|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 29, 2007 18:22:53 GMT -4
Hu (not Cho)is on the left on the picture.So the other guy which hide the indentifications on his uniform is at the right of Hu on the picture Right? Hu is on frame-right of the picture, the other marine is on frame left. But the other marine is on Hu's left, not his right. There is a tag on the other marine's left breast which is incidentally obscured the the wrinkling of the jacket, causing it to "face" upward. And note, it is a jacket. He is not wearing the same uniform shirt (externally) as Hu, therefore the markings need not be identical.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 29, 2007 18:51:40 GMT -4
But the other guy is hiding the inscription on his uniform
Not behind Hu he's not. If you look at the picture you'll see he's wearing a rain parka of some sort rather than the shirt like Hu. This has no "US MARINES" stencil on the left side of it, and so would be unlikely to have a name on the other side either even if his right side was visible.
eta: bleah, I see DC beat me.
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Apr 29, 2007 19:05:04 GMT -4
The guy on the right is wearing an APECS (All-Purpose Environmental Clothing System) parka and as far as I know they don't have name tags on their breasts.
That's the rank insignia tab.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 29, 2007 20:10:09 GMT -4
Just because he's known as something doesn't mean it's legally true, and the military will only put your legal name on your uniform. Don't you think it's more likely that people just got his personal and family names confused instead of that it was an alias?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 29, 2007 23:14:38 GMT -4
Just because he's known as something doesn't mean it's legally true, and the military will only put your legal name on your uniform. Don't you think it's more likely that people just got his personal and family names confused instead of that it was an alias? The problem I see with the Wikipedia article is that the name differ from what the police reveal.So who get it right the police or wikipedia? CNN article tinyurl.com/36qdl7The man who murdered at least 30 people in the nation's worst shooting massacre was a 23-year-old English major named Cho Seung-Hui, the police chief at Virginia Tech said this morning. The chief, Wendell Flinchum, held out the possibility that a second shooter might have been involved, and he said authorities could not definitively say that Cho killed two people in a dorm earlier Monday morning in addition to the 30 slaughtered in Norris Hall. But Cho's fingerprints were apparently found on a gun used in both buildings. Cho fatally shot himself in the face before police could engage him, but officials were able to identify him from the fingerprints in his immigration documents, according to ABC News.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 29, 2007 23:42:23 GMT -4
The problem I see with the Wikipedia article is that the name differ from what the police reveal.So who get it right the police or wikipedia? Probably the police.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:00:31 GMT -4
The problem I see with the Wikipedia article is that the name differ from what the police reveal.So who get it right the police or wikipedia? Probably the police. the police said his name is Cho Seung-Hui.... officials were able to identify him from the fingerprints in his immigration documents,
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 30, 2007 0:03:16 GMT -4
So does Wikipedia. From here. I honestly don't see what you're trying to do, feelfree. EDIT: Also, there's a section on that page on the name, above the References section.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:05:49 GMT -4
So does Wikipedia. From here. I honestly don't see what you're trying to do, feelfree. That the wikipedia article dont give the name in the real order. See here tinyurl.com/36qdl7
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 30, 2007 0:07:45 GMT -4
From the very same article, under the "Name" chapter.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:13:57 GMT -4
From the very same article, under the "Name" chapter. So that mean that the police should revise all immigration documents from Korea. "officials were able to identify him from the fingerprints in his immigration documents,"
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 30, 2007 0:19:06 GMT -4
So? Are you trying to say that because some write the guy's name the Western way and some write it the Korean way, officials haven't righteously identified the right person?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:27:46 GMT -4
So? Are you trying to say that because some write the guy's name the Western way and some write it the Korean way, officials haven't righteously identified the right person? That is not what i say.The name as it appear on the immigration certificat is Cho Seung-hui not the reverse. It seem that someone at Wikipedia try to fool the readers. Time article tinyurl.com/36qdl7
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 30, 2007 0:30:20 GMT -4
From the very same section, two paragraphes down. It would seem more like Wikipedia is just following the trend of taking the Western name rendering instead of the Korean.
And don't you think it's a bit paranoid to say Wikipedia is trying to fool readers by switching names around in a way that is perfectly well explained?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 30, 2007 0:35:36 GMT -4
It sounds very much like you are straining at a gnat, Feelfree. Arguing which side people are on in a photo? Whether his family or given name should come first?
The man's given name was Seung-Hui and his family name was Cho. He was never a US Marine. The photo is either not Cho (my first pick since his family name isn't "Hu" and that's what's on the uniform) or it is Cho's face photo-shopped onto someone else with the mistaken name "Hu" used on the uniform, or it may actually be Cho wearing fatigues for the "fun" of it. No matter which version you buy it's still not evidence that he was a mind controled slave.
|
|