Debunked: The latest ISIS video of two Japanese men is a fake, shadows wrong [Perspective]

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't even see what the difference is whether they film outside or in a studio, or do the audio track seperately.

A hostage threat is a hostage threat. period.

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.
 

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.


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.
 

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:


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:

Svartbjørn

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

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..
 

Thom

Banned
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

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.


Here's a 3D model (attached)


And varying the position of the sun:
 

Attachments

  • shadows.skp
    138.9 KB · Views: 865

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.
 

Thom

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


Here's a close up of the shadows, showing the match the clothing flapping in the wind. Green-screen does not leave shadows.

 

Thom

Banned
Banned
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.


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.

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.
 

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.
 

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:

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?
 

Pete Tar

Senior 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.
The orientation of the men's heads are not the same, one is facing slightly in a different direction.
Can you also explain why the right man has more wind on him than the left one?
Why is that even necessary, have you never experienced a breeze?
 

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.. :)
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Can you also explain why the right man has more wind on him than the left one?
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:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you do the video again without turning your head please? Look straight forward.

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.

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.

Does it now?

Can you also explain why the right man has more wind on him than the left one?

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.
 

JDubyah

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.. :)


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?
 

Thom

Banned
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:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

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?
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
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?

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:

deirdre

Senior Member.
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?

[...]
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.
 

ddmcs.com

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

[Admin: off topic material removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

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

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

Thom

Banned
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:

deirdre

Senior Member.
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."
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.
 

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.
 

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.



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.



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:

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
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.
 

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
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 26
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top