy. Except that a shopfront CCTV unit is not going to be recording 1080p video at 24fps. So you need to track back. Review yet more footage to see if you can trace their movements backwards - every tube station and bus stop in a 5km radius, see where they came from.

You find out what tube they get on. And track back again. Every tube stop on that line, where did they get on. When you find that, you have to track back from there to see if you know where they are or were staying.

Remember at this stage you have two guys, you don't know who they are, but you have determined that they were near the Skripal's home at the time, you've probably found the evidence of them recc'ing the station the previous day, and you've tracked them back to a hotel.

It's at this point that things speed up. These are people of interest, you know who and what you're looking for, so where to look becomes easier.

But think about how long it takes to get to that point.

You can wax lyrical about facial recognition, but how do you look for faces in a crowd when you don't even know what those faces look like?

Chances are they've had a fix on these guys for the last 2-3 months but have been gathering additional evidence to make sure there wouldn't be egg on their face.

The unfortunate poisoning of the two British people would also have been of immense help since it not only told police how the agent had been stored and delivered, but also gave them an idea of where it was disposed, so they could use that to further implicate the suspects.

Billy86

Venom wrote: »

I doubt the full truth regarding this attack will ever come out but it's funny how everytime May is taking hits over her handling of Brexit, this story pops up again in the news.

May has been taking hits on brexit for about every week of the last two years.

seamus

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If the novitchok was spayed on a doorknob why did it take 3 hours to react? The police timeline is they left home again before 1.30pm.

Are you a chemist? Or a toxicologist? Are you intimately familiar with Novichok and how it reacts?

No, I didn't think so. And neither is anyone else whose opinion you've read on this, and how it "couldn't be Novichok because they didn't fall ill for 3 hours".

batgoat

2smiggy wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you've probably watched too much CSI.

i only have to look at my phone to unlock it, you think they don't use facial recognition ?

Biometric cameras aren't standard issue...

cnocbui

Some people need to bone up on China's facial recognition system and the one Singapore is installing.

Dohnjoe

Oh for godsake all the usual nonsense on this subject

"Well if it was Novichok they'd be dead" - Dosage.
"Yeah well it could have been the UK or another country" - The bulk of evidence so far clearly points to only one administration and country
"How come it took them so long to find the suspects" - It's not a series of CSI Miami, they likely had to trawl through hundreds of thousands of hours of footage, then perform countless crosschecks, etc
"I don't trust the Brits" - But trust the Kremlin right
"Where's all the evidence is was these guys" - With the investigators, they release what they decide to make public
"I think it's an inside job" - Cool, provide the evidence
"I'm incredulous because I personify and hate one country in particular so I feel the need to defend it's opponents against all reason and logic" - Can't help you there

Nothing is for sure, hence the term "highly likely". There are no other "highly likely" suspects in this case, not even close.

arcticthistle

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Oh for godsake all the usual nonsense on this subject

"Well if it was Novichok they'd be dead" - Dosage.
"Yeah well it could have been the UK or another country" - The bulk of evidence so far clearly points to only one administration and country
"How come it took them so long to find the suspects" - It's not a series of CSI Miami, they likely had to trawl through hundreds of thousands of hours of footage, then perform countless crosschecks, etc
"I don't trust the Brits" - But trust the Kremlin right
"Where's all the evidence is was these guys" - With the investigators, they release what they decide to make public
"I think it's an inside job" - Cool, provide the evidence
"I'm incredulous because I personify and hate one country in particular so I feel the need to defend it's opponents against all reason and logic" - Can't help you there

Nothing is for sure, hence the term "highly likely". There are no other "highly likely" suspects in this case, not even close.

"Nothing is for sure"?

No there are many things that are very much absolute and "for sure"

"Highly likely" could just as easily be said as "highly unlikely" or "My BFF told me"

Facts are needed and facts that are provable. If that is too "so yesterday" for you then you might want to stop discussing anything, specifically if you think "highly likely" means SLAM DUNK

prinzeugen

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They are just two guys they could be anyone. They could be Ukranian intelligence, Russian gangsters, patsies who knows. That they were spotted on March 2th is irrelevant.

The alleged incident took place on the 4th of March. The Skiprals were clearly fine from 1.30pm to 4 pm. Somewhere between 3.30pm and 4 pm, they felt unwell that's obviously when the preparators made their move.

Yeah. They are just two Russian guys enjoying a romantic break in Salisbury. If they were Ukrainian intelligence why has Russia not come out and said that and asked for them to be arrested for using fake Russian passports?

Oh wait.. They came from and went home to.. Russia.

Discodog

arcticthistle wrote: »

"Nothing is for sure"?

No there are many things that are very much absolute and "for sure"

"Highly likely" could just as easily be said as "highly unlikely" or "My BFF told me"

Facts are needed and facts that are provable. If that is too "so yesterday" for you then you might want to stop discussing anything, specifically if you think "highly likely" means SLAM DUNK

Russian facts or Western facts. The free media in the West scrutinise every fact whereas the Russian media just believe Putin as it's seriously dangerous not to.

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

Some people need to bone up on China's facial recognition system and the one Singapore is installing.

There's a difference between a purposefully designed, built and installed system and one made of a hodge-podge of personal recording devices that aren't of sufficient quality, placement or centrally connected.

cnocbui

You think UK Airports and municipal authorities install low resolution hodge podge equipment? They are probably the most thoroughly surveiled country on Earth. They wrote the book on population surveilance.

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

You think UK Airports and municipal authorities install low resolution hodge podge equipment? They are probably the most thoroughly surveiled country on Earth. They wrote the book on population surveilance.

They left the airport....

Sal Butamol

The whole official narrative is utterly laughable and illogical

ohnonotgmail

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The whole official narrative is utterly laughable and illogical

I can only presume you are referring to the narrative coming from russia.

Sal Butamol

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I can only presume you are referring to the narrative coming from russia.

You presume wrong. Funny.

Billy86

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I can only presume you are referring to the narrative coming from russia.

Some people will believe literally anything so long as "their side" tells them to.

It's funny after months of "where is the video evidence? The UK is full of cameras so if this was Russia they would have video evidence" just how predictable it was that the line would immediately change to "the video evidence is fake because of course!" though.

WinnyThePoo

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The whole official narrative is utterly laughable and illogical

You should contact scotland yard. I'm sure they will be overjoyed the have someone as clued in as you are. Every bit of information helps:)

seamus

cnocbui wrote: »

You think UK Airports and municipal authorities install low resolution hodge podge equipment? They are probably the most thoroughly surveiled country on Earth. They wrote the book on population surveilance.

Sure. But surveillance equipment is only good when you know who or what you're looking for.

These two guys entered and left the country before anyone even knew the Skripals had been poisoned.

muddypaws

seamus wrote: »

2smiggy wrote: »

who know's who or what was involved, just i'd be very slow in believing a repor 6 months after the fact. This was world wide news at the time, and it took 6 months to pick out a few cctv photos, and as they admit, probably fake names, and then put the blame on russian secret service ?? strikes me as very odd

The level of denialism to convince yourself of this is nothing short of amazing.

Two people are found in a near-death state in a small park in a quiet part of LONDON poisoned, with no witnesses nor any trace of the poison.

And you're surprised that it took this long to get CCTV images of the suspects? Are you fncking serious?

We should be amazed they have anything at all.

Are you pro-Russia, or do you just hate the Brits, so distrust them by default?

Has there been another incident?

2smiggy

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But surveillance equipment is only good when you know who or what you're looking for.

These two guys entered and left the country before anyone even knew the Skripals had been poisoned.

London has one of the highest number of CCTVs in the world, if not the most surveyed city in the world. They knew where the victims travelled that day. Not too much of a chore to go through that surveillance. Also any one travelling from outside the EU into Britain would have their passports scanned. It took six months to come up with this ?

I'm not pro Britain or pro Russian, but thanks for asking

xckjoo

2smiggy wrote: »

London has one of the highest number of CCTVs in the world, if not the most surveyed city in the world. They knew where the victims travelled that day. Not too much of a chore to go through that surveillance. Also any one travelling from outside the EU into Britain would have their passports scanned. It took six months to come up with this ?

I'm not pro Britain or pro Russian, but thanks for asking

Highest number of CCTV but it's mainly privately owned, inward facing, of varying quality, not joined up and not designed for any specific purpose beyond recording what's in front of it. They'd literally have to go door-to-door to gather most of the video and then go through it to weed out the useless stuff. 6 months sounds quick to me.


Edit: Best article I can find after 30s of looking: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watching-surveillance
If you remember the jogger that tried to push a woman in front of a bus in London a while back, you might also remember that they never identified him, despite the apparent omniscient surveillance system.

ohnonotgmail

2smiggy wrote: »

London has one of the highest number of CCTVs in the world, if not the most surveyed city in the world. They knew where the victims travelled that day. Not too much of a chore to go through that surveillance.

except the victims were not in London. They were in salisbury. So the police have to go through all the footage from salisbury and somehow try to pick out a suspect or suspects without knowing who it is they are looking for. and once they have found a suspect they have to trawl through thousands of cameras to find out their movements in the time preceding the attack. That sounds like a chore to me. Perhaps you have some expert knowledge you would like to share? Watching every episode of CSI does not count as expert knowledge btw.

2smiggy wrote: »

Also any one travelling from outside the EU into Britain would have their passports scanned. It took six months to come up with this ?

I'm not pro Britain or pro Russian, but thanks for asking

How does this help on its own? They had no idea the attackers came from outside the EU and if they were looking for someone from outside the EU they did not know when they came into the UK. Do you have any idea how many million non-eu visitors arrive in the UK every year.

Billy86

xckjoo wrote: »

If you remember the jogger that tried to push a woman in front of a bus in London a while back, you might also remember that they never identified him, despite the apparent omniscient surveillance system.

All just part of the British deep state plot to trick you, you see.

Elmer Blooker

2smiggy wrote: »

London has one of the highest number of CCTVs in the world, if not the most surveyed city in the world. They knew where the victims travelled that day. Not too much of a chore to go through that surveillance. Also any one travelling from outside the EU into Britain would have their passports scanned. It took six months to come up with this ?

If they were genuine GRU professionals they would have entered the UK from another EU country, the list is endless, the Channel tunnel, France, Netherlands, Belgium, the Rep of Ireland, Northern Ireland, flying to London from Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania would raise little suspicion with millions from those countries resident in the UK. No, these two "hit men" entered the UK from ....... Moscow!!
This stuff is even funnier than Austin Powers!

seamus

2smiggy wrote: »

London has one of the highest number of CCTVs in the world, if not the most surveyed city in the world. They knew where the victims travelled that day. Not too much of a chore to go through that surveillance. Also any one travelling from outside the EU into Britain would have their passports scanned. It took six months to come up with this ?

"Not too much of a chore"? What are you basing that on?

They know where the victims went that day. But they don't know where or when they picked up the poison. They don't know if the victims crossed paths with the attackers or if the poison was left for them to find. In the latter case, if it was left for them to find, they don't know when and where it was left. Could it have been days before? Weeks before?

What use is going through the surveillance of the Skripal's movements when the attackers may not have been there for days?

I'm not sure what relevance scanning the passports has. These guys were travelling on fake passports. Just two Russians entering the UK on holiday, indistinguishable from the 200 other innocent Russians they shared the flight with.

You seem to have this belief that there's a big "24"-esque control room somewhere where people can bash a few keys on their keyboard and instantly bring up CCTV feeds from any camera and have a computer analyse it and enhance it in real time.

xckjoo

seamus wrote: »

"Not too much of a chore"? What are you basing that on?

They know where the victims went that day. But they don't know where or when they picked up the poison. They don't know if the victims crossed paths with the attackers or if the poison was left for them to find. In the latter case, if it was left for them to find, they don't know when and where it was left. Could it have been days before? Weeks before?

What use is going through the surveillance of the Skripal's movements when the attackers may not have been there for days?

I'm not sure what relevance scanning the passports has. These guys were travelling on fake passports. Just two Russians entering the UK on holiday, indistinguishable from the 200 other innocent Russians they shared the flight with.

You seem to have this belief that there's a big "24"-esque control room somewhere where people can bash a few keys on their keyboard and instantly bring up CCTV feeds from any camera and have a computer analyse it and enhance it in real time.

"Enhance the image and zoom in"

arcticthistle

seamus wrote: »

"Not too much of a chore"? What are you basing that on?

They know where the victims went that day. But they don't know where or when they picked up the poison. They don't know if the victims crossed paths with the attackers or if the poison was left for them to find. In the latter case, if it was left for them to find, they don't know when and where it was left. Could it have been days before? Weeks before?

What use is going through the surveillance of the Skripal's movements when the attackers may not have been there for days?

I'm not sure what relevance scanning the passports has. These guys were travelling on fake passports. Just two Russians entering the UK on holiday, indistinguishable from the 200 other innocent Russians they shared the flight with.

You seem to have this belief that there's a big "24"-esque control room somewhere where people can bash a few keys on their keyboard and instantly bring up CCTV feeds from any camera and have a computer analyse it and enhance it in real time.

Well they had the Parsons Green train bomber in the bag the very next day. They can track football hooligans in real time on match days.

arcticthistle

For anybody who is interested the photographs of the two guys arriving at Gatwick are available on the Met's website. As a newcomer I can't post links but this might get around it:

news.met.police.uk/images/cctv1-equals-image-of-petrov-at-gatwick-airport-at-15-00hrs-on-02-march-2018-1407995

AND


news.met.police.uk/images/cctv2-equals-image-of-boshirov-at-gatwick-airport-at-15-00hrs-on-02-march-2018-1407997

just put http colon slash slash in front.

If anybody else wants to post the full link to these to make it convenient for other then go for it.

seamus

arcticthistle wrote: »

Well they had the Parsons Green train bomber in the bag the very next day. They can track football hooligans in real time on match days.

Right. Because they know what they're looking for, when they're looking for it and where they're looking for it.

It was probably several weeks, if not 2-3 months before they had enough information to know to even narrow the search down to these two guys.

ohnonotgmail

arcticthistle wrote: »

Well they had the Parsons Green train bomber in the bag the very next day. They can track football hooligans in real time on match days.

Well it kinda helps when you know exactly when and where something happens if you want to track the suspect. In the skripal case they did not know either of these two pieces of information to any high degree of certainty.

mcmoustache

Billy86 wrote: »

Some people will believe literally anything so long as "their side" tells them to.

It's funny after months of "where is the video evidence? The UK is full of cameras so if this was Russia they would have video evidence" just how predictable it was that the line would immediately change to "the video evidence is fake because of course!" though.

The goalposts have moved out of the country at this stage.

mcmoustache

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

If they were genuine GRU professionals they would have entered the UK from another EU country, the list is endless, the Channel tunnel, France, Netherlands, Belgium, the Rep of Ireland, Northern Ireland, flying to London from Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania would raise little suspicion with millions from those countries resident in the UK. No, these two "hit men" entered the UK from ....... Moscow!!
This stuff is even funnier than Austin Powers!

How do you know this?

arcticthistle

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well it kinda helps when you know exactly when and where something happens if you want to track the suspect. In the skripal case they did not know either of these two pieces of information to any high degree of certainty.

Anyway, did you look at the 2 photos of the guys arriving at Gatwick? Maybe you could post them up here.

2smiggy

Does not matter about flying from in or out of the EU, I think all non EU citizens have their passports scanned, at least this is what happens me at any country outside of the EU.

They were very quick to blame Russia for the attacks, so I presume they would have started looking at Russian passports coming in and out of the UK, starting with London Airports. Seems logical.

ohnonotgmail

arcticthistle wrote: »

Anyway, did you look at the 2 photos of the guys arriving at Gatwick? Maybe you could post them up here.

they are available on the BBC. everybody who wants to see them has already seen them. what do you think is significant about them?

2smiggy

ohnonotgmail

2smiggy wrote: »

Does not matter about flying from in or out of the EU, I think all non EU citizens have their passports scanned, at least this is what happens me at any country outside of the EU.

They were very quick to blame Russia for the attacks, so I presume they would have started looking at Russian passports coming in and out of the UK, starting with London Airports. Seems logical.

and what? they had no idea who they were looking for. They had no idea when they arrived in the country. It was only after they had trawled through the CCTV that they had an idea who they were looking for.

xckjoo

2smiggy wrote: »

Does not matter about flying from in or out of the EU, I think all non EU citizens have their passports scanned, at least this is what happens me at any country outside of the EU.

They were very quick to blame Russia for the attacks, so I presume they would have started looking at Russian passports coming in and out of the UK, starting with London Airports. Seems logical.

The most abused sentence in the English language these days

Cheerful Spring

2smiggy wrote: »

The timestamp is interesting how likely they were walking through the same space down to the second? Seems a big fail on whoever uploaded these images?

These could be two different walkthroughs, have to know where this in the airport?