1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But remember there's two different types of people crying "fake" here. At one end you've got people who are just saying ISIS might have edited it for effect, like combined two videos of real hostages into one. At the other end you've got people who say it was entirely faked by a mysterious world elite who control everything, and that ISIS does not even exist.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It looks like one of them has been killed. A video with just this still image (which I've edited to removed the decapitated corpse) was posted.
    [​IMG]

    There are many posts on the internet suggesting this is fake, but they all base that on the suspicions that Khan raised about the first video.

    Very sad.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If you are wondering where these videos come from, and how the media gets them. It seems they are posted on youtube and archive.org, and then the links are posted on Twitter on various accounts, such as:
    https://twitter.com/_Khilafah_
    (Warning: lots of these accounts have graphics photos of decapitations and suchlike)
    A brief search for the hashtag #islamicstate brings these up, several of which are labeled as "Al-Battar Media Foundation".

    As these accounts get removed, they are constantly creating new accounts, linking them together by following them, and posting text files with twitter names and keywords to search for. When one account is removed, they just move to another:
    [​IMG]

    The archive.org uploads are like:

    The metadata contains the email address e e705039bf@mohmal.com is a disposable arabic email address.

    Then there's also al-Furqan Media, described as being the media arm of ISIS, and the organization responsible for the desert videos. A twitter search for al-Furqan also turns up the links to the original desert video, but not the new "beheading" video.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 3
  5. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    awful i'd rather not look i'd rather a tomahawk or hellfire looks for me, is that wrong?
     
  6. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    not at all.. because at least that would be quick and painless.. I can only imagine the sheer terror these guys were going through knowing that they're gonna die, but not when.. and then knowing its going to be painful and drawn out..
     
  7. Thom

    Thom Member Banned

    Mick, when you did your video on the shadows, your shadows were obviously mathematically consistent, I could tell that from the middle, if you moved to the right, it moved in such a way, the same with the left. If you had moved further to the left then you had moved to the right, even though the shadows would have different angles, I can see why. There was a consistent mathematical understanding.

    Why is the the middle person shadows so off? Its just doesnt look right. Its mathematically off when compared to all the other examples and videos. Shouldnt it be directly behind him? Even if the camera is slightly to the right (our viewpoint), which i think it might be, the shadows just dont seem to be mathmatical to me. If you look in between the person in black's legs, you can see a definite line of his left legs shadow. you can see the angle. If you then look outside his left leg at part of the body line of the left hostage, I think that it looks like it parallels the other line, which doesnt seem consistent when compared to your explanation. In all the video explanations of the shadows, there was a consistent, easily recognizable relationship between the shadows, in the hostage video, it seem really inconsistent to me, the main point being the middle person. If the camera isnt in front of the black dressed person, it HAS to be situated at least to some degree BETWEEN the person on the right and the person in the middle (based on opposing shadow directions), but I am unsure if such a difference in shadow direction could be caused by such a little offset camera position.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    My setup is not exactly the same as the hostage setup.

    On flat ground, shadows will all converge at a single vanishing point. In my example, this point is behind the center me. In the hostage photo it's between the Jihadi and the hostage on the right.
    [​IMG]

    Here's a 3D model (attached)
    [​IMG]

    And varying the position of the sun:
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Erika F.

    Erika F. New Member

    "OK, we're going to take a commemorative photo of our secret plans! Can you bring up our organization's logo on the second screen there? Beside the damning evidence? Yeah, that looks great! Remember everyone, no tweeting this, or you'll lose your WiFi privileges for a week!"

    I know it's tempting to agree with stuff that confirms one's world view, but there comes a time when images go from Photoshopped to straight Photosloppy territory.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Thom

    Thom Member Banned

    Thanks mick for the shadows explanations above. It is very compelling. One thing on the shadows though....


     
  11. Thom

    Thom Member Banned

    Actually, the main criticism of this is that the decapitated head on the body appears to be too big from thee rumblings i have read.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  12. Thom

    Thom Member Banned

    Also, this site http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?292263-Green-screen-with-simultaneous-cameras exclaims that it is possible to shoot multiple camera angles on the same green screen, the main problem being more light is needed to ensure consistency for all the cameras. Downside is that this light make the live participants.... Brighter... Hence the suggestion to make sure participants wear dark clothing. That orange is pretty bright....
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The point here is that there is no evidence it's fake. Suggesting it is a perfect fake is something you could say about any video.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    Sounds like it would be easier to just decapitate a hostage on film than to make a perfect fake. In my opinion, as I can't prove it. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 4
  15. Frank1891

    Frank1891 New Member

    Can you do the video again without turning your head please? Look straight forward.
    On the side view of the 3 men, the left man has his ear completely in the schadow, the ear of the man on the right is lightened by the sun. This makes no sense.
    Can you also explain why the right man has more wind on him than the left one?
     
  16. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    The orientation of the men's heads are not the same, one is facing slightly in a different direction.
    Why is that even necessary, have you never experienced a breeze?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. Frank1891

    Frank1891 New Member

    I have to admit, the video could be very real. But at first sight, it 'looked' fake.
    Cameras and lighting can create strange effects. Strange breezes though.. :)
     
  18. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Its a gust of wind, not a steady breeze. Gusts eddy and swirl and can be effected by anything they blow around, including people. Some times the wind is blocked, other times it will cause an eddy that will cause more disturbance down wind of an obstruction than up wind.

    You can see this effect on gusty days all the time. Just watch a gust of wind blowing across a beach, or dusty ground, or even in a city with a lot of litter around. Even a sun heated rock can cause a disturbance in the wind flow, let alone objects such as posts, people, trees, and other such objects. watch what the wind does, and how itflows around objects.

    (edit) Its easier to show than explain, so here's a video of shapes in a wind tunnel to show the basic effect


    And just a note here on what your seeing in the ISIS video, before the obvious next question. The deserts of the middle east are not the sandy deserts of North Africa, they are stone deserts, as pointed out above, so there is less dust, and what is there is going to be a courser grit less likely to be picked up and swirled around the men, especially by a little puff as shown on the video.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If I look straight forward then I will not be looking at the camera, and it will look like I'm looking off to the side.

    Obviously if they all look straight forward, they will have the same shadow. But that's not what is happening. They are looking at the camera.

    Looking at the camera is not the same thing as looking straight forward.

    Does it now?

    Seems about the same to me, given they are several feet apart, they are at different angles to the wind, and are different sizes, and different clothing.
     
  20. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member


    The man on the right is slouched a little more than the man on the left, and is also bent a little more forward. This is causing his shirt to hang down, curtain-like, while the more upright, non-slouched posture of the man on the left is keeping more of his shirt in contact with his chest and forming less of a 'drape'. When the wind hits the man on the left, the shirt moves less because more of it is in contact with him. When the wind hits the man on the right, more of the shirt moves because less of it is in contact with him.

    Hang a flag from the top of a door frame with the door open, and turn a fan on. Do the same with the door closed. Which flag moves more?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Thom

    Thom Member Banned

    The backgrounds don't even seem to be consistent between the two angles. In the first, the convergence of the two hills is way to the left in the distance, in the slightly side angle, it's right up on them. Don't they know there are tutorials on YouTube?

    [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2015
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You are going to need to provide diagrams if you want to make assertions like that. Inclode the assumed focal length of each shot. Maybe with a counter-example. From what I've seem there is zero to indicate it's a green screen. And really, why would they even bother?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    The head on shot is zoomed out and the side shot is zoomed in more. This going to effect things like field of view, depth of field, focus etc.

    Honestly what would you expect? This is a couple of terrorists in a desert with camcorders or camera phones, not a Ridley Scott production of some biblical epic. To claim that things like inconsistent zoom and depth of field are 'proof' that this video is fake in some way and therefore part of a huge CIA / NWO / Alien Lizard People / (insert fave bad guys here) plot really is pushing the limits of all credibility. All the 'evidence' of trickery looks to even me with my limited experience of film and video production like simple errors any amateur with no training will make. Somewhere around I have a couple of old VHS tapes from my college days (yes I did a media degree) full of those kind of school boys errors such as inconsistent lighting and zoom. (sadly I can't post as they are only on VHS and I've not got the gear or time to digitise and up load). If anything those errors, to me at least scream genuine footage, made by inexperienced cameramen and edited on something like Movie maker, rather than a full production team with professional experience.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    How about you go over there and tell these terrorists your assertions to their face? Perhaps they will give YOU a tutorial.

    They just slaughtered a man and, last i heard, are still holding and threatening two men's lives. Your ridiciulous assertions with NO evidence is distasteful to the extreme.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  25. ddmcs.com

    ddmcs.com New Member

    Why is nobody even squinting in the ISIS video? I noticed the duplication video involves sunglasses
     
  26. ddmcs.com

    ddmcs.com New Member

    As in ANY prosecution, the burden of evidence is on the prosecution.

    [Admin: off topic material removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2015
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Since they very clearly are in a bright light, what difference does it make?
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This isn't a prosecution. This was someone making the claim that these videos were fake because the shadows were wrong. I demonstrate that the shadows were right. That's it. If you want to debunk something else, then start a new thread.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    ddmcs asked to be banned because we're weirdos.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Not squinting? The deceased clearly is comparing to the second pre-execution picture, and the one in the middle (in addition to being presumably a local and more used to the conditions) is wearing a garment specifically designed for desert use that will reduce glare. Those aren't just religious things, they're functional - around the eyes they serve the same purpose as the face paint athletes use. They don't have the sun directly in their eyes, and they aren't in reflective landscape like snow.

    Mick, on the other hand, really likes those sunglasses.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  31. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    The shadows were explained by the sun being very high in the sky. You squint less when the sun is overhead than if the sun were lower, and actually, you know, shining in your eyes. We have things like brows, eyebrows, and eyelashes that tend to shade our eyes from light (and dust, and wind, and stuff). Also, they're not looking at the light, they're looking at people standing in front of them, presumably. Those people aren't glowing like the sun.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Was not really paying attention, the TV was on and Lt Col James Reese, whoever he is, is on with Wolf Blitzer on CNN saying ISIS appears to have moved part of it's video production to a studio, as the lastest video appears to have been done with a green screen.
     
  33. Thom

    Thom Member Banned

    this whole post is filled with assertions about high contrast videos, assertions about objects unseen blocking the wind, replications of videos that later are admitted to not be exactly a replication of videos, 3rd person video examples and computer models where the camera isnt in the right spot (admitted), overhead computer models that dont even replicate the appropriate shadow angle of the person on the right, replicating the hostages in computer models in overexagerrated angled postures that do not replicate the stances of the hostages, wide angle lenses assertions with no proof, appeal to emotions that have nothing to do with the subject matter yet arent deleted by admin., assertions about green screens (not by me) that just arent accurate and were conveniently overlooked when pointed out with very good video EVIDENCE, nothing but thumbs down for my comments yet when I hit a homerun on the greenscreen shadow issue, not one thumbs up, not one "hey, good catch." . Its all good though, whats going on here is transparent. There is just as much of an agenda in here as there is on conspiracy sites. debunk .... at all costs.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    showing that someone can make a shadow on green screen is not evidence it was used in the ISIS video.

    If you dont like the 'wind' assertions or the 'wide angle lens' assertions tehn prove them wrong. go out with your buddies and a fan and a wide angle lens and show us that there is no way the ISIS video could have been filmed in the desert. simple.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have remove Thom from this thread for failing to stick to the posting guidelines.
     
  36. Pigeonkak

    Pigeonkak Member

    I just watched this video by Infowars explaining how "simple" it is to green screen a fake beheading.



    At about the 4'30" mark the reporter explains that you need "technological know how" and money to do this, then accuses the CIA of financing ISIS green screen productions, but admits they get lots of money from other stuff, then says it took them months to just do the half-arsed job they did in their silly little green screen. But later at 6'26" another commentator claims that they were "only 20 minutes into this and we've already gotten this far" referring to the quality of their demonstration but adds "So imagine with CIA backing!"

    They have essentially failed to address the substance of the claims, not actually pointing out what indicates that the video is fake but simply casting an aspersion that it is faked.

    Even demonstrating the alleged forgery by repeating the results would create a strong argument of a fake video. But they don't get that far. They don't repeat the conditions of the original video, they don't show shadows on the ground, they don't repeat the lighting AT ALL, they don't even show a final product for viewers to evaluate.

    The opportunity that CT's have to repeat and demonstrate the forgery they're alleging is similar to the one debunkers took to repeat the circumstances of JFK's assassination. By demonstrating that Lee Harvey Oswald COULD have shot JFK under the circumstances, at least one part of the conspiracy theory was debunked. CT's have failed to carry the burden of proof here as if CIA funding is the magic ingredient.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The lighting is key here. It's trivial to get the same effect with sunlight, but they totally fail to get anything like it in their video. The sunlight leaves dark shadows. Their multiple lights does not. Compare the two at full resolution (based on available video). Click the image below to enlarge it.

    [​IMG]

    Notice they also have their hostages face forward, rather than face the camera. This makes it look like they are facing outwards, and suggests they don't understand the real reason for the opposing shadows.

    And notice how washed out their shadows are. Likely because if they had made them any darker it would have been very apparent they were using multiple lights.

    And looking at details makes it even more apparent. The ISIS video looks real. Their video looks fake.

    [​IMG]

    All they have demonstrated is that if the ISIS video is a fake, then it's done so well that you can't find any problems with it, unlike their attempt.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 7
  38. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    The whole concept is ridiculous. Did you see the fake shadow tutorial in post #50?

    Even if ISIS is the CIA and if america didnt have sandy looking spots to film at, it would be faster to fly a couple actors to Syria (or wherever they are)... film the clip and fly home, then it would be to reproduce it so well on green screen.
     
  39. jerdney

    jerdney New Member

    First time poster here, longtime lurker. I'm a professional photographer, and its not surprising that people who aren't versed in lighting and everything else that comes with photography, would have trouble understanding this. To me, and to you, Mick, there is nothing unusual about this photo, as I, and I'm guessing you, are pretty well experienced in photographing people in direct sunlight. How they think that photographing their models with soft light, and with poor temperature control, is in any way comparable is beyond me. I guess they are so far down the rabbit hole that they fit the evidence to their hypothesis. Great job Mick with your examples in this thread
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
  40. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    The InfoWars video looks like something you'd see on Saturday Night Live.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1