Quote Originally Posted by Splott Dave View Post
The thing is you seem to be just accepting that these photos are real and so is the story. The BBC are the ones saying they "purchased" them. How do we know that is the truth, and it's not just released by the BBC? Has anyone admitted to selling them to the BBC?

If we are to agree that the BBC are a government mouthpiece or at least cosy up to the government. What is to suggest that these haven't been deliberately released by the government, but they aren't really the truth? Who knows what the agenda could be?

You seem to have just accepted they are real, with no evidence other than the BBCs word that they "purchased" them.

The BBC purchase lots of things TB including independently produced programmes and photo-journalist's shots which are of interest to them. You'll recall that Richard Gutjahr explained that he gave 80 live broadcasts and then copyrighted his pictures. Don't take my word for it, speak to Carl down the City.

We live in an internet age TB so if they were not real the news of it would be all over the alternative news websites by now.


As you've said, the BBC aren't trustworthy so why are we trusting them on this issue.

I said no such thing. You're doing it again.

Too many questions about an unknown "purchase" to believe this story, for a person such as yourself who always checks the sources of the stories.


There is an absence of any credible countervailing claims with regard to these photos.
Now you are talking nonsense. If these photos aren't real they'd not be rubbished by RT, Radioislam, PressTC, Sputnik etc as it suits their agenda.

How does anyone counterclaim anything if it's just been made up.

Come on, you often say to research your own sources. You've no idea if these photos are genuine or if the BBC really bought them. You believe they are as it suits your viewpoint.

That's fine, but at least admit you are happy to trust the BBC as a source and not be so quick to dismiss them next time someone uses them.