MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' maps and 'The Times' report manipulated in Argentine embassy pamphlets
By Justin A Kuntz - There are many examples of the power of social media to quickly form and mould world opinion. One recent example is that of Dr Tim Hunt, a Nobel Prize winner, whose professional reputation was utterly destroyed on Twitter whilst airborne during a return flight from Korea. Increasingly social media is also seen as a crucial communication tool for politicians and opinion makers to master. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHahaha, you must be joking. Yeah, this time you must be joking. First the info is wrong it was a british intelligence task group not the FCO. And i didnt know that Snowden has liberated this “Argentine cover operation”?
Nov 06th, 2015 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that we are talking about intelligence operations. How is that this Supposedly Uruguayan news agency has no Uruguayan Editor, nor any Uruguayan journalist?. And what is worst, has articles signed by a british teenager that has no idea where Uruguay is located.
Of course im not saying either this is a MI6 operation with Justin Kunz as a british agent, nothing far from the truth. But come on!!! Its a poor excuse to justify the british dirty operations.
Thanks Mr Kuntz and thanks Mercopress for your totally non-biased and totally not one sided reporting yet again.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UK right, Argentina wrong, no operation to influence opinion, got ya.
British Falkland Islands.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that's all that is needed .
Bahahahaha Vestige idiota! Lived so long in Arjunteno doesnt know lies from the truth! The moon is made of what? Elephants cant fly? Argies form a brainwashed nation of losers…
Nov 06th, 2015 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you, Justin. I know that you're a Wikipedia contributor. I trust that you've taken action to expose the argie lies. Perhaps a new page showing the original maps and the argie counterfeits. A suitable opening page and then a locked page that the argie liars can't change.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isn't it hilarious that the first comment is from an argie scumbag that purports to know the source of information? I wonder if “Liberato” could explain how he finds the details of the editor and journalists? Perhaps these individuals could note what argie intelligence thinks it knows. Perhaps they should take care not to be future “Nismans”.
Care has to be taken. History tells us that argieland has never shrunk from murder to avoid revelations of its many crimes. Sources have to be protected whilst the information is made available.
Fortunately, there are other maps that make it clear that the Falkland Islands have never been part of argieland.
Get that “Liberato”, you're on a loser. And, if the worst comes to the worst, our capabilities are much improved since 1982. RAF Voyagers to transport 16 Air Assault Brigade. That's 8,000 troops. All arriving within 48 hours. Whilst 1,200 troops is a different proposition to 80 Royal Marines. Will Royal Navy submarines lay nuclear mines? Launch nuclear torpedoes?
Tell you what, Liberato, why don't you go back 75-80 years and figure how many times we British “surprised” nazi germany?
WE won't be losing. But YOU will.
@1,2 Trolls
Nov 06th, 2015 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wish you guys would get your act together.
Liberation swallows the Big Lie that the Fslklands belong to Argentina, and then criticizes MP for being fake and not in Uruguay.
Meanwhile... who remembers the Arg. fake Trolls like Stevie and pals, who a few years ago, said they had definitely located the building in Montevideo where MP had their offices, and then said they were going to personally break into the building and storm the offices... ??
What a lot of limp dicked righteous indignation and nonsense!!
Next...
4 - You got me intellectually cornered there.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct. Mercopress is not biased. There is no operation to influence opinion through media.
My earlier statement was wrong and bad. Mercopress is good. Those who speak of operation quito are wrong and bad.
@1 Liberato
Nov 06th, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have read your piece five times and I just do not understand the point you are trying to make - kindly enlighten us! Boludo!
The thing is that the people who alter these maps and documents know they are producing a lie.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They know they are simply 'making things up'.
What a very sad people that accept lying and cheating as the norm. They are beneath contempt.
Attempted forgery and alteration of historic documents is a sad, pitiful thing, whether for monetary gain, or political / journalistic purposes.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The people involved should be ashamed.
Let's hear it out loud! Give me an M... give me an A... give me an L... give me a V... give me an I... give me a V... give me an I... give me an N... give me an A... give me an S... What does that spell? A FREE AND FAIR FALKLAND ISLANDS! No amount of photomanipulation our lying is going to change that.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An original version of the Latzina map can be found here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/latzina-full-3.jpg
Nov 06th, 2015 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hard to get hold of these days.
As for Op Quito - as I'm regularly accused of being a member of that operation, all I can say is that the British authorities are simply not that desperate.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/latzina-full-3.jpg
This is Argentina's weakest point, here you can see there was no 183 year old problem. Really there was no problem up to the advent of the fascists in 1941, that is when Argentina broke the 1850 Treaty of Settlement or Arana Southern.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So those wishing to instill the 1833 lie with indoctrinantion desperately need to alter the evidence which put their very own country against them, making their own old maps illegal in Argentina.
In 1941 if London had gone the way of Paris Argentina could “declare war” because of an invented “dispute” and seize all the British property in Argentina. At the time the Islands had a military importance but what the rich Argentine fascists really wanted was the British property already in Argentina.
Argentina falsifying documents? Again? I am so shocked.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The next thing you know the government there will be murdering their own prosecutors.
Uhhhhhhhhh!!!
Nov 06th, 2015 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wikipedia's Engrish Cyber-warrior, Mr. JustinhismindKuntz (aka WeeCurryMonster) and early retired Engrish bobby, Mr. Roger Lorton both commenting about the paramount importance of some fifty shades of faded grey on an old Argentinean map decipting our Islas Malvinas...
Would any of the above mentioned honourable gentlemen be so kind to take a look at the map (original or otherwise) and tell us what name is written just over them Islas Malvinas?
Congrats to Roger L. for his research and documentation. Apart from the shading, I find it even more compelling that the inset map show where Argentina is In relation to the rest of South America. The title of the inset map in directly on top of where the imagined Malvinas are supposed to be. Strange that Argentina did not want to show exactly where these islands are in relation to the rest of South America and the Republic.
Nov 06th, 2015 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It’s Friday, so cheers!
Nice try Think (still here I see) The original doesn't use grey but colours that are easily distinguishable. As for the wording - what else would a Spanish language map use?
Nov 07th, 2015 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Come on Think - you used to be cleverer than this. Age getting to you?
Dear Mr. Lorton
Nov 07th, 2015 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0My “fifty shades of grey” reference was a wordplay about a recent Anglo bestseller book as bad and shallow as Mr. Kuntz's above elucubrations...
By the way...
You possums mention an “Original Latzina” map...
Which one of the 120,000 produced copies would that be...?
Anyhow, that Argentinean map uses the correct name for them Islands...
Like it or not........, that's the way the cookie crumbles...
Ps...:
How's the mango wine project developing?
Far from being compelling, El Think is so repellant as to make one's skin crawl.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The cookies crumble well for the UK Think .... the colours fully support the contention that the Latzina map recognised that the islands were not a part of Argentine territory. An error subsequently reversed in later official maps.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0And of course, the connotations of the name were not present in the 19th century - as you well know.
And any one of the 120,000 rather proves the point of course.
Funny that you should mention the wine project. 4 grape vines doing well, and work being done for 4 more.
And I haven't read that 50 Shades book - the wife says I'm too young :-)
15 Think
Nov 07th, 2015 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Wikipedia's Engrish Cyber-warrior, Mr. JustinhismindKuntz (aka WeeCurryMonster)
Yep, same old Justin..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence#Justin
(20) Mr. Lorton
Nov 07th, 2015 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“And any one of the 120,000 rather proves the point of course.”
I say...:
Well...
Here we have, for example, a copy from the Boston Public Library (see the stamp on it)...:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_Channel_cartography_since_1881#/media/File%3AMap_of_Argentina_by_Francisco_Latzina%2C_1882.jpg
... that looks conspicuously much, much, much lighter than Mr. Kuntz' and yours so called “Original...
By the way............................... Mr. Kuntz' and yours so called ”Original” are not identified in any way... Would you care to inform us where you got it from..?
(21) Bostero juepucha....
Pa eso usaste el Bushmaster del Pomi ehhh?
Pa hacerle ver penales al Ceballos ese ehhh?
;-)))
Think - my copy was acquired from Dr. Graham Pascoe.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for your Boston Library copy - it look like an original to me. Colours appear clear enough, if a little faded with age. The difference between the islands and Argentina is plain.
How is your eyesight Think?
Just out of interest where is South Georgia on this map? That's right, I forgot, Argentina didn't claim it until 1927, 152 years after the Brits (United Kingdom) claimed sovereignty. That looks good too. Laughable!
Nov 07th, 2015 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think is odious and patronizing- a tactic he uses to intimidate, because his sarcastic assertions do not stand up to examination.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here’s the scoop, modern forensic tests can prove exactly which printing dye was used to colour the islands. 120,000 copies, my guess not a leg to stand on. Care to take it to court? Thought not. Brits win, you lose, now you have a big bruise. Chuckle, chuckle, I’ll have a double!
Nov 07th, 2015 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thunk is an old believer, and he believes as only a first generation Argie can.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Like most believers, his belief lacks context. The Latzina map had two purposes. The first was to identify Argentina's southern border following the agreements with Chile in August 1881. The second was to help promote immigration and was to be circulated to Argentina's consulates around the world. 1882 was hardly a contentious date with regard to Argentina's claims - forgotten since 1850. It was actually another 2 years before Argentina decided once again to raise its spurious pretensions - and even then only at an informal level.
As for the 1882 Latzina map's importance - well it can be seen as an indicator of Argentine thinking, but not much else. As Argentina's Foreign Minister said in January 1885 - ” .. a map neither gives nor takes away rights, and that those of England or the Argentine Republic in this case are not to be settled by tinting the islands blue or red on the map.”
That said, I should add that the Latzina map was held to be indicative of Argentina's borders during the Beagle Channel arbitration cases.
All of which rather misses the point that the article above is not about the importance or otherwise of the 1882 map. It is about the lengths that some people go to to hide the truth.
(23) Mr. Lorton
Nov 07th, 2015 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Eyesight is good enough to be able to read that the Latzina map colours represent cultivable and uncultivable land as an info for prospective immigrants to Argentina... No more no less...
Eyesight is good enough to be able to notice that the colours of the“Pascoe Original” seem not to have faded, as natural with the passing of time but, on the contrary, became quite darker...
Engrish forgery, perhaps?
Eyesight is good enough to tie dozens of improved clinch knots on 20/26 dry flies every single fishing day...
Thanks for asking...
Eyesight not good enough to note my paragraph regarding the Beagle Channel arbitration though Think? The map, and its colouration, was used by the arbitration judges, which suggests rather more than the identification of “cultivatable” land.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0The dry flies may be doing your eyes in.
I am led to believe that Dr. Pascoe got his copy from Buenos Aires.
Not that any of it is particularly important.
Go fishing Think - you may actually be good at that :-)
So the different colours only represent cultivable and uncultivated land. That would make most of, or all of, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay and parts of Brazil uncultivated according to this map. Comedy classics tonight on MP, tell us another one, I’m still entertained. It’s my round.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 04:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0So much talk and so little knowledge for someone who....Thinks?..... not a lot it seems.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0They do indeed....they even have a word for when this happens.....EXONYM. Just as the Spanish and English term of China doesn't mean that Zhōnghuá is actually Spanish or English. Naming a feature does not denote ownership...otherwise I would name your house.
Then your eyesight is obviously good enough to see the hatching used to denote land features and elevation.....in Argentina..... but not in them islands.
Seems them islands have the same blank features as.....Chile.....Bolivia.....Paraguay.....Uruguay.....Brazil. None of which are part of Argentina either.
From the ICJ case regarding the Beagle Islands http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
Paragraph 155: ”Argentina now maintains that the Latzina map had no official character and that it was the Pelliza map which was the first to accord with Argentine Government opinion: but the Court has already given its reason for regarding the first (1882) Latzina map as reflecting the views both of the President of Argentina and of Señor Irigoyen, the chief Argentine negotiator of the 1881 Treaty, and as doing so not only at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty but also the year afar, when as Minister of the Interior, Señor Irigoyen officially sponsored the map and caused its widespread dissemination abroad as part of a government campaign to promote European immigration into Argentina.”
Seems Argentina didn't think the Islas Malvinas as part of Argentina in 1882.
For Liberato
Nov 07th, 2015 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0In a previous thread I asked you what your objections are to taking the Falklands/Malvinas dilemma to the International Court of Justice for resolution. You have failed to answer me - why?
Telling isn’t it, the article has struck a nerve, they can’t refute the content, so they attack the author proving my last paragraph to be correct.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Extract from http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
(v) The 1882 “Latzina” map
126. If anything more were needed to confirm the view that the map sent to Mr. Petre in December 1881 did indeed represent Señor Irigoyen's own opinion concerning the effect of the Treaty in regard to the islands, it would be amply afforded by the publication under his aegis, about a year later, of what has been known in the case as the 1882 “Latzina” map (Chilean Plate No. 25).
The UN case ruled it showed the disputed islands as Chilean, the Falkland Islands are displayed in the same way - a complete lack of relief shading and the same colour.
The map shown in the article is from a photo taken of the copy held in the British Library. High definition copies of the original are now available online, that clearly shows the colours have been changed. (And confirm the photo is genuine).
Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library
http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
Sardoa Digital Library, Museo sardo di Geologia e Paleontologia “Domenico Lovisato” - Dipartimento di scienze chimiche e geologiche - Università di Cagliari
http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
Zoom in on the BPL version, the names on the Falkland Islands are Hispanicised versions of the English names eg East and West Falkland. But its not surprising a Spanish language map uses the Spanish name, seeing as the Spanish language is regulated and has been since 1780 by Real Academia Española.
@22 Think
Nov 07th, 2015 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you referring to Marquitos Alejandrito as “Bostero juepucha”? Very, very apt!
Think has been Thunk! Just like ARA. The islands arent even shown on the inset! Argentina acknowledged the Falklands arent part of it - fail… There is a copy of this map in the University of Patagonia folk village Punta Arenas on the wall of one of the buildings you can visit. Its the same as the one in the British library. Just in case you Argies decide to visit with your coloured pencils its protected by glass. Bahahahaha.. You lost!
Nov 07th, 2015 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0As to differences in colour on the map. this is quite simple to do using a photo imaging program such as OnOne or DxO Optics.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Creating a selective mask, removing the colours and then choosing a shade from the sRGB palate, if done skillfully, would fool a casual observer.
However, the removal of the metadata of the picture using properties/details would arouse suspicion as to manipulation of the image.
No international body is going to accept anything BUT the original document as proof.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that Argentina is trying to manipulate these images just proves how false their claims to the Falklands are. If there was any truth to their claims they wouldn't have to falsify data, because the truth speaks for itself.
Hey Argentina try taking your faked 'evidence' to the International Court of Justice and see just how far you get.
Argentina Knows that the Falkland Islands has never belonged to them and they will always distort the truth to say otherwise. They are the biggest laughing stock in Latin America. They are becoming more exposed now then they ever were thanks to online social media. Who in their right mind would attempt to alter something historic and documented in so many places , Yup only Argentina because they are still living in the stone age. They lie to the world , their own people and they cannot be trusted with someone else's money as they never repay their debts. Who in their right mind would want to become a part of that system.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38 -- as we say in the patagonia, Argentina is the North Korea of South America.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11. That's MALVIVINAS. “Bad life in an arse”? There's already A FREE AND FAIR FALKLAND ISLANDS. Defended by Britain from a third-rate, corrupt dictatorship hundreds of miles away. Intent on stealing the Falkland Islands' resources.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15. This may come as a surprise to you. Can you identify the following towns/cities? Chennai. Kolkata. Mumbai. See how much a “name” is worth?
@18. Sorry, grandad, irrespective of history, that you can argue about as long as you were there, the Falkland Islands are, by virtue of international law, British as of 14 June 1982. You have nothing and you know it.
@22. Yep. Thanks. Clearly shows the Falkland Islands weren't part of argieland. In fact, I can't see anything south of what you now call Bahia Blanca that belonged to argieland.
It would be best if you were to admit that you've been bested. Retire gracefully. Don't admit it if it sticks in your craw. Just never comment on the subject again. I'm sure that Justin can bring out this article and display your desperation anytime. Just “think” of the length of time for which you can be ridiculed.
(27) Mr Lorton
Nov 07th, 2015 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“.... the article above is not about the importance or otherwise of the 1882 map. It is about the lengths that some people go to to hide the truth.”
I say...:
I fully agree with your ex policeman analytical approach about the central point of the above article...
Let's see to which lengths “some people” go to to hide the truth, shall we...?:
1) From all the “Originals Latzina maps” that have been posted in here, the one looking most bogus is, as a matter of fact, Mr. Pepper's...
Looks like Mr. Pepper, in between his serving of drinks at the Falkland Islands Association charities in London, gave the whole continental Argentina an extra layer of brown... for pure pedagogical purposes..., of course...
2) The caption of picture 2 on the above article says...:
“The Latzina map manipulated version, by the Argentine embassy in London”....
.................Would anybody pleeeeease direct me to any place were the Argentinean embassy in London has used the Latzina map...? Let alone “manipulated” it...?
http://www.argentine-embassy-uk.org/index_eng.shtml
3) Mr. JustinhismindKuntz says above...:
“Equally crude is the manipulation of the story in The Times of 3 August 1821, announcing David Jewett’s actions in claiming the Falkland Islands for Argentina. This ran as a minor news item at the bottom of page 2. In a pamphlet produced by the Argentine embassy, this small story now appears to have been prominently shown on the front page”...
...........Would anybody pleeeeease direct me to any place in the folder titled...: “Malvinas Islands. Argentina, its rights and the need for dialogue” it says that that 1821 Times article was ”prominently shown on the newspaper front page?
http://www.argentine-embassy-uk.org/index_eng.shtml
You are indeed right.
Some Engrish people will indeed go great lengths to hide the truth.
Ps:
Last year I planted some Vitis Labrusca at me minuscule estate in Liguria...
Which variety did you plant at your tropical place?
Oh dear, the trolls and even LUNATIC (El Think, as if he could) and his puppets have got themselves all in a tizzy.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only this counts:
The Falkland Islands have been British since before The Dark Country existed.
They are recognised as such by the UN.
If TDC doesn't like it they can take it to the ICJ (but they won't because they are liars and would lose).
The war started by TDC and ended by the UK closed the thing for good.
So WGAF what this bunch of losers think, eh Think, or LUNATIC to be nearer the truth?
Yet again, the current RG gov making their county look like a bunch of fraudsters.
Nov 07th, 2015 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Same old pish being spewed out for domestic consumption.
Think,
Nov 07th, 2015 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the Troll supervisor has stepped in, as his half-witted minions are stumped without background info to support the official lie from Argentina.
22 Think
Nov 07th, 2015 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-))))
We learn from our plumiferos cousins...we learn:-))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b57FK3FwkY
@45 MA
Nov 07th, 2015 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol, dimwit.
How long did it take you to think up that post... ?
As usual - late, half-hearted, and redundant...
“Boludo”!
46 Troy Tempest “Boludo”!
Nov 07th, 2015 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed, I have a pair but you as a marionette don't :-))))))))))))
47 MA
Nov 07th, 2015 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0gosh, no!! *rolls eyes*
LOL
You ARE a witless lumpkin.
Oi Marcos, now be a good boy and get back to your colouring in book. And… remember to sharpen your coloured pencils theres a lot of maps to colour in! Bahahahaha Pelotudo…
Nov 07th, 2015 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think
Nov 07th, 2015 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pepper? Far too straight to forge. Far too serious to forge.
Your denials regarding the colouring are quite ridiculous. Particularly as the original map has been used in arbitration proceedings to prove a point regarding borders. There is no doubt that the coloration used for the Falklands is different to that for Argentina. No doubt whatsoever. The map is filed at the ICJ.
And it's still not very important. Why? Because Argentina did not attempt to resurrect its spurious claim until 1884 - 2 years after the map was originally published. If you read the 1977 Beagle Channel arbitration proceedings you'd know that Argentina in 1889 decided to deny any official recognition of maps before that date.
As to who first used the “washed out” version of the 1882 map, I have no idea. I rather suspect it was in circulation long before the trolley dolly took residence in your London Embassy. And I doubt it was done officially.
As for the Times article - the fake currently doing the rounds merely gives a prominence that was not present in the original and that suggestion of prominence lends support to an argument that England did not protest when it should have. The wording is correct, it's the implication that is faked.
And does that matter? In my opinion - no. Everything connected with Jewett is irrelevant. He was a privateer working for a revolted colony that did not exist in the eyes of the world. Argentine did not formally claim the islands until 1829. 1820 is merely an amusing footnote in history.
The truth is easy to find with a little research Think - which is why I spend so much time with my head buried in dusty tomes. As far as sovereign rights are concerned - nothing much is important after 1829 when the 'critical date' was set for arbitral purposes.
As for my vines - no idea. This is Thailand and they have no idea what latin names are. I'm hoping to gain a better input on the next 4 by buying from an existing winery.
Does this Think think he is the gold standard for Argentine replies on here?
Nov 08th, 2015 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0...........Would anybody pleeeeease direct me to any place in the folder titled...: “Malvinas Islands. Argentina, its rights and the need for dialogue” it says that that 1821 Times article was ”prominently shown on the newspaper front page?
www.argentine-embassy-uk.org/index_eng.shtml
Why certainly. Helping out the less fortunate is a worthy use of time.
Equally crude is the manipulation of the story in The Times of 3 August 1821, announcing David Jewett’s actions in claiming the Falkland Islands for Argentina. This ran as a minor news item at the bottom of page 2. In a pamphlet produced by the Argentine embassy, this small story now appears to have been prominently shown on the front page.
Note the use of the word APPEARS. That should help you a long a little.
Then try to use that great intellect you attempt to project and actually look at the image. What strikes you first? Well a normal person (whether intelligent or not) would notice the masthead.
Where does a masthead ALWAYS appear? And how wide is a masthead?
These are simply questions for a simply Patagonian.... farmer?
I won't provide you with the answers because it will be more enjoyable to see you find the exceptions.
Creating a manipulated image where a newspaper article appears not only under the masthead but also to scale with the masthead is what? What does such a manipulation set out to achieve?
I doubt you would ask these questions. It seems that you prefer to stick to shallow analysis of any issue.
That isn't even hiding the truth. Much much worse. Probably why Argentines such as yourself so easily summit to military dictatorship and high levels of corruption.
Let u suspend reality for a moment and imagine that Argentina is right, the ‘world ‘does support Argentina’s territorial ambitions in the South Atlantic and allows Argentina to take over the Falklands and the other territories.
Nov 08th, 2015 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina would be in possession of a ‘great’ empire stretching from Bolivia and Paraguay in the North, Chile on the West, South Georgia in the East and the South Pole.
In terms of area, the Argentinian empire would be impressive.
What colour would Argentina use to display her empire on the Mercator? Argentina would have to use a Mercator projection because it would show off her ill-gotten gains to best effect.
Argentina could just steal the old colonial power’s colour of British Empire red. Since they have stolen the territory they might as well steal the colour.
Alternatively it could choose a colour more in keeping with the national character like:
Cowards yellow, or
Surrender white.
But whatever it chooses, Argentina will be complete and fulfilled and its people will live happily ever after.
Poster (51) says...:
Nov 08th, 2015 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Where does a masthead ALWAYS appear? And how wide is a masthead?”
This humble Patagonian says...:
Well...........
Why don't you take a gooood look at the original page two of The Times of August 3 1821 and tell me where master-heads do appear and how wide they are???
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg
Poster (51) also says...:
“Creating a manipulated image where a newspaper article appears not only under the masthead but also to scale with the masthead is what? What does such a manipulation set out to achieve?”
This humble Patagonian says...:
To inform the reader about the origin and date of the article in question......, perhaps?
51 Truth
Nov 08th, 2015 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Think”/voice troll is indeed the gold standard for Argentine respondents- disdainful, insulting with misogynist, racist, or sexual overtones, and brash lies.
Vulgar and condescending, his posts encompass all the qualities that define a CFK Troll.
Poor Shrinkbrain (who for unknown reasons calls himself “Think” - a topseated, winning oxymoron if any exists) is as usually taking part in stupid falsifications of the Argentine claim.
Nov 08th, 2015 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where, Shrinkbrain, are the Falkland Islands in the official Argentine map “Mapa de la división del territorio de la república en regiones militares”?
Answer: nowhere, they are covered by the “referencias” box.
Why see, you can actually live up to your name!
Nov 08th, 2015 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good on you. However thank you for showing the full nature of the manipulation of the image by your government. A masthead must include a date.... which what do you know.... them Argentines included. Thanks to your link you can see that this was not the case when the Times logo was used elsewhere.
To inform the reader about the origin and date of the article in question...... perhaps?
Perhaps only to Patagonians. The rest of the world would use a caption under the image..... oh what do you know? Your government was kind enough to do that on the NEXT page....and the NEXT page....and even on the penultimate page.
What is more surprising is that you missed THREE dates in the non-manipulated part of the image. So why include a FOURTH date?
If you are going to attempting to provide historical evidence to prove a point then you don't stoop to something as simplistic as a high-school level mistake of manipulating an image. You make that image beyond reproach.... which now is not the case.
“Memorandum of Understanding on the Malvinas Question. 1968.”
”Malvinas Islands. Watercolour (Detail). 1829.”
Look at how easy it is to include information below an image.....
Indeed, leaving out important information is what this pamphlet does well:
'...a small British garrison was established on one of the islets of the archipelago, which was first forced out by the Spanish authorities and in 1774...' - no mention of Spain restoring the settlement.
'From 1767 until the time of Argentine independence from Spain, 32 consecutive Spanish governors administered the Malvinas Islands, appointed by the authorities in Buenos Aires.' - no mention that Spain recognises UK sovereignty.
No mention of the lapse in Argentine protests.
Indeed your country fails to mention a lot of things, but managed to make time to manipulate an image.
PS: Your use of the word humble is oxymoronic. Be more like your government, if in doubt, leave it out.
H982 FKL
Nov 08th, 2015 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jeremy Corbyn's (crushing leadership victory a few weeks ago) actively supports the call of the international community for dialogue between the United Kingdom and Argentina in the Malvinas question.
Nov 08th, 2015 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good to see an intelligent Brit!
@58 Marquitos Alejandrito
Nov 08th, 2015 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Crushing victory? There are over 50 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom - only 251,417 individuals voted in his favour and of these many were Conservative supporters masquerading as members of the Labour Party. Hardly a democratic result, don't you think?
So, as usual, your comment is nonsense! Really, you should get your facts right before showing yourself to be an uninformed idiot!
@53. ”Poster (51) says...“
Nov 08th, 2015 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's the matter, Twinky, couldn't bring yourself to type ”Truth“?
@58. Corbyn is actually a relic from the 70s. If you were to keep up, you would have noticed how much opposition he has in his own party. Dear little Alicia did him no favours by announcing ”He's one of ours“. Freedom of speech is one thing, treachery is something else. He won't be lasting long. I assume that his success was due to his adoption of the argie approach of buying votes. Followed by disrespect for Her Majesty, disrespect for our war dead, willingness to make Britain defenceless and total stupidity. On the last point alone, he is indeed one of ”yours”.
What a load of useless information to the present situation: Ifs-and-Buts.
Nov 08th, 2015 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hot air.
The original Times at https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg
Nov 08th, 2015 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the mps, check https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg
@58 Marcos
Nov 08th, 2015 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He won leadership of the opposition. Since then he's been told more than once by his own party members to 'put a cork' in it.
He may have held certain beliefs when he was a backbencher, but now EVERYTHING he says and does is under the glare of the media. And in the UK the media isn't controlled by the government or political parties, and it is unremittingly unforgiving to ANY politician who says or does something that isn't considered in the national interest.
And Corbyn seems to forget that whilst he may 'claim' to be representing the working class people of Britain, that the majority of those who died in the Falklands War were from working class backgrounds, and their communities have long memories and would never forgive ANYONE who tried to make their sacrifice in vain.
Besides, Marcos, even IF he did somehow become Prime Minister who couldn't 'give' the Falklands away to Argentina for these reasons:
1. He would have to make it an Act of Parliament, and the majority of MPs in Parliament (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Independents etc...) support the Self Determination of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own fate.
2. It would be against the UN Charter, and therefore international law, to give away something that belongs to someone else...namely the Falkland Islanders.
3. The Falkland Islanders could declare independence before any 'deal' was made, therefore once again Corbyn couldn't give away land that doesn't belong to him.
However, enough of your attempt to distract. Just how embarrassed are you, Marcos, by this story?
Don't you 'think' that the international community might just begin to question Argentina's veracity regarding the Falklands if you make it so blatantly obvious that you are forging things, attempting to rewrite history and so on?
You see, Marcos, IF Argentina actually had a valid sovereignty case you wouldn't have to lie, and try to forge documents. The truth speaks for itself, and very loudly too.
Marcos idiota, Labour MPs report that all attempts to contact new £3 Labour supporters have failed, why? Because they were almost all Tories who voted to get Trotsky Corbyn elected making Labour unelectable! After the boundary changes it will make getting a Labour Prime Minister practically impossible!
Nov 08th, 2015 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, KFC, Gollum and the Trolley Dolly will be cast out on November 22nd and you will be leaderless. Bahahahaha…
Stick to your colouring book Marcos, its just about within your level of competence. Pelotudo!
TWIMC
Nov 08th, 2015 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A short summary before going down to the rivulet to catch a couple of brookies for dinner...
Title of above article says...:
“Falklands' maps and 'The Times' report manipulated in Argentine embassy pamphlets”
I say...:
1) No “Latzina map”, manipulated, original or artistically coloured by Brits or Argies, present in any Argentinean embassy pamphlet...
Don't take my word for it... See for yourselves...:
http://www.argentine-embassy-uk.org/index_eng.shtml
2) The correctly dated and sourced Times of London article from Friday, August 3, 1821 is indeed presented in the Argentinean embassy pamphlet under the following sober text...:
“... In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. The Times of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government.”
But... Don't take my word for it... See for yourselves...:
http://www.argentine-embassy-uk.org/index_eng.shtml
I “Think” Mr. JustinhismindKuntz is trying to manipulate Mercopress's turnipy Anglo readers...
A much easier endeavour than trying to manipulate Wikipedia..., from were he has been suspended several times by moderators of more than 50 nationalities...
Gone fishing...
El Think.
TWIMC
Nov 08th, 2015 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Notwithstanding Argentinian lies, falsehoods and distortions posted on here by oxymoron Think commonly known as Stink. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so.
As for the fish, I hope it chokes you.
@ 22 Think
Nov 08th, 2015 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, and it clearly show the Islands in the Beagle channel as Chilean and the Malvinas in the Oceano Atlantico, no mention of the Mar Argentino.
Clearly still a lot of re-touching still to do before everything matches the current narritive from BA, eh. Then when it changes again?
I gave you the courtesy of wading through the bullshit pamphlet emanating from the Argentine Embassy. Full of inaccuracies and selective half truths as one would expect.
Nov 08th, 2015 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0QUOTE :- Population of the Falklands is 2,8oo approx. INCLUDING 1300 UK military personnel.
Falkland Islands gov. web site gives population of 2563 and the MOD gives the figure for the military as about 1200,
The Argentine figure is intended to give the impression that the population figure is 50% military personnel. Utter bollocks !
The UK refuses dialogue. No it's Argentina who refuses.
The UK wanted war in 1982. No it did not. It wanted Argentina to comply with security council resolution 502. Argentina refused...so they had to be ejected by force.
The rest of the pamphlet contains enough bullshit to fertilize a hectare of land..
Maybe if you talked nicely to the Falklands government, they would permit you to fish in their waters.
@18
Nov 08th, 2015 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Anyhow, that Argentinean map uses the correct name for them Islands...
Like it or not........, that's the way the cookie crumbles”
There are no Malvinas signs in the Falkland Islands, so your cookie isn't crumbling at all.
There were indeed Malvinas signs in the Islands between April and June 1982, so you can if you wish, relive those three months of glory if it makes you happy.
But unless there are Malvinas signs in the Islands, and an Argentine administration on the Falklands, the Islands are no more Argentine than the Seychelles.
You can call them Argentine as much as you like in your deluded fantasy, but if you want the reality of the Islands being Argentine your options are:
1/-Persuade the Islanders that it would be a good idea to be Argentine.
(So far 40 000 000 people have failed to persuade ONLY 3 000 people to join them).
2/-Take the case to the ICJ with un-tampered evidence. If the evidence (taking into account 6 months vs 180 plus years of occupation) is undoubtedly in your favour as you say, you will win. If you are that sure of your case-go.
3/-Invade and occupy the Islands by gunpoint as in 1982, and 1832.
As Argentina is based on machismo-i.e. it is the best, why has such a self confident nation failed to persuade the Islanders to join it?
@58
”Jeremy Corbyn's (crushing leadership victory a few weeks ago) actively supports the call of the international community for dialogue between the United Kingdom and Argentina in the Malvinas question.”
One problem-Hilary Benn, the Labour shadow Foreign Secretary and most of the labour MPs who would have a vote in parliament, maintain that the Islanders must have what they want.
Britain is not a faux dictatorship like Argentina-we do not, like CFK rule by decree parliament has to vote, and it's not going to vote against the Islanders. It did not in 1968 and it did not in 1980, or indeed 1982.
Corbyn needs to concentrate on getting the Chagos Islanders home, in a sustainable manner.
So Mercopress gets title grammatically wrong...... Not surprising when you look at their English level..... so we ignore now the actual article?
Nov 08th, 2015 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The article makes 2 claims:
---social media use of a Latzina map to show something false
Not only not disproven by any people here but also repeated by Think who has conveniently ignored the lack of relief shading or hatching on them thar Falkland Islands.
---manipulation of an image in an official Argentine government publication
Not disproven either. Even Think admits it was manipulated.
So all that Think has helped us to prove here is that the colour on the Latzina map isn't the most important indicator for what was Argentine territory. And the Argentine government cannot be trusted to present historical facts without manipulating them.
Enjoy your fishing Think. Sounds equivalent to sticking your head in the sands. A national pastime for your country when it comes to facing their government's actions.
The Truth hurts.
27 “Thunk is an old believer, and he believes as only a first generation Argie can.
Nov 08th, 2015 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like most believers, his belief lacks context.” Roger Lorton
Ouch!
Back to the drawing board Think. Oh forgot, you Argies have already tried that.
Ahhhhh...
Nov 08th, 2015 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All those àughty, insùlting Engrismen...
Pardon my French, but... Honi soit qui mal y pense...
Chucqlê, chucqlê
Le Think...
72
Nov 09th, 2015 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Elle Thinque, says nothing, in any language.
72 Think
Nov 09th, 2015 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice to see you back at the helm Mr.Think...
I'll leave those haughty English...the odd Celt and a window licker in your capable hands....
I'm busy building....
....Cogito, ergo sum....
...even Latin
Nov 09th, 2015 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another punch in the face for the hilarious and delusional claim that Argentina still holds over those islands.
Nov 09th, 2015 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is even funny to see how the 1882 map names them as “west and east falkland”.
Now if this was nothing but a purely academic discussion, it would be really fun. But after +/- 2000 casualties, insisting is simply absurd, pathetic and dangerous.
Voice, haven't you heard Stink has been sunk, his assertions, like yours, have been greeted with hilarity. What are you building, an inside toilet?
Nov 09th, 2015 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_Channel_cartography_since_1881#/media/File%3ARegiones.militares.arg.1905.jpg
Nov 09th, 2015 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the 1905 Military Zones in Argentina eh.........something missing.......
Think/Voice...you are a re joke, you defend the indefensible, you stumble blindly through the truth, clinging to your faith that 'Las Malvinas son Argentinas'.
You have nothing, you are nothing and you will be nothing.
Your indoctrinated reasoning and logic reminds me of the quote.. 'eat sh1t, 50 Billion flies can't be wrong'. Even with irrefutable evidence & contrary to what your indoctrinated faith dictates that you believe, you still want to 'eat sh1t'.
Hopefully Dover will be back shortly to share a phrase or two in German.
Nov 09th, 2015 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just add forger to the ever expanding list of crimes . . . lol.
Nov 09th, 2015 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reeeekie writes: “Here It is, all the issues of a nation of forty-some million people explained in just seven words. We are all liars.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/05/15/cristina-fernandez-comes-out-strongly-in-defense-of-minister-kicillof
1st) Look the colour of the City of Buenos Aires and Malvinas.
Nov 09th, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 02nd) The different colours respond to the object of the map: status of the land for agricultural development. Malvinas and Buenos Aires city are painted with the same colour, because both territories were unavailable for those purposes.
3rd) Look how Malvinas has ALL the geographical accidents names JUST like continental Argentina, at difference of the other countries.
And this is what the International Law says about cartography as a “proof” on territorial disputes:
“in international territorial conflicts, maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title; that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights”
ICJ Reports 1986, p. 582, par. 54.
Regards.
@81 FRod,
Nov 09th, 2015 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conversely, how does the map prove that the Falklsnds are part of Argentina, especially since the Falklands are the same colour as the parts of SA that are NOT part of Argentina?
@81FRodriguez
Nov 09th, 2015 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ status of the land for agricultural development. Malvinas and Buenos Aires city are painted with the same colour, because both territories were unavailable for those purposes.”
Hello, Planet Earth calling Rodriguez, Planet Earth calling Rodriguez, come in please!-When have the Falkland Islands NOT been an agricultural country?
Errrr simple clue-cattle ranching and sheep ranching, ring any bells?.
Clearly this' Sour Grapes' translation of yours means somewhere else like Antarctica, because at the time the map was produced, the Falkland Islands possessed a THRIVING agricultural economy.
Have you checked your feet for holes amigo?
82 Dont know how you managed to decipher that nonsense from Frog but many congratulations.
Nov 09th, 2015 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
Nov 09th, 2015 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0128. The Latzina map of 1882-3 provides an excellent example of
the relevance of a map not so much for its own sake—(it could, theoretically,
have been inaccurate)—but for the circumstances of its production
and dissemination, making it of high probative value on account of
the evidence afforded by this episode, namely of official Argentine recognition,
at the time, of the Chilean character of the PNL group. The
force of this, as illustrative of Argentine official opinion in the immediate
post-Treaty period, is therefore in no way lessened by the fact that
the 1882 Latzina map fell out of favour with the authorities a decade or
so later,(87) or that Dr. Latzina himself, having again, in 1888, published a
map (Chilean Plate No. 48) showing a Chilean attribution for the PNL
group, proceeded the year after, in 1889, to publish or at least write an
introduction to a work containing a map (Argentine Counter-Memorial
Plate No. 25) showing the group as Argentine—(this is discussed in
paragraph 157 below).
Argentine government officials had never had any doubt that the Malvinas belong to Argentina and that fact is reflected in myriads of documents including maps.
Nov 09th, 2015 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British propagandists now accuse Argentina of not reflecting its sovereignty over the islands in official maps published in the XIX century. There is specially one map in question over which UK propaganda seeks to distort history and reality: the 1882 Latzina map. More than 130 years later British propaganda now argues that the color in which the islands are depicted is similar to the ones used for Chile and Uruguay.
This map depicts the islands as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina.
The 1882 Latzina map was adopted at the request of the National Government and portrays different farming opportunities for immigrants. It depicts the regions apt for farming throughout Argentina’s whole territory and regions are sketched with different shades of color. The Malvinas are colored in the same pale beige used for the city Buenos Aires as both territories offered the same scarce farming opportunities. One can easily see that the color used for Argentina’s mainland territory also varies depending on the region farming opportunities.
Besides, if Malvinas were not depicted as part of Argentina’s territory, why does the map include details of all geographical features and accidents as it does with the rest of Argentina’s national territory? And why does the map do not include the geographical accidents and features of Uruguay and Chile)
This map depicts the islands as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina.
The 1882 Latzina map was adopted at the request of the National Government and portrays different farming opportunities for immigrants. It depicts the regions apt for farming throughout Argentina’s whole territory and regions are sketched with different shades of color. The Malvinas are colored in the same pale beige used for the city Buenos Aires as both territories offered the same scarce farming
http://www.sardoa.com/index.php?it/85/archivio/sardoa_oggetti/3434/show
Nov 10th, 2015 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.sardoa.com/index.php?it/85/archivio/sardoa_oggetti/3434/show
Buenos Aires and the Falklands are shaded differently.
Argentina is shown in relief, all none Argentine is shown in simple monochrome uniform shading - already noted in the ICJ case.
I suppose the irony of your display of cognitive dissonance is lost on you.
Not Justin, fact is many other parts of Argentine mainland are coloured differently, according to the purpose of the map. Your argument (and Mercopress') is simply UNTRUE. Check here a very well-informed work you should ponder on https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/fact-9-uk-distorts-history-in-an-attempt-to-disregard-past-actions-of-its-own/
Nov 10th, 2015 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@86 Alejo,
Nov 10th, 2015 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ his map depicts the islands as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina.”
Really, Alejo??!
Are you serious??
I expect your Argentine maps of the world, in 1882 and today, both label the United Kingdom islands by their nasty Spanish/Arg name, “Unidos Boludos”
or whatever you call them.
That doesn't mean they belong to Spain or Argentina.
Try again.
Chuckle !! Doofus
Irrespective of any maps the UK will be returning the Malvinas within the next 25 years.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0It fills my heart with joy to see a British government run propaganda site complain of the propaganda published by others. Apparently the British have no sense of irony.
I thought that was going to happen in 20 years.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0@90 Hep C
Nov 10th, 2015 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0but Timerman said 20 years!
And that was 2 years ago... !!
Chuckle
Shortly after Argentina's humiliating and ignominious total defeat in the 1982 Falklands war, the Peronists were saying they would have the Falklands within 20 years.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0That was 33 years ago.
Exonyms and relief shading.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Move on from colour Alejo.
'Malvinas' is the french name for the Falkland Islands.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why doesn't Argentina take all its (false) evidence to the International Court of Justice instead fartarsing around about a map which has such dubious value?
Nov 10th, 2015 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/fact-10-despite-uk-claims-argentinas-sovereignty-exercise-over-malvinas-was-public-the-times-of-london-confirmed-this-on-3-august-1820/
Nov 10th, 2015 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The act of possession of the islands exercised in 1820 by Colonel David Jewett on behalf of Argentina, then United Provinces of the River Plate, is another example of paramount significance. So much so that it became another target of British propaganda in its attempt to distort reality and historical truth.
Early in 1820, Colonel David Jewett, Naval officer officially appointed by the Government of the United Provinces of the River Plate was sent to take possession of the Malvinas. Whalers and fishermen from different countries participated at the event.
This fact was widely reflected in international newspapers of that time in a “Circular” that informed the world of this official taking of possession of the islands “in the name of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America”.
It is only now that British propaganda seeks to deny the very existence of the “Circular” published in The Times and accuses Argentina of a stunt. Any sensible interested human being can confirm the authenticity of this fact by consulting the archives of The Times of 3 August 1821 to find the Circular that was published and never protested by the UK.
The “Circular” appears in the right lower corner of the paper broad sheet (The Times, London, Friday, August 3, 1821). If the “Circular” was later reproduced out of its original format does not diminish the vital importance of this fact nor its authenticity. Any claim to the contrary is simply untrue.
@97 Nice try but FAIL Pirates cant claim territory. The Falkland Islands have been continuously British since 1765. If you think you have a case take it to the court in the Hague where you will also fail. Your various weak and pathetic attempts to prove your case are very entertaining. Keep it up
Nov 10th, 2015 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have a map that shows 'Vienna' instead of 'Wien'. Austria therefore belongs to the UK. It also shows 'Brussells' not 'Bruxelles'; Belgium must therefore belong to the UK as well...
Nov 10th, 2015 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argies really are thick as pigshit, aren't they?
They thrive on “mitos, sueños, cuentos de hadas e interpretaciones erróneas de eventos históricos” (myths, dreams, fairy stories and erroneous interpretations of historial events). They claim that Pope Alexander VI gave them “las Malvinas” even before Argentina was discovered!
Nov 10th, 2015 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@97
Nov 10th, 2015 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The act of possession of the islands exercised in 1820 by Colonel David Jewett on behalf of Argentina, then United Provinces of the River Plate, is another example of paramount significance”
1/-Why did Jewitt later fought for Brazil against the United Provinces?
Which side was he on?
Bit like Pinedo not fighting the Brits in 1833 because most of his crew were, yes, British sailors....
2/-The United Provinces did not know Jewitt had made a claim until they read the newspaper article in the Times over a year later.
Ahhh is this why Argentina had retrospectively claimed the Falklands?
Using that theory why doesn't Argentina claim the Roman Empire as many of their countrymen were descended from Italy?
Why stop your claims when instead of making a claim at the time, or instructing someone to (Jewitt went without the knowledge of the United Provinces), you can claim that even though you knew nothing thing about the claim, you read about it two years later and said it was a claim!
Why stop at the Roman Empire? Argentina could claim Neanderthal Europe.
3/- As Jewitt did not stay (in fact Captain James Weddell was there longer at the time ), how is this claim different from Captain Strong landing near Port Howard in 1690 and declaring British Sovereignty?
Aahhhhh, you are next going to claim that Jewitt landed in 1689.......
By the way, amigo, I'm going to do a Jewitt.
I'm not going to tell Cameron this but I will reclaim Ushuaia back for the UK and Cameron will read about my claim two years later and say I claimed it on behalf of the UK-even though he did not send me and even though I'm not going to create a settlement or even stay!
That's Argentine logic).
Perhaps some of the myths of Argentine claims can be examined in light of its attempts to take over other British territories, such as the South Georgia Islands or the British Antarctic peninsula and islands territory, for which Argentina did not even attempt to usurp until the 20th century, nor for which it had any sort of legitimate legal nexus. In the case of the latter, there is no ambiguity as to the precedence of the British claim, and that it was made long before Argentina even had the ability to send a boat that far. Nor is there any ambiguity as to the cowardly timing of the Argentine claim effort, being in 1943 when the UK was at war with Argentina's fascist amigotes.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The late-arriving Argentine Antarctica claim overlaps the formal and internationally recognised actions of several other nations which had previously made their claims.
Argentine come-lately geo-expansionism was also demonstrated by its baseless claims to the Chilean territories, for which it nearly went to war in 1978, over three small Chilean islands: Picton, Lennox, and Nueva (which also for many years appeared on Argentine maps as Chilean territory).
Argentina rails noisily against “colonialism” while being the region's greatest and most hypocritical offender. If Argentina really wished to address such effects, it could start by de-colonising the provinces of Tierra del Fuego, Sta Cruz, and Chubut, and returning those territories to the indigenous people there that they have not yet murdered.
@97 Alejomartinez
Nov 10th, 2015 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if any of that were true, you are still missing the point, the territory has been British since at least 1765, the British still have the prior claim.
The Islands have been British territory since long before Argentina ever existed in any shape or form.
The Islands have never legitimately been administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Republic of Argentina, in any form.
Can't be cited often enough . . . .
Nov 10th, 2015 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reeeekie writes: “Here It is, all the issues of a nation of forty-some million people explained in just seven words. We are all liars.”
en.mercopress.com/2015/05/15/cristina-fernandez-comes-out-strongly-in-defense-of-minister-kicillof
104 Chronic
Nov 10th, 2015 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Enrique,
““Argies lie as a matter of course.”
I am totally humbled by such a thoughtful statement. Here It is, all the issues of a nation of forty-some million people explained in just seven words. We are all liars. We should realize that, become a protectorate and name Conqueror as Minister of the Truth. Finally, all will be solved.”
Yes, it's funny Chronic, and ironically, his sarcasm rings true.
However, it's not very helpful.
Any change to the status quo in Argentina would give the people a chance to cut a 'new deal' with those govern them, as well as finding a way out with creditors and investors - some new hope.
It is very interesting to see all the members of the Quito Plan in this thread. So it is to see that an agent, Mr. Kunz, says he has no idea of that Plan. Well, I guess Mr. Kunz, you will have to speak to @Snowden or review the documents.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, speaking of this shameful article- I'd like to ask if I can reply in an op ed to Mr. Kunz. He speaks about manipulation!!
What should we say about UK now disregarding its own history?
There is an answer to you here, Sir:
https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/fact-10-despite-uk-claims-argentinas-sovereignty-exercise-over-malvinas-was-public-the-times-of-london-confirmed-this-on-3-august-1820/
t is only now that British propaganda seeks to deny the very existence of the “Circular” published in The Times and accuses Argentina of a stunt. Any sensible interested human being can confirm the authenticity of this fact by consulting the archives of The Times of 3 August 1821 to find the Circular that was published and never protested by the UK.
The “Circular” appears in the right lower corner of the paper broad sheet (The Times, London, Friday, August 3, 1821). If the “Circular” was later reproduced out of its original format does not diminish the vital importance of this fact nor its authenticity. Any claim to the contrary is simply untrue.
Then, #2: https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/fact-10-despite-uk-claims-argentinas-sovereignty-exercise-over-malvinas-was-public-the-times-of-london-confirmed-this-on-3-august-1820/
This just shows how far Britsh propaganda is willing to push in order to comply with the goal of gaining support in mass media in the question of the malvinas Islands.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In fact, it also proves how far it can go and that includes the distortion of severl arguments.
Full support to PepperJohn and my advise is that you please read: https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/fact-9-uk-distorts-history-in-an-attempt-to-disregard-past-actions-of-its-own/
The 1882 Latzina map was adopted at the request of the National Government and portrays different farming opportunities for immigrants. It depicts the regions apt for farming throughout Argentina’s whole territory and regions are sketched with different shades of color. The Malvinas are colored in the same pale beige used for the city Buenos Aires as both territories offered the same scarce farming opportunities. One can easily see that the color used for Argentina’s mainland territory also varies depending on the region farming opportunities.
Besides, if Malvinas were not depicted as part of Argentina’s territory, why does the map include details of all geographical features and accidents as it does with the rest of Argentina’s national territory? And why does the map do not include the geographical accidents and features of Uruguay and Chile?
These geographical accidents are not detailed in the case of Chile and Uruguay, though they are the same color as the one used for Malvinas and the city of Buenos Aires. Why not? Because these are neighboring countries.
The fact is that British propaganda is seeking to distort historical documents and facts with blatant lies in a desperate attempt to fool public opinion. The distortion about the 1882 Map is part of that propaganda campaign.
Any “facts” or “statements” presented by the Ruda family are lies and misrepresentations - to be ignored as they are totally irrelevant.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 086 Alejomartinez
Nov 10th, 2015 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This map depicts the islands as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina”
Great!! So if I doctor an old map, colour in Greenland the same colour as the UK and write “Shetland Islands” on it, then Greenland is property of the UK then?
Clown
Have I stepped into some parallel universe or is 106 is basically a repeat of 97 ?
Nov 10th, 2015 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This “circular” that “the British denied the existence” (apparently twice!)seems suspiciously easily to find and we have known of its existence since it was published in a newspaper 1821 and has thus since been in the public domain but now,more than 100 years of it being there, for some obscure reason, we want to deny its existence.
To paraphrase the Faulty Towers scene. “Don't mention the circular.I did, but I think I got away with it” .
Could anyone point me to where I have ever denied the note in The Times of August 1821? You'll have a hard job, since I have never ever denied it existed. Its a classic tactic, to assert something I have never said, then proceed to criticise, even though its utter bollocks.
Nov 10th, 2015 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have simply pointed a couple of facts.
1. Argentina cannot produce one iota of evidence to demonstrate that Jewett was sent to claim the Falklands. All we have is Jewett's statement reported by two individuals.
a) Captain Orme of the General Knox, who sent his copy to the Salem gazette
b) James Weddell, British explorer in his 1828 book.
2. In 1821, the story ended up in The Times as a reprint of the Salem Gazette story, it was the picked up by the redactor of Cadiz and reported in Argentina a year later. 2 years after the event, Argentina got to hear about it as a foreign news story.
3. Jewett produced a lengthy report, it makes no mention of claiming the islands.
4. James Weddell witnessing the events, dismissed it as a ruse to claim exclusive salvage rights over the wreck of L'Uranie.
5. Jewett had not intended to visit the Falklands, as Weddell notes he only put into the islands to treat scurvy in his crew and to repair storm damage.
6. By the time this story was run in the UK, Jewett had already left, Mason had taken over and left with the Heroina and was busily pirating away.
7. Jewett had been at sea for 8 months when he set into the Falklands, funny for someone supposedly sent there.
8. 1820 was a chaotic year in Argentina, with 24 governments, 3 in 1 day.
As a minor news story, it represented the claim of a power not then recognised by the UK, who were they supposed to object to? Especially when they'd already left. It was a minor story and did not mean UK recognition of the claims made.
And anyway, if it stands on its own, why fake it? You're spreading a lot of muck to hide the fact you were caught red handed peddling a lie.
So the British gave this 'operation' the operational name 'Quito' did they? Using a Spanish operational name for an alleged operation in Latin America...? Thereby breaking virtually every rule of operational security in the book?
Nov 10th, 2015 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bollocks.
Snowden simply made that up based on his limited knowledge of American operational naming. The British NEVER use operational names that give any inkling as to what the target or objective might be.
Granby
Corporate
Agricola
Telic
Ellamy
Shader
106 PepperJohn
Nov 11th, 2015 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0So basically, what you're saying is that 200 years ago, some random bloke, not an Argentine, called at the Falklands and claimed it for some country, not Argentina, and then wrote a letter to the newspapers about it?
And this is important how? Bloody hell, we'd hardly think it was very significant if it happened last week. You'll need to do better than that.
Poor English, not even in their own Tory paper :-)
Nov 11th, 2015 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is Gibraltar Spanish or British?
British 10.93% (133,262 votes)
Spanish 89.07% (1,086,211 votes)
Total Votes: 1,219,473
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10223065/Gibraltar-dispute-is-a-serious-concern-says-David-Cameron.html
@113 Marcos
Nov 11th, 2015 - 04:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0You poor simpleton.
If you can't follow along, or speak relatively about the subject of the article, go back to playing your video games, surfing porn, or even picking your nose, whatever you do to pass the time.
This subject is maps and Argentina - you really ARE just a little boy throwing stones unnoticed, on the sidelines.
halfwit.
@113 Marquitos Alejandrito
Nov 11th, 2015 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nene - you read the Torygraph? Surely at your level of intelligence the Sun or the Miirror are more appropriate?
@113 How often did you vote then ? You took part in an opinion poll which is open to all and sundry and post it on here as if it carried a certain “democratic praxis”.
Nov 11th, 2015 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0We can all empathise with your voting sentiments though,
Total population of Gibraltar 30 000
Total number of votes cast 1,219,473
I think the good people of Gibraltar would immediately spot a somewhat,fundamental flaw in your ,shall we say, “rather exotic” electoral interpretation and would perhaps politely suggest it is a form of democratic process more familiar to your country than theirs.
@114
Nov 11th, 2015 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Is Gibraltar Spanish or British?”
So, if what the Gibraltar people want is dictated by a newspaper poll, what happens if a newspaper poll dictates over 50% that Argentina belongs to Spain or Zimbabwe?
The Argentine people have no say, right?
@107
“The Malvinas are colored in the same pale beige used for the city Buenos Aires as both territories offered the same scarce farming opportunities. ”
Well, there may have been no agriculture in the Malvinas(according to your latest electronic signs they are 3,144 metres North of BA), but in 1882 apart from ship repairs the Falklands economy was largely based on agriculture, so WTF are you talking about?
(It is well know that Argentines were no good at agriculture at that time which is why there were mostly British farmers in Patagonia, because there aren't many siestas in Patagonian farming).
“The fact is that British propaganda is seeking to distort historical documents and facts”
So Argentina changing the shading isn't?
You will find there was a British administration on the Falklands in 1882, and several consulates from other countries were there.
So those countries can't have accepted Argentine sovereignty other wise they would not have been present.
You'll have to try harder than that when (?) you go to the ICJ.
107.... is correct there is no need to distort the map....
Nov 11th, 2015 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Using the Boston Copy as an example the Islas Malvinas section of the map is almost exactly the same colour as the inset for Buenos Aires at the bottom right of the map...
The colour of Uruguay is completely different...
All the maps are digitised so you only see them in RGB which would give the largest variation of colours...this can be reduced ....analysing the colour using CMYK...
As the original map was produced using neither RGB...(screen) or CMYK (Process Colour)...but Flat Colour, so it is necessary to use the Pantone matching system to identify the colour....
The results are...
Uruguay....
RGB...240...226...188....CMYK...0...6...20...6....equals Pantone 614 CVC
Ilas Malvinas
RGB...240...216...172...CMYK..0...9...27...6...equals Pantone 155 CVC
Inset Buenos Aires....RGB...239...217...170...CMYK...0...9...27...6...equals Pantone 155 CVC
There is no guess work here, the colours can be verified by anyone with a a little knowledge....
So....why would there be a need to digitally alter a map when it already shows a match to Argentine territory.....
BTW...If a digital forgery were to be executed....
The digital alteration is completed...then Printed and the printed version is re-scanned and then published.....as if it was a scan of the original...Hence no change in Metadata...
.....I know a bit about this...it comes within my field of expertise...;-))))
This article is yet another damning illustration of the lies and deception used by Argentina in its farcical claim to the Falklands. For many years lots of us have been observing events in Argentina, specifically the machinations of its various governments, regimes and dictatorships, and we have come to the conclusion that it is a country which flounders in a cesspit of lies.
Nov 11th, 2015 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0President Corruptina Kirchner could not open her twisted lips without lying, whether it was about the Falklands, Argentina’s soaring inflation, starving families in her broken land, the living standards “higher than Germany”, the massive defaults, the billions in unpaid debts. Truly you could not make it up, but gorgeous Corruptina did.
Argentina’s people can rest assured, though, that the rest of the world recognised the Kirchner regime for what it was: failed, corrupt, bankrupt.
And as we’re discussing Argentina’s pathological lying we should never forget the lies it spewed out in 1982 during Britain's war to liberate our Falklands. During our liberation campaign Argentina boasted that dozens of RAF planes had been shot down, countless Royal Navy vessels had been sunk and thousands of our soldiers had been killed by the heroic Argentine forces. Mighty Argentina was on its way to a huge victory. People even threw parties in the centre of Buenos Aires. What fools.
It was all lies, of course, the response of cowards. The chicos were throwing their weapons away and surrendering like lambs.
So it came as a fatal hammer blow when the Argentines surrendered. No wonder the rest of Latin America celebrated Britain’s stunning victory, achieved 8,000 miles from home. Incredible. An achievement of the highest courage and endeavour that astounded military experts across the globe.
In recent years we have all been observing this culture of official lying in Kirchner’s paradise of a country and you can’t help feeling just a hint of pity for the deluded Argentinian people.
119 Think/voice/vestige
Nov 11th, 2015 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I suppose you have proven yet another case beyond a shadow of doubt.
Pffffttt!!
I'll just have to take your word for what you say, as my own digital colour analyzer has been acting up lately, and I don't seem to have the original document in my possession to verify your results, nor the most recent reproduction of the Argentine government.
Do you?
This is just like your “proof”that you can get to your fictional “bolt hole” in Pennsylvania within 3 hours of any major airport in the Easter US.
We'll just have to take your word for it. For what that's worth.
@120 your comment reminds me of the problems of translating text to and from the rather unique Argentine language. It is often said that the dialect, heavily influenced in much of the country by the porteño criminal argot of Lunfardo, supplies 127 ways that express thievery, but not a single word that conveys “honesty.”
Nov 11th, 2015 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0121
Nov 11th, 2015 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Huh....I didn't use an Argentine Govt map...I downloaded the full 73 mb map from the Boston Public Library.....
...and tested the colours....Doh!!!
Unless you are implying that the Boston public library have in their possession a digital fake....
You are right...proven without a doubt...anyone with the knowledge and software can do it....
...don't take my word for it...
@123 thinkweevoicevestige,
Nov 11th, 2015 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know full well nobody is going to verify your results.
And they are certainly not going to take your word for it - you are biggest fake on MP
@ 119 Voice
Nov 11th, 2015 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you blind, or just hoping everyone else is stupid like you?
Did you even look at the map?
All Argentine territory, of whatever colour, including the BA insert and Isla le Estados have the edges shaded, all non-Argentine territory Uruguay, Chile and Las Malvinas DO NOT.
Argentine territory is denoted by the shaded border, which is what they are trying to fake, otherwise even a Malvinazi fool could just colour a bit in.
Looking at some swatches doesn’t qualify you to talk about “colour”, give us the a, b & l values once you have a reflectivity reading (20 degree, probably best), then we’ll talk.
FakeVoice
Nov 11th, 2015 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you been to the cenotaph yet, to pay your respects?
Naw, I thought not, Malvinista.
125
Nov 11th, 2015 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WTF are you on about...
I suggest you get yourself a high resolution copy to look at...
All the borders are not shaded on the original...look at the border with Paraguay...
Also the heavier tone on the mainland edges is where the darker colour is overprinted on top of the lighter colour....this is not offset litho using CMYK with dot to dot registration...it's Letterpress using flat colours etched on steel plates...where the black, cream and darker orange meets the registration is plus or minus at least a millimetre and printed on linen.. it sometimes bleeds over creating a darker tone...
Don't pretend you know what the fcuk you are talking about...I know everything about printing and making plates and colour separation...
So shut it...
Any crude attempt to fake a map circulating on social media is not from Argentina but Anglo....because there is no need to fake what isn't required...the original Islas Malvinas does not differ from the Buenos Aires inset....
IF Argentina wanted to fake a map they would hire a Pro....like myself...
I bet the faker is a complete amateur like Justin ...that knows nothing about printing...and likes to be at the centre of attention...
All I'm saying is that Kuntz fits the profile here, as Lorton and so many of you: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
Nov 11th, 2015 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Big hugs to MI6, who now seem to “forget” what they've done.
@ 127 Voice
Nov 11th, 2015 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you a complete fool, or do you just think everyone else is?
http://maps.bpl.org/id/19405
The ENTIRE coastline of Argentina and its Islands are highlighted with shading.
NONE of the coastline of Uruaguay, Chile or Falkland Oriental or Occid has any shading.
“bleed over, colour separation” only along the coast of Argentina, or a map demarcating what is and what is not Argentinian territory?
And just remember, everyone here can go and look at this for themselves.
http://maps.bpl.org/id/19405
Then go look up a, b & l value and reflectivity, like I said, then we’ll talk.
http://maps.bpl.org/id/19405
Fool.
129
Nov 11th, 2015 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The ENTIRE coastline of Argentina and its Islands are highlighted with shading.”
You are an idiot confusing relief that denotes high areas with a boundary....
Again...look closely, the shading also goes inland to denote hilly areas....also up the sides of some rivers....
It is also missing around the islands at Bahia Anegada...
Bahia de todos los Santos...
and the areas around Buenos Aires...
Ensenada...
Belgrano...
Don't waste my time fool...if shading denoted boundary it would encompass the land boundary between Paraguay as well....Doh!...
Do the right thing...admit you are wrong....
The world expects it and is watching....
....with bated breath....
(123) Mr. Voice
Nov 11th, 2015 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“...don't take my word for it...”
I say...:
...now, where did I read that before..?
Chuckle chuckle...
131 Think
Nov 11th, 2015 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no Mr. Think...it was you..@65....
Damn...have I given myself away..?
Nah...peas in a pod....
peas in a pod....;-)))
@ 130 Voice
Nov 11th, 2015 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A “relief that denotes high areas”, around the ENTIRE coastline of Argentina and its Islands.
And NONE of the coastline of Uruguay, Chile or Falkland Oriental or Occid.
No “relief that denotes high areas”, around any non-Argentinian territory, it would seem.
Use of a “relief that denotes high areas”, clearly demarcating what is and what is not Argentinian territory.
Or is that just somewhat selective “bleed over, colour separation”, eh, eh!!!
http://maps.bpl.org/id/19405
Ok, I’ll put it as simply as I can, what is clearly considered Argentinian territory, is shown in greater detail than non-Argentinian territory.
Like the Malvinas, with no “relief that denotes high areas”, anywhere, unlike Isla le Estados which has “relief that denotes high areas” shown.
http://maps.bpl.org/id/19405
You been sniffing the solvents at work?
Have a gasp of Toluene.
McMuppet
Stupid Argies, maps dont matter, possession does. Voice/Think twats please note. Finished the inside toilet yet?
Nov 11th, 2015 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0133
Nov 12th, 2015 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Huh do you ever read what you write....
So you finally admit that the shading is what we call cross-hatching which does denote relief...steep slopes, mountainous areas....like the way the whole of Islas de Estados is completely cross hatched...for obvious reasons....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Isla_de_los_Estados.jpg/300px-Isla_de_los_Estados.jpg
...and does not denote boundary....
As for the Islas Malvinas...how would the Argentine cartographer know what the geography of the Isles were if it was occupied by the Brits....
Names of Bays, Coastal areas may be common knowledge on sea fairing maps but I doubt it shows small hills and steep slopes....
Sooo...tell me why they bothered to name all the Bays and Capes etc areas on Islas Malvinas...but not on the coastal areas of Uruguay or Chile....?
Work...???
Only fools and horses work....
Succumb....admit defeat...you'll feel better...
135 thinkvoice
Nov 12th, 2015 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I'm an expert... ”
no, you're an attention whore.
Print expert! Dunoon Observer circulation 4000! Thats 46000 less than Viz! Expert windbag certainly, squeeze it and you get a blood curdling wail and even more desperate assertions. Bahahahaha
Nov 12th, 2015 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@114
Nov 12th, 2015 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/gibraltar/10420900/Spanish-ministry-of-defence-staff-vote-thousands-of-times-in-Gibraltar-poll.html
I may be a bit behind the curve here, but why, may I ask, are all the malvinistas on here moaning about the “British propaganda machine” and quoting the hopelessly incorrect blog at - https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/fact-9-uk-distorts-history-in-an-attempt-to-disregard-past-actions-of-its-own/ ?
Nov 12th, 2015 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It has been proved time and again to be massively incorrect, a complete tissue of lies and utter rubbish, written by a delusional tit. If it was presented at the ICJ, along with this map and other scraps of paper, it would be laughed all the way to to skip!
The facts remain - the map is falsified.
Voice, OK, so as an Architect, I have a little knowledge and I conclude that what you have said is, as normal, light on the truth, heavy on the misrepresentation and lacking vigorous investigation. The map, being digitised will be pixelated, it was mechanically printed, not generated using CAD/Graphics and therefore will be subject to many colour variations even in solid block colours .
Nov 12th, 2015 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I used Adobe CS suite (just so you can know the source of the software I used to colour check the downloaded map).
As you suggested I will list the Pantone Solid Uncoated colours rather than the other palettes and colour libraries.
OK before we start, I just want to point out the ‘bleedin obvious’, this map is over 130 years old, has been well used and is subject to deterioration, staining and general old age. I am not sure if this was scanned on a flatbed or roller scanner, but even to the naked eye the difference in colours tones on uncoated paper can clearly be seen. I would also point out, that the BA area is an inset map and is not shaded the colour of the rest of the larger scale map of Argentina, but instead matches the colour of the ‘other’ countries on the map. Using your logic Voice, then BA belongs to another country…..ermmm.
The blank margins on the map, no printing, flat colour give a pantone reading from:
7500 u, 468u, 7507u, 719u, and 155 u etc
Bolivia for example gives Pantone reading of:
7507 u, 468 u, 7401u, 475 u etc
oh and one other colour….. and wait for it…………155 u
Uruguay
7401 u, 719 u, 7507 u, 614 u, etc….
oh and again that other colour….. what was it, oh yes…………155 u
Chile…….ahh 155 u comes up again
At that point, I couldn’t be bothered to do every country on the map. I think you get the idea what the results would be.
Well I have verified that many of the countries have a match to Argentine Territory, so are you saying that they belong to Argentina too.
Voice, a poorly executed attempt to bamboozle people with technology, that got you cau
@135 McTwat
Nov 12th, 2015 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, “cross-hatching” we’re calling it now are we, dropped the “overprinted, bleed over, colour separation”. Good, it was obviously total rubbish and you had no clue what you were talking about, as usual.
Whatever you call it, it is clearly used ONLY on Argentine territory, and NOT on non-Argentine territory.
Why do you think the Malvinazi scum are trying to change it, because it shows the Falklands as Argy territory???????
I think not, neither, it seems, does anybody else, only you persist in arguing black is white.
Perhaps you can explain to the Malvinazis they don’t need to do anything, the map shows what they want, as it is!!!!
You have an ability to persist in stupidity that is quite un-rivalled.
@140 Buzzsaw
Pray continue.
Once again, an Argentine anti-Falklands propaganda deception,
Nov 12th, 2015 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And who steps up out of the blue, with a prepared pseudoscientific strategy to discredit the Brits. and Falklanders?
The wee-man, who else!
Either a Malvinista or a pathetic attention seeker.
142 Troy Tempest
Nov 12th, 2015 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Either a Malvinista or a pathetic attention seeker”.
......... Or Think's sock puppet?
Or all three of the above
Let's cut through the crap and go for the jugular of these demented laddies. For a brilliant analysis of Argentina the failed state and its corrupt, criminal leader Kirchner, read this damning account:
Nov 12th, 2015 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://spectator.org/articles/62239/weeping-argentina
And this:
http://spectator.org/articles/62239/weeping-argentina
An expert analysis of Argentina’s decrepit armed forces:
http://spectator.org/articles/62239/weeping-argentina
Enjoy. We did.
continued from 140/....
Nov 12th, 2015 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice, a poorly executed attempt to bamboozle people with technology, that got you caught out. You took one sample colour match from an old, degraded and used map and tried to prove a ridiculous point and portray it as indisputable.
....'There is no guess work here, the colours can be verified by anyone with a a little knowledge.......Yep, you are right there Voice, there is no need for guess work or your lies, misrepresentations or inaccuracies. It is indeed easy to verify that you have nothing, all you proved that a 130 year old map has some similar colours using modern technology, well done.
So....why would there be a need to digitally alter a map when it already shows a match to Argentine territory........There is no match to the Argentine territory, the Argentine territory is coloured darker 7407, 7508 etc. BA is an inset map it is lighter than the larger scale map colours depicting Argentina, the Falklands are on the main map, they relate only to the main map legend, they are not comparable.
I was also wondering why the legend has a graphic for international borders that only runs along the Chile border and no other international border, that must mean it all belongs to Argentina, doesn’t it? Or that the small inset map of the ‘Situacion de la Republica Argentina’ has the title block over the Falklands so they are not shown. So how does that fit in with your explanation Voice!!!!
Unlucky Voice, you have been caught out when you thought you could get away with it, but at least it taught you a valuable lesson…... you are not quite the expert you think you are.
145
Nov 13th, 2015 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Huh....are you really trying to tell me that the colour of Uruguay and Chile is the same as The Islas Malvinas...?
They are lighter....maps fade the colours get lighter...not darker and the cream on both Chile and Uruguay is lighter....
You are sampling wrong...you are sampling individual pixels...in 24 bit...you need to take it down to about 8 bit.....the map is not originally continuous tone..it's not screened it's flat colour overlaid and line copy that crates tone...
So you need to simulate less colours....hence 8 bit....before you sample...
Anyway you are missing the point...the map neither proves nor disproves the Islands are Argentine, it certainly details the Islands with available data which it doesn't do with other countries...
There is no reason to attempt a digital forgery that can be easily checked...
Any fool can create a crude forgery and put it in social media and wait for people to use it or pick up on it....
Where did the forgery come from....
My guess is Justin....some folk thrive on the attention it creates....
Good lord...what have I found after a thorough search on the net....
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5670/22973663415_e9010dea44_c.jpg
....;-)))))))))
Oh my....
@146 wee voice,
Nov 13th, 2015 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...the map neither proves nor disproves the Islands are Argentine”
Oh, Geez... backing down, again!!
As soon as you get called on your BS, you start to waffle - so now you're saying, “neither proves nor disproves...”
That's a far cry from your original position.
A lot like your Trout Run thing,
and just like you did an about face away from the SNP, BEFORE the vote took place - you saw that the majority of Scots didn't actually believe they would be better off with the SNP.
You couldn't bear to be proven wrong so you abandoned your previous convictions!!
Ha ha ha ... that's so you!!
Voice is just so Think.
Nov 13th, 2015 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Paper gets darker with staining, as can be seen on the Boston Lib Map and the one shown above and on the Spanish National Library copy. Stained areas get darker, faded areas do indeed get lighter, scanners can also distort colours depending if the paper is truely flat or slightly raised. It all depends on how they were stored and folded etc, just look at the map on the top of this feed, are the folds lighter or darker than original? So some areas will show darker and some lighter, sampling areas at 8 bit will give you a general overview, I did sampling at point, 5x5 and31x31 (photoshop). I still get 155 at the top of the map (Paraguay and Brazil), as it is clearly darker than the central part of Chile for example. But both should have originally been the same colour, this could be a scanning issue or aging/staining.
Nov 13th, 2015 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you say Voice the colour neither proves nor disproves anything, just as I said in my previous post.
What does provide more interesting info are the the comments I made at 145, which you chose to ignore, regarding the inset context map and the international boundary graphic, are both mistakes? Did the cartographer really leave the Falklands off the map by mistake or does it prove that they clearly knew they didn't own them.
So whatever your impression/interpretation of the map,it clearly has faults which do not help the Argentine position. Clutching at straws like subtle colour differences to prove a point, I think, is the least of your worries .
But more to the point Voice how do you account for
http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000099127&page=1
@ McVoicey
Nov 13th, 2015 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voicey, Voicey, Voicey, mate, you’re un-masked, shown for the charlatan that you are.
Bow out gracefully, with what face you can salvage, no one will think any the less of you for it. Indeed that would scarcely be possible.
Even the diehard bullshitters, the Malvinazi, decided I was easier to “change” the map than try and argue it showed the Islands as Argy territory.
Yet here you are Gayley (old meaning (Honest Guv)) going the route even they chose not to.
Rather silly, don’t you think, on reflection, eh.
Chère tropical British squatterette at (148)
Nov 13th, 2015 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are just jealous 'cause, in Voice's new official map of the Malvinas Islands, Monty96 got the Seno Choiseul, I got the Islas Sebaldinas and you got... zilch.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5670/22973663415_e9010dea44_c.jpg
Time to return to the South Pacific for Isolde & Co..., I reckon.
;-)
@151 Think,
Nov 13th, 2015 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite a bit of work gone into your map. l'm impressed.
What a pity its all b/s.
No my friend, l am not jealous.
Jealousy has never been one of my weaknesses.
And l do have them, like everyone else.
l still stand by what l say, you are Voice, or he/she is you.
Doesn't matter which.
The South Pacific era is over, my dear Thinkus.
lts now the South Atlantic.
We're only going to move if/when we take over Sta Cruz province.
lt actually belongs to us & you Argentines there are squatters/an implanted population.
What will you do, dear Think, if we take the case to the ICJ & the province is awarded to us & we are authorised to use force to recover it?
l would support such action, nay, l would revel in it.
l reckon ;-)
(152) But, but Buttercup baby...
Nov 13th, 2015 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The South Pacific era is over, you say....
Why...? You haven't sold Vanuatu, have you...?
Ps...:
I'm impressed to with Voice's Islands map...
That lad has humour :-)
149
Nov 13th, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll give you, the Boston Library map is a poor example, but I used because it's in Boston...
It's not paper btw....it's frayed on the edges...
Why ask me a question @145 that I can't possibly know the answer to....
A guess why there was an international boundary marked between Chile and not elsewhere on an 1881 map....might have something to do with the 1881 boundary dispute and the 1881 Boundary treaty....
You still haven't explained why the Malvinas Islands have been detailed with the names of bays and islands, but not elsewhere...
In fact the only other place islands and bays were detailed are those that were in dispute with Chile....Isla Nueva...Wollaston etc, a dispute that existed till 1982 when the Junta were going to invade those islands and Chile mined them...
Soooo....Named islands and bays in dispute....
...ring a bell...?
(154) Mr. Voice
Nov 13th, 2015 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just for the record...:
....Isla Nueva...Wollaston etc, were going to be invaded by the Argentinean junta in 1978...
It was a different set of windblown South Atlantic Islands they invaded in 1982...
@155 VoiceOfThink Trolls
Nov 13th, 2015 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nay, I mean neigh, Mr Pantomime Horse.
I always chuckle when you two horse's asses are on stage.
So much for an attempt to deceive/obfuscate/deflect/gain attention...
Next
155 Mr. Think
Nov 13th, 2015 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't shoot the messenger Mr. Think....
That last bit..I must admit I got from Wiki....
“After the invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982, the Argentine junta planned the military occupation of the three islands, as stated by Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo, chief of the Argentine Air Force during the Falklands war, in an interview with the Argentine magazine Perfil:
L.F. Galtieri: ”[Chile] have to know that what we are doing now, because they will be the next in turn.[7]
The last minefields were installed shortly after the 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. Since 2007 mine clearance in Chile is carried out by de-mining units of the army and navy.
Was it Wiki speculation...?
Damn I just can't trust Wiki...especially when the likes of ..Just in A Kunt (he brags)....contributes...
(157) Mr Voice
Nov 14th, 2015 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0No sweat...
Normally, one can trust Wiki 99,8% of the time...
But contentious issues as the Falklands/Malvinas, the Israel/Palestina or the Celtic/Rangers cases are not to be trusted...
Mostly because of contributors of the calibre of Mr. JusinhismindKuntz...
@157, 158 etc. - Panto Horse,
Nov 14th, 2015 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Burning the midnight oil at the Troll Factory, I see.
http://kioski.yle.fi/omat/at-the-origins-of-russian-propaganda
Creep
Stop talking to yourself, Think/Voice.
Nov 14th, 2015 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You won't get a coherent or sensible answer.
@159 Troy,
Think(or Voice)trying to act so genteel with the “Mr Think” & “Mr Voice” rubbish.
@ 158 Think/Voice,
No-one else would afford you the respect that you so crave, Thinky-boy.
Suggest that you have a few more malts & ponder your inner self, to see where you went so wrong.
@152 Isolde
Nov 14th, 2015 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We're only going to move if/when we take over Sta Cruz province.”
And by using the Argy principle of' inheritance' (from Britain), could a move to Bishop Stirling's Ushuaia be on the cards?
(It might be worth waiting till the sewers get fixed first).
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!