The one slight error in John Anthony Hill's "7/7 Ripple Effect"

Introduction

John Anthony Hill, who calls himself, Muad'Dib (the name of a character in the novel, Dune), produced an excellent documentary on the London Transport bombings of 7th July 2005, entitled, "7/7 Ripple Effect." This documentary is freely available for download here and I strongly recommend it as being essential viewing for any reasoning, rational person.

Mr. Hill felt obliged to send copies of his documentary to a court in England, where three young Muslim men stood falsely accused of aiding and abetting the four alleged London Transport bombers. Convicting these three additional young Muslim men of such a crime would, by inference, strengthen the official UK government conspiracy theory against the original four (7th July) patsies. However, for his attempt to ensure that justice was not perverted by the politically-motivated persecution of these men (who were, of course, innocent until proven guilty), Mr. Hill was charged with "attempting to pervert the course of justice" himself. Did this imply that the material contained in "7/7 Ripple Effect" would blow the persecution's case apart? Presumably so. Anyway, the extradition of Muad'Dib from Eire, where he has lived peaceably for many years, was requested by some subversive Jewish Zionists illegally living and "working" in England (the Edict of Expulsion of 1290 makes it a criminal offence for Jews to live and work in England and also, by extension, Cymru and Alba). It seems that these Jewish Zionists were attempting to imprison three innocent young Asian men and spread animosity towards Muslims within the British Isles, and Mr. Hill was hindering their little false flag operation.

However, although Mr. Hill's "7/7 Ripple Effect" documentary is very well researched, it does have one seriously weak link, in my opinion; this weak link being the claims made regarding the single image of the patsies entering Luton Railway Station at 07:21:54 on the date of the treason (7th July, 2005). The still reproduced here has been extracted directly from the DVD:

Figure 1: Fake or genuine? Does it really matter?

My concern is that the Zionist regime in England will use this weak link to stitch up John Hill if he is ever extradited to England for a show trial. They will do this in such a way as to both support their charge that Mr. Hill was "attempting to pervert the course of justice," and to portray his well-researched exposé of their murderous treason as baseless, via the mainstream media that these same people totally own and control.

In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution will probably ignore the entire DVD except for this one still image, for by convincing a jury that Mr. Hill's claims regarding this one image are wild and fanciful, they will, by association, discredit the whole thesis. The first set of patsies would appear in the eyes of the sheeple to have been guilty all along, and Muad'Dib would then be left wide open to the charges laid against him — that the three secondary patsies were "in fact" guilty and that he had done his bit to get them "off the hook."

This is the way that a Zionist regime works; by lies and deception (recall the motto of Mossad and the "instruction" (sic) of The Talmud).

The claim

Figure 2: The "7/7 Ripple Effect" claim that Fig. 1 is a forgery.

He over-emphasizes this claim by then stating, "... so [the authorities] had to doctor and show us the fake photo instead," implicating Michael Portillo in this alleged deception by repeating that, "the coverage was going to be organized." (Muad'Dib, "7/7 Ripple Effect.")

Mr. Hill further compounds the problem by posting on his site (mtrial.org) a video which seemingly backs up his conclusions regarding the Luton Station image. This could turn out to be a serious error of judgement.

The "7/7 AnomaLIES" video

I have no idea who did the analysis of this photo which is posted on mtrial.org, but their claims leave a lot to be desired. For example, a "missing" piece of leg could just be a tissue or piece of paper protruding from a pocket. The "missing elbow" I do not support at all, nor the associated claim that the lower railing is in front of the body. The top railing does appear to obscure the left-hand side of the face, that's true, but this could either be a trick of the light or else caused by 'bleeding' (I have a lot of experience in these effects from doing analyses on phony Moon photos).

The reflections in the glass behind the patsies, rather than being "poorly done," seem to me to be much too good to have been faked (see Fig. 3). This is also true of the reflections in the puddles and wet pavement. Comments about the lone Muslim are completely correct, but of no relevance to the Luton CCTV image. The comment about the curb stone is explained by reflection of light off the wet surface, but I fail to see what relevance the curb stone would be to anything. Why make out that a curb stone has been "altered," unless one is thinking ahead to a time when this could be used in a court of law to discredit the World's main documentary on the real events of 7th July 2005? Imagine a barrister milking this for all he's worth in front of a jury who have been made aware of just how heavy a curb stone is and how difficult it would be to move it: "Come now, Mr. Hill, why did the authorities, in their efforts to conceal the truth, as you see it, play with this curb stone? What is the deep significance of this, in your opinion?"

Figure 3: Reflections in the glass seem far too accurate to have been added.

I further looked at the image for signs of adding the timestamp, but I did not find any evidence to this effect either.

Although the reviewer makes no mention of the fact that only a single frame has been released, I know that other commentators have tried to make an issue of this. However, these CCTV cameras record about once per second, rather than continuously. If we assume that the patsies were walking at 2.5 mph (a "brisk" walking pace for a young man is 4 mph) then, in one second, they would travel (2.5 * 1,760)/(60 * 60) = 1.22 yards.

And, at 3.0 mph, they would be covering (3.0 * 1,760)/3,600 = 1.46 yds/sec.

And if they were intent on catching a train and thus doing 4.0 mph, then they would be covering almost 2 yards between each frame capture from the station CCTV camera!

Hence, the frame AFTER this one would have the leading young man either inside the station or at least partially obscured by the door frame, and the frame BEFORE this one would probably have the rightmost young man obscured by the bus stop sign. The image in question would thus simply be the best one for the Zionist regime to release in support of their outlandish conspiracy theory.

This thesis is demonstrated to be correct at approximately 7 minutes into the following analysis video, which I am indebted to my good friend Bernard Brauer for pointing out to me (31st October, 2010):

In particular, note that Figs. 4(v) and 4(vii), in a chronological sequence extracted directly from the video, are exactly as predicted. And that, although the timestamp has been deliberately blurred, it does appear from Figs. 4(vi), (vii) and (viii), knowing that the second counter in Fig. 4(vi) can be calibrated from Fig. 1 as reading 54 seconds, that the image capture interval was once every two seconds (rather than once every second, as I had assumed) — a fact that further strengthens the argument presented here.

Figure 4(i): CCTV footage, ... still 1.

Figure 4(ii): ... still 2.

Figure 4(iii): ... still 3.

Figure 4(iv): ... still 4.

Figure 4(v): ... still 5.

Figure 4(vi): ... still 6.

Figure 4(vii): ... still 7.

Figure 4(viii): ... still 8.

There is an associated point in the "7/7 AnomaLIES" video: the BR train tickets (shown at two places in the video) pertaining to be Luton to King's Cross and back are forgeries. See particularly the 2nd showing of them at 26:50 into the video.

"July", the "5" in "05", "Luton" and "Kings X" are all alterations made with a photo editor package.

These image alterations, necessary though they may be, are not mentioned in the "AnomaLIES" production.

Shooting himself in the foot

The foregoing may have fostered a negative impression, but this is easily corrected.

Let us consider the possibility that the image is, in fact, genuine.

In his documentary, Muad'Dib makes the extremely valid point that ICTS is an Israeli company with an office about a mile from Luton railway station, and that the four would be told to meet at this office for their final instructions regarding the role-play that they thought they were engaged in. I agree with this. However, one mile is quite a long way, especially in the wet. How could Mossad have ensured that the patsies got on the 07:40 unless A TAXI WAS LAID ON TO TAKE THEM THAT MILE TO THE STATION?

Figure 1 is a cropped image, but on a wider image (Fig. 5, below, for instance) a vehicle (Black Cab?) is clearly visible, parked at the curbside ... and all four are walking from the direction of that vehicle. This vehicle seems to be facing the camera and has therefore almost certainly dropped someone off, since it is facing in the wrong direction for normal traffic flow in the British Isles.

Figure 5: All patsies are walking from the direction of a parked vehicle (a Black Cab?).

If they had gone to ICTS to obtain their final instructions, then why should they not arrive at Luton railway station together? John Hill is being inconsistent here, because it stands to reason that if they were together at the ICTS office, then they would be together at the station. Would they not have been dropped off there in fact? And, if they had not been told to meet at the ICTS office, then would they not have travelled from Leeds into Euston or King's Cross directly by train and not bothered with Luton at all?

When they got onto the concourse at Luton, they would have looked at the notice board for the 07:40. Chances are that it would not say straightaway that the 07:40 was cancelled, but as 07:40 approached it would be announced that it was cancelled. The four patsies would then see that the 07:30 had not yet left and would get on that, thus leaving at 07:42. At this point, they would be quite pleased with themselves for only being 2 minutes late in their schedule. This train was further delayed along the way, however, and arrived at King's Cross at 08:39 (from the "7/7 Ripple Effect" DVD — see Fig. 6), as opposed to the 08:12 or thereabouts that the 07:40 would have gotten them there by. They could not have caught the 08:35 nor the 08:42 tubes (London is much too busy at that time of the morning for the latter to be caught within 3 minutes of mainline arrival), but THE THIRD COULD HAVE CAUGHT THE 08:48 tube train. ... So why didn't he?

Something must have stopped him doing that (were they still in contact with their Mossad supervisors at this stage and were they told what each was to do?). The one waiting for the bus would not be effected, and would have split from the other three to wander to the bus stop.

Figure 6: The now well-known fact that the 07:40 train from Luton was cancelled on 7th July 2005.

Was timing the "perfection" that the ex-Mossad chief was talking about and the "near-perfection" being caused by the one thing that they could not control to the minute — the cancellation of the 07:40 train? Surely they would definitely control the four getting from ICTS to the train station on time?

Figure 7: Confirmation of Fig. 6 detail from the Communications Manager at Thameslink Rail Ltd.

At this point Mr. Hill's thesis comes back into play. The timescale was ruined and the ONE MAJOR THING THAT THE "AUTHORITIES" WANTED - VIDEO IMAGES OF THE ACTORS GETTING ONTO THE SPECIFIC TUBE TRAINS THAT WERE RIGGED TO BLOW UP - WAS LOST TO THEM. With that, together with the suicide video, the planted (or not) identity and the date- and time-stamped still from Luton, the gullible public would have bought the whole official, anti-Arab/Muslim fairytale hook, line and sinker. Near "perfection" indeed, to the sick minds and spiritually dead people who thought all this up.

Perhaps two of the remaining three became scared and headed for Canary Wharf, or they were taken there, with anti-terrorist police "tipped off" of supposed Muslim suicide bombers heading for Reuters with backpacks.

I asked Muad'Dib for his reason(s) for being so sure that the image shown in Fig. 1 was faked. Having watched his "7/7 Ripple Effect" for the third time, I still did not understand why he thought that it had to be faked. He was unable to provide a reason. In the absence of a strong, valid reason, and after acknowledging that this forgery claim and supporting video is a very subjective area indeed, then surely the best course of action is to accept that the image may well be genuine?